CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your own opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
While a person may not agree with it morally, Gay marriage does nothing that physicly hurts anyone. Opponents of this, are forgetting that there is a separation of church and state. Its time to quit policing peoples morals and learn that two concenting adults should be able to have the same rights as anyone else. Its called America folks...Remember "The Land of the Free"?
A world without morals? Is this your great idea? Sexual deviants would thrive in this environment. Morality is a dimension of a human being which you must not ignore. Or is this your agenda? Neither the church nor America has the franchise on morality. Freedoms are always within boundaries.
Since when did he intend to rid the world of morals? He is just reminding us that we shouldn't be intolerant assholes in a free county- when the thing we are discriminating doesn't affect us at all- so why should we care what they do in their homes?
Science prides itself on making observation and via extrapolation forming plausible conclusions. Crude as it may be, my conclusion of a world without morals does not seem so far-fetch when considering the exponential increase in challenges from contemporary moral reformer. What is the reason for this? People do not what to be viewed as immoral or unethical. I concern is what's next? Lowering the age of consent to 10yrs? Freedom to have relation with animals? Just based on observation of what moral and ethical standards are under attack, one can conclude eventually we (mankind) will be living in a world without morals.
My concern of what is next is a plausible question. This is obviously an emotive topic for you, but you need to do your research, especially on the age of consent. Yes, the number of species observed with homosexual tendencies is vast, but does this makes it moral, ethical or "completely harmless"? Who draws the line when it comes to patterning animal behaviour? Moralism and morality are opposites and thus there should be no confusion with each other. I am not homophobic but do have a phobia for lies being portrayed as truth, and I also have a plausible fear of the impact of these positions would have on your society. Heuristics as scepticism should not be a resting place for critical thinkers, hence considering the outcome (“what comes next”) of this revised moral position on your society should not be so offensive to you.
Science prides itself on making observation and via extrapolation forming plausible conclusions. Crude as it may be, my conclusion of a world without morals does not seem so far-fetch when considering the exponential increase in challenges from contemporary moral reformer. What is the reason for this? People do not what to be viewed as immoral or unethical. I concern is what's next? Lowering the age of consent to 10yrs? Freedom to have relation with animals? Just based on observation of what moral and ethical standards are under attack, one can conclude eventually we (mankind) will be living in a world without morals.
You think allowing gays to marry constitutes a "world without morals?" And sexual deviation can be pretty fun in my experience, and i don't see anything immoral about it. Dont see your point.
The definition of true freedom captures the essence of all contemporary debates. Whether we accept it or not, freedom has boundaries. Morality and ethic governs these boundaries. Thus, as knowledge increases, we venture beyond established limits. Understandably so, but as we enter the uncharted, morality and ethics must continue to govern us (they are the lamp to our feet). As a consequence this is where knowledge and wisdom diverge. Allowing Gays to marry is in my opinion the moral tipping point where all things deviant (which you love) would gain legitimacy. This is a knowledge driven venture only without understanding its ultimate impact on our society.
And am i right in saying that in your mind legitimizing gay marriage is equivalent to legitimizing rape, child porn, and sex with animals?
And why do I love deviant sexual behavior? Perhaps we should define the term, because i know to many right wing Christians deviant sexual behavior means anything outside of missionary position for a few minutes before bed.
That you operate outside social norms you are classified as a Deviant. Your anus or a plastic/steel/wooden rod is not a sexual organ; therefore using them in a sexual act should be considered abnormal, shouldn't it? Having anal sex is like trying to eat food with your eyes (it just was not design for that). The normal curve is used in all fields of studies to classify what is acceptable and what's not. It also determines when mechanical plants are to be changed, unearths systematic errors and blunders. Of special concern are systematic errors, which are frequently caused by miscalibration. This error in a system also produces normal curve, but skewed. Thus, shifting the goal post thereby making previously deviance behaviour acceptable. That’s why you (ChadOnSunday221) can no longer see that gay marriages are immoral and unethical; it was a slide of hands. Attempting to make us believe that homosexuality is an identity and not a choice was the tactical manoeuvre. Where will this post be in the future, who knows? Chad we may wake up one morning a discover that rape, child porn, sex with animals, lowered age of consent, etc. are now social norms.
When you operate outside social norms you are classified as a Deviant. Your anus or a plastic/steel/wooden rod is not a sexual organ; therefore using them in a sexual act should be considered abnormal, shouldn't it? Having anal sex is like trying to eat food with your eyes (it just was not design for that). The normal curve is used in all fields of studies to classify what is acceptable and what's not. It also determines when mechanical plants are to be changed, unearths systematic errors and blunders. Of special concern are systematic errors, which are frequently caused by miscalibration. This error in a system also produces normal curve, but skewed. Thus, shifting the goal post thereby making previously deviance behaviour acceptable. That’s why you (ChadOnSunday221) can no longer see that gay marriages are immoral and unethical; it was a slide of hands. Attempting to make us believe that homosexuality is an identity and not a choice was the tactical manoeuvre. Where will this post be in the future, who knows? Chad we may wake up one morning a discover that rape, child porn, sex with animals, lowered age of consent, etc. are now social norms.
Okay, so the behavior of the minority is abnormal, abnormal is deviant, and deviant behavior often isn't accepted by the majority. This is what you've established, and I don't disagree with it. But nowhere have you done anything to show why the behavior of the minority is unethical and immoral simply because it is deviant. You haven't shown abnormal behavior to be unacceptable, just stated that it is frequently unaccepted - by people like you.
I suppose the once deviant notion that a woman's word was equal to that of a man's, the abnormal view that women should be allowed to vote and own property was just "a slide of hands" by the women's rights movement. And, of course, if we apply your logic evenly, this makes them immoral and unethical for perpetrating deviant behavior. Godforbid we see it as social progress, it was something new and different, how could it be?
Your slippery slope argument comes off more like paranoia. If you cant make the distinction between rape and homosexuality simply because they are both actions of the minority, you must live in a very frightening world.
Okay good Chad, let us apply this definition to my previous contentious argument with you. I argued that anal sex and also using a plastic/wooden/steel rod in a sexual act are irrational. Further Chad, when we are aroused, our body reacts by producing lubrication in preparation for intercourse. Therefore using other body parts in sexual acts are irrational, don't you think? Morality constrains us, it qualifies right and wrong, it not alien to us it's built-in, coded, programming into our humanity. The concept of the original position is based upon this inalienable human trait. Moralism (which we both obviously hate) is a bully, it attempts to devour and threaten others. Therefore don't confuse morality which is innate with the hypocritical self-promoting moralism. In addition Chad, my view is in the minority now, because of the shifting goal post, look at the Argument Ratio or the Debate info above.
First off sharpiron, I don't have anything against you as a person. But have you looked at the world lately, it is already to the point that sexual deviants thrive in this world. That isn't gay peoples fault. The fact that molestation, insert, rape and child pornography and adultery happen is proof of that. Very few are ever held accountable for their actions. Politicians are caught doing it all the time, and its passed off as a "simple mistake". Especially if it is a heterosexual act.
The act of allowing two men or two women to marry does not hurt anyone or even family values, because we just want the same thing straight people already have and take for granted. Acceptance in this world to be able to love whom we want to love. Monogamous, loving relationships with someone of the same gender. We want families and children and the love and respect and adoration from someone who pledges their life to us as we pledge our life to them.
I was raised in a loving Christian home, my grandmother was my preacher until I was 30. I love God and always have even from the time I was a small child. I was raised to believe that all homosexuals were going to hell and that the only cure was a good woman. So at the age of 20 I married. I cried and prayed many nights for God to make the thought of a man be repulsive to me and after 11 years of marriage I finally realized I was gay and had been all along. My feelings for men had been with me since I was young, the first memory I have was at the age of 11. I so desperately wanted to fit in, to be accepted by my family, to go to Heaven. It took me 19 years to realize that I am still God's child and he loves me, even as a gay man. It was definitely hard to understand after years of being told how horrible and wrong all gay people were, only to realize I had been trying to be something I wasn't and it was slowly killing me from the inside out. Many times I just prayed for God to kill me. But it never came. Once I finally accepted who I was, who I had always been, God gave me the peace I needed.
My own mother stated she wished she had never had me and most of my blood relatives have nothing to do with me. You know the scripture that says to not be unequally yoked, well apparently my love for God wasn't enough. I was escorted from my church and told not to come back until I was ready to renounce my sexuality and come back to the fold. I don't blame God for what others do in his name. I am sad that my family isn't judgement free like they claim to be. I am sad that they will never know the man I love and have loved faithfully for over two years. I plan to marry him, with or without a marriage certificate. The way I see it, Adam and Eve didn't need a piece of paper to be married, and neither do I. Marriage is a state of mind and a way of life. Even the most married people fall into infidelity because the words they spake didn't mean anything. So gay or straight if your heart isn't in it, is it really a marriage.
I wish everyone would just worry about themselves and recognize the hurt they cause by telling others to do as they say and not what they do. I hope everyone out there that may read this can get the sense that I am Gay, I am in a loving relationship with a man, I am a God fearing and God loving man. And God loves me for who I am, not what the world thinks I should be.
I feel for you Timbo7834, but welcome to life as a human. I to have choice issues to resolve and intend to spend my entire life working on them. The other issue I ignore. Therefore it is clear that our views differ on what is choice?
There is also a separation between public and private. Making your private wants a public issue is an abuse of government. If you don't want your morals policed keep them where everyone else keeps them. Private.
If I wanted to get a tattoo, a perfectly legal decision on my part, and then had a public debate on the values of getting tattoos, do you think I should be surprised if some people disagreed with me? And then, should I cry out that the government is abusing its power?
Exactly! Keep straight marriage a private thing too! Either take it out of the church or take it out of our government. I don't want to see you hold your wifes hand, or even look at her. In fact, lets kinda dab a little into what Middle Eastern Countries are doing, huh? Put a sheet over her and if anyone asks, she's not your wife... she's just a thing. Gay marriage and everything that goes along with marriage can't be kept private because the Right-Wing is making such a big deal about it.
What is it that makes you think you're funny Joe? What makes you think you can write anything you please on the debate boards and not have to pay the piper for it? I just voted you down for the remark you made in this debate and will continue to do so every time I see an answer from you that is not germane or is disguised as a piece of humor because you don't really care to take a stand. On this one you used the tag to get your true feelings on the board and decided to make a "butt" joke out of the topic.
I can't be an ally anymore Joe. Even though my sense of fun and humor are intact...yours really isn't because you use it to injure and hurt people. You make a mockery of things that are important to many people and you just don't care about anyone else but yourself Joe. I don't really know what you're doing here! You put up debates that are ridiculous, you put up arguments that are even more ridiculous and, quite frankly, I don't know why CD allows it. You lend no credibility to this site nor do you even think about it in that way. You said once that all you want to do is have fun and show people that they take things too seriously in life. This IS a debate site...don't you think that one of the reasons for its existence and success is the fact that people do take things seriously enough to come debate whatever issue they feel is worth discussing? Why don't you take a moment to think about what I've said Joe. Until you can really be an ally or a friend...Adios!
I have put my views out there (made a stand). Maybe it's hard to distinguish when I'm kidding and when I'm being serious.
Here's my position on the subject.
I think that same sex couples should bypass th liberal right and secure civil unions because the rights afforded to married couples are more important than the word "married."
Would you rather use the word "married" but not have any rights or have the rights but not the word? I know you want both but think about this. Demanding both has resulted in a backlash.
The religious right was able to spend less and out organize the gay community in order to get proposition 8 passed. What does that tell you? It tells me that the religious right is deeply offended at the demands made by the gay community. The religious right feels (right or wrong) that the word belongs to them.
The gay community has not understood this and has made matters worse by claiming that the religious right is hateful (I know because I've seen the bumper stickers). This is really strange because in poll after poll people seem OK with civil unions. It is as though the gay community is so focused on their goal that they fail to hear what the religious right is saying and when they do hear they (truly or intentionally) misunderstand the words and misrepresent them.
The religious right is willing to give the gay community its rights....., but not the word. And all the litigation in the world will never force the majority of the religious right that are currently alive to accept gays as married. If anything, litigation will have an opposite effect.
The gay community will eventually win this battle but (if they continue using the current approach) the damage done to the relationship between the two groups will suffer greatly. The gay community is alienating the religious right.
I know that the gay community feels that they are the ones being alienated by the religious right. But think about this. How would you feel if some homeless guy came into your home and (not negotiated but) demanded a place to sleep? You have the room. You don't need it all at any given point in time. He will have all kinds of reasons why he should be allowed to sleep there. And if you refuse because it is your home and he shouldn't be making demands, he'll say that you're a hateful person.
Don't bother answering because if there's anything I have learned is that you can't change a person's mind with just an argument. Just as you wont change mine. And since you have made it clear that friendship to you means that I have to (not only accept but actually) share your point of view, I accept your request to be enemies. I respect your point of view but I don't share it.
One last thing. This is hokey, I know, but it does seem to make me feel better sometimes. Maybe it will make you feel better.
God give me the strength to change the things I can,
Well thanks for the advice straight boy but quite frankly, you don't know your ass from your elbow when it comes to gay rights, what we want or what we deserve as human beings. It's not the word they object to...it's the entire concept. Your analogy of the homeless guy needing a bed to sleep in is about as demented as you are.
Joe, I don't give a twaddle if you agree with me on any issue but the one thing you're wrong about is that I ever expected you to share my views nor do I expect that from anyone here or in my life. That's not friendship, that's being a puppet at someone else's whim. Being a friend Joe means that one must choose words carefully when you know that the other person is offended or hurt by the subject matter. You don't make a joke about it, at the very least! Think about what I said on the debate when that person was looking for your retirement from this site. I said what I did because it was wrong and you were my ally even though I was still bruised from the last brouhaha regarding Repubgal. You were so busy trying to think of unfunny things to say you couldn't think for one moment that I may have needed some words of encouragement from you on that board! And another thing....you seem to think you have to accept MY decision to relegate you to the cheap seats and name you an enemy. I don't need your permission to do that and I don't care if you like it or not.
And if you're going to quote the Serenity Prayer, why don't you try and get it right. Perhaps the real prayer will mean more than Joe's version of it. It goes like this Boffo:
God grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can and Wisdom to know the difference.
I don't need to feel better but perhaps you do. I can only hope that someday you can comprehend its meaning.
"Think about what I said on the debate when that person was looking for your retirement from this site. I said what I did because it was wrong and you were my ally even though I was still bruised from the last brouhaha regarding Repubgal. You were so busy trying to think of unfunny things to say you couldn't think for one moment that I may have needed some words of encouragement from you on that board!"
OK, look. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you needed some words of encouragement from me or anyone. You and I are different in that I'm more callous. I didn't need for you to stick up for me and I never understood why you let Repubgal get to you. This fundamental difference is what makes us be at odds with each other.
For what it's worth, I hope the gay community gets what they want. It doesn't affect me in any way shape or form. When proposition 8 passed and the facts came out (blacks voted overwhelmingly for it, the proponents spent less money and won, etc.) and after talking to people who had signs on their yard, I realized that this was an up hill battle and suggested by passing the religious right. But you're right. I'm a straight boy, as you so eloquently put it, and I guess I will never understand you or your plight. I thought my heart was in the right place; that I was lending a helping hand. But I guess none is wanted nor needed so deal with it on your own. I don't care.
You seem to think that only your vision of what this site should be is the valid vision. Only your vision of how votes should be used is the right one. And on top of all that you want to add even more rules like, you have to leave a reason explaining why they down voted you. That seems strange from someone who wants to be accepted. It's like you want to be accepted on your terms but you don't want to have to accept others on their terms. You want ot have your cake and eat it too. Human nature, I guess ;)
BTW, if log on as downvote, you can down vote again ;)
I accept at least 90% if not more of the people that contribute to this site. You just happen to be one of the three I do not accept anymore and that decision took me a while. My vision of what this site should be does not differ that much from what it is, however, when I do have a problem with something I bring it up and try to talk about it! And I'll bring it up again and again until I can get the attention of the powers that be. My vision of how votes should be used also doesn't differ that much from what was perceived as the correct way to use them, whether they be up or down. I don't have to have a complete reason for why someone up or down voted me or anyone else but down voting has been as huge issue for me since I'm the one who got hit. I certainly didn't notice anyone stepping up to say that was wrong before I made the accusatory debate. People can simply run in and out of debates, down vote someone they don't like and up vote those they do and that is not right! It renders the numbers meaningless. I also haven't heard any suggestions made to make the voting better for everyone!
Accepted? Yes! Everyone wishes to be accepted on their own terms but if that means I must accept a person when they behave like a complete ass, that's not something I would do. If someone else has a problem with me they usually state it but I haven't heard much from anyone except the very young ones so what shall I think? There are plenty of people whose views I don't agree with but I accept them for who they are and how they are, generally speaking. The only thing I do not accept, across the board, are those that are ill mannered and can say nothing in defense of their own arguments other than to start the name calling or rag on the age routine. I don't wish to have my cake and eat it too and I do not understand why you would accuse me of wanting that. The only other thing I don't understand at all is your very last sentence; BTW, if log on as I down vote, you can down vote again ;) What does that mean?
"I don't have to have a complete reason for why someone up or down voted me or anyone else but down voting has been as huge issue for me since I'm the one who got hit. I certainly didn't notice anyone stepping up to say that was wrong before I made the accusatory debate."
I was hit before but I don't care about the points so it doesn't come naturally to me to think that an adult would care about some lousy points. That's why I "didn't step up to say that it was wrong." But after the fact I tried to give you some of my points because I realized that they were important to you and they weren't important to me.
"People can simply run in and out of debates, down vote someone they don't like and up vote those they do and that is not right!"
Yes, that's right and life is not fair. I learned that a long time ago. The difference is that I accept the fact that life is not fair and I learn the rules so that I can bend them. I don't try to change the rules. I guess that's what makes me conservative ;)
"The only thing I do not accept, across the board, are those that are ill mannered and can say nothing in defense of their own arguments other than to start the name calling or rag on the age routine."
You are the one that started with the name calling. I guess that's what makes you a liberal ;)
"I don't wish to have my cake and eat it too and I do not understand why you would accuse me of wanting that."
I said that because it appears to me that you are not interested in negotiating. It seems that when you feel that you are entitled to something to should just demand it and then you expect to get it. This is what I see happening between the religious right and the gay community. I tell you what I see because it may be of some value to you. I'm standing outside looking in. I have a different point of view. When two blind men try to describe an elephant to each other, and they are standing on the opposite end of the elephant, should one man discard the other man's point of view as wrong or should he consider what the other is telling him in order to come up with a more complete picture? Think about that for a moment because we are on different ends of the elephant and I'm just providing input from where I'm standing in the hopes that it is of some benefit to you. If it isn't, then I'll just STFU because I don't have a dog in this fight.
Do you expect me to believe that YOU don't care about points? YOU, who do everything in your power to collect them so that it's at the point of being ridiculous! You tried to give me your points? Yes, right....when you know darned well that cannot be done nor would I expect that of anyone and least of all you!
I'm the one who started name calling? Please tell me you're joking! Outside of this argument between us, tell me who, what and where!
I am always interested in negotiating with anyone who will listen. Successful negotiations need two people to want to resolve something. Who do you think straightened out the terrible incident with repubgal? Yes, you bet I'm entitled, just as everyone else is to be treated fairly and like a human being. Those are things I'll never give up on. I'll fight it for me and I'll fight it for you and anyone else. That's a matter of record on this site and in my life. I could hate you but still stand up for your right to be.
When you stop writing to me I'll stop. I have no intention on answering you otherwise but I won't have you write garbage about me without defending myself.....So why don't you leave well enough alone and I'll have nothing to reply to. It's real simple!
It means that you can click where it says "Logon" and instead of using your user name and password you can use "DownVote@gmail.com" for the user name and then use the password "createdebate" to down vote me again. It is an anonymous account that was created for people that wanted to down vote someone, tell them why they down voted and still remain anonymous. This information was on another debate. Since you are so intent on down voting me I figured I'd help you out.
Well thanks for the info...it sure is interesting that you would know that. I've voted you down a hundred times and all for the same reason. How many times do you wish me to repeat it?
Internet or not...This IS a DEBATE SITE and not a garbage pail! It certainly doesn't have to be C-SPAN but it would be nice if this site and the people who debate here were taken a bit more seriouly than this! This isn't open mike night at The Comedy Club...if it were, he'd lose.
I am a straight Christian and support gay marriage. Why? Simple. Separation of church and state.
Gay marriage opposition states that they want to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Let's look at the definition of sanctity: the quality or state of being holy or sacred.
That tells me: you cannot preserve the holiness of an act that is governed by the law. That is a violation of church and state.
If someone, a Christian or other religious person, wants to get married under the eyes of God in their church, then fine. But it is not our place to impede upon the rights of others that want to be married under the eyes of the law. Or even God, for that matter. I know many gay Christians. It is not our place to judge others or take away from them. Prop 8 is threatening to take away the rights of 18,000 ALREADY MARRIED couples. And all because our religious views clash with their lifestyles. This is not our battle.
I support gay marriage, and I support my gay married friends and will continue to fight with them for their equality.
Gay marriage does not hurt anyone except those of whom we are stripping away rights. There is no way to prove that gay marriage would impose upon our children in our schools. And besides, kids are going to learn about it anyway, right? Look at MTV right now. You think these kids don't know what's going on?
I have noticed that many non-religious people impose their personal "religious" views on others. For example, I would like to see them support polygamy for consenting adults. Despite denying being religious, they want to impose their views on others by denying polygamists the right to marry.
This is a brilliant statement, and I have to agree with you on this.
I'm straight and currently have no defined religion (only one born of personal beliefs that has no name) but I don't see the problem with same sex marriage. For this, I use the same philosophy as in every part of my life: If what someone is doing doesn't hurt anyone else, they can keep doing it. Gay marriage isn't exactly killing anyone, people should put their effort into issues that actually matter instead of denying happy couples their right to be legally married.
Except there is no such thing as a "separation of church and state," so your entire argument is moot. If there were this "separation," then the federal government wouldn't be allowed to enforce their laws on churches, like telling churches they're not allowed to talk about politics. And yet the federal government DOES punish churches from talking about politics. Of course, the moment something religious enters into public territory, the federal government wastes no time in condemning it like the hypocrites that they are. My point, though, is that "separation of church and state" is nowhere in any of our founding documents. Nowhere. It is a myth. When the Constitution was ratified, many states had their own established religions and NONE of the Founders had any problem with this. They approved of established state religions! The First Amendment merely says that CONGRESS cannot establish any religion. Congress deals with federal laws, not state laws. So it is the federal government that cannot establish a nationwide religion. States, however, can. The Tenth Amendment says that anything NOT talked about elsewhere in the Constitution is up to the states. This means gay marriage, for one thing. Meaning that a federal BAN on gay marriage is unconstitutional; but so is a federal law ALLOWING gay marriage. Gay marriage is not in the Constitution, so it is up to each individual state to decide.
I do find it interesting, though, that you're a Christian and yet you support something that the founder of your religion did not support. Jesus'd be proud.
But what you are missing in my opinion, is that even if the constitution does not have a specific reference to separation of church and state, does that really make it OKAY to completely ignore that idea? If we just blindly followed everything the Constitution says, wouldn't we still have prohibition of alcohol, and wouldn't it be up to the states whether or not women and minorities not have the right to vote? Those were all changed in amendments. And I personally would support an amendment SPECIFYING a separation of church and state. What you talk about, people enforcing that churches do not talk about politics, I have never heard that before, but if it's true, the solution is not to say that because they can do that, you can ban gay marriage, the solution is to day that you should not be able to ban gay marriage and they can not enforce churches to not talk about politics. You're moving in the complete wrong direction, not in the right one. Without a separation of church and state, you get a government that influences its people or even forces its people to do things against their own religion.
I think you deeply do not understand the phrase "separation of church and state". It does not mean that one can not make references to politics or the state in church as you seem to imply, or even that one can not make references to the church in public funded buildings. What it means is that publicly funded things like schools, and any kind of government facility including courthouses, can not express support for, or utilize public prayers, or anything similar regarding religion, and yes that includes Atheism. A separation is not state-sponsored Atheism, as they are also not allowed to show support for a disbelief in God. A separation of church and state simply means that they can not coerce the people or force them into any kind of religion.
I think that your desire to ban gay marriage is what's really wrong and unconstitutional here. If a gay Christian wants to marry his partner, is it not a violation of the free exercise clause of the constitution to not allow him to do so, that is, if you really believe marriage is a religious institution? My main point as a Libertarian, is that marriage is simply voluntary human relations. As long as it's voluntary, you have no right to step in on people's personal lives and tell them how to live their own life.
ur catholic or what? A christian that dosent see a problem with Gay marriage is not christian. As homosexuality is against the bible's principles. I agreed with you until you started talking about how it hurts no one but stripping away rights. I agree with you hlf way..But the Bible says sin is detrimental to most evryone while sexual sins are sins against ones own body. do you believe in Sin? or are you one of those watered-down christians? I agree in speration of church and state, And that ppl should be able to make their own choices.. But seriously....
Straight people love to pull morality and self righteous dogma from their religions and throw them into this argument but it just doesn't fly anymore. Gay marriage hurts no one in any way whatsoever. From all the studies they've done through the years plus the definitive information that was culled from the brains of dead AIDS patients, it is a fact that there is a center of the brain that is much different than that of the heterosexual, that it can no longer be denied. We're different than you are.
I agree with what you said above, but I am curious, and don't have time to do a literature search (because I am currently doing one of my own for my real job =), do you have the reference to the brain argument? Is it a physiological difference or a genetic difference between hetero- and homosexuals? Is this the case for all of them? At what age does this "kick in"? I am just trying to learn, it is some thing that I have been interested in, I am not trying to be disrespectful or pick on details. =)
I'll search for the links to the findings and get back to you. This began several years ago when they began doing full autopsies on HIV/AIDS patients that had succumbed to the disease via cancer, pneumonia and a host of other diseases. It was the first time anyone in the medical field was alerted to that phenomenon. It's both a shame and a blessing that they were able to recognize this for the first time. In the very beginning it was only on men since they were dying in astounding numbers. I'll find as many links as I can and get them to you Kirstie.
Thanks! You don't have to go too crazy and take up too much of your time, it is just that I was really curious as to what science has been done on this topic.
That's good...but I find I don't have the time or inclination to look it all up for you as I said I would. If you don't believe it then look it up and refute those of us who know it to be true.
Then if you're different pick a different word. Traditionally marriage has meant a union between a man and a woman. To use the same word for same sex partners dilutes the word and makes it less descriptive. It also pisses of the religious right and makes for great CD fodder ;)
You claim to be different but you want to seen as the same. That doesn't make any sense to me. Let us see you as different and accept you for what you are. There's no need to put a requirement forcing us to see you as the same.
BTW, claiming that gays are genetetically different and supporting genetic engeneering means that someday some one will want to eradicate the gay gene. It's a two edge sword that cuts both ways. You have to love it ;)
That is exactly the caliber of response I would expect from a homophobic person. Pick a different word? Different from what? Marriage? I don't care if tradition has heretofore dictated a union between a man and a woman because, guess what? Tradition is on the verge of being expanded to incorporate homosexuals as well and it's high time.
We are different from the majority of people that live on this earth insofar as we are only attracted to our own sex but we are also the same in many ways if not every other way. In another post I told you that we have already shown you how we are different and you couldn't or wouldn't accept that. I'm not forcing you or the world to do anything Joe. When the final votes are in and tallied and we win, bit by bit and mile by mile...you and the rest will see you had nothing to fear, nothing to object to and nothing to lose. You and millions of others will see how alike we really are.
That is such a bogus argument Joe. "You claim to be different but want to be seen as the same." My God man, take a black man and a white woman, they're not the same but they can now marry (since 1967!). You've seen us as different for eons and that hasn't allowed people to accept us! For all intents and purposes we are very much the same insofar as we all want the same things in life. From you, we can't get that without the fight of a lifetime ensuing. I, for one, couldn't care less if genetic engineering can one day change a gay gene! There'll be less pain in the world if that happened BUT, does anyone have the right to do that? Go work on the autism gene or the Downs syndrome gene or the idiot savant gene...then you will have accomplished something!
I do not understand the rationale behind someone wanting a title that comes from a religion that doesn't agree with your behavior. I'm not stating my opinion. Marriage comes from the bible. No two ways around that. Yes I know people were together before the bible but the marriage and the ceremonies come from the bible. Why is the life partner or any other legal term that allows a homosexual couple to have all the same rights as a heterosexual couple not enough. If you are wondering my opinion yes I believe homosexuality is wrong but I believe alot of things are wrong and people don't have to have a stigma for doing those things. I just don't get the argument.??
I don't know if you've noticed but over the last years most churches have been more and more tolerant of gay people and accept them as any other member...just like regular people. Even the civil ceremony calls it a marriage. Pay no attention to what the conversation is between Joe & myself. Most of it doesn't apply...it's a personal thing between us now.
Sorry Joe, I didn't answer you in good time. Yes, the words are there Joe. I am a homosexual woman and you are a heterosexual man. Those words have always existed but it's the straight community who makes us much more different than we really are as people. I've have always shown myself as I really am and I must say that I haven't had too much of a problem with people across the board. You see me Joe...you see me as I really am, for every word I have written and spoken to you is me. I am no different off-line.
I never thought for one moment that you were different in any way shape or form. I have had, and have to this day, gay friends that I never thought were any different. And since I have friends on both sides of the fence, I feel more like someone in the middle of a battle field. I hear both sides and figured I may be able to get one group to bypass the other. However, my solution falls short in that, although it gets homosexuals the rights they're after, it doesn't buy them acceptance. For example, it doesn't get them religious wedding ceremonies from some religions.
BTW, a little more about my personal life, if you're interested. When I was a child I loved to play with toy soldiers. I would spend hours setting them up. Once I asked my sister to play and she immediately started a battle. I said, "What are you doing?" She said, "Well...., they're soldiers. They are doing what soldiers do." I said, "No! they're supposed to make treaties!" She said, "That's boring!" and left. Later that night my grandmother said that it was time to go to bed and that I had to clear the soldiers off the bed. So I had a small skirmish so that I could go to bed and not have to put away those soldiers that were under the bed. In the morning I continued playing but I don't remember if the survivors had a funeral for those who died the night before or if they managed to resurrect them somehow. I guess that little boy that was always wanting to make peace is still alive and well in me. ;)
Ok, after reading the uhh, dare I say, controversial opinions ;)
I am scared to post my own!
Well, sorry, I am going to anyway! =P
I am not gay.
I read Kukla's argument putting down the moral and religous reasons behind people who are against gay rights.
Therefore, I will say only this. The Bible says a man shall not sleep with another man, and a woman with a woman. So, personally I don't agree with those who are gay individuals.
However, I am not one to tell you how to live your life. I do believe that some people are born with an attraction to the same sex. I won't deny that. Now, I have heard in some cases where an individual who was born with more of the opposite sex's hormones is attracted to the oppisite sex. However, they chose to live life as a straight person because they believed that's what God wanted them to do.
Does it hurt anyone? Hard to say. Me, personally? No,just because I disagree doesn't mean I have to be effected with someone else's decision.
So, that's my opinion. Go ahead. Chop me to pieces. I can take it! ;)
Why would anyone chop you to pieces for putting up a well written rebuttal? Is it me you fear?
I've heard of people trying to repress their desire to be with their own sex but I don't know how they could possibly know about their hormones! Many Catholics have tried to do what the church says is right to do...some have failed and some have not, on some level. Look at it this way for a moment. You're straight...you were born that way. 90% of the rest of the world is gay because they were born that way. Could I or anyone convince you, or would you be happy if someone were to try and change you into being gay? I don't think that would be possible, do you?
It's also interesting to me that the churches have softened their views of this too. Not the Catholic church but others. Some even ordain gay people into the priesthood or the ministry. That tells me something has changed through the years. Could it be the medical findings of all those poor dead people who succumbed to AIDS that changed their minds? It certainly would mine or at the very least, re-think it. If people are born this way, how can they help what they were born to be?
No, I do not fear you. If I had made a more controversial argument, possibly, but I was trying to make the point that this was most certainly a heated debate.
If I am not mistaken, there is a hormone balance test. With this test you can measure the amount of hormones your body contains.
I know what research says, but I believe that gay is a relative term. However, if you take a look at many of my past debates you can see I find a ton of things relative ;)...
Now, what I mean is...Let's say Joey is gay (random name, I promise)
Joey was born with a unbalanced of hormones, and he chooses to live the way his hormones balanced him to be.
Now, let's say Mark is also gay. (random, really)
Mark was born with unbalanced hormones. However, Mark is a Christian, and believes God does not want him to live his life as a gay man. Therefore, Mark decides to suppress his gay feelings. By doing this Mark chooses the Lord over his sexuality. It does happen, rarely.
Now, I might come across as a raging Christian here, but that is not my intention. While I am a Christian, I don't run around yelling at people who choose to live a different lifestyle. Like I said, that is not my place.
I also find it interesting how churches have accepted the gay community. My philosophy is we are in urbanized America. When I say that I mean that we have churches that don't use old-time principles any more. Whether that is wrong or right is all in the eye of the beholder.
What evidence do you have to discredit people who have claimed to have become straight? There is a famous singing who publicly claimed that he was gay and is now straight, is he lying? Where is your evidence? It appears that you have a confirmation bias. I understand what you are attempting to say but, a world with a population of 90% gay cannot exist indefinitely (Sex for pleasure and not procreation, even a 90% heterosexual society would be in danger of becoming extinct).
I think that you hit the nail right on the head when you said homosexuality doesn't affect you personally. If more religious people took this approach then we would live in a world that had a lot less hate. I think Mark Twain put it best:
So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code.
I had never heard Mark Twain's quote. Put simply, that is exactly what America should aim for. We call ourselves the country of equal opportunity, and slowly we are becoming just that. To each his own.
Don't be scared of posting your opinion (I don't think you really are anyway.) I'm probably one of the biggest a-holes on this site, so take it from me nothing is personal.
That said, if you want to take the Bible literally, it says sleep not fuck. So fine then, I'm nit-picking.
But the Bible also says this about sex, "It's better to spill your seed on the belly of a prostitute, than to let one drop fall to the ground."
So then, in one sentence the Bible says that both prostitution and "safe sex" (the pull-out method) are better than jacking off.
So where is all the moral indignation at the practice of jacking off? Sure they say not to do it. But what religion has donated money to movements in order to end the practice?
And if it is better to have sex with a prostitute for strictly recreational reasons (not baby-making) where then on the moral hierarchy would homosexuality fall? Is it more or less evil than masturbation?
The point is that, if you choose to believe there's a big, all powerful daddy in the sky, and he's so bored he watches everything we do in our comparitively miniscule lives, yet so communications impaired that he'll only talk to us through a book written hundreds of years ago, you have to believe he meant it when he said, "he who has not sinned throw the first stone" and "judge and you will be judged."
Make no mistake, this denial of gays to participate in basic rights is "throwing stones" and it is "judging."
Fine, the Bible says what it says of marriage. One can choose to follow what it says. But one at least who truely believes it is the word of god cannot deny another their choice of whether they will follow what it says or not.
"So, personally I don't agree with those who are gay individuals." Sure, you agree with a lot of gay individuals on a lot of things. What that sentence really says is that you think either they should not exist, which they obviously do, or that they should just pretend not to be gay. You cannot "disagree" with a state of being. You may not like them, you may not believe in them, but it is impossible to say you "disagree" with something that you yourself claim in another sentence is real.
You're being very melevolent in your paragraph, so I'm not "chopping you to pieces."
If you think about it though, there is an underlying and glaring hypocricy in your arguement.
In one point you site the Bible as a reason for being against something, even though you admit it does not hurt you. And by using the Bible as your reasoning for being against something, you are disobeying the Bible - judge not and all that.
So, you have some very defined opinions. Perhaps if you stopped hiding behind the Bible, and use your own intellect instead, they would hold up better in a debate.
Who's likely to be a better parent, statistically? Those who HAVE to adopt? Or those who can become pregnant by accident, and be forced to marry and raise a child they resent with a person they barely know?
I don't have the stats on that but logically I should think it would lean toward the adoption...although in my own case I've heard the horror stories of my daughter growing up as an adoptee...it wasn't pretty.
Statistically, it's the people who aren't adopting because the people who can accidentally have children don't always accidently have children, and those who do, aren't always bad parents. Also, even though the adopters may be great parents, it doesn't make things any better if the kid doesn't accept their false parents... Most people aren't gay, so the kid may feel even more alienated than if s/he were brought up with straight guardians.
What do you mean by statistically? Are you saying there's statistical evidence?
Did you misconstrue my argument? I said if you're able to get pregnant by accident, you're more likely to raise a child you do not want. If you adopt, you're more likely to actually want the child.
How many adopted children do you know who resented being adopted? For me, zero. I think your whole argument is on very shaky ground.
I actually know of a few, who maybe don't "resent" being adopted, but wished they had their actual parents, and blame a lot of their psychological problems on the fact that they weren't raised by their parents.
Only in THIS time, does this scenario hold so much value. When someone is born by an accident, and then is not wanted, and is raised poorly because of the fact. Why are adoption programs established in the first place? Because there are more people having sex that don't want children, there are more people without the means to have children, but want children, and there are more people out there suffering from bad parenting. This hasn't always been the case, see what I've said to Kukla.
The chances of "accidentally" having children, and the chances of not being able to care for the child, have to be higher now than any other time in history, partly due to the fact that there are just more people in general out there at this moment than any other specific time in history. If the failure rate is higher now than ever, and the number of gays raising children are higher than ever too, logically, the percent of failure has to effect the lower number, the gay adopters, more than the people having the children by accident. Also, something to conceder is, why are they failing? If it's because of the income, look at the percent of failure with a mother and father in the same income bracket than the adopter's, you will find that there is a wide gap.
Most accidental births, I'm sure, are well taken care of despite the fact that they weren't planned, more often in a higher income bracket than a lower. The people with a low income will fail, whereas the people in the higher one, even though it's accidental, will be taken care of just as well as ones raised by adopters, because they are given money, and already have the money to do so.
In all of time, there have been more straight couples with money and children than gay couples with money and children... think about it. Statistically speaking, the straight people may have failed more people over the coarse of history, but that doesn't mean that they haven't also raised more children successfully too.
Unless I am misunderstanding you, how can an infant feel alienated if he/he is brought up by straight people? The child has no idea that one of the parents are gay!
In 1967, all adoptions and all information was sealed...forever!Even if it weren't there is nothing to say the mother was telling the truth about herself or the father of the child! No one checked these things.
And where, may I ask, you're getting your statistics from?
When I said statistically I wasn't insisting there were statistics. There is statistical data in whatever you're looking into wether it already exists as a "statistic" or not.
Just, logically, look at what I'm saying and you shouldn't need a pretty colored chart with numbers all over it. I'm basically saying for every 999,999,999 children born in all of time, into a mother/father environment, how many have really, honestly, failed because they were "accidently" conceived of. less than .05%-.005%, and I would bet money on it. Even at that rate, that's anywhere from 500,000 to 50,000 people effected because of accidental birth, raised in a mother father environment, out of 999,999,999.
How many raised by same sex? Because it hasn't happened in nature, because it can't happen naturally, that number is significantly higher. You have 99999 people raised by gays or same sex, and you have 99 fail, that's still .09%.
Even though 49,999 people is more than 99, statistically speaking, more fail raised by same sex seeing as the the fail rate by the accidental is .005%, and the same sex is .09%.
None of these numbers are taken from anywhere, but they should be adequate enough to demonstrate my point.
Truly I do not see how it can hurt anyone at all. Studies are showing that some people are born gay and if you want to marry your lover who is anyone else to say that they should not be wed?
Is seeing 2 guys or gals with rings on their fingers really that obscene? What is the difference between seeing a married gay couple and a gay couple? Is there really that huge of a difference? I do not believe so.
It hurts families, the more gay marriage the less families there will be, children need a mother and a father to look up to.
Good job voting that idiotic statement down everyone. I don't think the source of that idea has been explored enough though. And personally, I believe in humilating idiotic statements as a form of social punishment, so here goes. Hopefully you read this Jake.
gay marriage = less families only if you believe that people would choose to be gay instead of heterosexual.
that is, you jake, think that someone who is otherwise attracted to the opposite sex, would have had kids and raised them, will now move in with someone of the same sex and not have kids.
ignoring for a moment that this isn't all together bad since there are too many people. what kind of person would think that may be the case?
I know for myself, being very comfortable in my heterosexuality, I would not magically turn gay because a law was passed.
do you fear, jake, that you may magically turn gay if a law were passed?
because that is really the only reason for your statement. if you actually think about what your wrote, I mean, that's the only possible end conclusion.
and if you do stand behind that statement jake, I have to ask myself, what kind of person would have such a ridiculous fear.
and I can only think of one kind jake. a closet gay person.
so if you want to come out, which I'm assuming from your statement deep down you do, then this is the place for it. There seems to be a lot of open people here, and at least one very popular openly gay member.
it's okay jake, be brave.
and if you do choose to not come out, that's okay, I understand it's a cold hard world out there for a gay person. but know this at least.
whatever you do, whatever you say, no matter how much you deny it, I at least will always know that, you jake, are gay. and I accept that.
I am assuming that was supposed to be an insult, yet you have been defending it.
Its like you are saying "protect the gays give them rights," then you you turn around and say "hey i don't like you, i will humiliate you by saying that your gay" -you just contradicted yourself!
Whatever Jake, it's very easy to lie and be a bigot and a fundie, especially over internet.
Approximately 80% of homophobes are gay and I'm SURE the rest have their issues too, mostly connected with sexuality.
If you think that a person would turn gay if he was allowed to, than you must be thinking of a person who is attracted to men, you are referring to a GAY person and a GAY person turning GAY ISN'T VERY DRAMATIC, NOW IS IT?!
An intelligent straight person would never like it to not allow gays to marry and adopt children.
If gays can marry and adopt that means that baby making isn't a very big deal since the gays are going to raise them. (If you are a religions fundie, that means you can be more logically for pro-life if you are pro-gay-marriage)
Plus, if there are so many women left alone, or rather lonely, than you can have a lot of sex.
Oh, and by the way, straight men like sex with women (right guys? :)), so they couldn't mind.
The only people who could POSSIBLY mind gays are gay people who don't want to be gay(...and raise kids and miss all the coitus..., but they don't like it anyway) and women who fall in love with gays. As some comedian woman says: "I'm a fag-hag, but now I think about my wishing in youth about being surrounded by handsome men, I should have been more specific."
Responses are much more effective when you do more than just ridicule the poster. I know a lot of people who decide to be gay, and I know even more people who think they are gay because they are musically inclined or sensitive and they are told their whole life that they are "closet gays." I find it incredibly prejudice to think that everyone who doesn't like beer and football or somehow misses the masculine bar is gay, and I think that IS one of the big problems with the publicity that homosexuality is making. I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me, but I think there is a baseline group of gay people and then a huge amount of other people who are gay because of peer pressure, insecurity, and/or because it's the popular thing to be right now.
I know, incoming down votes. Didn't say anyone had to agree, I just think it's stupid to tell someone else about their sexuality.
And please don't respond with "studies prove," because as I've already said, they don't.
And you and jake seemed to miss the fact that, I wasn't ridiculing the fact that jake is gay. That's fine. I was ridiculing his ridiculous response, which proved him to be gay.
See what I'm saying?
Next, you don't know anyone who decided to be gay. You know people who were born gay, but who were told by society they weren't gay and gay is bad, so were in conflict for a large part of their lives until they realized they had been gay the whole time... like Jake :)
I don't know anyone who decided to be gay? How do you know. I in point of fact know a very nice and happy gay man, who was once engaged and has told me to my face that he was a happy straight man, did some experimentation, found someone he really liked who was a man and made a choice to live a gay lifestyle. He said he was happy either way, but thinks this is what makes him happiest.
I think society tells way more people that they are gay than that they aren't. And after reading more of the responses on here it just gets back to this absurd point that those of us who are "opposed", and I use this term loosely because to tell you the truth, until the prop 8 fiasco in which the gay movement has begun trying to steal the right to vote from me I honestly didn't give a damn, to gay marriage are hated, disposed, called names, attacked, been told "no intelligent straight man would oppose gay marriage" as is said on this board, while we on the other side are about as polite as can be.
The only hatred I've seen has been coming from the homosexual community. If you don't believe me, take a look at what they've been doing to the Mormons. I honor democracy and I despise hatred and bigotry, and it saddens me that this seems to make me the enemy of the homosexual community, which wants tolerance only for their way of thinking.
That guy who was engaged then "turned gay" was already gay. Society told him he wasn't gay, that's why it took so long to figure out. Okay, in that example, bi-sexual. But people do not "turn" gay because of outside influence, it's something internal, in the brain.
I think society tells way more people that they are gay than that they aren't.
Please give me an example where society tells anyone to be gay. Do you seriously think life is somehow better or easier if you're gay? Do you not think gay people get made fun of, discriminated against, and avoided all of the time for being gay? How on earth would you justify your opinion that somehow society wants you to be gay?
the gay movement has begun trying to steal the right to vote from me
Again, how so? The only right being denied in this case is homosexuals Constitutional right to the "pursuit of happiness." Not to mention visitation rights in hospitals, or any one of the thousands of rights denied gay couples.
called names, attacked, been told "no intelligent straight man would oppose gay marriage" as is said on this board, while we on the other side are about as polite as can be.
Really? So no gay person has ever been killed for being gay? Yet you're sad because someone stated the opinion that "no intelligent straight man would oppose gay marriage." Then please, by all means, make an intelligent arguemnent for your side. It will be the first.
The only hatred I've seen has been coming from the homosexual community. If you don't believe me, take a look at what they've been doing to the Mormons.
The mormon and catholic churches, but especially the mormon churches, spent millions trying to deny a group of people a human right, now some gays are protesting this by not shopping at their stores. And you call this "hatred?" Really, you need to think about this a little harder, or move on to the next subject.
"That guy who was engaged then "turned gay" was already gay. Society told him he wasn't gay, that's why it took so long to figure out."
Lol, see again, I am flabbergasted that it is impossible for you to accept that someone might have an opinion different from yours.
"Please give me an example where society tells anyone to be gay."
One example of society telling someone they're gay? You! You just did! To Joe. If you want another example look at any showing of a gay person on a TV show. If you act like x you are gay.
"Please give me an example where society tells anyone to be gay."
The right to vote is being stolen in CA. Twice the majority of people voted to define marriage clearly and twice the homosexuality community has tried to overturn the will of the people by using judges. The pursuit of happiness is in the declaration of independence and not the Constitution. If this is the justification for the right to marry whomever you want, it also justifies everything else you can think of, so long as it makes the pursuer happy. There is no constitutional right to marry whomever you want. Every citizen is equally protected with the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. If you're gay, you have the right to marry. So again, what right are you being denied? Visitation rights are already granted in the state of CA, as are inheritance and all other rights of married couples, es per Gov. Davis in 2000.
"Really? So no gay person has ever been killed for being gay?"
African American people have killed white people before. Does that make all black people murderers? Of course not. The fact that some nut-case has murdered a gay person before does not make everyone who believes homosexuality is wrong into a murderer. Are you in fear for your life often? If so I am sad, but I sort of doubt it, that's just not the way the world is anymore (in this country). Are you afraid to express your opinion about this topic? I doubt it. I am. If I tell people what I think, I LOSE MY JOB. That's why I post here anonymously :)
"The Mormon and catholic churches, but especially the Mormon churches, spent millions trying to deny a group of people a human right"
Marrying members of the same sex is not a human right. Sorry. Until you can show me what human right is being denied, I don't know where else to go with this. As far as the donations go, the Mormon church DID NOT DONATE A DIME. Neither did the Catholic church (I think, I'm not positive about them). MEMBERS of these churches donated to a cause they believed was right. They have the right.
I have no problem with protests. I have a problem with vandalism, violence, riots, assault, disenfranchisement, and attack of religious liberty (suing to remove tax exempt status of people who disagree with them). I was opposed to it when the homosexuality was attacked and mocked and derided; I oppose it now when they do the same thing to their enemies.
I just have to respond to one of your last statements:
"Until you can show me what human right is being denied, I don't know where else to go with this"
The right to life, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. It's in the Declaration of Independence. The denial of gay marriage is violating two basic human rights.
Thanks E223, I'm getting so bored of replying to these. Tallblondguy - whether people "turn gay" or are born gay, is not a matter of opinion. 1+1=2 is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. People are born gay, straight, or bi. Any change is due to chemical composition of the brain. People take forever coming out of the closet (often) because gays are discriminated against.
The next paragraph where you say my response is an example of how society tells people to be gay... I think you miss read. It was an ironic diatribe of Jake's senseless response to gay marriage. You see, ironic because he though not intentional, was giving a bigoted response, so I pointed out how his response made it appear he was one of the people himself that he was being a bigot against... I know confusing. What's even more confusing is that infact the response would not have even worked had it been, as you said, me encouraging him to be gay... I don't, from your arguements, expect you to understand that.
Okay, your entire right to vote arguement boggles the mind. According to your own arguement, (this is called a parody, it helps people like you who can't understand stuff, understand stuff. I'm waiting though for your literal response, since I'm sure you won't get the nuance) if 51% of Americans say we should reinstate slavery, then we didn't, then that means some great travesty had taken place, enough said.
Uh... okay, now to where you twisted around my arguement to mean something completely and obviously different than what I said.
you said that gay people were not discriminated against. I gave an example of how they were. Then you went all "black people this" and "fear" that, and went on a rant about losing your job.
You seem to think I live in some state of fear? You're aware that I'm not gay right? If not, now you are, not that it matters in the least in any of my arguements. So I'm not sure why you think I may be afraid of something, but from my profile you can actually follow a link to my site, which has my name, David Heintzelman, it even has a map of exactly where I live for shits and giggles. Again, where you got the idea I was afraid is beyond me. You though... first you accuse me of being afraid, then you say how you post anonymously because... you're scared. It seems a bit schitzo.
As for Mormons and Catholics not giving money to the cause of denying a group of people their rights...
Last paragraph; you make the point earlier in your arguement (albeit the point was completely out of context of the arguement you were then debating) that just because "African American people have killed white people before. Does that make all black people murderers?" And so I would say the same of any of the vandalism you're implying is the work of the gay hordes - of which I have heard of none, a link wouldn't hurt your arguement there.
And there's a whole debate already devoted to whether religions should pay taxes, where I posted I think a couple times at least. But for the record, they should. Any group that tries to influence policies of a nation, should than have to participate as a member of that society, hence pay taxes. If religious groups want to maintain their tax exempt status, they should excuse themselves from influencing policy. You can't have your cake and eat it to.
The only hatred I've seen has been coming from the homosexual community
Well then your eyes are closed. Homosexuals have been discriminated against for centuries. They were even killed in the holocaust. If you don't believe that there is hate directed at homosexuals then please check out this site.
I never said they weren't discriminated against in history, that is certain and the way gays have been treated is sick. I said right now, the hatred is coming from the gay community. If you don't believe it, than just read these forums. Who is stupid? whoever disagrees with you. Who is the "fanatical religious right?" whoever disagrees with you. We must give you the right to do whatever you want no matter what the majority thinks. If we disagree we are driven from our jobs (the artistic director of Sacramento theater) we are attacked economically (there's a list now of everyone who donated to prop 8 and a demand to boycott their businesses) we are told that we had no right to vote that way. The Mormon church has had their buildings desecrated, their books burned, their members attacked and there is a demand to have their tax exempt status removed. Doctors are sued for refusing invitro fertilization. eharmony is sued for not providing gay matchmaking.
Yes, the gay community is attacking anyone who disagrees with them and it's sick.
If prop 8 had passed we would have gone with it, but we are ruthlessly attacked for disagreeing with you, and now the homosexual community is trying to destroy democracy and steal from me my right to vote because they don't think I have a right to decide where my tax money goes.
ya, somewhere in the US is an asshole who loudly attacks gays, but even my best friends who are gay are full of hate for everyone who disagrees with them, and that makes me very sad.
In today's society people discriminate against homosexuals all the time. In the classroom, at people's offices, in people's own families. Right now, in many places throughout the U.S. being homosexual is something to be ashamed of. When kids think something is lame what do they say? "That's gay." I think this fact alone speaks volumes of the homophobia in today's society.
You are looking at the extreme examples at the expense of the whole picture. If someone said you could not marry the person you loved, would you be upset? Would you do whatever you could to fix what you perceived as a grave injustice? I want you to understand that I do not condone violence, but legal action is perfectly within people's rights.
People are upset, and they have just reasons for being upset. If someone tells you that you were to live in a country that promises "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but later you find out that this is a lie, wouldn't you be upset? Would you be pretty fucking pissed off? Once again, anger to the point of violence is wrong, but fighting for your rights is reasonable....hell, it's American.
As for the vote on prop. 8, the majority should never have the power to take away rights from a minority group. It has happened in our past when other groups were discriminated against based on race. People voted on laws democratically, but eventually courts overturned these laws. Such was the case in California before prop. 8 was passed. The California supreme court deemed that disallowing homosexuals to marry was discriminatory. They came to this conclusion because they had to base their decision on facts. When the issue was put to a vote, people could base their decision on whatever reasons they wanted: their religious views, their ignorance, their intolerance and bigotry etc... Just because you don't want a certain group of people to not have rights doesn't allow you to take those rights away from them. You have to have a reason. A damn good one.
So now, tallblondebigotedguy, what are your reasons? What do you find so wrong with two people who love each other being allowed to enter into legal marriage? I swear that I am listening to your reasons now. Don't hide behind false pretenses of discrimination, or that people don't respect your views, because until you can give me your reasoning, all of that is irrelevant.
There you go again. I disagree with you, so i'm a bigot. If someone thinks anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot, what does that make them? (I'll give you a hint, it's a word you just used)
The irony is that I honestly didn't give a damn about gay marriage before activists started to attack everyone who disagreed with them. My little sister was afraid to go to school for 3 weeks during the prop 8 vote. I think the problem is that the gay community thinks that discrimination is having people think they're doing something wrong, and that's simply not discrimination. The entire issue of gay marriage is centered around the idea that you want everyone not just to tolerated you, but to tell you what you're doing is ok, and if this doesn't happen, it's discrimination to you.
Once again that is the decleration of independence by the way. Life liberty and pursuit of happiness. No one can show me in the CONSTITUTION where it guarantees the right to marry, and that include the tyrannical judges who base their decision based on what they think should be instead of what the law is. You know what that's called, when 7-9 judges (or really 4 or 5, since it's never been more than a simple majority) go against the constitutiont to pass a law they think is right? That's called tyranny. Do you support tyranny? What if it wasn't in your favor? What if those judges said gays should be burned? That's why there are checks and balances.
I think the real problem here comes to two points that will always divide this arguement.
1) you believe homosexuality is like race: something someone is born with and has no control over. The opposing side believes it is action realted, because someone is not gay, somone is living a gay lifestyle. The problem is a word symantics one. If you define gay as attracted to members of the same sex, than it's a moot point, because that person is not limited in any way. But if being gay is having a relationship with a member of the same sex, than it has become an action, and thus is not afforded any special protection because it is action-oriented. All of this is moot in my opinion because no matter what you still have all the same rights as straight people, but your arguement rests on it entirely.
2) Marrying whomever you love is a basic right. This just isn't true. If it was, than what about pedophiles. Studies show many of them are born with these feelings. What about serial killers? We know they're born that way. Obviously these are extreme examples and gays and serial killers are in no way alike, but I use them as examples to show that this arguement cannot stand up legally. And besides, it's just not in the constitution.
I am not a bigot. 90% of my friends are gay, and they're my very best friends. If you can pass a law that gives you the right to marry I am all for it. I may even vote for it if people ask me nicely instead of yelling at me. But I have been opposed for over 10 years to people manipulating courts to get their legistlature through.
I know you think it's a right in the constitution, or you think it should be. It's not, so make it one! This vote failed, but not for long. By the time my generation is completely in charge, it will be legal the right way. So hope for that instead of bringing down our country's established system with judicial legislation (as if it could sink any lower).
Wow, I was so done with your arguements. You completely ignore every point made by anyone. Then twist around words to fit in this weird idea you have that somehow gays are discriminating against you by wanting to get married. Then you start making up stories about your sister being "scared" of all the gays on her way to school...
At first I thought you were a sane, but misled person. Now I am really beginning to believe you are crazy.
There are no gays rioting the streats. No one's lives or daughters or sisters are in mortal danger.
You don't see how comments like that are even more hateful and destructive than just saying things like "I hate fags?" Because they really are.
Then you tried to compare gay people to pediphiles! You don't see that gay marriage is between two consenting people?
You really need to write an apology for this entire arguement...
Well put. I was going to respond but you basically covered everything I was going to say. I would only add that I never said he was a bigot for opposing marriage, I was talking about how he does recognize where the real discrimination is coming from.
OK, I am in perfect agreement with you that this conversation should probably be over. I'll respond to both posts. First, I don't apologize for my opinions. I have, however, clarified to my earlier post, that when I forgot to specifically mention pedophilia as being unrelated to homosexuality, I assumed the reader would group pedophilia and serial murder. I have clarified this point, and I'll say again, pedophilia and serial killing are in no way similar to homosexuality. I was merely using hyperbole to show that people do not have a right to do everything they are born desiring.
"whether people "turn gay" or are born gay, is not a matter of opinion. 1+1=2 is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact."
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf a scholarly response to the idea that this has been pr oven. I'm sure we can both go on all day posting on this idea, the reality is we just don't know. I personally believe people are born with a predisposition toward homosexuality which can either be cultivated or repressed, but everyone has the ability to make decisions in their life. Besides, no one is arguing gays should stop what they're doing (well, some people probably are).
Again, ad homonyms all over. It seems If anyone says something you disagree with the best thing to do is call them hateful and stupid. Oh and gay, but I guess I'm too dumb to get that.
If 51% of people voted for slavery it wouldn't matter because slavery is made illegal by the constitution and the courts would then have an obligation to point that out. That's what it's for. If anyone can show me where it says you have a right to marry whomever you want in the constitution I will go picket in CA right now.
I guess I should be more clear. Gay people have been persecuted for a long time. It's a shame they feel the need to persecute others now that they are gaining popularity. And you can call me a liar whenever you disagree with me if you like (it's very effective I'm sure), but my sister cried every day during the prop 8 thing because she supported it and she was constantly harassed. I never said she was afraid for her life, but that does make the story more interesting, doesn't it :)
"You seem to think I live in some state of fear?"
This was also irony. I was suggesting that discrimination against gays has largely disappeared (that doesn't mean everyone agrees with you, it just means their rights are no longer being violated, i.e. they can get work, they don't get killed (hopefully!), etc). I apologize about thinking you were gay (not that its bad), you made a comment on an earlier post that I must have misunderstood.
"As for Mormons and Catholics not giving money to the cause of denying a group of people their rights..."
I hate to play the "I'm right" game, but I am here. Do more research, my father is a leader in the Mormon church. While church members donated and were asked to support the legislature, the church itself did not make any political donations. I'm not as sure about the Catholics, but if they're smart they played it the same way. I agree that some of the churches which are heavily political (i.e. Jeremiah Wright?) should get out of politics or be taxed as political entities. Churches do, however, have a right to encourage voting on moral issues (it's actually in the law, believe it or not), and both of these churches are silent on political issues outside of this.
I won't apologize for my opinion. The real irony is that I'm not even opposed to gay marriage. I'm opposed to people who will do anything to get their way, no matter who it hurts. Anyway, you've heard my point of view. I will change it the minute anyone can shows me that gay marriage is a protected constitutional right, or when a vote is passed. Until then, I respect your right to believe in whatever you want, and I even respect your right to hate and mock everyone who disagrees with you (thought I will then ask you to respect my right to call you a hateful shallow bigot. yay free speech). I would honestly be happy for everyone to just say, look, you and I disagree, but we have that right and we can still be friends, because right now that's not happening... Oh, and I still don't like the courts usurping authority not given to then by the constitution :)
OK, so apparently I need to clarify every single statement and point out that when I said gays are not like serial killers AT ALL, and this was merely hyperbole to show a fallacious argument, I forgot to mention pedophilia. Homosexuality and pedophilia are obviously not related AT ALL. i thought this was pretty obvious from the way I wrote it, but apparently some people need it spelled out. I should have been more clear however.
Why should it only be two consenting adults? What about people who were born poly who want to marry more than one person? Why should they be denied their rights? Let's stop with ALL of the bigotry.
I say, keep gay marriage OUT of religion. HOWEVER, allow it as a legal form of marriage. Shouldn't gay people be allowed to be happy(or gay...lol) as well.
It can't. It's a free choice, it's not like married gay people are out to get us and murder us in our sleep. I honestly don't know why everyone makes such a fuss about it I MEAN HONESTLY. GOODNESS. That's kind of discrimination.
Ok, this debate has caught alot of attention, so i'm going to put my two cents in...Gay marriage mmmm, so I am going to say is for those of you who thinks it does, do diffrent color people marrying each other bug you or has the debate says hurt you? Should a Elephant marry a mouse? The only person that gay marriage can hurt is the ones in the marriage. Now, I'm not for it, but I'm not going to waste my time fretting over it. Well you can say I'm not against either. Who knows I might fall in love with a chick and marry her one day, it's the love I think that matters, and other people should mind thier own business!
As quoted, they have every right to believe what they want to believe and behave the way they do. I think that every single one of us should have the right to be with the person they want to be with; be it a man or a woman.
I don't see any person hurting just because of gay marriage, unless somebody is in love in one of them. I think that we should give them this complete right to be married and settled life as they wan it. Most of them has really proven their worth and I think that we should give them their much needed freedom to be happy.
I don't believe gay marriage hurts anyone. The only people truly making it such a mad case is religious people. Sure, marriage is somewhat an act out of religion, but like others said, what is it if someone unreligious gets married? If people are going to make a big deal out of two people of the same sex getting married, then people of different religions, people of no religion, even people guilty of adultery shouldn't be allowed to marry either. Being against gay marriage really comes down to what people that follow the bible say the bible says. Which makes gay marriage against the bible, right? But then again, every single person on this planet is doing lots of stuff against the bible. So, really, what gives these religious people the right to say someone can't do something they disapprove of? Otherwise, I'd like to meet a non-religious person, or even a person acquainted with gay's, who is against gay marriage. (Just because it proves my case otherwise that it's all about religious bitching and it has not one thing to do with them personally). So, really, gay marriage is hurting those that let it hurt them for no rightful reason.
Haven't you heard? The instant that two people of the same sex are married, a cloud of noxious gas descends over the area around them in a six-mile radius.
Of course gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone! It doesn't hurt anyone's religious beliefs, as I'm sure the religious right will cling to their religion with a determination that can only be produced by fear. It doesn't hurt anyone morally, as marriage is something that happens out of love. And, obviously, it doesn't hurt anyone physically.
What I love is we have 4 people saying it hurts them but all 4 don't have the guts to say how. Come on. If it hurts you personally.. HOW? Have some testicular fortitude and explain your pain.
I hope you are not lumping in with those 4. I'm not hurt by it personally. I'm an outsider looking in and providing input as to what it looks like from where I'm standing and suggesting a way forward. Bypass the religious right, forget the word "marriage" and focus on obtaining your rights through civil unions.
Gays should embrace their difference and chose to create a word that elevates gay unions above the divorce wrought hetero marriages.
The religious right thinks the word belongs to them. They're going to fight for it. Proposition 8 is indicative of how hard they are willing to fight. They are willing to go to the mat. They are not going to roll over. This battle is going to slow the gay community as they attempt to gain their rights. They need a fast track to their rights. Go around the religious right. Forget the word, get your rights now! Focus on what is truly important like being by your partner in his/her time of need if (God forbid) they are ever in the hospital. You should have that right now. You shouldn't have to wait while you argue over a silly word.
Hasn't it become obvious to you as yet that one "silly" word is NOT silly at all to gay people? We wish it to mean exactly what the word 'Marriage' connotes and carries with it. It's a real simple thing but straight people think they are more than we are and that's why they want a copyright on the word.
You are making an assumption and then you act on your assumption by making an accusation.
Assumption: straight people think they are more than we are
Accusation: that's why they want a copyright on the word.
My philosophy is to try and verify my assumptions before acting on them. That usually goes a long way towards saving face later on if the assumption proves to be wrong.
Your argument is also based on emotion and it thus tries to manipulate the reader's feelings. This is done by calling one group bad; the straight people. You do do this by saying that "straight people think they are more than we are." You then call the other group good; the gay people. You do this by saying "We wish it to mean exactly what the word 'Marriage' connotes and carries with it."
I prefer arguments that are based on data and let the reader decide. There is no way to prove that gays wish marriage to mean exactly what it connotes and carries with it. There is also no way to prove that straight people think they are more than gays. Nor is there a way to prove that that's why they want a copyright on the word.
Now, my view on the topic itself. I have three points:
Point one: I am a purist and I want the word 'marriage' to mean exactly what those who invented the word years ago defined it to be, "A civil union between a man and a woman." I don't want to change the meaning of the word to "The loving union between two individuals."
Point two: Just because someone wants something doesn't mean that they are entitled to it. So, no matter how noble gays may be, no matter how important the word is to them, they are not entitled to it.
Point three: Gays started this "war" by trying to take something they feel strongly about but are not necessarily entitled to. Straights responded like anyone who has had someone try to take something away that doesn't necessarily belonged to them. Gays want to force straights to share the word. But trying to force someone into doing something they don't want usually results in them resisting with equal or greater force.
I thus propose that gays create a new word and stop this "war."
"Point one: I am a purist and I want the word 'marriage' to mean exactly what those who invented the word years ago defined it to be, "A civil union between a man and a woman." I don't want to change the meaning of the word to "The loving union between two individuals."
If a Civil Union was what they defined Marriage to be then what? You now have both of the words and/or statements by which the union is known. Does this mean we can have neither? If, as you state, we are not entitled to it then what shall people who wish to be married and enjoy a Civil Union be called? And why should it have to change? All any gay couple wishes to have are the things that are already defined by these words. If you change it, then you must define it. Then the ball starts to roll again in the direction of not being equal to Heterosexual people...but we are in all ways but one.
I, for one, am not in a war of any kind. I use logic and yes, I do use emotion along with logic in order to get some points across. Of course I can agree on the larger picture of people wanting something they are not entitled to but who decides we are not in this case? Straight people! Is this in any way just? I don't think it is and I wouldn't think so if the tables were turned.
"Gays started this "war" by trying to take something they feel strongly about but are not necessarily entitled to."
That's the point. They are entitled to it which is why attempted bans of gay marriage will always fail because it flys in the face of equal protection under the law as stated in the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision.
Gays ARE entitled to equal protection under the law.
Gays ARE entitled to have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.
Gays ARE NOT entitled to the word "marriage!"
If gays feel that they need the word in order to be accepted, then they are misguided because you can't legislate acceptance. Even if they get to use the word, they wont necessarily be accepted by those who believe they shouldn't be allowed the same rights as heterosexual married couples. If gays just want the same rights as heterosexual married couples, then they should just call it something else and stop this "war."
Do you even have a clue about the history of marriage? Seriously.
Marriage has meant plenty of things over the millenia. It's not about a word, it's about a right. There were those who said blacks couldn't marry whites once upon a time. The same rhetoric was used against them. Gays are entitled to the word marriage just like anyone else because no one owns that word and any connotation that you ascribe to that word has a historical context that has changed over time and will change more over time. Separate is not equal.
Historically, marriage has meant a union between a man and a woman. If it has ever meant anything other than that, then I would like to see that proof.
When racists said that a black person could not marry a white person, they lost in the courts because the historical definition has been "a union between a man and a woman" not "a union between a man and a woman of the same race."
Racists did not try to claim ownership of the word. The racists tried to change the definition of the word and lost. As they should have.
Now a new group wants to change the definition of the word once again and they should lose that battle but they should win the battle to get their rights.
Historically marriage is a property arrangement wherein a man takes possession of a woman. This has led to forced marriages and polygamy being the norm for thousands of years up to this day in many parts of the world. What you call marriage is a western idea. Western society has changed the definition of marriage a lot to suit their society just like any society does. Considering womena's sufferge wasn't that long ago as far as history is concerned it's suprising that you think marriage has always been a equal union. No, actually it's naive.
On your point about blacks: They had to be allowed equal protection under the law before that could happen. Google: Jim Crow.
The racist were upholding the traditional norm that blacks were subhuman and shouldn't marry whites. You just don't seem to get it. People thought marriage didn't include them at the time either. You are looking at the whole thing backwards. The word is changed constantly through history and those against the change are always on the wrong side of it.
I never said anything about marriage traditionally being an equal union. I said that it was a union between a man and a woman and that part has remained constant. But I like the way you twisted my words in order to call me naive.
Now you insinuate that heterosexuals consider homosexuals as subhumans and thus don't want them to marry. That's an assumption. You're assuming to know "the real reason" why some heterosexuals don't want to allow homosexuals to use the word marriage. Heterosexuals say that the reason they don't want gays to marry is because marriage has traditionally been a union between a man and a woman. You seem to be calling these heterosexuals liars and racists who consider gays to be subhuman.
So, to recap, your argument is based on discrediting me by calling me naive and appealing to the reader's emotions by insinuating that heterosexuals are racists. I tend to find these types of arguments as weak. I mean, name calling and trying to manipulate people's emotions instead of letting your argument stand alone on its merit is weak.
I understand your argument that the word marriage has changed in definition over time and thus there's a precedence for changing it once again. But the changes you site are minor and the underlying definition [the foundation, if you will] has never changed. It has always been between a man and a woman.
As far as your "separate is not equal" statement, it simply does not apply to this situation.
That statement applied to the situation between blacks and whites. One example (for illustrations purposes) is schooling. The idea was that blacks would have their own schools and whites would have their own school. But since at that time whites were more affluent than blacks, their children were able to enjoy a higher level of education.
In the current situation heterosexual couples are not necessarily more affluent than gays. There's no reason to assume that a heterosexual union would be better than a homosexual union. There's also no reason to assume that by calling a homosexual union a "marriage" that they will receive a "higher level" of benefits than if they just called it a civil union. Therefore, the statement "separate but equal" does not apply.
I don't know if you've been reading all of my arguments on this topic but what I'm proposing is for the government to stop using the word "marriage" and replace it with the words "civil union" and have those 2 words apply to heterosexual and homosexual unions. This would give homosexual unions the same rights as heterosexual unions.
However, If the government were to take this advice, the churches would still be able to deny to perform homosexual wedding ceremonies. In this case gays don't miss out on any "rights" because a wedding ceremony [performed by a representative of a given religion] is not a right.
If the government were to use the word "marriage" for homosexual unions, then would churches be required to perform homosexual wedding ceremonies? If so, wouldn't this mean that the government is telling the church what it can and cannot do? Is it a good idea for the government to get into the "business" of religion? And if the churches are forced to perform homosexual weddings, would gay couples automatically be accepted by the congregation?
Having said all of that, I know exactly how you feel because I too want something that I'm not entitled to and the courts keep on deying me.
So my arguments to you are like therapy to me because if I can create a well thought out argument against gay marriage, then I can use a similar argument to justify the court's decision to myself and this in turn eases the pain and resentment and anger that is within me.
So don't think too harshly of me. We're all in this together. We all have issues. ;)
Yes, Joe! We are all in this together and I'm glad you made that statement! I don't think harshly of you when you make an honest and well thought out rebuttal. I only think that way when you start with your other type of debate or arguments!
You say you are also fighting the courts on something you say you're not entitled to. I don't know what that may be but you must keep fighting for a reason. We, too, fight for a reason. We fight for equality in all things because we are also viable human beings who deserve to be treated as such. ;-)
Treating people worse because of them being gay is like treating black or Asian or Indian people worse than others.
Except I've actually seen a black person change his colour (Michael Jackson), but I've never heard of a real story where a gay guy became straight (and not asexual or faking it trough whole life).
In fact there is evidence proving that homosexuality is genetic. At this point people are just willfully denying this fact because it doesn't fit into their world view. If homosexuals are born that way, then that means God created homosexuals. This is unacceptable to most fundamentalists, so they merely close their eyes, cover their ears and scream "LALALALALA" whenever someone points out the fact that they have been proven wrong.
NO! You're making an assumption as to why people are opposed to same sex marriage! Show me the data proving that "people are just willfully denying this fact because it doesn't fit into their world view." This is part of the problem. People are going off half cocked making assumption all over the place..... and they are not even constructive assumptions. If the other side doesn't agree with you, just malign them and call them names. The assumption is that there's one reason and only one reason why the religious right is against same sex marriage; they're bigots. Come on, you're smarter than that! The world is not black and white. There are shades in between. That's me and whole lot of other people.
Well Joe, give me one non-religious reason why people are opposed to same sex marriage. Just one.
I try to be as fair as possible in most of my arguments and usually give people the benefit of the doubt. Here though, I feel that bigotry or ignorance are the only reasons to oppose this issue. People don't choose to be gay, that is a fact. By taking away rights from people for reasons beyond their control you are discriminating against them. Plain and simple. The only difference between this and racism is that this is socially acceptable. Why? Because in some obscure passage of the Bible it says homosexuality is wrong. It also says it's okay to beat your slave to death as long as it takes a while for them to die.
I cannot be silent about my beliefs any more then those fighting for civil rights in previous generations could. There is no legitimate reason for denying happiness to another person if you are unaffected by it.
What Happens when Religious Passeges are Taken too Seriously
First of all. I would like to say that you have challenged me and bested me and I have acknolwedged it and up voted you for it. If you're truly a teen, then you're light years ahead from when I was a teen because it has taken me this long to get to this stage. It may have been a backwards journey for me but I like to think otherwise.
Your question was an interesting challenge to say the least. I wrestled with it until my wife got home and helped me see the light. She helped me see what I've been feeling but unable to put into words.
Please bear with me, I'm a little drunk. Which is not entirely fair because you are not allowed to drink and probably in your prime.
A non- religious reason why people are opposed to same sex marriage (by J.C.)
Birds of a feather flock together.
I wish I could make my argument more...... serious.... more..... adult like. It's just human nature.
Joe, I appreciate you compliments and I hope you know that I really do appreciate a lot of your ideas.
As for this argument, you present a very unique perspective. Allow me to respond though.
Although it is true that people often want what they can't have, this does not always mean that their demands are unreasonable. Allow me to first use the example of the American Revolution. You will often hear people say, "we defeated British tyranny over us etc..." What a lot of people don't realize is that we had it pretty good under the British. We had extremely low taxes, protection from others, and a reliable trading partner. Now a lot of stuff happened but the condensed version is, we wanted more: "Taxation w/out representation" and the like. So we had it pretty good already, but we wanted something more: liberty, inalienable rights, representative government. These are the foundations of our society today, but had we accepted what was going on at the time they may never have come to fruition.
Another example would be woman's suffrage. The common idea at the time (or at least rationalization) was that women would vote the same as their husbands so their right to vote was irrelevant. This idea seems archaic to us today, but back then it was the accepted norm. Progress eventually won out and woman gained the right that is most necessary to a democracy: the right to vote.
In both of these cases we can see how the status quo seems fine to a large number of people because it is what they are used to. Others though, see that there is an injustice occurring, and step up to fix it. I believe this explains why so many oppose gay marriage more than anything else. It is what has always been, why change it. I know you are a conservative, so know that I mean no offense when I say that conservative viewpoints have stood in the way of positive change throughout history. It is not bigotry that kept allowed slavery to continue (although that played a role) it is inaction and complacency.
Now we see the same scenario repeated. A group has been denied certain rights and now they are asking for them. You used the word militant, and I have to disagree with its connotations. African Americans were called militant when they demanded civil rights during the 60's, were they just being greedy? Or were they standing up and demanding that they be given what was promised to them as children: that all men are created equal, no different from our founding fathers who stood up during the revolution and demanded their rights.
No different then now, where a group of people want to have their love recognized under the law. They want to be part of a nation that allows the pursuit of happiness. I think that your right on one count, that is human nature. It is human nature to want acceptance, and to want equality, and to want a chance at the happiness that everyone else takes for granted.
I hope you see why I am upset at those people who prevent these people from the happiness they seek, and why I call them bigots. There crime is all too common, an inability to put yourself in your neighbors shoes. An inability to recognize the humanity of others. An inability to empathize with their suffering in a society that does not fully accept them.
The specific thing you requested was for me to give you a legitimate reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion. I did that.
You said that, "I feel that bigotry or ignorance are the only reasons to oppose this issue." I thought I gave a perfect example where this was not the case. Some people just don't want to be around other people. That does not make them a bigot nor does it make them ignorant. Not granting gays the word marriage but granting them the same rights does not make one a bigot nor does it make one ignorant nor does it hurt the gay community.
You say that same but separate is not good enough as though as soon gays are allowed to marry the bigots will suddenly see the errors of their ways. That's not going to happen. All the litigation in the world will never force a bigot to accept you. He will just look at you in the eye, turn around, and roll his eyes.
My argument does not call people names. Your argument calls anyone opposed to gay marriage a bigot or ignorant.
The side you're on is considered liberal. The side I'm on is seen as conservative. I don't categorize my argument as conservative because it takes a middle of the road approach. Take a little (your rights) give a little (leave the word behind). This is what I call negotiation. The side you're on is not interested in negotiation and is seen as militant; it's a "my way or the highway" approach and then your side acts surprised when they encounter resistance.
The side your on wants people to put themselves in their shoes but they are not willing to put themselves in the shoes of the other side.
The side I'm on is seen as being based on religion. I don't categorize my argument as being based on religion because my argument does not invoke religion. It invokes human nature. My argument is also constructive in that it alienates a smaller group on the religious right. It is pragmatic and rational in that it gets gays their rights sooner and all they are leaving on the table is just a word.
People can want all they want. I never said it was unreasonable. I just think that it is not practical at this point in time as evidence by proposition 8. I have said that gays will eventually win. But why does it have to be right now and at what cost? Take your time, regroup, do a "lessons learned" analysis of what went wrong and why and then try again later.
People can want all they want but that does not mean that they are entitled to it or that they deserve it or that they have a right to it.
The status quo does not seem right to me. Otherwise I would never have suggested to bypass them. I saw an injustice occurring and I tried to think of a pragmatic approach towards getting what I consider important and leaving behind what I don't consider important in the shortest amount of time. That was my contribution. That was my way of stepping up to the plate and trying to fix things and I got slammed. This explains why others that have tried to help the gay community but encountered the negative feed back have stopped supporting gay marriage more than anything else.
What allowed slavery to continue was not inaction and complacency. People were working towards fixing it. What allowed slavery to continue for as long as it did is that it takes time to change the world.
The gay community is not asking for certain rights, it is demanding them. The gay community is not interested in negotiating and this stance is alienating a lot of potential allies. The gay community is taking an in your face approach and are surprised when the other side responds in kind.
The group that followed Martin Luther King were not militant. The Black Panthers were.
The gays that are peacefully trying to advance their agenda are not militant. The ones vandalizing churches are.
The gay community wants to portray itself as being the new civil rights fighters of our generation. The black community finds this highly offensive. What is the worst a gay man has had to openly endure in the last 10 years and compare that to what a black man had to endure during the 60's. There's no comparison. The gay community as the new civil rights fighters of our generation is an exaggeration; it is a tactic meant to get them what they want, nothing else.
No one promised gays the right to marriage. They can have their love legally recognized under a different name and not suffer because of it. They can be part of a nation that allows the pursuit of happiness without the having the word marriage. The word marriage will not magically get them to be acceptance nor get them a chance at the happiness that everyone else takes for granted. They have to find happiness within themselves. No one can grant it to them so no one can deny it to them.
I hope you see why I am upset at those hypocritical gays that say "empathize with our suffering in a society that does not fully accept us" and then turn around and vandalize churches. Now that is a real crime and it is not very accepting of the other side. I don't think they are empathizing with the other side, do you? I guess they forgot to put on their neighbors shoes.
Do you think that when gays call the other side hateful and bigot and ignorant that they are able to see the humanity of the other side? Does maligning someone help you solve your differences or does it hinder? And if it hinders, why do it. What value is there in calling someone a bigot? It is a great tactic. The Nazis used it with great success to get people to think that it was OK to kill Jews because, after all, Jews were vermin. You see?
Okay, let me first make it clear that I never condoned violent action as a way to solve the problem. Gandhi and MLK Jr. are some of my heroes because they affected change in the most peaceful ways possible. What I also liked about them is they both recognized injustice and stood up to it without compromise. Gandhi wanted the British out of India and did not compromise on this issue. Martin Luther King wanted equal rights for African-Americans and did not compromise. There is a big difference between not wanting to compromise, and being narrow minded.
You say "Some people just don't want to be around other people." This to me is a type of discrimination. If I told you, I am not bigoted, I just don't want to be around Mexicans, you would be appalled.
Here is the definition of a bigot in wikipedia:
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own
Looking at this definition you can see clearly that not wanting to be around people who choose to be homosexual is bigotry. But that is irrelevant because no one is forcing people to be around homosexuals. This is what I don't understand about your argument. If homosexuals get married does that mean suddenly they are going to suddenly show up at your door, and when you refuse them say "Hey, you have to let us in, we're legally married now." That is ridiculous.
Of course legalizing gay marriage will not automatically get rid of bigots, I never said that and I don't believe it. When slavery was abolished, did it get rid of racism? When woman's suffrage was granted, did it get rid of sexism? No! But in the long run it helped a lot. Can you imagine anyone believing either of these issues as having two reasonable sides today? The bigots will not change their mind, but their children will be raised in a society that is more accepting, and hopefully this will have a large affect for future generations.
Being intolerant of bigotry cannot be called bigotry.
I agree that maybe gay marriage will not come to fruition in the immediate future, but that does not mean that people should stop fighting for what they believe in. Martain Luther King demanded equal rights for African-Americans. Feminists demanded equal rights for women. Asking nicely, "can we please get married, if it isn't to much of a problem for you?"
Of course what blacks suffered through in the pre-civil rights era was terrible. That does not lessen what homosexuals are going through right now. I know from seeing it at my school how much homosexuals are mistreated and outcast. This is socially acceptable, and it shouldn't be. Progress will probably be attained in smaller steps but only if people continue to fight for their rights. Obama is the perfect example of this: in order to win the presidency he had to support civil unions but not gay marriage. Lucky for me, I'm not a politician. I don't have to temper my views with the current public will. I can say what I truly believe. If a compromise were reached in the federal government that extended rights to homosexuals through civil unions I would be in favor of that, but after it was passed I would go right back to fighting for marriage. Homosexuals even lost the ability to adopt in Arkansas because they can't marry or even have civil unions:
I also have a problem with you comparing the Homosexuals to the Nazis. First, the Nazis killed homosexuals, because they thought they were, to use your word, "vermin." What the homosexuals are not doing is killing or hurting others in any way by demanding marriage. By denying them marriage, other people are hurting homosexuals. So who is more like the Nazi's now? Don't you think its justified to loathe your oppressors? This does not mean violence, as I said earlier I am against violence.
Speaking of Bigotry though, I want you to see what homosexuals have to put up with:
So by your definition everyone is a bigot, including yourself, because I can probably come up with a group of people that you don't want to be around.
However, a closer look at the definition of the bigot will clearly show that it is possible for a person to not want to be around a group of people for reasons other than intolerance of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. For example, I do not want to be around people that don't speak my language because I would rather be something else rather than trying to make myself be understood or trying to understand what they were saying. And if we are just supposed to be sitting there saying nothing, I would still rather be something else.
BTW, I think that it is convenient that:
"Being intolerant of bigotry cannot be called bigotry."
If you lost the ability to adopt in Arkansas because you can't marry or even have civil unions there, then move to a gay friendly state. But under no circumstance take this advice to mean that you should stop fighting for marriage.
Everyone has their own reality. When I came to this country I had a choice. I could keep my language my culture and all of that crap or I could assimilate, leave all of that behind and live the good life. Guess which I chose? Life is full of choices. There's give and take. People that only take...... make me feel uneasy.
The gay community is uncompromising when it comes to this issue of marriage.
Soccer, you're floundering. lets keep it short and sweet.
The specific thing you requested from me was to give you a legitimate reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion. I did that. You still claim that every person that is opposed to gay marriage is a bigot (period). if you don't think that my reason is legitimate, then say so and we'll debate that.
I never said that people should stop fighting for their rights. I said that they should take the high road, which is a slower, longer road. Take the Gandhi road, the Martin Luther king road instead of the low road that may get you there faster. Don't take the "If you are against us you are " road. The low road is a tactic used to get you there faster.
If I recall correctly, I did not compare homosexuals to Nazis. I said that the tactics being used are the same tactics that the Nazis used. This tactic can be used for good. The tactic itself is not evil. The gay movement is not the first to use that tactic. I don't like the tactic.
I think that calling everyone who is opposed to gay marriage a bigot is unfair and narrow minded.
When I said, "gays will eventually win. But why does it have to be right now and at what cost?" What I mean is, That the ends do not justify the means. Calling people a bigot in order to get your way is uncalled for.
I've told you in the past when I have up voted you and why. This is the first time I have ever down voted someone. But I respect you enough to explain why I'm doing it. I'm down voting you for insisting that everyone who is opposed to gay marriage is a bigot even after I have given you one reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion and you did chose not to respond to that. Your position implies to me that the ends justify the means. I think you can do better than that.
I think I may have deserved the downvote because I did not organize my last argument very effectively. Instead of getting into a long draw out thing this time, I am going to go back to my original intention.
What I was referring to as bigotry was ignoring certain facts. In this case I was talking about JakeJ, because he repeatedly claimed that homosexuality was a choice, and I repeatedly showed him the proof that it wasn't. JakeJ, and most other people opposed to gay marriage don't use your argument but instead make baseless claims (i.e. kids can be turned gay, or gay parents can't raise children). When these things have been proven scientifically, continuing to use the same arguments is dishonest.
I know that, in probably less then 50 years, the people who opposed allowing gays their rights will be considered bigots, for better or worse, and so I therefore stand by my statements.
OK, so now you're saying that you follow the crowd instead of making up your own mind.
Think about this. In any given argument, to use absolutes is usually wrong. To say that "everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot" is wrong. To say that "everyone else says that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot so it must be true" is wrong.
Are you saying that it is physically impossible for someone to be against gay marriage for some reason other than being a bigot?
Think about this. If it were a true statement that anyone who doesn't want to be around a specific group is a bigot, then why doesn't the definition of the word say that? Could it be that there are plenty of other reasons for people not to want to be around a specific group? What if you were shy and only wanted to hang around your own kind? What if you were deaf and only wanted to hang around deaf people? What if people with tinnitus wanted to be called deaf and deaf people were opposed, would they be bigots?
I just spent the last five minutes looking through my arguments seeing if I could find where I said "everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot" and guess what? I wasted my time! Don't put things in quotes as if I said them when I clearly didn't. If you want to use quotes copy and paste, I have written plenty of stuff, I'm sure you can find something that will go to prove your point.
If I am understanding you correctly, here is your argument: People are not being bigoted just because they don't want to be around people. Am I right so far? Because I agree with this part. Next you say: some people who don't want gays to get married only because they don't want to be around them. Is this correct? Because I think you might be right that this could be some peoples reasons. No one is asking them to hang out with homosexuals, or even talk to them so I don't understand their rationale, but at least it's an explanation. So so far we agree.
Now here's where your logic decides to jump off a cliff into a pile of razor blades after having swallowed a gallon of vodka and three bottles of sleeping pills: People are not being bigoted, or intolerant when they allow their discomfort of being around gays to affect their decisions as to whether gays should be allowed to get married. Is this the basic point your making? If not ignore the rest of the argument and clarify your position, but if so keep reading.
Denying others rights because you don't like their lifestyle is intolerant and bigoted. I may not like people with your opinions but I would never try to take away your right to voice them. Here is where the difference lies. You are allowed to be uncomfortable with how people live. I admit, I would be pretty uncomfortable around a man who wore nothing but a thong all day, but I wouldn't take away his rights. I could decide not to hang out with the thong-man. I might purposefully avoid him, but I would not take away his rights or the rights of all the thong-men in the entire state. Why? Because I know that if my lifestyle was not the popular or accepted one then I would not want people trampling on my rights.
Your metaphor is an inaccurate one for two reasons: A) there is no logic in a groups wanting to change the name of their condition; and (this is the important one) B) homosexuals aren't forcing anything on people, merely asking for the same rights as afforded to others. A change in the name of your condition does not afford you more rights. (I considered including a C that said your an idiot but I didn't think that would add anything to my argument)
OK, sorry about the misquote, It was not intentional.
I liked your cliff, razor blade thing. ;)
I stopped reading after the 3rd paragraph because that is not what I'm saying. I think that we are talking past each other.
Here's what I'm saying:
if a straight person said he wanted a kid who shares his same reality and perspective, that marriage is only between a man and a woman, then that person would be classified a bigot. And it's really a shame because the only thing that matters is the rights associated with marriage, not the word marriage. If the gay community took their rights and left the word, then there would be peace.
Jake, at this point you are being willfully ignorant. I have shown you scientific explanations for homosexuality on numerous occasions in numerous debates. You have yet to respond to a single one. Is it because you know I'm right? Is it because you are in denial? For God's sake (and yes I use that phrase ironically) tell me what reasons you have for believing that A) "nobody is born gay" and B) they only become gay because their parents are gay?
Also you are implying being gay is wrong...by whose definition and why? Just answer me once Jake. Enlighten me with the reasons that you believe surpass science and logic. Why do you feel discrimination is okay? Have you ever even met a homosexual?
Jake You have no idea what you are talking about. I know plenty of gay people who had no one gay in their lives growing up. In fact all of the gay people I know had straight parents and were scared to "come out". Try again.
Unless you can provide scientific data on this, you are just making things up! If you provide a link for a reference that would be helpful in your debate which should be based on facts not your opinion!
I don't know who you're opposing here but if it's inkeddreams you're off the mark. Ask anyone what it was like for them to come out to their parents and they'll tell you the same thing.
You have to sort this and many other debates that have extended replies by "Show All Replies." on top. The problem with that is if you need to resond to someone and do, it reverts back again and you have to click on it again to expand the debate!
Gay "marriage" doesn't hurt anyone in a sense that it threatens traditional marriage (that between a man and woman). I say "marriage" in reference to gay "marriage" because marriage is understood to be between a man and woman in the very sense of the term, as a religious term. Gay's should be allowed to commit to one another and in a sense assume responsibility that a husband and wife would.
First of all, the two options for this debate are a bit limiting and ambiguous. If we define "hurt" as directly set back or disadvantage, then no, gay marriage doesn't hurt even the most vehement of bigots. However, if we define "hurt" as having any influence in which a person may deem negative to themselves, then yes, it is very possible that it does.
I've sided with the "doesn't hurt anyone" because in GENERAL and DIRECTLY it does not influence people who oppose it.
John and Jim getting married and having sex behind closed doors, does not affect the daily life of big Pastor Joe in a direct way.
However, the long term social and political effects will have very real consequences for both Pastor Joe and the rest of society.
If we examine the effects of abortion laws, especially the revision those of 1973, we see how it is possible for legislation intending to provide more individual freedoms may affect the social dynamic. The 1.7 million abortions a year are seen with a more liberal attitude after Roe and other similar historic legal moments.
Compare the average attitude on abortion in 1920 to today, and you will find that the social dynamic has changed. As society becomes more liberal on a certain issue because of legislation, it is possible that Pastor Joe is now surrounded with a warped culture he does not enjoy. This culture, the effects of gay marriage, may very possibly "hurt" Pastor Joe in the sense that he is not happy with the effects of allowing it, later down the road.
Forced to chose one of the absolutist sides, "Doesn't hurt anyone" -- In general, right now, if John and Jim wish to go get a married, this does not influence my life. In an ideal philosophy, the actions of two consenting adults in private are of no business to anyone but themselves, thus "doesnt hurt anyone."
I don't believe that gay marriage can hurt anyone, people just tend not to like seeing the same sex together, its just awkward,that's why there is men and women. Can't find a woman you like, keep looking because there are plenty in the sea.
Same sex marriage does not hurt anyone. It is a freedom of religion issue. People do not have the right to force their beliefs on others. And I am a Christian saying this.
While I think that it could bring about a whole new class of social implications, I don't believe that any of them have the inherent ability to hurt anyone.
It's like the prohibition of marijuana on the bases that it's a "gateway drug". It may be true that people that are now on heroin have tried weed, it doesn't mean that it lead these people without control, to heroin. The same as saying people that do drive-by-shootings began their vehicular criminal life by driving to the mall, or at the DMV.
The theoretical implication to marriage between a man and man or a woman and a woman are the same as a man and woman. Then again, maybe you should be so bold as to ask a more correct question "How can marriage, in general, hurt anyone".
Why would it? If you dont like it, then guess what? You have nothing to do about it! Gay people exist! They are part of our world! The shouldnt be humiliated and, why on earth, would they be?They have a right just like everyone else, they are not aliens!!
It doesn't hurt anyone and for years straight people have been doing a good enough job ruining marriage themselves. Look at the divorce rate gay people have had nothing to do with that. Not to mention the people most likely to divorce do live in red states. Gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else and civil unions are not seperate but equal.
Well me being in the gay community of course i dont think it hurts anyone. The only people i can see that it hurts, would possibly be the parents of gays. Other than that if people just mind there business, and not discriminate against gays then it'll all be ok.
a good point, no one else has brought up the parents. and not wanting my opinion to be misconstrued, i would like to say that if gay marriage was accepted, and gay people themselves, i dont think that the parents would be hurt so much. i think they are mostly hurt because they dont think it is good for their kids bc society like to push that opinion.
Hurt is a broad term, but if to be taken in the context of marriage the main aspect of this union are the people participating in it. Given this fact, since they choose to marry each other regardless of orientation or gender, it definitely doesn't hurt anyone.
People in contact with these gay couples might disapprove of their status but other than having their ideals or opinions contested, in no way are they distinguishably hurt per se.
If I was born with a sexual attraction to children, I wouldn't act on it. I know I was born gay. There are some men with an extra x chromosome who are gay and many have sex change operations. Do they have less rights as a human because of that fact. Don't argue the slippery slope. It fails. You may have feelings but u don't act on it with minors period. And with 90 per cent heterosexuals, it's good that there are some people who don't procreate. We live in a world of finite resources. As long as 2 consenting adults love each other, leave them be. It's a free country that way. It's a right. Don't argue over the word marriage,use a different term but give the same rights.
im pretty sure gay people didnt spread the first strain through humanity.
i would venture to guess, that some straight guy out in the jungle on some expedition thing, got really horny and fucked a monkey.
a gay guy, would just go have sex with the other gay guys there. and, they tend to be cleaner and pickier, so i dont think they would go for a monkey....
0.0
(yes, an immature thing to say, but hey, alot of the people here are already saying stupid crap, i thought id add this too)
I think that it hurts people's sensabilities if anything, but the amount of adultery and divroce hurts mine. Adultery is immoral, yet that fact isn't stopping anyone. I think it is that individuals choice. What if straight people are simply getting married simply for the benefits, but no one is taking away their choice to get married.
me i have a gay aunt and it doesn't hurt me because its a lifestyle choices so who ever thinks that it hurts anyone then something is wrong with you because there's nothing wrong its that that ginger likes the same ginger son thats what i got to say and remember IT DO NOT HURT ANYONE SO GET OVER IT
Gay marriage does not hurt anybody, nor does it affect any one around them! In the old testament Samuel II 1:26 it says,"I am distressed for thee. my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." This is a clear indication that King David had a gay relationship and to say otherwise is naive.
as long as its not expose in public with groping, there is really no hurt. If they are happy able to make a great future let it be. Marriage is a good thing.
Why should the government have any say in how people run thier lives? I might not ever know the answer to that but i know why the government does. Becuz even thought we don't say it out loud we think like ing some one of the same sex deserves a title. WELL IT DOESN'T! same sex relationships are the same as different sex relationships. I don't know first hand but i would think that a same sex relationship would be better then a different sex relationship just becuz the SS relationship would mean they new more about how that body type works. BUT the government does'nt work that why all they see is since it is not the same we don't like it. and it is so fucked up becuz it is like the the gov. is yelling " FUCK YOU FAGOTS AMERICA HATES YOU AND YOUR WAYS" and that pisses me the hell off! i think that if you wanna fuck some one with the same gear have fun! just don't try it on me!
No one should be denied the right to marry no matter who they love and recently in the UK Quaker and Jewish churches have said that if a same sex marriage law is passed they all perform the ceremonies :)
People need to wake up and smell the coffee, homosexuality is not bad, it doesn't cause anymore STI's than heterosexual sex, it is in no way connected to pedophilia and just cause religion says we should condemn them doesn't mean we should
Same sex marriages could not hurt anyone. They just want love and respect, fun and happiness just like everyone else. How could that hurt anyone. & just because someone is attracted to the same sex does not mean they will automatically hit on you, grow up and stop thinking everything is about you, because its not.
Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. You see straight people get married, sometimes more then once..marriage is for everyone. Gay/Lesbian just want at least one marriage but people are to uptight/all about themselves to let that kind of marriage happen...I'm sick and tired of people not accepting others...I have no spirt or whatever you want to call it for america...we're just going to get worse, and its sickening. Love me or hate me, I'm speaking my thoughts.
First of all Gay Marriage doesn't hurt anyone, and it even helps the economy. second is that the bible says allot of things that don't make sense, for people to have come from Adam and Eve Cain and Able would have had to had sex with Eve. Third the same would have had to happened with Noah. I'm saying if it's ok to have sex with your mother in the bible it must be ok for a man and a man or a woman and a woman to have sex.
I think the argument of sanctity of marriage is horrific.
If you make yourself a loaf of bread and eat it day after day, will it taste any worse if someone else on another planet also gets to make his/her own loaf or bread and eat it?
No it won't. Will the loaf you eat be any less nutritious if someone else on a remote planet also does the same?
No.
Ergo sanctity of marriage is nothing but jealousy of marriage in disguise. You only want marriage for yourself so you can have something that someone else doesn't.
GROW UP KIDS! That kind of behaviours is criticized in kindergarten when a bully wants to have a playground ride only to himself.
Not that I support marriage, I just support everyone's right to call their bond marriage. It's such a stupid trivial childish crap, but since people take is seriously, then I suppose I have to too.
[edit]Hmm, I already used that argument on some other debate, except that I used beans instead of bread.
I want to point out a seldom talked about but nevertheless very important point:
Gay marriage absolutely does erode "family", and here is why: the church - the summation of all religious institutions - wants to control the relationship between children and parents. This is of utmost importance to the church, because parents are the most reliable tool of mass religious indoctrination; and because much of the "sacred" beliefs are delivered as interaction between parents and children, which the followers are supposed to model. This is why the church seeks to control both licensing to procreation (marriage) and procreation itself (promiscuity, abortions, gay marriage). Anyone who treads on these interests of the church is opposed by the church because losing any of these defense lines directly reduces the church's market which is never going to come back.
Gay marriage does exactly what the conservatives are complaining about: the necessity to allow gay people to marry means taking away the marriage prerogative from the church. It directly results in less believers and thus harms the religious thought as a whole.
Gay marriage destroys marriage and traditional values, and that's why it's a great thing.
"Gay marriage destroys marriage and traditional values, and that's why it's a great thing."
this is why the prop 8 passed.
on the one hand. . .you all want the white picket fence
on the other. . .it sucks and we are freakin' stupid for buying into it. so why do you want that which you claim to hate?
as a married woman with children I have been called a breeder on various women forums. and the concept that children are merely excessive consumerism run amok that they hate seeing in their daily life. this idea was put forth many times by women who thought my being married, to a man no less was pretty much the same as me tattooing slave on my forehead.
I accept you for who you are. why do you want to be me? and if you want to be me why the disdain for my choices?
1) gay marriage does not "erode family" if anything, they are happyier bc that family actually wanted their child, they didnt have an accidental condom breaking baby, so they were prepared.
2) if they did, that shouldnt be why you vote for it, that is in fact, the stupidest thing ive read on this page. "ooooo, vote for this bc it destroys religions!!!" how immature and stupid. are you trying to look cool or somthing? bc it didnt work.
I think the major point that everyone is missing is that few people would get married if it were not for the benefits attached to such a union. If you remove the benefits, would anyone wish to get married?
Another point of issue, marriage is a religious icon. Why is the government issuing benefits based on the edicts of established religion? If people wish to get married or divorced, why does Uncle Sam or any of the 50 states really care?
So to summarize, Gay marriage does hurt us. It hurts us by allowing the government to further violate the constitution by respecting the beliefs of established religion. I vote against Gay marriage and I vote against ANY form of marriage where two people must register their union with the government.
Our forefathers fought against the stamp tax, yet 240 years later the constitution has been raped and the very laws we fought against have been slowly yoked around our necks.
"few people would get married if it were not for the benefits attached to such a union."
I seriously doubt this. People get married for religious, cultural, and personal reasons. I think tax benefits and what have you are just an afterthought for most people.
"Gay marriage hurts us by allowing the government to further violate the constitution by respecting the beliefs of established religion."
Agreed. I personally think state governments should not be able to grant marriages and should only be able to grant civil unions to everyone. Marriages are too religious. The next best alternative is to allow gay marriage. But I agree that marriage does violate the constitution especially if religious reasons are used to bar certain people from entering marriages.
What I am trying to say is there should not be non-religous marriage. Atheists should not marry, if they are rejecting religion. If this was followed, THEN you couldn't have a non-religious marriage.
I am an aitheist and this is a DISbelieve in God. I am married but my marriage has nothing to do with religion. The purpose of my marriage is to declare to the state that I chose this person to partnet up with and we will claim all the tax benefits, health insurance benefits and everything else we can claim!
I think the major point that everyone is missing is that few people would get married if it were not for the benefits attached to such a union. If you remove the benefits, would anyone wish to get married?
Marriage began as a business arrangement to secure the merging of resources between two families (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#European_marriages). It had no special religious significance. Many people today continue to have secular marriages.
However, once the state started recognizing marriages, then things like tax breaks, parental rights, hospital visitation rights, judicial protections, etc became legal benefits. The church doesn't, has never, and will never give married couples these rights.
To summarize, how does giving others rights take away your rights?
Agreed. Marriage has its roots as a business arrangement. If you do want to start talking about marriages in the context of religious texts, you will even see it was about joining families or trading women for goats. Women were property and men were allowed to have multiple concubines, mistresses, etc. So I'm not sure saying "it has religious roots" is the best angle. Furthermore, even if it did "because we always did it that way" is not a valid reason to take away rights. . see e.g., women's and civil rights movements
im getting married soon myself, and it is not for the benefits, i actually havent even bothered to find out what they are. it is also not for religion, my religion doesnt require getting legally married. it is so that i have somthing to show the world about my life.
also, It hurts us by allowing the government to further violate the constitution by respecting the beliefs of established religion.
the point of the constitution was so that we would have to respect the beliefs of other religions, instead of persecuting them. plus, the religion that the law is based primarily on (christianity) is against it, so how is supporting gay marriage supporting a religion?
while i do support your statement about people should not have to register with the government to get married, i do think that it is good, otherwise people would have more than one spouse and get hurt more due to that.
"I think the major point that everyone is missing is that few people would get married if it were not for the benefits attached to such a union. If you remove the benefits, would anyone wish to get married?"
Another point of issue, marriage is a religious icon.
It's possible to marry before the state only, in which case religion has nothing to do with religion anymore.
It hurts us by allowing the government to further violate the constitution by respecting the beliefs of established religion.
Not letting gay people marry is a violation to the 14th amendment.
AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If gay people cannot marry, they are deprived of a liberty that other citizens do have. Saying they cannot have this right is like saying they are not citizens, even though this Amendment clearly states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States".
"I think the major point that everyone is missing is that few people would get married if it were not for the benefits attached to such a union. If you remove the benefits, would anyone wish to get married?"
Love is not an acceptable answer because that opens the flood gates to everything else. Would you exclude a brother or sister who wanted to get married? What if a man wants more than 1 wife or a woman wants more than 1 husband? If the answer is no then why? You're rejecting them their right to marry. Homosexuals can't be the only exception.
What people like you don't get is that people who are legally married to a member of the same sex usually want to adopt. The child of the couple is going to be hurt mentally because it is healthy for a child to grow up in a household with one mom and one dad. The mom and the dad each contribute something to how the child acts and feels. Without either a mom or a dad the child is mentally hurt because they do not have that influence. I am not saying the child is mentally retarded, but it is much more healthy to have one mom and one dad. I sometimes will say that I support the right to marry but not to adopt.
My problem with that statement, though, is that the bible makes references where it says that a marrige is to be strictly between only one man and one woman. My stance on the issue is that I am somewhere between no tolerance and some to little tolerance.
Thanks for your expert analysis. Congratulations on getting your PhD in developmental psychology by the way. Now that you are done with your speculation I will provide you with an actual study.
Every other study I have seen found the same results. Furthermore what about single parents? Should they be allowed to have kids or adopt? My guess is you think so. They are not getting the influence of both a mom and dad, just like you think how same-sex couples raise kids, so what's the difference?
The bible should never be any justification for laws. Regardless of the fact that it is a piece of fiction, it violates the establishment clause of the first amendment of the constitution.
yeah i agree with him, but i don't have any tolerance for it. its supposed to be between a man and a woman. it is their sacred right given to them by God.
Can anybody against gay marriage make an intelligent comment without involving God in it? We are not required to believe in God in this country! If you start talking God, then my question will be -who's God? Yours? And how about mine? Who's God is right? Etc... This is the best about this country -God does not have legal rights here.
1st off, the bible is not hte government, the two should be separate, that is the point of the constitution, if you get rid of the consitution, you kill america in one fell swoop.
2nd, when i was younger, i knew a kid with lesbians for parents. he was fine, it didnt make him gay, it didnt make him anything other than normal. he was just like all the other kids in high school. something you seem to be missing, is that ALL relationships, especially those with children, have one person who take the feminen part and one who take the masculine part. the gender doesnt actually matter, unless you plan on showing your "parts" to your child, in which case, yes, they will end up messed up bc you have mentally scarred them.
Without either a mom or a dad the child is mentally hurt
This is complete bullocks. There is no evidence to support this notion. Studies have been down that show a child of a heterosexual couple is no better off than a child of a homosexual couple.
Even if this were true, do you really think a child with no parents is better off than a child with two homosexual parents? Such arguments have been rendered moot, long ago. This is merely a rationalization for prejudice.
Okay, I know SEVERAL children of same-sex parents and they turn out wacko. I'm sorry, I can't support this scientifically, but anyone else at my school will verify this.
`
A child who grows up seeing same-sex marriage will learn that it is okay. He will even think that it is his decision, just as he may choose his shirt color.
`
Society won't benefit. America will become even more decadent. I'm sorry.
Okay, I know SEVERAL children of same-sex parents and they turn out wacko.
Define "whacko." On a side note, I know SEVERAL children of opposite-sex parents and they turn out wacko.
I'm sorry, I can't support this scientifically
REALLY? Who the fuck would have ever guessed that?
but anyone else at my school will verify this.
You know you have a great argument when your basis is the opinion of a selective group of misguided school children. Obviously they know better than centuries of scientific observation, experimentation, and discovery.
A child who grows up seeing same-sex marriage will learn that it is okay.
I agree. And that is a GREAT thing. What exactly is wrong about homosexuality?
He will even think that it is his decision
No. Homosexuality is NOT a choice. We have scientific evidence to support this....that is unless those school children say otherwise.
Society won't benefit. America will become even more decadent.
I don't have gay couple friends with or without kids. But I do have a lot of heterosexual friends with kids and pretty much all of them have been crewed up by their parents one way or the other. I don't like how my own parents raised us, I would rather prefer have two loving moms or dads instead.
1. I have nothing against gays being in some sort of legal binding (for the lack of better word I can't think of right now), but do not call it a marriage. Even 50 years from today, it will not be accepted in general although some will accept for the purpose of political correctness.
2. Although many of you might say that it would never happen, this will lead for other movements whose marital ideas would disgust most of us: people marring animals, minors, bugs, extra-terrestrials.........don't be surprised at all if such a movement is strongly established in less than a decade. It is a simple "if he/she can, why can't I?", it is my Constitutional right. Don't forget, people always like to see how far they can take it plus it is a way to differentiate yourself from the general public. It is only in human nature to do so. There has to be some limit.
Except marriage is a legally binding contract. Animals, children, and inanimate objects cannot enter into legal contracts. So your second argument is invalid. It's another slippery slope fallacy.
Are you serious? Are you trying to come out of some kind of closet right now?
Marriage means nothing. I am against marriage personally, I dont think ANYONE should get married. It is just a way for the government to control you. I do not want to have to ask a judge if I can break up with my gf.
I also believe that if someone chooses to do this, whether they are gay, straight, or wants to marry an extra-terrestrial (you do know that if aliens from another planet came here and looked simular to us, that you homo-phobes would not even blink at the prospect of them getting married to us as long as it was male to female?) then they have the CHOICE, that is what freedom is all about.
Are you kidding me??? marriage is GOOD. it is wrong to just go around and give your heart away to tons of different women or men. God made it so we get married.
Also, Homosexual act is also wrong. God says that marriage is supposed to be for a man and a woman NOT two men or two women.
2. There is a huge difference between supporting gay marriage and supporting man marrying an animal -animal has no voice and can't give a concent. A person should only be able to marry another being that can give a concent -that simple. Both sides must willingly agree to be married -impossible to achieve with animals. So this should help you feel more secur -this will never happen just because of that.
Can you tell me sir how does one commit sin? Last time I checked sin was based on one breaking their connection with God. It's one of many theological principles behind the creation story. This being said how does a spouse simply commit a sin by marrying?
How doe the Government of the United States define a "sin"? Where can I find it in our Constitution or may be other legislation. Just for your information, Bible is not our Constitution and should never be.
So I've been reading these points by all and I think we really need to step back and take a "chill pill" :) Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean we're "homophobic" or hate gays, so let's keep the ad homonym attacks to a minimum. I am opposed to gay marriage for a couple of very specific reasons, but I am in the theater business and of about 30 guys who are my close friends, 29 of them are probably gay, and I love them like crazy!
So again I want to say that, to use the debates words (although I think they are a little inflammatory), gay marriage does hurt everyone for the following reason: The prominent justification for gay marriage is that it is a right and that denying it will take away the rights of a minority, similar to the civil rights movement. Using this justification, any religious group that denies gays participation or clergy or marriage will be branded as persecuting homosexuals. The scary thing is that there are some people reading this right now and thinking "yes, that would be discrimination and homophobia and should be stopped." I just read a quote:
'Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”' http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA= (an altogether fetching article which says this entire thing much better than I have)
Gay marriage is an immediate threat to our freedoms AS IT IS CURRENTLY being pursued. The owners of eharmony.com are REQUIRED to provide gay matchmaking. They have no freedom to do otherwise. Doctors who provide in vitro fertilization are REQUIRED to do it for lesbian couples, even if this is against their beliefs. These doctors have lost their freedom.
Now gay marriage DOESN'T have to be this way. Pass legal laws which respect the beliefs of others. As I said, i love my gay friends, and I might be ok with some of them marrying (I say might because of all of these people, I can think of only one couple that even pretends to be serious about their relationship, and I think they are adorable! The others shouldn't marry imo, whether they are gay or straight or anything because they aren't serious, but that's just my opinion and it's honestly none of my business :). So as i said, go ahead and pass the laws, but don't take away the rights of others to believe that homosexuality is wrong, because THAT is what is against the constitution.
"The owners of eharmony.com are REQUIRED to provide gay matchmaking. They have no freedom to do otherwise. Doctors who provide in vitro fertilization are REQUIRED to do it for lesbian couples, even if this is against their beliefs."
These are separate issues. Whether or not eharmony should be required to provide service to homosexuals has little to do with whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Same with in vitro. The issue is not "Are gays entitled to do everything that straight people are?", the question is, "How does gay marriage hurt anyone?"
exactly, eharmony is required to provide matches to african-american people too, but, what if the owners dont want to? should they have that right? no!
so why should they have the right to descriminate against anyone?
"Gay marriage is an immediate threat to our freedoms AS IT IS CURRENTLY being pursued. The owners of eharmony.com are REQUIRED to provide gay matchmaking. They have no freedom to do otherwise. Doctors who provide in vitro fertilization are REQUIRED to do it for lesbian couples, even if this is against their beliefs. These doctors have lost their freedom."
This is no different than preventing business from refusing to serve certain ethnicities which I doubt you would call a threat to our freedom.
"So as i said, go ahead and pass the laws, but don't take away the rights of others to believe that homosexuality is wrong, because THAT is what is against the constitution."
Hmm. Looks like we should reread the Constitution. And also understand what anti-discrimination laws do. They DO not require a person be less bigoted, but only require they not be guided by their prejudices to a point where they deny another human being of their equal rights under the law. CRA of 1964 didn't stop anyone set on being a bigot from doing so.
While it's quite easy to capitalize words like FREEDOM and think we are making a stunning point, we must remember that it is impossible for everyone everywhere to have the freedoms he or she would want. Rights and freedoms and privileges will always contradict. Thus, we all have to look around and agree as a society that we will value other human beings and chose not to deprive them of certain rights, especially in favor of our deleterious 'freedoms.'
Remember that not of the 'rights' that we have in American (speech, etc.) are really natural, but the product of a country that was based on the ideals that all men were created equal, working towards the goal of a 'more perfect union' by canonizing laws that are in line with that humanitarian ideal.
Believes are not rights. Poeple can have rights to believe whatever they want but me not believing your believes does not take your rights to believe your believes. Do you get that? You can sill believe in your God, while I believe in another. This should not hurt you. It does not hurt me.
While homosexual marriage may not physically hurt anyone, physical injuries are not the only type of injuries that can be inflicted to a person, to a family or to a nation. Our country was founded upon a system of morals and religion. It was created in a way that it can only exist in an uncorrupt manner if people lead good, moral lives.
Legalizing gay marriage makes homosexual activities seem ok to many individuals, which will lead to an increase of homosexuality in America. If homosexuality increases to the point that more people are homosexual than not, our country's population will decline, since it takes a man and a woman to procreate. Population decline, largely caused by the fact that family size is declining, while it has not had a great effect on the United States yet, has had highly negative effects accross Europe. In a few years, some countries will not have enough younger generation population to support the older generation. It has already become so detrimental to Italy and other countries that in some areas, people are being paid to have children.
I like how you attack my unfounded statement by making an unfounded statement of your own.
Anyway, I looked it up and it seems nature and nuture both play a role:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
so do people wake up one morning and deside, hey, im going to like people of blank gender!
no, they do not.
you start getting crushes and likeing people in pre-school, what could have already influenced them by then? they havent been exposed to sex or anything, they dont know what "gay" is, so how can they be influenced or choose?
You also don't become gay from "influences from your peers and society." There is at this point more evidence that supports biological and genetic reasons for a person being homosexual. (Identical twins are considerably more likely to have the same sexual orientation, sexual preference can be changed in rats, fruit flies, and other animals with simpler minds, a gay man's brain has characteristics that look more like a straight female"s, and so on and so on.) However, sexuality is one of the most complex psychological processes of humanity and thus there is not a conclusive answer on the whole nature vs. nurture argument. So basically your statement is "unfounded" as well.
Our country was not founded on YOUR set of morals and religious beliefs. We live in a pluralistic society in which many religious and non-religious practices co-exist. To enforce religious practices of a particular religion, would destroy any sense of NEUTRALITY the government may have regarding religion. You cannot ban something because it is against your religious beliefs because not everyone shares your religious beliefs.
the fact that homosexual activities are already legal makes it seem like homosexual activities are okay. Marriage isn't even part of that equation. I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality and what people do in the privacy of their own homes shouldn't be any of your concern.
Gay marriage is already legal in a lot of places and those places seem to be doing fine.
Nor are we in any danger of running out of people, the United states is one of the most populated Countries (#3 I believe) in the world. We have some 300 million Americans with no shortage in sight. If only China and India had more gays then they wouldn't be so over-populated.
USA was not founded on the principles of religion. It was founded on the principles of freedom to believe or not to believe. This is why State is separate from religion. You are confused on this issue. It is probably what you would like, but definitely not what it was or is.
Imagine the emotional trauma of being raped. Now imagine the emotional trauma of being raped by someone of the same sex. Gay marriage makes homosexual activity more widely accepted.
Also, anyone who thinks homosexual activity never hurt anyone should read the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah.
actually, if you have studied crime, you would know, that it is middle aged men who are not gay who ass-rape little boys. people who have been married to women and have their own kids and everything.
You can debate unreliable all you want but when the bible gives exact reference to the location and also the writing of the curse it carries that where it lies nothing shall live and even written in as the Dead Sea. It's a lot of pure coincidence for it to not have some validity.
My marriage to my wife is something special, I like to know that the definition of marriage means husband and wife which cannot be taken away. What then does marriage mean when I say I'm married if it's not a man and women? It does hurt someone it hurts the people who are married and believe that marriage is and always will be defined as a man and women.
I think Gay marriage does affect our society. Back in the day There weren't gay people because it was unthinkable. Who Would like another man/woman? But now more and more its being free and open. I saw youtube video for a 14 year old kid. He said in his video "I think I want to be gay" I don't know I don't want to be like everyone else. He's right that its a personal choice but he took it so lightly. Thanks to the media. What if this kid was your son? I'm not against gay people at all. Just how it affects people that would have been straight.
i just dont see why they have to force there ways on everyone it really is not normal to be gay i do respect gay people just not the ones that force there beliefs down everyone elses throats.
Giving benefits to gay partners will make being gay a more acceptable alternative. It is acceptable to to be nice to people who are really gay, while also trying to prevent it from becoming just another option for people to experiment with. Is it acceptable to try to promote a mother and a father as the preference, and is withholding all the same benefits of marriage a valid way to try to show societies preference for families with mothers and fathers? Obviously gay people have a right to live how they want. You can't be mean to them. You can't discriminate against them in any way as far as career, housing, etc... but if the majority wants to show a preference... So people the belief is that more people will be hurt by experimenting with their sexuality, than if they would have just assumed they were straight. Sure, if you KNOW you are gay, go for it, but let the rest of us sort of ignore it.
Obama may have been right to do it, but Bush wasn't a really bad guy for not having done it. It can't go too far, but if a society wants to place a preference on heterosexuality, by giving less respect to homosexual relationships, it can do it. It might hurt gay people's feelings if they don't get the exact treatment as heterosexuals, but that is sort of the point. Gays can still live how the want, but they can't force the majority to like it, or accept them, and little laws that don't grant full equality are not fundamental humal liberty issues, we have to draw the line somewhere, and no one would want to legalize bestiality or polygamy, and so we all draw the lines slightly different locations, and it is not worth throwing a hissy fit over... Sure you might be right, but its not that big of a deal. You can't force other people's respect and approval, you already have Massachusetts. Just relax.
It hurts any children involved who would be deprived of either a mother or a father. I would love to hear an argument that shows that either mothers or fathers are unnecessary. Haven't heard one yet. . .
Not saying that it "hurts everyone", but the institution of marriage is in trouble as it is.
It is not the fact of the marriage; it is the fact of the message that is being sent to children. Many are being exploited with this new attitude. A lot of problems can and do revolve around emotional, social, and psychological well-being as a child is developing their sexual identity. I think it's really confusing to be taught that homosexuality is "normal". I also think other children's peers are a factor that have not been considered enough. Children can be very cruel to each other.
Homosexuality is legalized voyeurism, thus making homosexuals more equal than others. Homosexuality is not an Identity, but more resembles Dissociative Identity Disorder without the memory lost. Once you have the ability to change your sexual orientation as has been proven in our recent past (gays becoming straight and vicei versa) it's a choice. If Africans had that choice during the time of slavery Jim Crow laws would have been obsolete. The logical conclusion to address the imbalance to our society would to institutionalize unisex toilets. This would open the doorway for sexual deviants to molest your children and womenfolk with their eyes once they don't touch. I was once told that in a perfect world unisex toilets would be fine, but our society isn’t. Nature, Nurture, Genes or Hormones, we were given two (2) boxes, male and female and 99% of us have been equipped to know where we belong. Thus we need to have the self-control and discipline to stay in those boxes. If you need help to bridge the gap between what you ought to do and what you are doing, welcome to the human race. Iron is supposed to sharpen Iron. I will follow the debate attentively for your objections.
It hurts when they want to teach kids in school that. I like that we have a system and a fabric that rewards a man and women to marry. People don't want it and thats why they have petitioned to remove it from states that have made it law only on judicial reasons which is unconstitutional.
If Man marry Man then what will happen to those Girls who are already in large numbers. And child birth will be disturb that means you are hurting your countary your economy...
gay marriage may hurt some of the children because when a gay couple get married they are unable to have a kid together so they adopt/ sperm donate one. When the kid is around these 2 gays the kid will not know who to call mom or dad and it will cause the child confusion because he will be excluded from some activities. So think about how the kids are affected
Gay Parenting Does Affect Children Differently, Study Finds
-- Authors Believe Gay Parents Have "Some Advantages"
Taking issue with 20 years of research conclusions that say there are no differences, two University of California sociologists recently re-examined data from 21 studies on gay parenting dating back to 1980.
The new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents show more empathy for social diversity, are less confined by gender stereotypes, and are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves. Writing in recent issue of the American Sociological Review, the authors say that the emotional health of the two sets of children is essentially the same.
Leaders of national gay-affirming groups said they welcomed the article, according to an Associated Press story. "I'm thrilled that they're tackling these issues," said Aimee Gelnaw, executive director of the Family Pride Coalition, who is a lesbian parent raising two children with her partner. "Of course our kids are going to be different," Gelnaw said. "They're growing up in a different social context."
Openness to Gay Relationships
Met With "Elation"
Kate Kendall, head of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, also is raising two children with her partner. "There's only one response to a study that children raised by lesbian and gay parents may be somewhat more likely to reject notions of rigid sexual orientation -- that response has to be elation," Kendall said.
But Amy Desai, a policy analyst with the group Focus on the Family, said the new report is alarming in its suggestions that children of gay parents might be more open to homosexual activity. "Kids do best when they have a married mother and a married father," she said.
A Home With No Dad is Better?
The study's co-author, Judith Stacey, is a professor of contemporary gender studies. In addition to pointing out the gender differences in the two groups of children, she states that there are in fact some advantages to an all-female parental team without Dad living in the home: a female couple tends to be more involved in the children's lives and is in greater harmony in terms of parenting approaches.
Among the findings cited by the authors:
1. Compared to the daughters of heterosexual mothers, the daughters of lesbians more frequently dress, play and behave in ways that do not conform to sex-typed cultural norms. They show greater interest in activities with both masculine and feminine qualities. They have higher aspirations to occupations that are not traditionally female.
2. In terms of aggression and play, sons of lesbians behave in less traditionally masculine ways. They are likely to be more nurturing and affectionate than their counterparts in heterosexual families.
3. One study examined by the researchers indicated that a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbians had engaged in a same-sex relationship (six of 25 interviewed) than those raised by a heterosexual mother (none of 20 interviewed).
4. Those raised by lesbian mothers were also more likely to consider a homosexual relationship.
5. Teen-age and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste than girls raised by heterosexual mothers. Sons, on the other hand, were somewhat less sexually adventurous and more chaste than boys raised by heterosexuals.
6. The studies indicate that sexual orientation has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on the mental health of children.
"These studies find no significant differences between children of lesbian and heterosexual mothers in anxiety, depression, self-esteem and numerous other measures of social and psychological adjustment," said the authors.
NARTH"s Joseph Nicolosi offered the following comments: "This paper was authored by a professor of gender studies, so it is not surprisingly that the differences on which she focused have to do with a rejection of gender conformity. Indeed, what she found makes sense -- lesbian mothers tend to have a feminizing effect on their sons, and a masculinizing effect on their daughters.
"But the question is, are these differences healthy? More research is needed to understand how a rejection of conventional gender roles can have not just a healthy and expansive, but also a constricting and negative effect on identity and psychological health.
"And despite what many gender researchers claim, research tells us that the absence of a father in the home is not, on balance, good for families."
So because a homosexual family does not fit the traditional definition of family they shouldn't be allowed to have kids? Orphans who have no parents are better off than if they have two parents who happen to be of the same sex?
Trust me when I say, no kids are hurt by having homosexual parents. I know first hand and many researchers have shown that two parents, regardless of gender, are better off then one or no parents.
Also what activities are you talking about? A girl with two moms won't have a date for the father daughter dance? Is that the biggest complaint you have? If you think we should deny people rights because school functions may need to be redefined then I think you need to get your priorities straight.
1) man+man, woman+woman. . .marriage of equals. man+woman is not.
2) why stop at gay marriage. What about bi marriage? man+woman+woman . .might get a small percentage of Mormons to support this.
3) Where will the line be drawn? AI? All the arguements used in favor of gay marriage could be used to support the idea of android marriage. sure we aren't there yet. .but again the line is where?
4) marriage is not a right. it is tied up in regulations, but the act itself is not done as a right, like voting.
4) it is not religious. religion has taken over the ceremony, but it is not christian or jewish or phoenician . . marriage predates recordable history.
5) war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength changing the meanings of important words can hurt. and if the dialog on this is drowned out by extreme rhetoric than everybody loses.
we are redefining marriage so it is presumptuous of you to assume that monogamy is the only way to live.
it's my right as a bisexual to be able to be with both the people I love. now how can you argue with this? are you not placing the same meaningless societal boundaries on the bisexual that you claim others are on you?
what justification do you have to not allow this? and remember no religion or stupid nonsense taboos. actually as a married woman the idea of an extra wife has always sounded okay.
1) because spousal abuse is already not taken seriously AND two men have vastly superior earning potential than a man and a woman. . .AND the protection of spousal support will also get clouded.
2) well for some of us this issue is separate. Marriage is one thing. . .man and woman. . .now anything else is SOMETHING ELSE.
3) as I said above. . .
4) still not a 'right' so quit swinging it around like it is a right or a left.
5) so quit saying it is all about religion as the reason everyone is saying no. Maybe it is the 'so what's' that make people think that you really don't want this you just want to 'f' with us.
6) yes it does . . .as a child of divorce (total marriages for both parents 8) I could have either thought marriage bites or learned its importance and beauty. I have been married for over 22 yrs, to the same man. I admit what my parents did was not marriage.
1a) First, spousal abuse is taken very seriously. Second, how in the world would two dudes getting married cause people to take spousal abuse less seriously? There's no connection there.
1b) Two men have vastly superior earning potential. Ok. So what?
1c) "The protection of spousal support" What does this even mean?
2) "now anything else is SOMETHING ELSE" Um... you've got me there... lol
4) I'm swinging nothing, madam. Gay marriage is not a right. Regular marriage also is not a right. Does that mean regular marriage should be illegal?
5) But religion is the reason people are saying no to gay marriage. I see no other reason to oppose it. I will admit that I do take some pleasure in f'ing with you :) However, I also feel strongly that gays should be allowed to marry and I am honestly trying to persuade you that I am right.
6) Divorce and gay marriage are two separate issues. I agree that divorce hurts people. But I still don't see how gay marriage hurts anyone.
It's one thing for gay couples to adopt their own lifestyle, but they've moved far beyond that. Now they are demanding that the rest of society change its traditions and institutions to suit them. This isn't about insurance or inheritance benefits for gay couples (which I have no problem with). It's about redefining an institution older than civilization itself. If a two men or two women can marry, why not three men or four women? Or fathers and daughters who happen to be consenting adults?
Well, you see gay couples getting married doesn't hurt anyone while the rest of your examples do. A father and daughter getting married, then the kids are usually deformed, and that is hurting their child. Three men or four women, is polygamy which is illegal, because some of those in the marriage could be hurt emotionally by it. Also this is your religious belief with the insitution older then civilisation itself stuff. Seperation of church and state should always be remembered.
You make a point against gay marriage by claiming that it would inevitably lead to man-dog marriage or daughter-mother (gay AND incest) which is wrong. There is no logic behind this reasoning. The question is whether gay marriage should be allowed for the gays to benefit from exactly the reasons you claim you have no problem with(insurance and inheritance). The question is if a gay marriage hurts anyone in any way. Which you haven't addressed in the slightest.
Let's stay on subject, okay? Saying that two people who love each other can't get married because it will open the door for other groups is a ridiculous argument. By that logic we should get rid of marriage altogether, this way none of that can happen.
Just because an institution is old doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed. Actually, the fact that it is so old is even more of a reason for it to change. Our thinking has advanced since then and our institutions should reflect that . Homosexuals aren't asking anyone to change their way of life...they just want the same rights that everyone else has: the right to marry who they love.
So allow me to repeat the question you failed to answer: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
The argument you are making would have applied to interracial marriage when it was illegal, so acknowledge that you would have been against interracial marriage when it was illegal or admit your hypocrisy.
"why not three men and four women. Or fathers and daughters ..."
Ah! See, now if you were true to Christian teachings, you would support that because clearly that is Biblical traditional families. Why do you question the morality of Moses? (He had sex with not one but both of his daughters.) Why do you question the entire human race from a Biblical perspective? (Noah; Adam & Eve).
I'm not asking anyone to "approve" my lifestyle. I'm demanding as a citizen to be treated equally, "which I have no problem with" because IT IS ABOUT inheritance and tax benefits.
There is no federal recognition of a legal same sex marriage even in those states that allow it. Equal taxation is denied. No one is asking you to change your precious "traditions and institutions". Stop acting as if you are some poor put upon person because God forbid, some human being that you don't approve of is happy. Get a life.
Let me ask you this. Do you revere your marriage so much that you have you marriage license framed and hanging in your living room, signed by everyone at your wedding? Do you keep that prominent and show it off to everyone as a testament to your commitment to another human being, whom you love greatly? Do you pass by it every day, smile, think deeply, and reaffirm that love?
No? Well, I have two gay friends who do, and they've been together for about 20 years. How dare you suggest that you somehow get to have a say in their love and commitment for each other. Who the hell asked you? No one passed judgment on your love, why do you defy Jesus himself by judging others.
The only way it could possibly "hurt" anyone is if someone let themselves be hurt by this upcoming acceptance of Gays into society. We had the same issues with blacks integrading into society and women getting voting rights. The only reason it could possibly hurt someone is if they have a stubborn view on the world that makes them believe gays are in the wrong and should not be allowed the same rights as heterosexual people. "History must repeat itself because we pay such little attention to it the first time." That is what is happening right now.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." —Genesis 1:27
Our Lord, in His answer to the Pharisees concerning divorce, refers to this passage in Genesis and confirms its special application to marriage. "Have ye not read," He said, ‘that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."' Marriage is derived from the Lord, for male and female. It has its highest and perfect form in Him, for in Him love and wisdom are one.
So how can gay marriage hurt any one? This is a very deep, complicated question and answer. (And please know, anyone that believes they are gay out there, I am not judging you. You are not horrible, and it is only my responsibility to share the truth of God's word to those who may stray from it or don't understand it.) It hurts God, don't you see? All sin does. Whenever man decides what is actually right and moral for himself, independent of God's wisdom, he always hurts himself because he has disconnected himself from God's plan for his life. And if he strays from God's plan, the course he takes can affect all of humanity—like the domino effect.
I take it for certain that the physical satisfaction of homosexual desires is sin. However, this leaves the homosexual person no worse off than any heterosexual person who is, for whatever reason, prevented from marrying, or from participating in sex outside the sanctity of marriage. Or any other sin for that matter.
People—primarily the homosexual community—say, "Who are others to say who we should be able to love?" (or in this case, marry) Let me ask you this: Have we not all loved our our same-sex friends as much as we've loved the opposite sex? I have loved my friends as much, sometimes more than a mate (after all, the opposite sex is oh so confusing at times!) But the difference is we do not desire to have sex with them. Aha—therein lies the heart of the controversy over homosexuality, and homosexual "marriages." You see the truth is, it's not about "love"—it is about sex, and who these people desire to love, is who they desire to have sex with. I can already hear everyone saying, "So what?! Of course people want to have sex with whomever they love..." But no. Sex has been perverted and removed from its original design. First we love, then we marry, then we consummate our marriage (it is just the icing) and the marriage (the love) is preserved through commitment before God. Again, I hear folks saying "Well that's what homosexuals want to do!"
First, we must understand that love begins with God. So many people misread and misuse Scripture and quote Jesus as saying, in regard to what the highest commandments are, "... to love thy neighbor as thyself..." for their arguments. But note that Jesus says, "commandmentS"—plural. Immediately proceeding "love thy neighbor as thyself" He says the first and greatest commandment is "You shall love thy Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." [Following is the second greatest commandment] "Love thy neighbor as thyself." So if homosexuals reject God's teachings on love and marriage and sex, how then can they use the argument that 'they just want to be able to love whomever they want' ? —They actually want to have sex with whomever they want, otherwise they would just remain the best of friends, you see? That is not the same. And then, they want to take it a step further, and sanctify it in holy marriage. This is re-writing the Bible to suit their own desires which is strictly forbidden.
People may love whomever they want. They just can't have sex with whomever they want. Well, actually they CAN—there is free will. Some say they were born this way. I say that in some cases this is actually true. In many cases it is a choice. But let's say they were born that way. There are alcoholics and depressed persons and naturally promiscuous persons and all kinds of burdens passed on in birth—this is what's called "our cross to bare"... Sometimes we have to make the choice to sacrifice an urge or desire to sin and in turn use this struggle for the good of all. Or we can succumb to it and let the consequences fall where they may. But I'd say 98% of our population has some sort of dilemma to struggle with. Like all other tribulations, it must be offered to God for His guidance on how best to use it.
And the American government has made separation of church and state very clear. They must, therefore, be consistent. The government has no right to redefine marriage in its holy context. If they stepped in and redefined marriage, a whole bunch of other decisions they've made concerning separation of church and state (removing the flag from classrooms, the commandments from courthouses, etc.) would then have to be reversed. They can't have it both ways, and they know this.
Firstly, is that there is no need to run a country based on religion, this happened in Saudi Arabia and look at the crime, injustice and autocracy there, quite simply we should run a nation based on what the majority deem to be acceptable, in the case of my country, the UK, gay marriage is acceptable, murder and rape are not.
Secondly, people do NOT choose to be gay, scientific evidence shows that people are born GAY, would you not allow a person with dyslexia or downs syndrome to marry? They are born different to us.
To sum up, anyone who feels that it is wrong is being over religious and fundamentalist, we cannot let a 2000 year old book with no known author govern the freedoms we have. A simple referendum will fix things.
To respond to your first point: Your argument actually proves God's point where Jesus says there is "only way to come to the Father, and that is through the person of Jesus Christ"—not Mohammed, and that those in positions of power and authority will be judged more harshly, so that may be what's going on over there? That's not saying that there aren't peaceful and loving Muslims—it's saying that a nation is being ran via Islam by it's governing powers, which, according to Scripture, brings ruin upon itself by dismissing the person and holiness of Jesus and teaching their entire people to dismiss it as well. I personally believe that a nation of authentic believers in Christ running the country would be just and free of crime, pain, suffering, etcetera—oh wait, that would be Heaven. But sin is in the world and a country based on Christ's truth and faith and peace (not religion?) isn't going to happen here on earth. So we do the best we can with a democracy that guarantees protection of religion.
Your second point: I know for a fact that some people DO choose to "be gay" as one of my friends is newly gay, but didn't used to be, but after one too many hurts by the opposite sex and a desperate need to be cared for decided to give the other side a try. (And it should be noted that we hear each other's views on the subject with respect and agree to disagree but are still good friends.) There's also the perfect illustration of choosing in bisexuals, who can't seem to "choose" which sex they prefer. It is a choice in the end, even if it's an inclination one is born with, as I said in my original argument. I don't even begin to know how you came to compare gay marriage to allowing someone with dyslexia to marry? Re-read my original argument about the necessity of marriage being male/female. Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman—it is not a civil union (although many treat it as such)—and that is why so many people have a problem with legalizing gay marriage. It would erode the foundation and meaning of marriage according to God, which is sacred to believers. You don't want to believe in God—hey, that's between you and Him and every human being has that free choice—no one is forcing or condemning anyone. All that believers are doing is defending their faith-based, holy sacraments so that others can't redefine them when they don't even believe in them. I mean there really is a contradiction there, right? Christians don't marry for financial reasons (at least they're not supposed to) or things like that—it is to pledge the marriage to God, to request His blessing.
Let me ask you something: What's wrong with homosexuality being a choice? I mean, if homosexuals are confident and proud of their sexual preference, why the need to say that the trait is inborn? Why all the shame?
"Fundamentalism" is defined as a strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism and unpopularity. I am by no means a perfect Christian, but I am trying to be an authentic Christian and not a casual one, so I guess if that makes me a fundamentalist, then I guess I am? But be careful about labeling when you so clearly and "fundamentally" adhere to your own beliefs. Diversity goes both ways my friend. ;)
Oh, and Prop 8, was voted down by a democracy, not by religion—the majority deemed it not to be acceptable, to use your own words.
"I personally believe that a nation of authentic believers in Christ running the country would be just and free of crime, pain, suffering, etcetera"
Please observe the middle ages. That is probably an ideal time for Christians. Gays were killed. No science. Blasphemers were killed. Almost everyone was Christian. But I would hardly call it a time free of crime, pain, and suffering.
No one cares what you say your friends said that he thinks. There are so many possible errors in that statement it is mind boggling.
A) Your friend doesn't know why he is gay and is trying to come up with a reason
B) Your friend lied to you
C) You lied to us.
Being homosexual is not a choice. Regardless of the fact that it has been proven not to be as you are clearly ignoring that, why would anyone choose a lifestyle in which they experience intolerance just to sin and piss of god? You guys really need to learn logic.
Marriage by the government is not a holy union. In a church it is. And that is what you guys fail to realize. No one is arguing that marriages in churches should be between same-sex couples, you guys can do whatever your magic book tells you. However, according to the establishment clause of the United States Constitution, we cannot base our government off of religion. If we base marriage off of religion, how do we choose which one, maybe my religion says nobody can get married? Even if everyone in the country in Christian, which thankfully they aren't, we still cannot use the bible as justification for public policy, it is not legal.
You can mince words all you want, but Christianity is a religion and atheism is not.
And proposition 8 was passed by a campaign of fear mongering and large influence by the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints. That's totally irrelevant, however, because it doesn't matter how many people vote for something if it is unconstitutional. You don't seem to be very knowledgeable about the constitution so let me help you. Our system is not set up by majority rules. It is set up by majority rules with minority rights. The minority rights is not an afterthought it is at least as important. The framers of the constitution specifically set up the government to avoid the kind of religious and tyrannical persecution they experienced in England.
first off stop making argument's that make you dizzey if you try to read it. Second
"I know for a fact that some people DO choose to "be gay" as one of my friends is newly gay"
ok you both are wrong ok you are wrong for acting like you KNOW exacly what happens and the same to the other guy now i THINK that it can go either way just like you can be born with aids and you can get them ( i wasn't implying anything but i was stating a fact) and you can be born with knowledeg and you can get it. so there!
The idea that human affairs of importance can be simply based on emotional subjective feelings is the rock on which it founders.Humanity has advanced according to the understanding he has of the laws which govern everything around us ,from the turning of the planets, the cells in our bodies, the plants on the earth.We have learned to understood and use the laws of flight, of engineering etc to bring about advancements in our society.Everything is underpinned by laws and although many people quote the bible they would be better to quote the laws of god as seen in science.When we seriously break these laws we descend.Most of us 'sin by breaking laws which allow us to live and exist and evolve in the universe .At this time the decisions we make will decide if we survive or not as a society into the future .There are narcissistic and sometomes deliberately malign people who hate that they cannot control these laws in a personal way
and they are determined to undermine that which they cannot control. Marriage or the recognition of the law of energy creativity inherent in the polar opposites of male female is neccessary as a force of good energy and must be encouraged .If we passed laws according to what people'felt'
and not what is creative and good we would be back in the cave .Since there is no benefit to society one has to ask why 'they' want to get married,perhaps to undermine what they 'hate'.After all if it is simply a social recognition a personal party etc is their free choice.
If we go this route with them socety will unwind and that is the main purpose[ concious in most cases].
Stop trying to sound smart because you come off looking like an idiot. Homosexuality is genetic, and therefore evolved. Look at animals, many species of mammals reptiles and fish have members that are homosexual. How can something be going against nature if it can be found so prevalently in nature?
"Homosexuality is genetic, and therefore evolved."
Without looking into this in more detail, my knowledge of evolution is telling me that this isn't right. Homosexuality in humans is generally exclusive. How does exclusive homosexuality become an inherited trait subject to evolution if it is not passed on to a new generation? It may have evolved to a point (as non-exclusive homosexuality is visible in nature), but would have been instantly wiped out as soon as human intellect and emotion took over leading to exclusive homosexuality. I believe homosexuality is a hormonal inbalance, but certainly can't see it as an evolved trait.
"How can something be going against nature if it can be found so prevalently in nature?"
Homosexuality in nature is not exclusive, so would provide no detremental effect to a species if homosexuality was practised only when no "straight" sex is possible. In this instance an evolved homosexual trait may exist, though I'm far more comfortable with the idea of hormonal inbalances as with humans.
I may be wrong though. As I say, this just seemed wrong on my current knowledge of evolution. I'll have to seek out some evidence either way before commiting to the "hormonal inbalance" view of homosexuality over an evolved trait.
The trait could be passed on if it only manifests in a small percent of the organisms carrying the trait. If there's a gene that randomly causes homosexuality in 10% of it's carriers, and it turns out that homosexuality is a benefit to the population as a whole, then evolution applies. Like the video says, looking at evolution on an individual scale is like looking at one pixel on your monitor. You have to look at the whole thing to get the full picture. An occasional hormonal imbalance leading to homosexuality could be seen as an evolved trait.
"If there's a gene that randomly causes homosexuality in 10% of it's carriers, and it turns out that homosexuality is a benefit to the population as a whole, then evolution applies."
I believe the "what's good for the group" model of evolution has been firmly discredited, and is a common misunderstanding of evolutionary behaviour.
Firstly, let me address the concept of a gene. What constitues a gene is very subjective, so it is better for us to talk of "units of evolution" so we don't confuse ourselves with thinking about genes as a single entity that controls a single operation. Now, in order for homosexuality to be genetic rather than a simple hormone disbalance, we would have to show that there is a significant grouping of genes into a single homosexual unit of evolution, and that this unit of evolution strives to save itself through purely altruistic methods.
Now, the general idea of "what is good for the group" seems at first to be a possible intepretation of evolution in a larger scale. However, the correct interpretation is what is good for the unit of evolution. Altruistic behaviour appears to be of no benefit to an individual, but obviously the trait to do something altruistic would find it very hard to saturate a gene pool; therefore there is absolutely no benefit in saving another over you. If, however, we think purely at the level of the unit of evolution, then we see that apparently unhelpful behaviours (such as an animal informing other animals of an approaching predetor, whilst also making itself more visible to said predator) can saturate a gene pool if the gene is geared up for saving itself.
This means realistically that there are two ways for a unit to saturate the gene pool for a certain unit space; it benefits the individual carrying it, or it causes the individual to benefit other individuals who are most likely carrying the same unit of evolution. As homosexuality lends to a lack of saving "itself" (as it wont be passed on), it can only realistically become an evolved trait if it causes altruistic behavior that causes other carriers to be more likely to survive.
I know about evolution and I understand all these concepts. The point I'm making is that homosexuality doesn't appear to lend itself to any altruistic behaviour that would benefit people carrying the homosexual unit of evolution. Infact, recognition of other homosexual people in order to better select those to benefit would mean that the other person is also homosexual and therefore less likely to pass on their gene.
The main point being made is thus: Altruistic behaviour by a unit of evolution that hunders itself towards units of evolution that also actually hinder their own reproductive potential would be extremely unlikely to saturate the gene pool.
I am no biologist so my credibility only extends as far as my source's credibility. In this case my source is the video I linked to which is made by a biology student. I have found all of his videos very informative and factually accurate and therefore find no reason to doubt him. If you want to check out his page here it is.
i agree, this cannot be "evolved" though, i do think it is genetic (will talk about this next).
cant be evolved because- according to darwin, we (animals) evolve so that we can survive and have stronger offspring. gays cant have kids, therefor, why would they have "evolved" into being gay?
My argument is slightly different. I was actually trying to say that there isn't a "gay gene." My intepretation of it is that there is a gene that controls hormone balance during pregnancy, which can sometimes become faulty and cause homosexuality. It is the fault of an evolved gene, but not a gene exclusively causing homosexuality. Hope that clears it up.
from what i understand what happens is during pregnancy a boy baby is considered an alien object and so the body fights it, making it more feminen (i dont remember the source but that was what they said) and that after more kids your body gets better at it and so younger siblings are more likely to be gay?
That's not really accurate, no. Your body doesn't fight against the production of a male featus. Around the 7 to 12 weeks period, the male featus is exposed to testosterone, which aids in the development of male features and typical male brain development. If this testosterone exposure is in any way hindered, it will cause the male baby to be more feminine.
I can't claim to know any reasons why younger siblings are more likely to be gay, unfortunately.
1st. . .the question is not is being gay good, bad or indifferent? It is about gay marriage.
For the record I have not one issue with the type, sex, number or racial, religious background of peoples bed, shed or head partners. Consenting adults can consent to anything.
So unless someone says "ew your gay!?" stick to the subject please and quit reading even more into the topic than you already are. . .
Sure let's use the analogy of the animal kingdom. Sure gay relationships abound. . .but how about a gay mated pair? And even so as animals is this going to function for them as a regular mated pair?
What are you talking about? I was responding to the fact that truthfinder said gay marriage went against "laws of god as seen in science." I never stated my opinion as to whether homosexuality was good, bad or neither, either. I was disputing his ideas. Laws should be based on rationality. But how does gay marriage harm anyone? Truthfinder's answer was nonsensical; almost as nonsensical as your questions are.
And even so as animals is this going to function for them as a regular mated pair?
I can't even respond to that because it makes no sense! From now on, reread what you type and think "what the fuck am I talking about" before you press the submit button. Okay?
I'm pretty sure you didn't understand my point, so allow me to explain myself. Homosexuality is found throughout nature, in numerous species. Therefore, calling homosexuality unnatural would be misleading (at the very least).
You are correct that we do not have the same genes as fish. But as I said earlier, homosexuality is prevalent in nature, and therefore must be genetic in all of the species I named (including many mammals, and some primates). Therefore if humans were not born homosexual, then this would make our species an exception.
None of this matters however, because we have studied humans, and homosexuality is not a choice. It has to do with a combination of genetics, and hormone levels in the womb.
until this stops. . .then yes gay marriage can hurt. Marriage protects women. Women are more at risk in this world. . .and the fact there there are places in the world where the hate is against ones gender. . .that a woman can never be free, or even viewed as human.
And before you all come back and say "different issue" it is more topical then dragging references to interracial marriage into the debate. And for the record I never heard people say interracial marriage would hurt marriage. . .what I heard was the idea of the children suffering as reasons against it. . .
and now that we have a mixed race president they were proved wrong.
there are gay women too, i think they are called lesbians.
coughcough
so, yeah,
1) marriage does NOT protect women. it gives men more control over them
2) women can marry other women too if gay marriage is allowed so there wont be a shortage of men or what ever you are thinking will keep the women from getting married.
3) people did say interracial marriage would hurt ppl, thats why black ppl werent even allowed to look at white women with out getting hung. you know, why back when black ppl were getting their rights?
well, same thing, different ppl. wich means
4) interracial marriage is very relevant.
5) if you are worried men hurt women, then why not let men marry men and women marry women? then the men will leave the women alone. DUH
Wow, you're really grasping at straws here aren't you? Because women are mistreated and female infants are killed in India, we should ban gay marriage? Is this what you're saying? Because, if it is, you're fucking stupid.
The issue in India has to do with gender inequality. Gay marriage would actually help the situation for two reasons:
1) More homosexual couples would mean more children would be adopted. This means that less female infants would be killed and could but instead could be put up for adoption.
2) It would make genders more equal. If a woman can marry a woman and start a family without a man then this empowers women. It means that they don't need men.
Honestly I'm pretty sure that I'm not understanding you. Is this a joke? Because I can think of no other reason why you would bring up a completely irrelevant article and say homosexual marriage would exacerbate the problem. Hell, this didn't even happen in America! That doesn't make it any less of an atrocity, but it does make your entire argument irrelevant.
So you're just saying that homosexual marriage will never come to fruition if acts like those occurring in India continue? Does that mean it hurts people? I still don't understand the argument you were trying to make.
"there will be no homosexual couples in a world dominated by the women haters"
I'm not sure I understand how this goes to prove your point. It seems like you are saying homosexuals and women are in the same boat on this one and progress will need to be made for both. If this is what you're saying then I agree with you. If you are instead saying we shouldn't achieve equality for homosexuals until women are treated as equals around the world, then I would have to disagree. Why should homosexuals suffer as well just because women are treated badly in third world nations.
I am not trying to convince you, I am trying to tear down your ridiculous arguments. If I thought you were a reasonable person I might try to persuade you, but clearly you're not...so what's the point?
Gay marriage by itself probably doesn't. Gay marriage as it is being lobbied for takes away the First amendment rights of many americans. States which have passed these laws immediately begin teaching children that it is "ok" and even "good" to be gay. Some people just don't believe this, and they have that right! You have a right to believe the sky is purple and you have a right to teach that to your children! You have a right to teach your children that black people are evil and gays are going to hell. Are you a stupid bigot? YES! but you do have that right!
I have no problem with gay marriage, I do have a problem with the invasion of people's rights to believe that gay union is wrong. I also do not believe that marriage is a constitutional right, so gay marriage would have to be approved by a majority of voters in order to be obtained (and not in a courtroom!). If all of this happens, great! Just don't take away the rights of those who are religious to believe gay union is wrong.
So let me get this straight. As long as a majority of people oppose someone else's right to something they themselves enjoy, that wronged person has to wait until the majority get with the program, and then and only then, does he get to enjoy what everyone else is enjoying? Huh?
The religious right can and do believe anything they want, no matter how stupid and obnoxious and irrational it is. They can and do teach their kids whatever nonsense they care to.
My right to equal protection under the law - my right to enjoy the same tax breaks, visitation rights, and property inheritance rights everyone else has - does not in any way interfere with that. How do you conceivably justify this denial of my rights under the same constitution and under the same tax code, with whatever minor challenge to someone's religious beliefs there could possibly be?
This is like denying rights to African Americans or Hispanics because the KKK has issues with it. That wouldn't stand for a second. Why am I any different?
No one is challenging any one's right to their beliefs here. But as a taxpaying American, I most certainly DO demand the same rights as you enjoy.
Let's be perfectly straight here: no one is asking a church to perform a same sex wedding. Most people who are gay wouldn't step foot in a church to begin with because there is so much hate there. As Ghandi said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so much unlike him."
There are plenty of Christian churches that love and accept us that no one would ever bother for one moment thinking about going into one of the palaces of hate that so many churches have become. So how in heaven's name does that interfere with your religion?
My own Episcopalian church couldn't possibly be a more warm and inviting place for gay and lesbian people. I love it there. It has allowed me to grow and thrive as a Christian. The old Baptist church I was raised in was a spiritual killing field. What kind of idiot would go back there for any reason?
I'm also a Christian, and my church teaches that most certainly is. Don't you dare impose your bigotry as some great universal "Christian" teaching, because it IS NOT.
1) research about homosexual couples being better parents or that homosexuality is genetic. I'm sorry, but neither of these things are proven facts, and there is a lot of controversial research on both sides of the aisle. I think both sides should be able to agree here that neither side has been proven. I know, I know, you can show me 100 studies that say the above is true, but guess what, I can show you 100 studies that say the opposite and then we just get into the "who's study is better" thing, and it's just a waste of time. Many things can be conclusively proven. These are not yet in that category for either side. Besides, for all the "studies show" comments above, no one has cited a single one. I find the funniest thing about such studies is that everyone has heard of them and is sure something has been shown conclusively, but no one is quite sure when or where.
2) the adoption thing is really irrelevant I think. In this country there aren't hordes of orphans wishing for parents to adopt them. This is a myth taken from the situation some time ago. Walk into an adoption clinic, things have really changed. It's not easy to adopt. Now outside of this country things are very different I know, but I still don't think gay marriage is going to significantly impact this. Feel free to disagree with me here, I just really think this is a seperate topic. Oh, and if you disagree, I think you will see that studies show I'm right ;)
Yes, unfortunately that is democracy. The constitution gives us certain basic rights. If we want more we can pass laws to make more by majority vote or through our elected representatives. If those rights violate the constitutional ones, the courts can overturn them. If this happens the people can amend the constitution to pass the law anyway.
The constitution didn't give anyone the right to marry. People have passed laws allowing marriage between a man and a woman. These laws apply equally to all, so equal protection isn't violated (I'm sorry, you have just as much a right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else). If you don't like it, you vote to change the laws.
That's democracy. It's not perfect, but it's the best thing out there!
Oh, and it's not the same as civil rights, and if I was black I would be horribly offended by such a comparison. They were fighting for basic human rights which had been denied them. They were being killed, and denied work opportunities and the right to vote. Homosexual's aren't being denied anything (that isn't already denied to everyone else in the country). They just aren't getting what they want.
I don't know that I'd argue that it hurts everyone per se, but I definitely think there's something to be said for the argument that homosexuality hurts homosexuals. See, most of the opposition to homosexuality on the part of religious people isn't bred of hate, it's bred of love and concern that A) the homosexual lifestyle is inherently sinful according to the Bible and B) that there are certain health concerns, such as AIDS, which in the U.S.--despite gay-rights activists proclaiming, "it's not just a gay disease!"--is mostly spread through male-male sex or women who have sex with a man who also has sex with men. And also needle-sharing.
Separation of church and state - idea that the government and religion should be separate, and not interfere in each other's affairs. In the United States, this idea is based on the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that the government cannot make any laws to establish a state religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion.
If your username is a reference to Isaac Asimov, I'll have you know you are exactly the kind of person he disliked.
A) Well shopping at walmart may be inherently sinful according to someones religion. What is your point?
B) It is mostly spread through unprotected sex. Just because more heterosexual couples use protection to avoid pregnancy and therefore have a lower incidence rate of aids, does not mean it is a gay disease. Gay or straight sex is not the issue, it is whether or not you use condoms. And speaking of your beloved bible, although you may not be Catholic, the pope's recent statement that condoms do not work and make the aids epidemic worse is going to directly cause the deaths of thousands of people.
Yes, gay marriege hurts everyone. Because the government is giving consent to homosexuality. Because most of our children go to puclic schools they are taught to trust Ceaser. They grow up thinking that the government is on their side and all policemen are nice and then they get jobs and taxes are cut from their check and they go "what?". But the point is that most Parents don't want their kids going to the mall and see mr and mr Smith. Its traumatic for a child to see two men or two women kissing. But when the government that hey've been told to blindly trust and pledge their alleagience to (bleh!!) sends teh message that this kind of behavior is normal then it creates a rift between the parents' raising of their child and the governments message.
In turn it helps the child become more aware of homosexuals and will (hopefully) lead to a new generation of acceptance of homosexuality which without would lead to another generation of prejudice which we don't need.
very eloquent. why does it hurt you? 2 gay men are getting the same benefits a married couple would get, and the same benefits they would get if each of them would be married to a woman respectively
The phrase "gay marriage" is an attack on language, and hurts everyone, as all people use language.
The phrase "gay marriage" is itself an attack on the traditional meaning of the word "marriage". The lack of a clear and agreed definition of a word makes it impossible for people to have a reasonable debate on the subject pertaining to that word.
Indeed by confusing the meaning of the word "marriage", it makes it impossible for people to rationally discuss it.
A new word or phrase should be chosen so as not to do harm to the existing meaning of words, while at the same time recognizing the essential characteristics of what is to be described by the word or phrase.
The new practice of what may be called a "homosexual union" is new, because it carries with it recognition under the law, which is unprecedented. But separate from whatever legal definitions may be ascribed to it, the failure to adequately name the practice does harm to the established language and its meaning.
In particular, the practice of calling this "gay marriage" does harm both to the word "gay", and to the word "marriage", both of which have established meanings in language, and are widely used. Indeed the word "marriage" has no synonym which can be used in its place, unlike the word "gay" which can be replaced in usage by the word "happy"; So the destruction or redefinition of the word "marriage" is hurtful to the language in a way that can not be easily mended.
It is precisely the confusion over the definition of the words which has caused so much apparent disagreement which could have been avoided with adequate clarity and agreement over the definitions of the words which they are arguing over.
In conclusion, the phrase "gay marriage" hurts users of language by confusing the established meaning of words, making rational discussion impossible. The phrase "gay marriage" is describing something new in that it claims legal status. Therefore, one should pick another set of words that do not harm the established meaning of words in use. In particular, the word "marriage" has an established meaning, and cannot be easily replaced. The phrase should instead be "homosexual union" or some other phrase that recognizes the nature of the relationship, while at the same time not doing harm to the long established meaning of the word "marriage". Finally, by unequivocating the meaning of the words used, much unnecessary disagreement and wasted debate could be avoided.
Would you have said this in 1967 prior to Loving v. Virginia?
"Interracial marriage hurts everyone.
The phrase "interracial marriage" is an attack on language, and hurts everyone, as all people use language.
The phrase "interracial marriage" is itself an attack on the traditional meaning of the word "marriage". The lack of a clear and agreed definition of a word makes it impossible for people to have a reasonable debate on the subject pertaining to that word.
Indeed by confusing the meaning of the word "marriage", it makes it impossible for people to rationally discuss it.
A new word or phrase should be chosen so as not to do harm to the existing meaning of words, while at the same time recognizing the essential characteristics of what is to be described by the word or phrase.
The new practice of what may be called a "heteroracial union" is new, because it carries with it recognition under the law, which is unprecedented. But separate from whatever legal definitions may be ascribed to it, the failure to adequately name the practice does harm to the established language and its meaning.
In particular, the practice of calling this "interracial marriage" does harm both to the word "interracial", and to the word "marriage", both of which have established meanings in language, and are widely used. Indeed the word "marriage" has no synonym which can be used in its place, unlike the word "interracial" which can be replaced in usage by the word "miscegenation"; So the destruction or redefinition of the word "marriage" is hurtful to the language in a way that can not be easily mended.
It is precisely the confusion over the definition of the words which has caused so much apparent disagreement which could have been avoided with adequate clarity and agreement over the definitions of the words which they are arguing over.
In conclusion, the phrase "interracial marriage" hurts users of language by confusing the established meaning of words, making rational discussion impossible. The phrase "interracial marriage" is describing something new in that it claims legal status. Therefore, one should pick another set of words that do not harm the established meaning of words in use. In particular, the word "marriage" has an established meaning, and cannot be easily replaced. The phrase should instead be "heteroracial union" or some other phrase that recognizes the nature of the relationship, while at the same time not doing harm to the long established meaning of the word "marriage". Finally, by unequivocating the meaning of the words used, much unnecessary disagreement and wasted debate could be avoided."
Nice try at a cut and past job, but your argument does not hold water as the analogy between interracial marriage and homosexual unions does not carry over.
As I stated in my previous argument the practice of legal recognition of aspects of homosexual unions is new and unprecedented. Indeed it is unprecedented everywhere in the history of the world. This is quite unlike interracial marriage which has been practiced in many times in many places throughout history, and in most cases without any special legal opinion on the matter. Homosexual unions are different and are new in their established recognition under law.
But that aside, i would point out that my original argument was addressing the issue of the curruption of language, and of the importance of preserving the long standing meaning of words, especially when there are no easy alternatives; such as in the case of the word "marriage". By attempting to broaden or slightly redefine the meaning of a word, you neccessarily dilute its original meaning.
If proponents of non-sex-specific unions had rallied for civil unions, or same sex unions recognition under the law, we would not be having this conversation.
What proponents of the phrase "gay marriage" demand is that the rest of society be forced to accept their own standard of the meaning of those words. And they seek to force this by attempting to enshrine their own particular minority definition upon the majority. This is form of calculated aggression against long standing traditional meaning of language, and should not be tolerated by a civil society.
In this Republican form of government, the minority should be protected from the majority, but the majority should also be protected from the minority. Even at their peak, the Nazis never had a majority of political affiliation, they took power as a political minority, but look what havok they wreaked upon their own citizenry and the values which they imposed by force upon the majority!
When language is eroded by degrees, then it ceases to have meaning; communication, and even thought itself become impossible. And society is brought unto a state of total decay and ruin. What once were men are then little more than animals. Read a page out of Orwell's 1984. The government's new speak is double ungood.
"As I stated in my previous argument the practice of legal recognition of aspects of homosexual unions is new and unprecedented."
First result on google: "The first country to allow same-sex couples to enter into legally recognized marriage was the Netherlands, effective in 2001. Since then, six other countries and seven U.S. states have followed suit, though voters in California revoked it through passage of Proposition 8." I wouldn't call that unprecedented. If you are going to make a strong claim such as something has never been practiced, you should be sure you actually know what you are talking about. Therefore as I said using traditional marriage as an argument against same-sex marriage is just like using traditional marriage as an argument against interracial marriage.
And your argument about language was really just wordy, vacuous, pseudo-intellectual babble. Words and language change over time. This is a natural phenomenon. Cultures are not stagnant. Marriage used to be between a man and the women he bought essentially. Society changes. This does not equate to a destruction of language.
"What proponents of the phrase "gay marriage" demand is that the rest of society be forced to accept their own standard of the meaning of those words. And they seek to force this by attempting to enshrine their own particular minority definition upon the majority."
You mean, just like interracial marriage? If you can't see the comparison, I'm really sorry.
"Even at their peak, the Nazis never had a majority of political affiliation, they took power as a political minority, but look what havok they wreaked upon their own citizenry and the values which they imposed by force upon the majority!"
Yes because the LGBT movement trying to gain civil rights is exactly like the Nazi regime.
I don't think you read 1984 very carefully if you think anything in it can be applied to being against same-sex marriage.
And I find no logical pathway for how same-sex marriage could lead to "a state of total decay and ruin." That's some class A fear mongering right there. Do you work for NOM?
Addressing your first point, of course there are modern developements in calling legally recognized relationships between same sex couples "marriage", that is why it is worth debating, whereas as little as ten or twenty years ago it was not. I was speaking in the broad scope of human history, and in that great span, this misapplication of the more traditional term of "marriage" to some form of relationship between a couple who are of the same sex IS new and IS unprecedented, particularly noteworthy is the use of the law as a weapon to force the new definition of the word "marriage" on everybody else against their consent in the name of equality and liberty for all.
I assure you words DO have meaning, and pondering that meaning is neither "vacuous" or "pseoudo intellectual". Some of the greatest intellectuals of Western Civilization are on my side on this one. Descarte, Aristotle, Newton, poets like Shakespeare, and Thoreau (who has been speculated as being homosexual by the way) all poured over the fine nuance and meaning of the words they used. And we have benefited greatly from them.
Of course the meaning of words change over time, but the underlying reality does not. Some words are reaplied to have new meaning, but the thing refered to has remaind unchanged in its underlying nature. The same bird is called by different names in different languages; and while some words may change faster than others, changing the word does not change the bird.
Any culture that values its heritage will naturally want to defend that culture from uncontrolled change including its own language, and it is natural and good that it should do this it is the practice of a form of social self preservation. This may sound academic, but it is not! It is exactly what is practiced by the government in French Canadia. They censor and conrol their printed media, street signs, and advertising billboards so as to assure adherence to the standard French language in word use and spelling. This may seem outlandish to the provintial mind, but begs the question...why do they do it? Because they value their own culture.
I do not venture to put myself on the side of government cencorship of all printed media, but surely our American society if it values its own cultural heritage at all, must atleast protect its language within the confines of the written law.
If sufficient demand for civil unions passes the standard of civil debate and law, that is fine. But no equivelant forum exists for the passage of redefining the meaning of words. Unlike in French Canadia, there are no language police. As law is nothing but the accumulation of words, the manipulation and steady curruption of those words will lead to the destruction of those laws original meaning, either in word, or in practice as those ignorant of the past will be unable to understand the true meaning of the words as they were intended.
This is not hypothetical. The Spanish conquistadors destroyed their conquered Aztec subject's written histories and records for a reason, to bring about the destruction of their civilization.
As for interracial marriage, i have already addressed that issue, please read the previous post more carefully.
My 1984 reference was about the ministry of Truth, which systematically corrupted the language by deminishing the number of words and broadening each remaining words application, thereby diluting its meaning. The speaker posits this is exaclty what is occuring in the case of legal use of the term "gay marriage", for the reasons stated in the primary statement.
This speaker did not state "that same-sex marriage could lead to 'a state of total decay and ruin.'" The inner statement was taken out of context, see previous argument. Neither has this speaker sought to discredit same sex unions, either in principle or in law. The speaker wishes to make clear the distinction between using the word marriage in the traditional sense and in the new same-sex sense in which it is being applied. Proponents of the use of language of so called "gay marriage" would have you believe there is no difference between the two definitions, while simultaneously insisting that their new definition be accepted; which is a contradiction.
That is astounding. You managed to use so many words to say so little. You were an English major weren't you?
"I was speaking in the broad scope of human history, and in that great span, this misapplication of the more traditional term of "marriage" to some form of relationship between a couple who are of the same sex IS new and IS unprecedented"
I see you have difficulty reading so I will bold what I wrote earlier.
"The first country to allow same-sex couples to enter into legally recognized marriage was the Netherlands, effective in 2001. Since then, six other countries and seven U.S. states have followed suit, though voters in California revoked it through passage of Proposition 8."
Same-sex marriage is not unprecedented.
"Particularly noteworthy is the use of the law as a weapon to force the new definition of the word "marriage" on everybody"
Just like forcing the new definition of the word marriage as being interracial as well. How can you not see that this is exactly the same thing?
"I assure you words DO have meaning, and pondering that meaning is neither "vacuous" or "pseoudo intellectual"."
I never said words do not have meaning. And pondering meanings of words is not what I was criticizing you for. I was criticizing you for complaining that the natural progression of society and therefore its means of communication, language, amounts to a destruction of language.
"Descarte, Aristotle, Newton, poets like Shakespeare, and Thoreau (who has been speculated as being homosexual by the way) all poured over the fine nuance and meaning of the words they used."
No they were not all on your side. They never wrote anything about gay marriage or the changing of language of being its destruction. Wow you are really intellectually dishonest. They were authors who naturally were quite concerned with the meaning of the language they used to write their works, but that doesn't mean they were concerned with language changing. Please stop misrepresenting the truth.
"Of course the meaning of words change over time, but the underlying reality does not. Some words are reaplied to have new meaning, but the thing refered to has remaind unchanged in its underlying nature. The same bird is called by different names in different languages; and while some words may change faster than others, changing the word does not change the bird."
Here's a great example of your meaningless pseudo-intellectualism. "Underlying reality" is a meaningless phrase. Try to actually say something concrete next time. If you actually knew anything about language, you would understand what a joke it is to say that saying marriage is also between a man and a woman is a drastic change to language. Why don't you take a look at the archaic words and archaic definitions that are no longer used and then talk to me about drastic change. This change of the terms of marriage is incredibly slight. Yours is one of the worst arguments against gay marriage I have heard. At least Christians saying it goes against their holy book is factually correct, even though this is legally and philosophically incorrect. Merriam-Webster's definition of the word "marriage" includes same-sex marriage by the way.
"This may sound academic, but it is not!"
At least you have one thing right.
"This may seem outlandish to the provintial mind, but begs the question...why do they do it? Because they value their own culture."
I like when people deliberately use bigger words in a condescending way to sound smart and then spell them incorrectly. It tickles my irony bone.
And your argument if I can call it that about government censorship is lame. The fact that another government does something is not justification for it. I will spare you the holocaust analogies because I am still hoping you are intelligent enough to see now how stupid your point is.
"The Spanish conquistadors destroyed their conquered Aztec subject's written histories and records for a reason, to bring about the destruction of their civilization."
Oh my gosh you have uncovered the LGBT movement's secret plot. Their plan must have been to destroy civilization by destroying our language by making civil rights apply to them thereby changing the language. Blast those sexual deviants. Good thing you solved the mystery Nancy Drew.
You should not deride another's love as unworthy without a damn good reason. Semantic bullshit is not a good reason.
Your argument in nothing but thinly veiled gay bashing.
That said, allowing gays to marry does not radically redefine marriage. You just flip the gender of one of the participants. Everything else stays the same.
I have not "derided another's love as unworthy" as you claim.
My argument is not "nothing but a thinly veiled gay bashing." as you claim. I have used only logic and reason in my arguments. You're statement on the other hand is tantamount to calling me a gay basher; it is slander and it is libelous, it is personally hurtful and i would ask that you refrain from ad homonim attacks, and confine yourself to the more respected tools of argument.
If you believe that i am a "gay basher" then i say you have me confused with someone else.
In any event, i would ask that you not resort to personal attacks, especially when this is a forum for arguing for or against a particular question, and this does not necessarily reflect ones personal views but is an exercize in public debate methods, as I'm sure you are aware of.
"I have not "derided another's love as unworthy" as you claim."
Yes you have, all who campaign against gay marriage are essentially making that statement.
"this does not necessarily reflect ones personal views but is an exercize in public debate methods"
Well if you're just playing Devil's advocate, then I apologize for calling you a gay-basher.
But consider the effects of your words: Neocon sheep are liable to skim through your argument, nodding their heads without understanding, thinking that there is some kind of rational justification for their hateful beliefs. We can't have that.
Oh, and you seem to have overlooked the last paragraph in my previous argument. No ad-hominem there.
Jake So how does it hurt you personally? What you have said is a moral thing...not an actual hurt. I know plenty of people that have grow up with out a parent and it didn't hurt them a bit. Some on...try again but lets hear how it hurts on a personal level without the moral issue.
Oh, it doesn't hurt me, don't you worry. It only hurts them because it lessens their chances of getting into heaven by, lets say, allot! And that is an actual hurt, maybe not right now but eventually the consequences will come. Yeah immorality can hurt you very, very badly. Allot of people are in denial about this. (;
Why from a different angle? Why cant you answer my question the way it is?
My answer to you is no, I can't prove to you that my religion is true, but I can tell you that I know that it is. Its not so much about what's true or not, but about how you live your life and the choices you make.
"I can't prove to you that my religion is true, but I can tell you that I know that it is."
No, you don't "know" that Christianity is right, you have faith in Christianity.
Knowledge has a rational foundation.
Faith is unfounded and irrational.
The problem with faith is that when people of two different faiths conflict, how do we decide which one is right? If you have faith in Christianity and another person has faith in Islam, how do we decide who is right? We can't, because neither belief has a rational foundation.
I don't know whether God exists or not. I think that question is impossible to answer because I think it is impossible for us to know anything about the stuff outside of our own universe.
Because it is impossible know anything about the initial forces that created the universe, it makes no sense to say that God was that force.
And even if we do assume that God created the universe, it makes no sense to jump from there to saying Christianity is right and all other religions are wrong.
This isn't just some personal belief. This is the only rational conclusion.
But seeing as how the Chrisitan God is just one of an infinite number of possible explanations as to the origin of the universe, I'd say the probability that you are correct is practically zero.
Says who? Do you think making gay marriage illegal means there will be less homosexuals? Don't you think that an orphan would rather have homosexual parents rather then no parents at all? Have you even ever met a family with homosexual parents? Unlike you, I have. They were actually a lot better adjusted then most people I know who have straight parents. I'm not sure why your so homophobic Jake, but I think maybe you need to be a little more open minded.
OH good grief How close minded can one nutter be? Someone that chooses to be gay does it on their own one way or the other. Its not your business who someone finds attractive or falls in love with.
The "mediaflow"? You think that we all feel this way because the media told us to? Wow... that is quite an insult! I just know to treat everyone fairly.
Because the way you worded your statement shows that you believe that it isn't "ok" to be gay as you were apparently scared of children thinking it is ok to be gay. See? You can't even see the way you think clearly yourself. Gay people are the way they are. They aren't an aberration or a fluke or the consequence of a choice. They are human beings that simply prefer same sex partners AND THAT IS OK.
What? So are you just admitting to talking out of your ass? Yes, if you espouse a belief I will believe that you believe it as a general courtesy of not thinking you a constant liar. If no one can believe your words at face value then there is no point ever debating you again as you just outed yourself as a nihilist, one who believes in nothing. Saying you think it's wrong for children to think being gay is ok says a lot about you. If you don't believe that then be more clear in your posts, because you seem constantly out of your depth on this site my friend.
Sorry Jake. i don't want you to feel like you're being picked on or ganged up on. Some of these people have really pissed me off and that's not easy thing to do but I have to side with them on this issue...... but only to point. After that, I'm back to fighting them. There's a fundamental difference in their argument that just sets me off.
Let's just say that 5 years ago when I married my husband, homosexual marriage was legal... this would have had absolutely no effect on my choice to get married to him! Why do you say that there would be less families? How do you define a family? People who care for each other? There are thousands of kids in orphanages all over the world who would be a billion times better off being raised by 2 homosexuals than left in the orphanage!
I agree with you that we all need a male and female role model to look up to, but this does not have to be a biological parent!
I didn't say that it would affect anyones choice on if they are homosexual, or who they marrie.
I define a family as a mother and father who love each other(not just care for each other) and for their children.
Also, parents are more than just role models.
"There are thousands of kids in orphanages all over the world who would be a billion times better off being raised by 2 homosexuals than left in the orphanage!"
So you define a family as "a mother and father who love each other(not just care for each other) and for their children." What happens if the father dies in Iraq? Are they no longer a family? There are thousands of families all over the world who do not fit this definition and still raise healthy and happy children!
The majority of the happy and healthy people are raised by a mother and a father. And if one of them dies they are still a family. I believe that families can be together forever and that death is not the end.
You want a 1 year old child in an orphanage to decide? Why not let them vote, drink, smoke, drive and do other things then... please, they are children and not old enough to make such choices! Plus, do you really think that a child would rather stay in an orphanage than be loved by 2 people in a home where they have family... even if that family is 2 men? I have friends (heterosexuals) who just adopted a 2 year old child because they cannot have kids... that child has some issues, but is so happy to no longer be in an orphanage!
What defines a parent? The person who gave an egg and the person who gave the sperm? I have cousins who are adopted and are perfectly normal and healthy, I have those friends I spoke of before who just adopted less than a month ago. These people are all parents regardless of the fact that they did not give birth to these children! This would be no different if 2 gays adapted. I think that being a parent is more about loving and supporting a child than just knocking some woman up! There are thousands of men out there who get a woman pregnant but have nothing to do with the child's life. The way you are defining being a parent this man would be a father... yet has not doing a damn thing other than ejaculate!
You don't really address any of my questions, Jake. I counter your debate and then you ignore the point and go off on a tangent.
So you say that parents are legally married... ok, so if there is a divorce those people are no longer parents? If there is a death of a parent? You are defining a family in a very narrow sense. Gay sex partners are not what we are talking about here, but gay "people who actually love each other and their children and who stay together."
"ok, so if there is a divorce those people are no longer parents?"
-not necessarily
"If there is a death of a parent?"
-no
"You are defining a family in a very narrow sense."
Yes, I am because I know that a family is a very important and sacred thing that should not be altered in any way. Family is the most important thing in life.
Who says your definition of family is correct? You think that two people who love each other should not be able to adopt merely because they are the same sex? How about single people who adopt?
Family is very important. Explain to me why homosexual parents are any less capable then heterosexual parents at raising a child.
What if I thought you shouldn't be allowed to raise kids? Would that give me the right to take away your right to adopt?
Unless you have some proof that children of homosexual parents are somehow harmed, then you are just spouting bullshit. I actually know people with gay parents. I would love to see you repeat what you just said to their face.
Well its a good thing for me that I was right about the fact that the U.S. doesn't vote on things that should not be voted on. But, if there was a vote like that then you would be the minority. If I couldn't adopt allot of people wouldn't be allowed to.
It used to be a given that the slaves would do the cleaning, too. As long as we're going by the way things used to be, let's choose our mates by raping them in our caves.
Jake, you are very fond of using the expression, "How many times do I have to tell you!"
First off that's a very cheeky statement. It a bit presumptuous of anyone to utter those words on subject matter they know so little about. Let me turn the tables though, for just one moment, when I say to you...HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE!
I have known "families" with two moms and two dads. They were very loving families and the children felt that love very deeply...even when the questions came, as they always do. Most of the kids I kept track of wouldn't have traded their upbringing for one second because it taught them things about prejudice, acceptance, being different and being OK with that. They say they would not have had that same opportunity has they been raised by straight parents. All of them are fine and none of them are gay, no matter which gender they grew up with.
I was raised by straight parents, does that mean I havn't had an opportunity to be taught anything about prejudice, acceptance, or being different!?
oh and about "How many times do I have to tell you" im not sure that i have used that more than maybe once or twice but I am not fond of having to tell people the same things over and over again.
That's one of your problems Jake...You tell people...you don't reason it out or even back it up with facts, statistics or anything else of value. You are completely homophobic Jake, face it. The possibility of this being a viable relationship is so foreign to you that you believe a child would be ruined by being a part of that relationship. Homosexuality is not a disease my friend...it's a way of life that was given those of us who are. No one should be punished because of it.
I'm not at all certain that is correct Jake. The estimate on the number of gays vs. straights in this country is about 10%. It may well be more, but the family structure has been maintained thus far in the world and will probably remain so. Yes, I would agree that any child needs a Mom or Dad to look up to and it is easier when there are one of each, however, I believe studies have shown very few, if any, bad affects have been realized from a two mom or two dad household. As long as there are members of the other sex around to give the child balance that's all that's really needed.
The problems a child has being raised by gay parents is NOT from the parents themselves, but the horrible way those kids are treated by kids and others who are raised by heterosexual parents. That is the sad data...
Kirstie, Fact is Kids are cruel. If its not gay then they are cruel bout those who are tall, fat, thin, short, have curly hair, don't have the latest clothes. Point is kids are always going to find something to pick about. I was picked on because I was adopted and my parents weren't my "real" parents so I must have had something wrong with me. Then when they got tired of that it was my weight, then my height, then who I dated. Having gay parents isn't going to change anything for a kid being teased by children raised by close minded parents.
