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"?

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.

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!

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.

Hmmmm.

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,

the patience to put it with the things I can't,

and the wisdom to know the difference.

Gayness is as natural as sex and food.

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).

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 ;)

Remember, vote twice, vote often ;)

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.

I agree with just about everything you just said. Thank you!

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.

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.

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 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. =)

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'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.

That is as far from the truth as one can get! There are no statistics that show that your take on this is true.

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 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?

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.

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.

Pyg if you think Joe's comment is kind of true, then I would suggest you use more lube ;)

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.

HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO DENY THE FACTS!!!

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?

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.

Yeah, bite me ;)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah ;)

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.

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.

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?

Another piece of brilliance from machonazi! That is now the counter to feminazi....what you call women!

That wasn't my mission but it will now be my pleasure to do just that. You've just exposed your true colors for all to see. I'm advising you to stay as far away from me as you possibly can.

I've been a part of the cause for 40 years while you haven't been in it for 40 minutes! You know nothing of us or what we need. Joe is for Joe, and no one and nothing else.

OK, that made me lol. One up vote. ;)

Do it till your finger falls off for all I care ;)

That's funny. One up vote for you ;)

The American Psychological Association says otherwise:

"most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation"

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!

It's not hokey, Joe, it is a way of life! I also agree with the quote you posted and try, even though at times it is very hard, to live my life by it:

"God give me the strength to change the things I can,

the patience to put it with the things I can't,

and the wisdom to know the difference."

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".

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...

So are you really saying that a child would be better off in an orphanage than raised by a homosexual couple? I really don't believe that, Jake...

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.??

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.

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.

"It hurts families, the more gay marriage the less families there will be"

Well what did you mean by this statement? How does gay marriage being legal mean less families?

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! ;)

wow, repubgal, that sounded almost human ;)

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.

- Mark Twain, a Biography

Well, great.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Ah, OK, I get it..... you want to have the last word ;)

andSoccer16,

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.

Here read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/09/genetics.medicalresearch

and this:

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/28/5/283

and this:

http://milehive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task;=view&id;=1176&Itemid;=36

The bottom line:

Gays want to be accepted into a club that doesn't want them and they are getting militant about it.

Why is that? Probably because people want what they can't have and despise what they do have. Groucho Marx once said:

"PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

This is also why the "hair" industry makes lots of money. Women with straight hair want curly hair and women with curly hair want staight hair.

It's just human nature. Not bigotry or ignorance, it's just human nature.

Now, I have to go pee.

C-ya ;)

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.

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!

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?

2 parents, say the research, regardless of gender. That's the formula for healthy upbringing.

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."

Thanks for at least trying to be a little bit nice. These people need to lighten up a little bit.

Thanks for understanding ;)

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.

So you're basing your arguments off of christian mythology?

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.

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.

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:

http://outtheotherear.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/spotlight-arkansas-gay-adoption/

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:

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

Is it unfair for me to call them bigots, or am I being narrow minded?

Finally I would like to respond to this comment you made:

I have said that gays will eventually win. But why does it have to be right now and at what cost?

And I can only respond with this quote:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke

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.

I'm yet to see any comedy from Joe.

Pfft, can you prove that it's true?

What you're doing here is that you're moving the burden of proof over to me, a common mistake that theists make.

Here's your argument, except from a different angle:

Can you prove that the beliefs from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are mythology?

hahahahahahahahahaha I laughed so hard when I read that just now.

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."

"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 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.

And that's why we live in a secular society that bases it's laws off of rationality and not religion.

Jake said:

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.

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.

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)

Hey Gays! Want to adopt? Leave your job! Leave your friends! Leave your house! Leave everything that you are familiar with and are accustomed to!

It's not our fault. You're the one who wanted to start a family. What nerve you had! A family! Your lucky we don't throw you in jail.

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.

Check this debate out.

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Are_deaf_people_bigots_against_hearing_people

We should probably continue over there because this is getting way too crowded.

I love sarcasm ;)

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.

check this out:

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Is_it_better_to_offend_than_allow_yourself_to_be_placed_in_an_uncompromising

Maybe we should continue over there since it's getting crowded over here.

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.

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.

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.

It's called an analogy, genius.

He's saying that basing things on tradition is a bad idea.

Yes.

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.

"...bases it's laws off of rationality and not religion."

At least we hope so... and want it to be so... but is it really? I don't think that some people do want this at all!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sweetie, I wasn't opposing you...it was Bradf0rd.

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?

In #2 you are confusing monogamy with polygamy (you call it "bi-marriage")

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?

Did you watch the video? Gay animals help the survival of their siblings. And to answer your question, yes, there are gay mated pairs.

So, yes, I did answer both my opponent and the topic.

I did not marry for benefits.

I married to share my life with my husband and make a family.

A good marriage has quite a lot of sacrifice from both the husband and the wife.

Pretty much most benefits (like being able to raise your own kids) have been screwed by this economy.

1) Man+man is a marriage of equals. Ok. So what?

2) Marriage between a man and two women. That's a separate debate.

3) Marriage between a man and an android. That's a separate debate.

4) Marriage is not a right. Ok, but gay marriage still doesn't hurt anyone.

4) Marriage is not religious. Ok. So what?

5) Changing the meanings of important words can hurt. Ok. But changing the meaning of marriage to allow gays to marry doesn't hurt anyone.

"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."

By this logic, all marriage hurts us.

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.

Does the truth hurt you that much?

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?

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?

So you're the one who possesses all the understanding, you just can't articulate your thoughts...Riiiiiiight

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."

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?

"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.

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.

So how does this hurt people? I have a religion that says being Christian is an abomination, does that mean I can outlaw Christianity?

The Bible says a lot of crazy shit. You can't touch pigskin with your bare hands, you can't work on sunday etc...

But my favorite is the one that says you're allowed to beat your slave to death so long as it takes longer then a day...

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 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 did way more than ridicule.

See my post on the other side.

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 :)

That's ridiculous.

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.

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.

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

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.

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.

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!!

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...

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11102139

http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/queer-town/queer-town-the-catholic-power/

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.

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.

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.

If two consenting adults love each other and want to make a life long commitment of marriage they should be allowed to do so.

"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?"

A) Separation of church and state.

B) Condoms have made the AIDS argument moot.

Are you trying to rebut a particular argument? If so, you should pick one and click the "oppose" link there at the bottom of the argument.

It doesent hurt anyone, if they want to be together, who are we stopping them?

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.

"Its traumatic for a child to see two men or two women kissing."

No it isn't.

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.

It's not favoring religion if two atheists get married

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.

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."

Source:

http://www.narth.com/docs/does.html National Association for Research &n;theraphy of homosexuality

I don't think it hurts anyone, really. Except for maybe people who are indecisive about their sexual orientation and are losing sleep over it.

It really doesn't bother anyone, I am cristion. But I'm also Bi. It is just they way you feel about things. I'm totally for the laws of love and God!

jdsalkjflsadkjflajs;lf

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

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.

"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?"

Is LOVE not an acceptable answer?

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.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2

Most of his videos are about evolution and debunking creationist arguments.

"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.

no - that's stupid. it's just another case of people being overly concerned with other people's lives instead of sticking to their own business.

KMKJFNJNJNM KFKEIHUUBNG N DJUHEJNBJ DF IKJIBDFNJSHDL,LKROE IHHJASFNJK

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, condoms aren't 100% effective, but they do drastically reduce the risk of many STDs, including HIV.

There are 2 shot and simple points to be made.

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.

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.

It's this simple.....

You love who you love.

And for those religious nuts out there.....

doesn't it say Thou shalt not judge???

YOU ARE NOT GOD.

Let him sort it out, and you should worry about yourself instead of a gay couple.

"If homosexuality increases to the point that more people are homosexual than not..."

This is not going to happen. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is a trait that only a small minority is born with.

You think gay marriage will lead to an increase in gay rape?

This is just silly. It sounds like you've got some issues with homophobia.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, the Bible is not a reliable source of historical information.

Nobody wants to redefine marriage. We just want to expand the definition slightly to be fair to homosexuals.

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!

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.

(source)

Banning gay marriage because the Bible says it's wrong is tantamount to establishing Christianity as a state religion.

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.

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."

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.

oh we're sorry... 99.95%. There, does that make it better?

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

BTW, you may want to reply here.

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ What_are_some_of_the_ramification_of_gay_marriage

or not ;)

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."

http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html

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.

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.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477

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.

I applaud your ability to not impose your personal beliefs on others. If only more religious people could be like you.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes you can, atheism isn't a religion, it's the rejection of religion.

Wow so much ignorance and hypocrisy to address.

"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.

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.

So what's the problem?

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 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.

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.

fathers and a daughters cant get married bc when you inbreed the children come out with missing chromosomes and cross eyes.

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?

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?

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.

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?

is genetic - see my previous arguements

in case you havent noticed...

.>

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

i just wanted to add this, but

since aids comes from monkies....

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)

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.

gay people shouldnt have to choose a different word.

marriage refers to the union of two souls

yes, generally from different genders, but if not, so what. a word is a word.

this isnt semantics. people need to stop saying "no, bc 'marriage' means a man and a woman"

when we say should gays be allowed to get "married" we mean, "should they have the right to be allowed official union"

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.

I can't talk in depth as I'm at work, but suffice to say that is an extremely simple interpretation of evolution.

Check out genetic drift.

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?

In a perfect world what you propose should work but unfortunately it is not a perfect a world and so we have two options.

1. Continue fighting over whether or not they can or cannot use the word. This can last indefinitely like the abortion issue.

2. Pick another word, grab the benefits/rights, stop the fighting and move on with all of our lives.

I'm 100% for option 2. I want to move on with my life ;)

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.

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."

There is a difference between harm and progress.

"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?

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."

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.

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.

"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?"

you list no benefits.

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.

So your stance is that a child would rather be in an orphanage than with a gay couple who loved him or her?

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.

Well I guess you are right. Because it is impossible to argue with an imaginary god's word. lol

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

Actually, the person on the receiving end sometimes gets butt hurt. Or so I'm told ;)

FUCKIN' A MAN!!!! literally ;)

comedy is best in bad taste. the more people it offends, the better (unless it offends everyone but you).

lighten up, it's the internetz, not C-SPAN.

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 ;)