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

I think the major point that everyone is missing is that few people would get married if it were not for the benefits attached to such a union. If you remove the benefits, would anyone wish to get married?

Another point of issue, marriage is a religious icon. Why is the government issuing benefits based on the edicts of established religion? If people wish to get married or divorced, why does Uncle Sam or any of the 50 states really care?

So to summarize, Gay marriage does hurt us. It hurts us by allowing the government to further violate the constitution by respecting the beliefs of established religion. I vote against Gay marriage and I vote against ANY form of marriage where two people must register their union with the government.

Our forefathers fought against the stamp tax, yet 240 years later the constitution has been raped and the very laws we fought against have been slowly yoked around our necks.

What people like you don't get is that people who are legally married to a member of the same sex usually want to adopt. The child of the couple is going to be hurt mentally because it is healthy for a child to grow up in a household with one mom and one dad. The mom and the dad each contribute something to how the child acts and feels. Without either a mom or a dad the child is mentally hurt because they do not have that influence. I am not saying the child is mentally retarded, but it is much more healthy to have one mom and one dad. I sometimes will say that I support the right to marry but not to adopt.

My problem with that statement, though, is that the bible makes references where it says that a marrige is to be strictly between only one man and one woman. My stance on the issue is that I am somewhere between no tolerance and some to little tolerance.

What true colors? Do you see a conspiracy everywhere you look? This isn't the first time you have used these words. Do you go looking for people to use these words on? If so, you may be creating your own reality.

You really don't know me at all.... do you? But you are convinced that you do and you act accordingly on your assumptions. And not only do you believe you know me, you also believe you know the true nature of every person you perceive to be against you and you act accordingly. Amazing!

you arent born with homosexuality. there is no gay gene. it is all from influences from your peers and society. that statement was unfounded.

yeah i agree with him, but i don't have any tolerance for it. its supposed to be between a man and a woman. it is their sacred right given to them by God.

Having said all of that, I know exactly how you feel because I too want something that I'm not entitled to and the courts keep on deying me.

So my arguments to you are like therapy to me because if I can create a well thought out argument against gay marriage, then I can use a similar argument to justify the court's decision to myself and this in turn eases the pain and resentment and anger that is within me.

So don't think too harshly of me. We're all in this together. We all have issues. ;)

we are redefining marriage so it is presumptuous of you to assume that monogamy is the only way to live.

it's my right as a bisexual to be able to be with both the people I love. now how can you argue with this? are you not placing the same meaningless societal boundaries on the bisexual that you claim others are on you?

what justification do you have to not allow this? and remember no religion or stupid nonsense taboos. actually as a married woman the idea of an extra wife has always sounded okay.

"Gay marriage destroys marriage and traditional values, and that's why it's a great thing."

this is why the prop 8 passed.

on the one hand. . .you all want the white picket fence

on the other. . .it sucks and we are freakin' stupid for buying into it. so why do you want that which you claim to hate?

as a married woman with children I have been called a breeder on various women forums. and the concept that children are merely excessive consumerism run amok that they hate seeing in their daily life. this idea was put forth many times by women who thought my being married, to a man no less was pretty much the same as me tattooing slave on my forehead.

I accept you for who you are. why do you want to be me? and if you want to be me why the disdain for my choices?

Jake, why should anyone lighten up? You're doing a pretty good job venting your point of view, why shouldn't others?

"Think about what I said on the debate when that person was looking for your retirement from this site. I said what I did because it was wrong and you were my ally even though I was still bruised from the last brouhaha regarding Repubgal. You were so busy trying to think of unfunny things to say you couldn't think for one moment that I may have needed some words of encouragement from you on that board!"

OK, look. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you needed some words of encouragement from me or anyone. You and I are different in that I'm more callous. I didn't need for you to stick up for me and I never understood why you let Repubgal get to you. This fundamental difference is what makes us be at odds with each other.

For what it's worth, I hope the gay community gets what they want. It doesn't affect me in any way shape or form. When proposition 8 passed and the facts came out (blacks voted overwhelmingly for it, the proponents spent less money and won, etc.) and after talking to people who had signs on their yard, I realized that this was an up hill battle and suggested by passing the religious right. But you're right. I'm a straight boy, as you so eloquently put it, and I guess I will never understand you or your plight. I thought my heart was in the right place; that I was lending a helping hand. But I guess none is wanted nor needed so deal with it on your own. I don't care.

please, we all need people who can provide some witty comments. and yes, that was funny cause it kind of is true.

if we stayed serious all the time, it wouldn't be that fun to come here as often.

yes, i'll admit, 80% of the topics that Joe brings up is crap, but his replies are pretty funny and necessary.

If Man marry Man then what will happen to those Girls who are already in large numbers. And child birth will be disturb that means you are hurting your countary your economy...

It hurts when they want to teach kids in school that. I like that we have a system and a fabric that rewards a man and women to marry. People don't want it and thats why they have petitioned to remove it from states that have made it law only on judicial reasons which is unconstitutional.

1. I have nothing against gays being in some sort of legal binding (for the lack of better word I can't think of right now), but do not call it a marriage. Even 50 years from today, it will not be accepted in general although some will accept for the purpose of political correctness.

2. Although many of you might say that it would never happen, this will lead for other movements whose marital ideas would disgust most of us: people marring animals, minors, bugs, extra-terrestrials.........don't be surprised at all if such a movement is strongly established in less than a decade. It is a simple "if he/she can, why can't I?", it is my Constitutional right. Don't forget, people always like to see how far they can take it plus it is a way to differentiate yourself from the general public. It is only in human nature to do so. There has to be some limit.

Addressing your first point, of course there are modern developements in calling legally recognized relationships between same sex couples "marriage", that is why it is worth debating, whereas as little as ten or twenty years ago it was not. I was speaking in the broad scope of human history, and in that great span, this misapplication of the more traditional term of "marriage" to some form of relationship between a couple who are of the same sex IS new and IS unprecedented, particularly noteworthy is the use of the law as a weapon to force the new definition of the word "marriage" on everybody else against their consent in the name of equality and liberty for all.

I assure you words DO have meaning, and pondering that meaning is neither "vacuous" or "pseoudo intellectual". Some of the greatest intellectuals of Western Civilization are on my side on this one. Descarte, Aristotle, Newton, poets like Shakespeare, and Thoreau (who has been speculated as being homosexual by the way) all poured over the fine nuance and meaning of the words they used. And we have benefited greatly from them.

Of course the meaning of words change over time, but the underlying reality does not. Some words are reaplied to have new meaning, but the thing refered to has remaind unchanged in its underlying nature. The same bird is called by different names in different languages; and while some words may change faster than others, changing the word does not change the bird.

Any culture that values its heritage will naturally want to defend that culture from uncontrolled change including its own language, and it is natural and good that it should do this it is the practice of a form of social self preservation. This may sound academic, but it is not! It is exactly what is practiced by the government in French Canadia. They censor and conrol their printed media, street signs, and advertising billboards so as to assure adherence to the standard French language in word use and spelling. This may seem outlandish to the provintial mind, but begs the question...why do they do it? Because they value their own culture.

I do not venture to put myself on the side of government cencorship of all printed media, but surely our American society if it values its own cultural heritage at all, must atleast protect its language within the confines of the written law.

If sufficient demand for civil unions passes the standard of civil debate and law, that is fine. But no equivelant forum exists for the passage of redefining the meaning of words. Unlike in French Canadia, there are no language police. As law is nothing but the accumulation of words, the manipulation and steady curruption of those words will lead to the destruction of those laws original meaning, either in word, or in practice as those ignorant of the past will be unable to understand the true meaning of the words as they were intended.

This is not hypothetical. The Spanish conquistadors destroyed their conquered Aztec subject's written histories and records for a reason, to bring about the destruction of their civilization.

As for interracial marriage, i have already addressed that issue, please read the previous post more carefully.

My 1984 reference was about the ministry of Truth, which systematically corrupted the language by deminishing the number of words and broadening each remaining words application, thereby diluting its meaning. The speaker posits this is exaclty what is occuring in the case of legal use of the term "gay marriage", for the reasons stated in the primary statement.

This speaker did not state "that same-sex marriage could lead to 'a state of total decay and ruin.'" The inner statement was taken out of context, see previous argument. Neither has this speaker sought to discredit same sex unions, either in principle or in law. The speaker wishes to make clear the distinction between using the word marriage in the traditional sense and in the new same-sex sense in which it is being applied. Proponents of the use of language of so called "gay marriage" would have you believe there is no difference between the two definitions, while simultaneously insisting that their new definition be accepted; which is a contradiction.

I have not "derided another's love as unworthy" as you claim.

My argument is not "nothing but a thinly veiled gay bashing." as you claim. I have used only logic and reason in my arguments. You're statement on the other hand is tantamount to calling me a gay basher; it is slander and it is libelous, it is personally hurtful and i would ask that you refrain from ad homonim attacks, and confine yourself to the more respected tools of argument.

If you believe that i am a "gay basher" then i say you have me confused with someone else.

In any event, i would ask that you not resort to personal attacks, especially when this is a forum for arguing for or against a particular question, and this does not necessarily reflect ones personal views but is an exercize in public debate methods, as I'm sure you are aware of.

Nice try at a cut and past job, but your argument does not hold water as the analogy between interracial marriage and homosexual unions does not carry over.

As I stated in my previous argument the practice of legal recognition of aspects of homosexual unions is new and unprecedented. Indeed it is unprecedented everywhere in the history of the world. This is quite unlike interracial marriage which has been practiced in many times in many places throughout history, and in most cases without any special legal opinion on the matter. Homosexual unions are different and are new in their established recognition under law.

But that aside, i would point out that my original argument was addressing the issue of the curruption of language, and of the importance of preserving the long standing meaning of words, especially when there are no easy alternatives; such as in the case of the word "marriage". By attempting to broaden or slightly redefine the meaning of a word, you neccessarily dilute its original meaning.

If proponents of non-sex-specific unions had rallied for civil unions, or same sex unions recognition under the law, we would not be having this conversation.

What proponents of the phrase "gay marriage" demand is that the rest of society be forced to accept their own standard of the meaning of those words. And they seek to force this by attempting to enshrine their own particular minority definition upon the majority. This is form of calculated aggression against long standing traditional meaning of language, and should not be tolerated by a civil society.

In this Republican form of government, the minority should be protected from the majority, but the majority should also be protected from the minority. Even at their peak, the Nazis never had a majority of political affiliation, they took power as a political minority, but look what havok they wreaked upon their own citizenry and the values which they imposed by force upon the majority!

When language is eroded by degrees, then it ceases to have meaning; communication, and even thought itself become impossible. And society is brought unto a state of total decay and ruin. What once were men are then little more than animals. Read a page out of Orwell's 1984. The government's new speak is double ungood.

What I am trying to say is there should not be non-religous marriage. Atheists should not marry, if they are rejecting religion. If this was followed, THEN you couldn't have a non-religious marriage.

I never thought for one moment that you were different in any way shape or form. I have had, and have to this day, gay friends that I never thought were any different. And since I have friends on both sides of the fence, I feel more like someone in the middle of a battle field. I hear both sides and figured I may be able to get one group to bypass the other. However, my solution falls short in that, although it gets homosexuals the rights they're after, it doesn't buy them acceptance. For example, it doesn't get them religious wedding ceremonies from some religions.

BTW, a little more about my personal life, if you're interested. When I was a child I loved to play with toy soldiers. I would spend hours setting them up. Once I asked my sister to play and she immediately started a battle. I said, "What are you doing?" She said, "Well...., they're soldiers. They are doing what soldiers do." I said, "No! they're supposed to make treaties!" She said, "That's boring!" and left. Later that night my grandmother said that it was time to go to bed and that I had to clear the soldiers off the bed. So I had a small skirmish so that I could go to bed and not have to put away those soldiers that were under the bed. In the morning I continued playing but I don't remember if the survivors had a funeral for those who died the night before or if they managed to resurrect them somehow. I guess that little boy that was always wanting to make peace is still alive and well in me. ;)

"the way you worded your statement shows that you believe"

Hmm, that doesn't make sense.

If I say something does that mean that I believe it? No.

"Gays started this "war" by trying to take something they feel strongly about but are not necessarily entitled to."

That's the point. They are entitled to it which is why attempted bans of gay marriage will always fail because it flys in the face of equal protection under the law as stated in the recent Iowa Supreme Court decision.

I am just curious as to if ou know what A) means???????????????????????

In case you haven't heard, condoms aren't 100% effective. Also they dont prevent against STI's and STD's

I was raised by straight parents, does that mean I havn't had an opportunity to be taught anything about prejudice, acceptance, or being different!?

oh and about "How many times do I have to tell you" im not sure that i have used that more than maybe once or twice but I am not fond of having to tell people the same things over and over again.

No, I'm not gay.

"The only people who could POSSIBLY mind gays are gay people who don't want to be gay" that is false, what about the other 20% you mentioned?

OK, I am in perfect agreement with you that this conversation should probably be over. I'll respond to both posts. First, I don't apologize for my opinions. I have, however, clarified to my earlier post, that when I forgot to specifically mention pedophilia as being unrelated to homosexuality, I assumed the reader would group pedophilia and serial murder. I have clarified this point, and I'll say again, pedophilia and serial killing are in no way similar to homosexuality. I was merely using hyperbole to show that people do not have a right to do everything they are born desiring.

"whether people "turn gay" or are born gay, is not a matter of opinion. 1+1=2 is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact."

http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf a scholarly response to the idea that this has been pr oven. I'm sure we can both go on all day posting on this idea, the reality is we just don't know. I personally believe people are born with a predisposition toward homosexuality which can either be cultivated or repressed, but everyone has the ability to make decisions in their life. Besides, no one is arguing gays should stop what they're doing (well, some people probably are).

Again, ad homonyms all over. It seems If anyone says something you disagree with the best thing to do is call them hateful and stupid. Oh and gay, but I guess I'm too dumb to get that.

If 51% of people voted for slavery it wouldn't matter because slavery is made illegal by the constitution and the courts would then have an obligation to point that out. That's what it's for. If anyone can show me where it says you have a right to marry whomever you want in the constitution I will go picket in CA right now.

I guess I should be more clear. Gay people have been persecuted for a long time. It's a shame they feel the need to persecute others now that they are gaining popularity. And you can call me a liar whenever you disagree with me if you like (it's very effective I'm sure), but my sister cried every day during the prop 8 thing because she supported it and she was constantly harassed. I never said she was afraid for her life, but that does make the story more interesting, doesn't it :)

"You seem to think I live in some state of fear?"

This was also irony. I was suggesting that discrimination against gays has largely disappeared (that doesn't mean everyone agrees with you, it just means their rights are no longer being violated, i.e. they can get work, they don't get killed (hopefully!), etc). I apologize about thinking you were gay (not that its bad), you made a comment on an earlier post that I must have misunderstood.

"As for Mormons and Catholics not giving money to the cause of denying a group of people their rights..."

I hate to play the "I'm right" game, but I am here. Do more research, my father is a leader in the Mormon church. While church members donated and were asked to support the legislature, the church itself did not make any political donations. I'm not as sure about the Catholics, but if they're smart they played it the same way. I agree that some of the churches which are heavily political (i.e. Jeremiah Wright?) should get out of politics or be taxed as political entities. Churches do, however, have a right to encourage voting on moral issues (it's actually in the law, believe it or not), and both of these churches are silent on political issues outside of this.

I won't apologize for my opinion. The real irony is that I'm not even opposed to gay marriage. I'm opposed to people who will do anything to get their way, no matter who it hurts. Anyway, you've heard my point of view. I will change it the minute anyone can shows me that gay marriage is a protected constitutional right, or when a vote is passed. Until then, I respect your right to believe in whatever you want, and I even respect your right to hate and mock everyone who disagrees with you (thought I will then ask you to respect my right to call you a hateful shallow bigot. yay free speech). I would honestly be happy for everyone to just say, look, you and I disagree, but we have that right and we can still be friends, because right now that's not happening... Oh, and I still don't like the courts usurping authority not given to then by the constitution :)

OK, so apparently I need to clarify every single statement and point out that when I said gays are not like serial killers AT ALL, and this was merely hyperbole to show a fallacious argument, I forgot to mention pedophilia. Homosexuality and pedophilia are obviously not related AT ALL. i thought this was pretty obvious from the way I wrote it, but apparently some people need it spelled out. I should have been more clear however.

I never said they weren't discriminated against in history, that is certain and the way gays have been treated is sick. I said right now, the hatred is coming from the gay community. If you don't believe it, than just read these forums. Who is stupid? whoever disagrees with you. Who is the "fanatical religious right?" whoever disagrees with you. We must give you the right to do whatever you want no matter what the majority thinks. If we disagree we are driven from our jobs (the artistic director of Sacramento theater) we are attacked economically (there's a list now of everyone who donated to prop 8 and a demand to boycott their businesses) we are told that we had no right to vote that way. The Mormon church has had their buildings desecrated, their books burned, their members attacked and there is a demand to have their tax exempt status removed. Doctors are sued for refusing invitro fertilization. eharmony is sued for not providing gay matchmaking.

Yes, the gay community is attacking anyone who disagrees with them and it's sick.

If prop 8 had passed we would have gone with it, but we are ruthlessly attacked for disagreeing with you, and now the homosexual community is trying to destroy democracy and steal from me my right to vote because they don't think I have a right to decide where my tax money goes.

ya, somewhere in the US is an asshole who loudly attacks gays, but even my best friends who are gay are full of hate for everyone who disagrees with them, and that makes me very sad.

So I've been reading these points by all and I think we really need to step back and take a "chill pill" :) Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean we're "homophobic" or hate gays, so let's keep the ad homonym attacks to a minimum. I am opposed to gay marriage for a couple of very specific reasons, but I am in the theater business and of about 30 guys who are my close friends, 29 of them are probably gay, and I love them like crazy!

So again I want to say that, to use the debates words (although I think they are a little inflammatory), gay marriage does hurt everyone for the following reason: The prominent justification for gay marriage is that it is a right and that denying it will take away the rights of a minority, similar to the civil rights movement. Using this justification, any religious group that denies gays participation or clergy or marriage will be branded as persecuting homosexuals. The scary thing is that there are some people reading this right now and thinking "yes, that would be discrimination and homophobia and should be stopped." I just read a quote:

'Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and gay activist who helps draft federal legislation related to sexual orientation, says that, when religious liberty conflicts with gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”' http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU5MjZmMDIyMDU3NjRiMjBlNjcxYTlmOGQ2ODA5NjA= (an altogether fetching article which says this entire thing much better than I have)

Gay marriage is an immediate threat to our freedoms AS IT IS CURRENTLY being pursued. The owners of eharmony.com are REQUIRED to provide gay matchmaking. They have no freedom to do otherwise. Doctors who provide in vitro fertilization are REQUIRED to do it for lesbian couples, even if this is against their beliefs. These doctors have lost their freedom.

Now gay marriage DOESN'T have to be this way. Pass legal laws which respect the beliefs of others. As I said, i love my gay friends, and I might be ok with some of them marrying (I say might because of all of these people, I can think of only one couple that even pretends to be serious about their relationship, and I think they are adorable! The others shouldn't marry imo, whether they are gay or straight or anything because they aren't serious, but that's just my opinion and it's honestly none of my business :). So as i said, go ahead and pass the laws, but don't take away the rights of others to believe that homosexuality is wrong, because THAT is what is against the constitution.

articulated my butt off. . .

and I did not bring in name calling.

none so blind as those who will not C

I am bored now.

I believe I am allowed my opinion. Human right to have ones own opinion. . not like marriage.

I believe the question is harm or no harm.

Not grasping at straws. . .women inequality is always been one of my stands.

there will be no homosexual couples in a world dominated by the women haters. if you think I am narrow minded and stupid. . .HA!

calling me stupid is the quickest way to get me to your side. Good job! you are so smart I am awed.

I never said being attracted to the opposite sex was a choice. I'm saying that acting on it is. Not everyone with those attractions chooses to be gay.

Well, it depends on the tradition doesn't it?

So do you admitt that you don't know if I am right or wrong?

What about people that have think that god doesn't exist. Because they don't know that God doesn't exist. Can we decide they are right?

We can't decide these things for ourself based on other peoples beliefs. It is important to find these things out for ourselves.

How do you know that I don't know. Why can't I have faith and knowledge. The truth is you need both.

OK, so now you're saying that you follow the crowd instead of making up your own mind.

Think about this. In any given argument, to use absolutes is usually wrong. To say that "everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot" is wrong. To say that "everyone else says that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot so it must be true" is wrong.

Are you saying that it is physically impossible for someone to be against gay marriage for some reason other than being a bigot?

Think about this. If it were a true statement that anyone who doesn't want to be around a specific group is a bigot, then why doesn't the definition of the word say that? Could it be that there are plenty of other reasons for people not to want to be around a specific group? What if you were shy and only wanted to hang around your own kind? What if you were deaf and only wanted to hang around deaf people? What if people with tinnitus wanted to be called deaf and deaf people were opposed, would they be bigots?

Soccer, you're floundering. lets keep it short and sweet.

The specific thing you requested from me was to give you a legitimate reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion. I did that. You still claim that every person that is opposed to gay marriage is a bigot (period). if you don't think that my reason is legitimate, then say so and we'll debate that.

I never said that people should stop fighting for their rights. I said that they should take the high road, which is a slower, longer road. Take the Gandhi road, the Martin Luther king road instead of the low road that may get you there faster. Don't take the "If you are against us you are " road. The low road is a tactic used to get you there faster.

If I recall correctly, I did not compare homosexuals to Nazis. I said that the tactics being used are the same tactics that the Nazis used. This tactic can be used for good. The tactic itself is not evil. The gay movement is not the first to use that tactic. I don't like the tactic.

I think that calling everyone who is opposed to gay marriage a bigot is unfair and narrow minded.

When I said, "gays will eventually win. But why does it have to be right now and at what cost?" What I mean is, That the ends do not justify the means. Calling people a bigot in order to get your way is uncalled for.

I've told you in the past when I have up voted you and why. This is the first time I have ever down voted someone. But I respect you enough to explain why I'm doing it. I'm down voting you for insisting that everyone who is opposed to gay marriage is a bigot even after I have given you one reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion and you did chose not to respond to that. Your position implies to me that the ends justify the means. I think you can do better than that.

no hard feelings. Peace out ;)

If you lost the ability to adopt in Arkansas because you can't marry or even have civil unions there, then move to a gay friendly state. But under no circumstance take this advice to mean that you should stop fighting for marriage.

Well its a good thing for me that I was right about the fact that the U.S. doesn't vote on things that should not be voted on. But, if there was a vote like that then you would be the minority. If I couldn't adopt allot of people wouldn't be allowed to.

"Who says your definition of family is correct?"

Well, ha, alot of people, including the majority of California.

"You think that two people who love each other should not be able to adopt merely because they are the same sex?"

Merely because I think that is not how kids should be raised.

And im not a big fan of single people adopting.

Im not saying that they are less capaple, im saying that its not good for the kids.

Kirstie, Fact is Kids are cruel. If its not gay then they are cruel bout those who are tall, fat, thin, short, have curly hair, don't have the latest clothes. Point is kids are always going to find something to pick about. I was picked on because I was adopted and my parents weren't my "real" parents so I must have had something wrong with me. Then when they got tired of that it was my weight, then my height, then who I dated. Having gay parents isn't going to change anything for a kid being teased by children raised by close minded parents.

"ok, so if there is a divorce those people are no longer parents?"

-not necessarily

"If there is a death of a parent?"

-no

"You are defining a family in a very narrow sense."

Yes, I am because I know that a family is a very important and sacred thing that should not be altered in any way. Family is the most important thing in life.

The specific thing you requested was for me to give you a legitimate reason why someone would oppose gay marriage for reasons other than religion. I did that.

You said that, "I feel that bigotry or ignorance are the only reasons to oppose this issue." I thought I gave a perfect example where this was not the case. Some people just don't want to be around other people. That does not make them a bigot nor does it make them ignorant. Not granting gays the word marriage but granting them the same rights does not make one a bigot nor does it make one ignorant nor does it hurt the gay community.

You say that same but separate is not good enough as though as soon gays are allowed to marry the bigots will suddenly see the errors of their ways. That's not going to happen. All the litigation in the world will never force a bigot to accept you. He will just look at you in the eye, turn around, and roll his eyes.

My argument does not call people names. Your argument calls anyone opposed to gay marriage a bigot or ignorant.

The side you're on is considered liberal. The side I'm on is seen as conservative. I don't categorize my argument as conservative because it takes a middle of the road approach. Take a little (your rights) give a little (leave the word behind). This is what I call negotiation. The side you're on is not interested in negotiation and is seen as militant; it's a "my way or the highway" approach and then your side acts surprised when they encounter resistance.

The side your on wants people to put themselves in their shoes but they are not willing to put themselves in the shoes of the other side.

The side I'm on is seen as being based on religion. I don't categorize my argument as being based on religion because my argument does not invoke religion. It invokes human nature. My argument is also constructive in that it alienates a smaller group on the religious right. It is pragmatic and rational in that it gets gays their rights sooner and all they are leaving on the table is just a word.

People can want all they want. I never said it was unreasonable. I just think that it is not practical at this point in time as evidence by proposition 8. I have said that gays will eventually win. But why does it have to be right now and at what cost? Take your time, regroup, do a "lessons learned" analysis of what went wrong and why and then try again later.

People can want all they want but that does not mean that they are entitled to it or that they deserve it or that they have a right to it.

The status quo does not seem right to me. Otherwise I would never have suggested to bypass them. I saw an injustice occurring and I tried to think of a pragmatic approach towards getting what I consider important and leaving behind what I don't consider important in the shortest amount of time. That was my contribution. That was my way of stepping up to the plate and trying to fix things and I got slammed. This explains why others that have tried to help the gay community but encountered the negative feed back have stopped supporting gay marriage more than anything else.

What allowed slavery to continue was not inaction and complacency. People were working towards fixing it. What allowed slavery to continue for as long as it did is that it takes time to change the world.

The gay community is not asking for certain rights, it is demanding them. The gay community is not interested in negotiating and this stance is alienating a lot of potential allies. The gay community is taking an in your face approach and are surprised when the other side responds in kind.

The group that followed Martin Luther King were not militant. The Black Panthers were.

The gays that are peacefully trying to advance their agenda are not militant. The ones vandalizing churches are.

The gay community wants to portray itself as being the new civil rights fighters of our generation. The black community finds this highly offensive. What is the worst a gay man has had to openly endure in the last 10 years and compare that to what a black man had to endure during the 60's. There's no comparison. The gay community as the new civil rights fighters of our generation is an exaggeration; it is a tactic meant to get them what they want, nothing else.

No one promised gays the right to marriage. They can have their love legally recognized under a different name and not suffer because of it. They can be part of a nation that allows the pursuit of happiness without the having the word marriage. The word marriage will not magically get them to be acceptance nor get them a chance at the happiness that everyone else takes for granted. They have to find happiness within themselves. No one can grant it to them so no one can deny it to them.

I hope you see why I am upset at those hypocritical gays that say "empathize with our suffering in a society that does not fully accept us" and then turn around and vandalize churches. Now that is a real crime and it is not very accepting of the other side. I don't think they are empathizing with the other side, do you? I guess they forgot to put on their neighbors shoes.

Do you think that when gays call the other side hateful and bigot and ignorant that they are able to see the humanity of the other side? Does maligning someone help you solve your differences or does it hinder? And if it hinders, why do it. What value is there in calling someone a bigot? It is a great tactic. The Nazis used it with great success to get people to think that it was OK to kill Jews because, after all, Jews were vermin. You see?

No, I was opposing Jake... there are so many comments, I think that things got messed up, or I clicked on the wrong thing to oppose.

"I don't have to have a complete reason for why someone up or down voted me or anyone else but down voting has been as huge issue for me since I'm the one who got hit. I certainly didn't notice anyone stepping up to say that was wrong before I made the accusatory debate."

I was hit before but I don't care about the points so it doesn't come naturally to me to think that an adult would care about some lousy points. That's why I "didn't step up to say that it was wrong." But after the fact I tried to give you some of my points because I realized that they were important to you and they weren't important to me.

"People can simply run in and out of debates, down vote someone they don't like and up vote those they do and that is not right!"

Yes, that's right and life is not fair. I learned that a long time ago. The difference is that I accept the fact that life is not fair and I learn the rules so that I can bend them. I don't try to change the rules. I guess that's what makes me conservative ;)

"The only thing I do not accept, across the board, are those that are ill mannered and can say nothing in defense of their own arguments other than to start the name calling or rag on the age routine."

You are the one that started with the name calling. I guess that's what makes you a liberal ;)

"I don't wish to have my cake and eat it too and I do not understand why you would accuse me of wanting that."

I said that because it appears to me that you are not interested in negotiating. It seems that when you feel that you are entitled to something to should just demand it and then you expect to get it. This is what I see happening between the religious right and the gay community. I tell you what I see because it may be of some value to you. I'm standing outside looking in. I have a different point of view. When two blind men try to describe an elephant to each other, and they are standing on the opposite end of the elephant, should one man discard the other man's point of view as wrong or should he consider what the other is telling him in order to come up with a more complete picture? Think about that for a moment because we are on different ends of the elephant and I'm just providing input from where I'm standing in the hopes that it is of some benefit to you. If it isn't, then I'll just STFU because I don't have a dog in this fight.

NO! You're making an assumption as to why people are opposed to same sex marriage! Show me the data proving that "people are just willfully denying this fact because it doesn't fit into their world view." This is part of the problem. People are going off half cocked making assumption all over the place..... and they are not even constructive assumptions. If the other side doesn't agree with you, just malign them and call them names. The assumption is that there's one reason and only one reason why the religious right is against same sex marriage; they're bigots. Come on, you're smarter than that! The world is not black and white. There are shades in between. That's me and whole lot of other people.

something like that has to be KIND OF true.

Most children look up to their parents, but that's because the parents are taller ;)

Also, I find it hard to believe that someone would chose to be gay. I mean, that's a hard life to live.

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 ;)

There you go again. I disagree with you, so i'm a bigot. If someone thinks anyone who disagrees with them is a bigot, what does that make them? (I'll give you a hint, it's a word you just used)

The irony is that I honestly didn't give a damn about gay marriage before activists started to attack everyone who disagreed with them. My little sister was afraid to go to school for 3 weeks during the prop 8 vote. I think the problem is that the gay community thinks that discrimination is having people think they're doing something wrong, and that's simply not discrimination. The entire issue of gay marriage is centered around the idea that you want everyone not just to tolerated you, but to tell you what you're doing is ok, and if this doesn't happen, it's discrimination to you.

Once again that is the decleration of independence by the way. Life liberty and pursuit of happiness. No one can show me in the CONSTITUTION where it guarantees the right to marry, and that include the tyrannical judges who base their decision based on what they think should be instead of what the law is. You know what that's called, when 7-9 judges (or really 4 or 5, since it's never been more than a simple majority) go against the constitutiont to pass a law they think is right? That's called tyranny. Do you support tyranny? What if it wasn't in your favor? What if those judges said gays should be burned? That's why there are checks and balances.

I think the real problem here comes to two points that will always divide this arguement.

1) you believe homosexuality is like race: something someone is born with and has no control over. The opposing side believes it is action realted, because someone is not gay, somone is living a gay lifestyle. The problem is a word symantics one. If you define gay as attracted to members of the same sex, than it's a moot point, because that person is not limited in any way. But if being gay is having a relationship with a member of the same sex, than it has become an action, and thus is not afforded any special protection because it is action-oriented. All of this is moot in my opinion because no matter what you still have all the same rights as straight people, but your arguement rests on it entirely.

2) Marrying whomever you love is a basic right. This just isn't true. If it was, than what about pedophiles. Studies show many of them are born with these feelings. What about serial killers? We know they're born that way. Obviously these are extreme examples and gays and serial killers are in no way alike, but I use them as examples to show that this arguement cannot stand up legally. And besides, it's just not in the constitution.

I am not a bigot. 90% of my friends are gay, and they're my very best friends. If you can pass a law that gives you the right to marry I am all for it. I may even vote for it if people ask me nicely instead of yelling at me. But I have been opposed for over 10 years to people manipulating courts to get their legistlature through.

I know you think it's a right in the constitution, or you think it should be. It's not, so make it one! This vote failed, but not for long. By the time my generation is completely in charge, it will be legal the right way. So hope for that instead of bringing down our country's established system with judicial legislation (as if it could sink any lower).

"That guy who was engaged then "turned gay" was already gay. Society told him he wasn't gay, that's why it took so long to figure out."

Lol, see again, I am flabbergasted that it is impossible for you to accept that someone might have an opinion different from yours.

"Please give me an example where society tells anyone to be gay."

One example of society telling someone they're gay? You! You just did! To Joe. If you want another example look at any showing of a gay person on a TV show. If you act like x you are gay.

"Please give me an example where society tells anyone to be gay."

The right to vote is being stolen in CA. Twice the majority of people voted to define marriage clearly and twice the homosexuality community has tried to overturn the will of the people by using judges. The pursuit of happiness is in the declaration of independence and not the Constitution. If this is the justification for the right to marry whomever you want, it also justifies everything else you can think of, so long as it makes the pursuer happy. There is no constitutional right to marry whomever you want. Every citizen is equally protected with the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. If you're gay, you have the right to marry. So again, what right are you being denied? Visitation rights are already granted in the state of CA, as are inheritance and all other rights of married couples, es per Gov. Davis in 2000.

"Really? So no gay person has ever been killed for being gay?"

African American people have killed white people before. Does that make all black people murderers? Of course not. The fact that some nut-case has murdered a gay person before does not make everyone who believes homosexuality is wrong into a murderer. Are you in fear for your life often? If so I am sad, but I sort of doubt it, that's just not the way the world is anymore (in this country). Are you afraid to express your opinion about this topic? I doubt it. I am. If I tell people what I think, I LOSE MY JOB. That's why I post here anonymously :)

"The Mormon and catholic churches, but especially the Mormon churches, spent millions trying to deny a group of people a human right"

Marrying members of the same sex is not a human right. Sorry. Until you can show me what human right is being denied, I don't know where else to go with this. As far as the donations go, the Mormon church DID NOT DONATE A DIME. Neither did the Catholic church (I think, I'm not positive about them). MEMBERS of these churches donated to a cause they believed was right. They have the right.

I have no problem with protests. I have a problem with vandalism, violence, riots, assault, disenfranchisement, and attack of religious liberty (suing to remove tax exempt status of people who disagree with them). I was opposed to it when the homosexuality was attacked and mocked and derided; I oppose it now when they do the same thing to their enemies.

I actually know of a few, who maybe don't "resent" being adopted, but wished they had their actual parents, and blame a lot of their psychological problems on the fact that they weren't raised by their parents.

Only in THIS time, does this scenario hold so much value. When someone is born by an accident, and then is not wanted, and is raised poorly because of the fact. Why are adoption programs established in the first place? Because there are more people having sex that don't want children, there are more people without the means to have children, but want children, and there are more people out there suffering from bad parenting. This hasn't always been the case, see what I've said to Kukla.

The chances of "accidentally" having children, and the chances of not being able to care for the child, have to be higher now than any other time in history, partly due to the fact that there are just more people in general out there at this moment than any other specific time in history. If the failure rate is higher now than ever, and the number of gays raising children are higher than ever too, logically, the percent of failure has to effect the lower number, the gay adopters, more than the people having the children by accident. Also, something to conceder is, why are they failing? If it's because of the income, look at the percent of failure with a mother and father in the same income bracket than the adopter's, you will find that there is a wide gap.

Most accidental births, I'm sure, are well taken care of despite the fact that they weren't planned, more often in a higher income bracket than a lower. The people with a low income will fail, whereas the people in the higher one, even though it's accidental, will be taken care of just as well as ones raised by adopters, because they are given money, and already have the money to do so.

In all of time, there have been more straight couples with money and children than gay couples with money and children... think about it. Statistically speaking, the straight people may have failed more people over the coarse of history, but that doesn't mean that they haven't also raised more children successfully too.

1) because spousal abuse is already not taken seriously AND two men have vastly superior earning potential than a man and a woman. . .AND the protection of spousal support will also get clouded.

2) well for some of us this issue is separate. Marriage is one thing. . .man and woman. . .now anything else is SOMETHING ELSE.

3) as I said above. . .

4) still not a 'right' so quit swinging it around like it is a right or a left.

5) so quit saying it is all about religion as the reason everyone is saying no. Maybe it is the 'so what's' that make people think that you really don't want this you just want to 'f' with us.

6) yes it does . . .as a child of divorce (total marriages for both parents 8) I could have either thought marriage bites or learned its importance and beauty. I have been married for over 22 yrs, to the same man. I admit what my parents did was not marriage.

your proof was

there are gay animals.

so my response would be how many of them that have mated pairs, are gay mated pairs? If there are would this help or deter their survival?

if you could answer this then you would have an analogy that would both answer the topic and your other opponent.

chillax

1st. . .the question is not is being gay good, bad or indifferent? It is about gay marriage.

For the record I have not one issue with the type, sex, number or racial, religious background of peoples bed, shed or head partners. Consenting adults can consent to anything.

So unless someone says "ew your gay!?" stick to the subject please and quit reading even more into the topic than you already are. . .

Sure let's use the analogy of the animal kingdom. Sure gay relationships abound. . .but how about a gay mated pair? And even so as animals is this going to function for them as a regular mated pair?

Well in the good old day you didn't have to be that specific. It used to be a given that a mother and father is to raise a child.

How exactly, am I being closed minded? I think im pretty open minded, im not just going with the mediaflow like most of you "nutter"s are.

How exactly, am I being closed minded? I think im pretty open minded, im not just going with the mediaflow like most of you "nutter"s are.

No thats not what I'm saying, that should be left for the kids to decide.

Are you going to leave me alone or what?

The majority of the happy and healthy people are raised by a mother and a father. And if one of them dies they are still a family. I believe that families can be together forever and that death is not the end.

OK, whatever. Don't bite me ;)

I couldn't give you a high five so an up vote will have to do ;)

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.

To respond to your first point: Your argument actually proves God's point where Jesus says there is "only way to come to the Father, and that is through the person of Jesus Christ"—not Mohammed, and that those in positions of power and authority will be judged more harshly, so that may be what's going on over there? That's not saying that there aren't peaceful and loving Muslims—it's saying that a nation is being ran via Islam by it's governing powers, which, according to Scripture, brings ruin upon itself by dismissing the person and holiness of Jesus and teaching their entire people to dismiss it as well. I personally believe that a nation of authentic believers in Christ running the country would be just and free of crime, pain, suffering, etcetera—oh wait, that would be Heaven. But sin is in the world and a country based on Christ's truth and faith and peace (not religion?) isn't going to happen here on earth. So we do the best we can with a democracy that guarantees protection of religion.

Your second point: I know for a fact that some people DO choose to "be gay" as one of my friends is newly gay, but didn't used to be, but after one too many hurts by the opposite sex and a desperate need to be cared for decided to give the other side a try. (And it should be noted that we hear each other's views on the subject with respect and agree to disagree but are still good friends.) There's also the perfect illustration of choosing in bisexuals, who can't seem to "choose" which sex they prefer. It is a choice in the end, even if it's an inclination one is born with, as I said in my original argument. I don't even begin to know how you came to compare gay marriage to allowing someone with dyslexia to marry? Re-read my original argument about the necessity of marriage being male/female. Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman—it is not a civil union (although many treat it as such)—and that is why so many people have a problem with legalizing gay marriage. It would erode the foundation and meaning of marriage according to God, which is sacred to believers. You don't want to believe in God—hey, that's between you and Him and every human being has that free choice—no one is forcing or condemning anyone. All that believers are doing is defending their faith-based, holy sacraments so that others can't redefine them when they don't even believe in them. I mean there really is a contradiction there, right? Christians don't marry for financial reasons (at least they're not supposed to) or things like that—it is to pledge the marriage to God, to request His blessing.

Let me ask you something: What's wrong with homosexuality being a choice? I mean, if homosexuals are confident and proud of their sexual preference, why the need to say that the trait is inborn? Why all the shame?

"Fundamentalism" is defined as a strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism and unpopularity. I am by no means a perfect Christian, but I am trying to be an authentic Christian and not a casual one, so I guess if that makes me a fundamentalist, then I guess I am? But be careful about labeling when you so clearly and "fundamentally" adhere to your own beliefs. Diversity goes both ways my friend. ;)

Oh, and Prop 8, was voted down by a democracy, not by religion—the majority deemed it not to be acceptable, to use your own words.

WE DONT HAVE THE SAME GENES AS FISH, WERE NOT FISH AND WE DONT RESEMBLE FISH. SO what if a fish grows up homosexual, doesn't mean a child will.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." —Genesis 1:27

Our Lord, in His answer to the Pharisees concerning divorce, refers to this passage in Genesis and confirms its special application to marriage. "Have ye not read," He said, ‘that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."' Marriage is derived from the Lord, for male and female. It has its highest and perfect form in Him, for in Him love and wisdom are one.

So how can gay marriage hurt any one? This is a very deep, complicated question and answer. (And please know, anyone that believes they are gay out there, I am not judging you. You are not horrible, and it is only my responsibility to share the truth of God's word to those who may stray from it or don't understand it.) It hurts God, don't you see? All sin does. Whenever man decides what is actually right and moral for himself, independent of God's wisdom, he always hurts himself because he has disconnected himself from God's plan for his life. And if he strays from God's plan, the course he takes can affect all of humanity—like the domino effect.

I take it for certain that the physical satisfaction of homosexual desires is sin. However, this leaves the homosexual person no worse off than any heterosexual person who is, for whatever reason, prevented from marrying, or from participating in sex outside the sanctity of marriage. Or any other sin for that matter.

People—primarily the homosexual community—say, "Who are others to say who we should be able to love?" (or in this case, marry) Let me ask you this: Have we not all loved our our same-sex friends as much as we've loved the opposite sex? I have loved my friends as much, sometimes more than a mate (after all, the opposite sex is oh so confusing at times!) But the difference is we do not desire to have sex with them. Aha—therein lies the heart of the controversy over homosexuality, and homosexual "marriages." You see the truth is, it's not about "love"—it is about sex, and who these people desire to love, is who they desire to have sex with. I can already hear everyone saying, "So what?! Of course people want to have sex with whomever they love..." But no. Sex has been perverted and removed from its original design. First we love, then we marry, then we consummate our marriage (it is just the icing) and the marriage (the love) is preserved through commitment before God. Again, I hear folks saying "Well that's what homosexuals want to do!"

First, we must understand that love begins with God. So many people misread and misuse Scripture and quote Jesus as saying, in regard to what the highest commandments are, "... to love thy neighbor as thyself..." for their arguments. But note that Jesus says, "commandmentS"—plural. Immediately proceeding "love thy neighbor as thyself" He says the first and greatest commandment is "You shall love thy Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." [Following is the second greatest commandment] "Love thy neighbor as thyself." So if homosexuals reject God's teachings on love and marriage and sex, how then can they use the argument that 'they just want to be able to love whomever they want' ? —They actually want to have sex with whomever they want, otherwise they would just remain the best of friends, you see? That is not the same. And then, they want to take it a step further, and sanctify it in holy marriage. This is re-writing the Bible to suit their own desires which is strictly forbidden.

People may love whomever they want. They just can't have sex with whomever they want. Well, actually they CAN—there is free will. Some say they were born this way. I say that in some cases this is actually true. In many cases it is a choice. But let's say they were born that way. There are alcoholics and depressed persons and naturally promiscuous persons and all kinds of burdens passed on in birth—this is what's called "our cross to bare"... Sometimes we have to make the choice to sacrifice an urge or desire to sin and in turn use this struggle for the good of all. Or we can succumb to it and let the consequences fall where they may. But I'd say 98% of our population has some sort of dilemma to struggle with. Like all other tribulations, it must be offered to God for His guidance on how best to use it.

And the American government has made separation of church and state very clear. They must, therefore, be consistent. The government has no right to redefine marriage in its holy context. If they stepped in and redefined marriage, a whole bunch of other decisions they've made concerning separation of church and state (removing the flag from classrooms, the commandments from courthouses, etc.) would then have to be reversed. They can't have it both ways, and they know this.

Peace.

I don't know anyone who decided to be gay? How do you know. I in point of fact know a very nice and happy gay man, who was once engaged and has told me to my face that he was a happy straight man, did some experimentation, found someone he really liked who was a man and made a choice to live a gay lifestyle. He said he was happy either way, but thinks this is what makes him happiest.

I think society tells way more people that they are gay than that they aren't. And after reading more of the responses on here it just gets back to this absurd point that those of us who are "opposed", and I use this term loosely because to tell you the truth, until the prop 8 fiasco in which the gay movement has begun trying to steal the right to vote from me I honestly didn't give a damn, to gay marriage are hated, disposed, called names, attacked, been told "no intelligent straight man would oppose gay marriage" as is said on this board, while we on the other side are about as polite as can be.

The only hatred I've seen has been coming from the homosexual community. If you don't believe me, take a look at what they've been doing to the Mormons. I honor democracy and I despise hatred and bigotry, and it saddens me that this seems to make me the enemy of the homosexual community, which wants tolerance only for their way of thinking.

Responses are much more effective when you do more than just ridicule the poster. I know a lot of people who decide to be gay, and I know even more people who think they are gay because they are musically inclined or sensitive and they are told their whole life that they are "closet gays." I find it incredibly prejudice to think that everyone who doesn't like beer and football or somehow misses the masculine bar is gay, and I think that IS one of the big problems with the publicity that homosexuality is making. I'm sure a lot of people would disagree with me, but I think there is a baseline group of gay people and then a huge amount of other people who are gay because of peer pressure, insecurity, and/or because it's the popular thing to be right now.

I know, incoming down votes. Didn't say anyone had to agree, I just think it's stupid to tell someone else about their sexuality.

And please don't respond with "studies prove," because as I've already said, they don't.

The only way it could possibly "hurt" anyone is if someone let themselves be hurt by this upcoming acceptance of Gays into society. We had the same issues with blacks integrading into society and women getting voting rights. The only reason it could possibly hurt someone is if they have a stubborn view on the world that makes them believe gays are in the wrong and should not be allowed the same rights as heterosexual people. "History must repeat itself because we pay such little attention to it the first time." That is what is happening right now.

There is also a separation between public and private. Making your private wants a public issue is an abuse of government. If you don't want your morals policed keep them where everyone else keeps them. Private.

If I wanted to get a tattoo, a perfectly legal decision on my part, and then had a public debate on the values of getting tattoos, do you think I should be surprised if some people disagreed with me? And then, should I cry out that the government is abusing its power?

your debate skills are only eclipsed by the depth of your understanding.

bravo.

you win.

woohoo.

name calling, classy.

It's one thing for gay couples to adopt their own lifestyle, but they've moved far beyond that. Now they are demanding that the rest of society change its traditions and institutions to suit them. This isn't about insurance or inheritance benefits for gay couples (which I have no problem with). It's about redefining an institution older than civilization itself. If a two men or two women can marry, why not three men or four women? Or fathers and daughters who happen to be consenting adults?

1) man+man, woman+woman. . .marriage of equals. man+woman is not.

2) why stop at gay marriage. What about bi marriage? man+woman+woman . .might get a small percentage of Mormons to support this.

3) Where will the line be drawn? AI? All the arguements used in favor of gay marriage could be used to support the idea of android marriage. sure we aren't there yet. .but again the line is where?

4) marriage is not a right. it is tied up in regulations, but the act itself is not done as a right, like voting.

4) it is not religious. religion has taken over the ceremony, but it is not christian or jewish or phoenician . . marriage predates recordable history.

5) war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength changing the meanings of important words can hurt. and if the dialog on this is drowned out by extreme rhetoric than everybody loses.

No, I'm not gay.

I am assuming that was supposed to be an insult, yet you have been defending it.

Its like you are saying "protect the gays give them rights," then you you turn around and say "hey i don't like you, i will humiliate you by saying that your gay" -you just contradicted yourself!

Yeah, so prop8 and slavery are pretty much the same thing huh?

no, they are not!

, why do people keep comparing this to slavery!?

Yea, before long strait kids will get picked on just for being strait. 0:

Parents are people who are legally married who actually love each other and their children and who stay together. Not just gay sex partners.

Every child should be raised by heterosexual parents. Gay couples shouldn't adopt, they are not parents.

"Do you think making gay marriage illegal means there will be less homosexuals?"

No, thanks for asking, don't know where you got that idea.

FUCKIN' A MAN!!!! literally ;)

Gay marriage hurts everyone.

The phrase "gay marriage" is an attack on language, and hurts everyone, as all people use language.

The phrase "gay marriage" is itself an attack on the traditional meaning of the word "marriage". The lack of a clear and agreed definition of a word makes it impossible for people to have a reasonable debate on the subject pertaining to that word.

Indeed by confusing the meaning of the word "marriage", it makes it impossible for people to rationally discuss it.

A new word or phrase should be chosen so as not to do harm to the existing meaning of words, while at the same time recognizing the essential characteristics of what is to be described by the word or phrase.

The new practice of what may be called a "homosexual union" is new, because it carries with it recognition under the law, which is unprecedented. But separate from whatever legal definitions may be ascribed to it, the failure to adequately name the practice does harm to the established language and its meaning.

In particular, the practice of calling this "gay marriage" does harm both to the word "gay", and to the word "marriage", both of which have established meanings in language, and are widely used. Indeed the word "marriage" has no synonym which can be used in its place, unlike the word "gay" which can be replaced in usage by the word "happy"; So the destruction or redefinition of the word "marriage" is hurtful to the language in a way that can not be easily mended.

It is precisely the confusion over the definition of the words which has caused so much apparent disagreement which could have been avoided with adequate clarity and agreement over the definitions of the words which they are arguing over.

In conclusion, the phrase "gay marriage" hurts users of language by confusing the established meaning of words, making rational discussion impossible. The phrase "gay marriage" is describing something new in that it claims legal status. Therefore, one should pick another set of words that do not harm the established meaning of words in use. In particular, the word "marriage" has an established meaning, and cannot be easily replaced. The phrase should instead be "homosexual union" or some other phrase that recognizes the nature of the relationship, while at the same time not doing harm to the long established meaning of the word "marriage". Finally, by unequivocating the meaning of the words used, much unnecessary disagreement and wasted debate could be avoided.

of course it does

it would upset me

Yes, gay marriege hurts everyone. Because the government is giving consent to homosexuality. Because most of our children go to puclic schools they are taught to trust Ceaser. They grow up thinking that the government is on their side and all policemen are nice and then they get jobs and taxes are cut from their check and they go "what?". But the point is that most Parents don't want their kids going to the mall and see mr and mr Smith. Its traumatic for a child to see two men or two women kissing. But when the government that hey've been told to blindly trust and pledge their alleagience to (bleh!!) sends teh message that this kind of behavior is normal then it creates a rift between the parents' raising of their child and the governments message.

I don't know that I'd argue that it hurts everyone per se, but I definitely think there's something to be said for the argument that homosexuality hurts homosexuals. See, most of the opposition to homosexuality on the part of religious people isn't bred of hate, it's bred of love and concern that A) the homosexual lifestyle is inherently sinful according to the Bible and B) that there are certain health concerns, such as AIDS, which in the U.S.--despite gay-rights activists proclaiming, "it's not just a gay disease!"--is mostly spread through male-male sex or women who have sex with a man who also has sex with men. And also needle-sharing.

Yes, unfortunately that is democracy. The constitution gives us certain basic rights. If we want more we can pass laws to make more by majority vote or through our elected representatives. If those rights violate the constitutional ones, the courts can overturn them. If this happens the people can amend the constitution to pass the law anyway.

The constitution didn't give anyone the right to marry. People have passed laws allowing marriage between a man and a woman. These laws apply equally to all, so equal protection isn't violated (I'm sorry, you have just as much a right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else). If you don't like it, you vote to change the laws.

That's democracy. It's not perfect, but it's the best thing out there!

Oh, and it's not the same as civil rights, and if I was black I would be horribly offended by such a comparison. They were fighting for basic human rights which had been denied them. They were being killed, and denied work opportunities and the right to vote. Homosexual's aren't being denied anything (that isn't already denied to everyone else in the country). They just aren't getting what they want.

Two rebuttals here i'd like to offer:

1) research about homosexual couples being better parents or that homosexuality is genetic. I'm sorry, but neither of these things are proven facts, and there is a lot of controversial research on both sides of the aisle. I think both sides should be able to agree here that neither side has been proven. I know, I know, you can show me 100 studies that say the above is true, but guess what, I can show you 100 studies that say the opposite and then we just get into the "who's study is better" thing, and it's just a waste of time. Many things can be conclusively proven. These are not yet in that category for either side. Besides, for all the "studies show" comments above, no one has cited a single one. I find the funniest thing about such studies is that everyone has heard of them and is sure something has been shown conclusively, but no one is quite sure when or where.

2) the adoption thing is really irrelevant I think. In this country there aren't hordes of orphans wishing for parents to adopt them. This is a myth taken from the situation some time ago. Walk into an adoption clinic, things have really changed. It's not easy to adopt. Now outside of this country things are very different I know, but I still don't think gay marriage is going to significantly impact this. Feel free to disagree with me here, I just really think this is a seperate topic. Oh, and if you disagree, I think you will see that studies show I'm right ;)

(I'm kidding in case you didn't catch that) :)

i'm a christian and our doctrines says that gay marriage is not permissible

Gay marriage by itself probably doesn't. Gay marriage as it is being lobbied for takes away the First amendment rights of many americans. States which have passed these laws immediately begin teaching children that it is "ok" and even "good" to be gay. Some people just don't believe this, and they have that right! You have a right to believe the sky is purple and you have a right to teach that to your children! You have a right to teach your children that black people are evil and gays are going to hell. Are you a stupid bigot? YES! but you do have that right!

I have no problem with gay marriage, I do have a problem with the invasion of people's rights to believe that gay union is wrong. I also do not believe that marriage is a constitutional right, so gay marriage would have to be approved by a majority of voters in order to be obtained (and not in a courtroom!). If all of this happens, great! Just don't take away the rights of those who are religious to believe gay union is wrong.

http://jenniferandrew6.newsvine.com/_news/2008/11/26/2151090-women-harassed-in-incredible-india-female-genocide-persistent-ogling-heckling-by-indian-men-gender-murder-10- million-baby-girls-killed-before-after-birth

until this stops. . .then yes gay marriage can hurt. Marriage protects women. Women are more at risk in this world. . .and the fact there there are places in the world where the hate is against ones gender. . .that a woman can never be free, or even viewed as human.

And before you all come back and say "different issue" it is more topical then dragging references to interracial marriage into the debate. And for the record I never heard people say interracial marriage would hurt marriage. . .what I heard was the idea of the children suffering as reasons against it. . .

and now that we have a mixed race president they were proved wrong.

The idea that human affairs of importance can be simply based on emotional subjective feelings is the rock on which it founders.Humanity has advanced according to the understanding he has of the laws which govern everything around us ,from the turning of the planets, the cells in our bodies, the plants on the earth.We have learned to understood and use the laws of flight, of engineering etc to bring about advancements in our society.Everything is underpinned by laws and although many people quote the bible they would be better to quote the laws of god as seen in science.When we seriously break these laws we descend.Most of us 'sin by breaking laws which allow us to live and exist and evolve in the universe .At this time the decisions we make will decide if we survive or not as a society into the future .There are narcissistic and sometomes deliberately malign people who hate that they cannot control these laws in a personal way

and they are determined to undermine that which they cannot control. Marriage or the recognition of the law of energy creativity inherent in the polar opposites of male female is neccessary as a force of good energy and must be encouraged .If we passed laws according to what people'felt'

and not what is creative and good we would be back in the cave .Since there is no benefit to society one has to ask why 'they' want to get married,perhaps to undermine what they 'hate'.After all if it is simply a social recognition a personal party etc is their free choice.

If we go this route with them socety will unwind and that is the main purpose[ concious in most cases].

Why from a different angle? Why cant you answer my question the way it is?

My answer to you is no, I can't prove to you that my religion is true, but I can tell you that I know that it is. Its not so much about what's true or not, but about how you live your life and the choices you make.

Meaning that children will start to see it as normal and choose to be gay. How many times I'm a gonna have to tell you this?

Can you prove that it is mythology?

I didn't say that it would affect anyones choice on if they are homosexual, or who they marrie.

I define a family as a mother and father who love each other(not just care for each other) and for their children.

Also, parents are more than just role models.

"There are thousands of kids in orphanages all over the world who would be a billion times better off being raised by 2 homosexuals than left in the orphanage!"

-says who!?

a billion times, please

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

Oh, it doesn't hurt me, don't you worry. It only hurts them because it lessens their chances of getting into heaven by, lets say, allot! And that is an actual hurt, maybe not right now but eventually the consequences will come. Yeah immorality can hurt you very, very badly. Allot of people are in denial about this. (;

Nobody is born gay, although they might become gay because one of their parents is gay and they look up to them.

It hurts families, the more gay marriage the less families there will be, children need a mother and a father to look up to.