I do not agree with passing the DOMA, the amendment would effectively and completely end any hopes of recognition. Gay-rights activists believe they may have the votes to kill the proposition in the Senate, but they forget there is another way of passing a national amendment, namely a Constitutional Convention requiring state legislatures to vote instead of the national legislature.

Recognizing the backlash resulting from recent gay-rights activists' "victories," which range from the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn sodomy laws - this went moderately well with public opinion - to recent publicized events regarding a gay high school and gay marriage, which the public is acting negatively against, I do not see many states, with the exception of Vermont, possibly voting against a DOMA.

I'm generally a big supporter of State's rights, but the potential problem here is that if one state allows gay marriage, a gay couple could make the arguement that the marriage must be recognized in all states under the equal-protection clause.

I'm not in favor of gay-marriage, but if states want to grant equal benefits to queer couples, that's up to them. Ditto with employers.

I am all for gay rights, they are a minority, and do no harm to anyone. I have nothing against gay marriages either. What's the problem with it? I think marriage is something special betweent two people who love eachother, regardless of sex.

Everyone opposed to making gay marriages legal should re-evaluate the situation. It will barely effect them at all, there is already gay people living as if they were married...just without the officiality of the ceremony.

The only way you could alienate such an act and claim it were wrong is if you were to get religion involved, and there would be an uproar about that, religion and state should be kept seperate at all costs to at least maintain some sort of stassis.

are you not in favor of gay-marriage because of personal viewpoints towards the lifestyle or because the recognition would become compulsory for other states? Or both, maybe?

It seems you want to protect the ideal of states' rights by denying the right of an individual state to determine what is best for its own population. Are you saying granting a this privilege nationwide through the full faith and credit clause would take away the political sovereignty of those individual states and voters that oppose the measure?

For example, I dont like Nazis. In theory they could be outlawed because of moral temperments of the states' populations - who likes a Nazi? But they are protected under the vangaurd of free speech. By allowing them to exist, do I deny myself a right? By protecting them, does the federal government deny me a right?

You may counter, "But marriage is not a right, its a privilege." So then theoretically, we could deny marriage "privileges" to blacks, the mentally disabled, one armed men...anyone? Of course not. There are laws that protect individuals such as these and define such acts as discriminatory. In fact, the 14th amendment gaurantees equal protection under the law. Surely, discrimination against these individuals is wrong, unless they are homosexuals. Although not maybe not legally discriminatory, I do not need a textbook to tell me about a double standard.

If you concern yourself with states' rights, why not banish the full faith and credit clause in favor of a more flexible amendment, or perhaps pull the government out of the business of marriage? Instead of theorizing a way to allow one state to grant a right, why would you collectively deny it?

Here is the typical liberal troll with a twist...

Have you ever heard of separation of church and state?!?
Marriage is a church institution the gubmint has no place getting involved!!!

Funny how their separation argument works both ways.

I never did agree with a state interfering with a person's right to marry someone. I never agreed with their ability to marry people either. Unfortunately it is revenue so they will do what they can to dip their hands into the pockets of more people.

I mean really, paying for a license to marry someone? Declaring a marriage isn't valid unless you pay for this licence? Forget the fact that you may have gone to a church, said your vows in front of witnesses, and had God presiding over things. Feh.

Now for the serious side of the argument.

I'm against gay marriages. I will support gay rights to the extent that they should be allowed to join with a partner if they want, but not in marriage. Call it whatever you want but it isn't marriage. Legal contracts which allow their partner benefits, property rights, bequeathing of estates etc. are ok if they really feel the need for it.

Perhaps I do swing way right on this issue. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned.

While I'm against gay marriage, I would have no problem with a "gay partnership" or other such status recognized by individual states at their will. Again if one state were to allow gays, I'm assuming that the feds would have to recognize that marriage under tax law.

Homosexuals aren't proctected from discrimination in the Constitution as you noted... neither are people who want to marry an 8 year old or their pet dog.

The bottom line is that the country as a whole isn't ready for gay marriage. The lawmakers of one state shouldn't have the ability to force it down the throats of the other 49.

"Homosexuals aren't proctected from discrimination in the Constitution as you noted..."

The EEOC would say otherwise. At least they are protected in some ways against discrimination.

While it is true the Constitution itself doesn't protect gays, there are other anti-discrimination laws in place to protect all kinds of people.

i feel people should be able to do whatever they want

I hope sooner or later, people will permit us to Legalize gay marriages. It is not a matter of being gay or not. It is a matter of accepting other people as what they are--"human beings!!!".

Being gay, is not normal. According to scriptural teachings and doctrines it is a curse brought on by the sins of man. Therefore, do not expect to be treated normal by others, and do not bother to consider yourselves on the same and equal level of normal human beings. Because you are not normal human beings.

Whoa! Get out of the closet dude!

I suggest either making up with your father or going to football camp and gettign your frustrations out on the Freshmen.

Just because you let some fucking stack of "scriptural teachings" decide what you think doesn't mean you're right. Scriptural teachings told people that the world was flat. Scriptural teachings told people that the sun revolves around our planet. Scriptural teachings have driven people to commit violent acts of fanaticism. You don't decide what's normal. Just when i was beginning to think that the homophobia on this site was mild enough to to be overlooked, you come along and ruin it all.

"There are, in every age, new errors to be rectified and new prejudices to be opposed."
Samuel Johnson

Wow, now look who's misinformed.

Assuming you're speaking of the bible, please point out the verse which discusses the "flat" shape of the world or that the sun revolves around our planet?

Also, if you honestly think "religion" is the true reason behind most wars, then I don't know where to begin correcting you. Religion is probably the most common excuse (frequently cited after the fact, might I add), but is certainly not the cause of most wars. The Crusades had a lot more to do with gold than God, and Osama Bin Laden has a lot more to do with power than God.

Look, if you honestly think that bashing religion somehow makes you a more "open-minded" person, then I honestly disagree with both your logic and your motives.

As a side note, I'm a Mormon, and the Book of Mormon does state:

13 Yea, and if he say unto the earth—Move—it is moved.
14 Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done;
15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.

(Book of Mormon | Helaman 12:13 - 15)

(Regarding the biblical reference in Jeremiah)

So... I suppose your stance is that you can pick and choose about who you're prejudiced against.

Just pointing out a few things...if a bit too vehemently. I suppose I generalized for a second there. But for my own purposes, I find organized religion impractical and backwards. As for the war issue, yes it's true, but "scriptures" still being used as a shield, which is what Mr. Bigot up there was doing. Using religion as a shield for homophobia. I apologize for any religious non-assholes I offended. Much luv!

hey guys...let me start off by saying I don't think that gay marriages are right, I don't support them....wait a minute, let's start over. I KNOW gay marriages aren't right, I don't support them. Because Jesus said many times that those who practice homosexuality are sinners and are not right with God, and that they will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. If you don't believe me, read 1 Thessalonians or Corrinthians...both of those Biblical books talk alot about sexual immorality. Also, think about it. If God had wanted man to be with man or woman to be with woman, he wouldn't have done things the way he did. GUYS, GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE!!!!! He intended for man and woman to be together, which is why he created Eve to be a partner for Adam, and it's also why God made the reproductive organs the way he did.

HOWEVER.....all that being said.....you who said people should be allowed to do what they want are completely right. If homosexuals want to die and go to hell just because they were queerballs, then that's their business. So yes, I think gay marriages should be legalized, but I do find it repulsive and ungodly.
You all may say I'm a homophobic, but guess what? You're right. I am. Because the Bible says that Jesus, my Lord and Savior, SAID for us to be. Thank you....SO MUCH.
~*~wHiTnEy~*~

It's cool, no problem, just wanted to show you the other side of the issue.

Thanks!

I'm so sorry for you that God doesn't really exist.

me again.
sorry. i'm asleep. I meant I feel sorry for you.
(I'm so educated)

It's unfortunate that people must take this kind of viewpoint. I just looked up the two sections you referenced in the bible and couldn't see any reference to anything even remotely regarding homosexuality. If I'm wrong, please correct me. A very good site I've found discussing the bible and homosexuality is at [link] Not to mention, you can't really take the bible at face value. It's a book of metaphors, you must read into it, not only that, but it's quite old. This letter, written to Dr. Laura on the topic of homosexuality in the bible, shows just how much individual quotes and references are out of date. [link] If you can seriously tell me that you believe all of that is still as valid today as it was when those parts of the bible were written, then I may possibly listen to your arguments about the bible's anti-homosexual stance.

I know several people who are gay and are Christian. They do not see it in conflict with their religion, and nor do I. Oh, and, please don't use that tired "not Adam and Steve" quote... if you're going to reference Adam and Eve, do remember that it's a STRAIGHT couple that fell from grace; NOT a gay couple.

Gay marriage is a must for us to legalize. We do not live in a free and equal society. As someone once said; "We are not free while others are oppressed"

~marsupial

Upon checking my post, the link to Dr. Laura's letter doesn't work. Here is another link to the same thing on a different site. [link]

I really fail, or maybe the spell check does ;)

The first link doesn't work either: [link]

I'm sure your friends are good people, but if they honestly don't see the contradiction between Christianity and homosexuality, they are not well-informed.

There is no need to use the childish line "not Adam and Steve" in this debate. The proper line would be:

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

(New Testament | Romans 1:26 - 31)

Religioustolerance.org is certainly on the far-left of religion and is not a good source for "fair and balanced" information.

I will grant that the Bible does contain a great many meataphors and uses a lot of symbolsim and that the bible is only true so far as it is translated correctly, but it is really quite explicit on the issue of homosexuality - it's bad, don't do it.

Trust me, I've done a wee bit of studying on the subject.

Denying the right to marry to a particular group of people is not "oppression". Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry a 15 year old if we're in love? Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my sister? I suppose that would be oppression to you, also.

If people want to be gay, then let them be gay. That's their choice. But they don't need to look for any sort of justification for their actions in religion, and they should not expect me to treat them any differently because of their chosen lifestyle.

They just want to be treated like anyone else. So right on ChePibe. Don't treat them differently.

ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry for posting so many....BUT I FEEL I MUST MAKE A POINT! Show your face...you evil scumbag!
(Please don't tell me you signed in after this...Id on't have time to read the rest!).

ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD; ANONYMOUS, HOMOPHOBIC COWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry for posting so many....BUT I FEEL I MUST MAKE A POINT! Show your face...you evil scumbag! Please don't tell me you signed in after this...Id on't have time to read the rest!).

ps
sorry guys...the post fucked itself up before...I am actually learning how to post now, thanks Tekiran...

I leave you with this...
Turn your world upsidedown. Now homosexuals and George Bush are the norm. You, the straight (perhaps white man) are not the kind of person well-welcomed in today's society. You walk down the street with your girlfriend whom you love (but cannot get married to) and get spat on. People make fun of you right infront of you...But worst, they pay you out behind your back just because your a heterosexual, so mustn't be able to hear. Then, the rest of your straight friends and some of the community start making headway in straight rights...But no, there are some people who hate you. They want to burn you at the stake because Jesus said so. Or, at least, they interpret Jesus to have said that. They forget that in all religions, it states in one way or another to love thy neighbour, regardless. You are so mad that something that is so important to them (their religion) could be so badly misinterpreted and ignored (ie the part about loving EVERYONE) that you can't stand it anymore. You petition for the right to get married, to have children, to live a normal life. You have the courage to stand up and tell your parents, friends, teachers and community that yes, you are straight and proud of it. You take the chance, disregarding all the scrutiny and the shit that will hit the fan and you pioneer for all the other people like you who you know deserve better. You want to be able to have the rights that those ignorent homosexuals have. You want their lives. You want to be "normal". But all they do is send back your Straight Rights 150 years to when it wasn't even spoken about.

What if God turned our current world into the world I just dreamed up for you... What would you do? I bet you wouldn't have the courage to leave your house, or tell anyone about who you really are. I bet you'd live an unhappy, unfufilling "straight" life and be in denial til the day you die.

Just think about it. Didn't tragedies like the Bali Bombings and September 11 teach us anything??? We're all the same. If you cut us, we bleed. If you hurt us, we cry. We all come from the same place the same way. We have to cherish the world, family and friends we have now. We can't go around dissing whoever we want. Because if we do, we're no better than Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Huessain...and you're going to go exactly where they are.

Doesn't mean they are wrong either.

I do wonder though... what scripture were you reading that said the world was flat? I'm sure I never read anything like that but hey, maybe I have an innacurate bible.

"Scriptural teachings have driven people to commit violent acts of fanaticism."

Lack of scriptural teaching have also driven people to commit acts of fanaticism.

I would also have to say, you don't have the authority to decide what is normal either.

So you like to take it in the ass. Good for you. That doesn't mean everyone has to like it. To each their own.

Keep in mind that they can enter Heaven through the blood of Christ.

Get the Word right if you are going to use it to argue please.

The sexual immorality covers a broad range of sexual sin. This immorality is NOT limited to homosexual relations only.

Do you understand the nature of a phobia? It is a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous.

God does not teach us to fear or hate it. He compels us to avoid it because it is wrong. We are called to love the people if not the acts.

Think on that the next time you start throwing the bible around trying to bash people.

Actually I wouldn't put much weight in the arguments of a site based on tolerating sin.

The bible is not out-dated. If you really read the bible you would see much that fits today.

I feel bad for those Christians who think it is ok to lead a sinful life but I don't hate them or judge them for it (hell I'm still sinful.) The only thing one can do is pray that they'll make it back into a pure place. While I may be a sinner, I at least feel bad about it and do TRY to be a proper Christian (All joking done here aside) whereas those Christians are CHOOSING to live a sinful life and see nothing wrong with that sin.

Marriage is a church institution. Churches don't recognize gay marriage. It shouldn't be legalized because it is sin. Legal contracts by the state to allow same sex living situations is something else altogether. The government can do what they want but they should stay out of church business.

P.S. Considering the scandal that surrounds Dr. Laura, I wouldn't be so quick to use her for any kind of defense one way or another.

Well if the world was changed and God wanted Homos instead fo straights then there wouldn't have been a problem. If I were that bizarre form of alternate-xtian than I would do my best to love by that law or become celibate.

One would also have to point out the illogic of that world. If God created a gay world there wouldn't be anyone else but 2 men on the planet and they would have died long ago.

You see, if God created a gay world, then there would be no reproduction.

So I call false analogy on this one. Nice try though.

hello everybody all from klownchik so catch me up on the whole gay thingy?

"You petition for the right to have children"

LOL, I'm sorry, did you miss that little video in health class?

The other false analogy regarding adopting children because a couple of fudge packers can't make a baby.

I swear, if life is so fucking unbearable being gay, change. I don't care, just shut the fuck up about it already. I mean really...

Cry me a river, build me a bridge, and get over it.

Here's my two cents on the "gay rights" issue, take it or leave it:

1) Right to have children - As I hope everyone understands, children are the result of sexual relations between a man and a woman. That's where the babies come from, you know. People decide to enter into a relationship and to bring children into the world through the natural process. Granted there are couples in which one or both partner has been affected by a disorder that will not allow them to have children. These couples can adopt children and raise them naturally, as if it were not for a small biological disorder they would have been able to bare and raise children in a normal fashion. Fertility treatments are also an option.

Let's say a single person who has no intention of getting married, dating, or having any relationship whatsoever with the opposite sex decides they want to have a child. As we learned in our 6th grade health classes, this is a biological impossibility. Try as the person may (I don't even want to imagine how that might be), the person cannot have a child without the help of another.

Now, let's say two people of the same sex decide to get together. Their decision is their own, but when you pick up one end of the stick you must pick up the other as well. If a person decides to not have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex, they have decided to not have children. This is not due to some biological fluke or a strange disorder, this is a biological law. They have made their choice, and they should be willing to accept the consequences of their decision.

Gays and Lesbians should not be allowed the right to adopt children, as their choices are not consistent with people who want to have children. If they want to have children, they should adopt a heterosexual lifestyle or find a way to change biological law.



2) Gay Marriage - Essentially, this issue is about seeking a sense of legitimacy from a governmental institution. This makes little sense to me because the gay agenda's theme has always been "we're gay and we don't care what you think". Yet now they seek legitimacy and acceptance... what do they want?

The idea of gay marriage is to give a union between two homosexuals the same importance as a union between two heterosexuals. While two gay men might sincerely love each other, this does not mean they are deserving of the same rights married couples enjoy because these rights are intended to support them because they have children.

Though it isn't too ideologically appealling, the fact is our society needs children to survive. Therefore, we do things to encourage people (or at least not make it too difficult on them) to have children and to raise them to become productive members of society. As people do this, they receive small perks (tax breaks, increased legal protections in case of accidents, etc.).

Homosexual unions do not contribute to a future society as they cannot have children (see above). They do not deserve the same benefits as those that do.



3) Gays in the military - let the military decide. Sun Tzu (Author of the Art of War, one of the greatest books on military strategy of all time) said of civil leaders "By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes restlessness in the soldier's minds." Also, "He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign."

More simply put, let the military decide what's best for them and who's best to put in their ranks, just make sure the civil government has control over the military's external affairs.

If the military wants and will accept gays in its ranks, then let it do so. If it does not, we should not force the military to accept troops it does not want to take.


These are just a few ideas, which I'm sure I'll be torn to shreds for shortly ;)

Torn to shreds? ;) Most likely not. Although, I do find it unusual that this forum lacks a powerful, liberal voice able to counter-argue conservative opinions.

1) You described the birthing process very well. It takes a man and a woman in most all circumstances. For those unable to have children naturally, there are fertility treatments and the always reliable option of adoption. I applaud your direct, although, obvious assessment so far.

Now, lets view other situations where people adopt. They can be gay or lesbian couples or single persons. Women may also seek the semen of other men from sperm banks to impregnate themselves.

Now, lets think about this for a moment. Should single men and women not be allowed to adopt because they have chosen their lifestyle? According to you, no they shouldn't. Now, continuing, I infer from your logic that single women should not be able to seek semen from men to have themselves inseminated. After all, its their choice not to get married and live an old fashioned lifestyle ideally, if not actually, suited for child rearing. That right so far? Okay, single persons, you aren't allowed to have children. Marriage = children and if you're not married you don't want children. You made that choice; I said so.

Good, now that we got that out of the way, let's move onto homosexual couples. I like this line: "If a person decides to not have sexual relations with someone of the opposite sex, they have decided to not have children. This is not due to some biological fluke or a strange disorder, this is a biological law." As I said, this much is true: if you don't have a man and a woman you can't have birth. Not yet, anyway. However, you equated sexual orientation as choice. As if this is not enough, you equate biological law with moral law.

Fortunately for the sake of brevity, sexual orientation and biological / moral law are closely related. Since when did biological law become moral law? Please inform me, because if sexual orientation is in fact natural, which you will dispute, it cannot be immoral. And, there are many instances in nature of homosexual behavior. You may respond, "Animals don't have morals, they have instincts!" And thats exactly my point: its natural. However, if sexual orientation is biologically unnatural, hence morally deviant, you annul many other creations, designs, and impulses of the human race. I can argue many things aren't natural, from organ transplants, to artificial insemination, to surgical procedures, to genetic engineering *oh the horror*, to...are you getting the point? Biologically unnatural is a cop-out arguement which can mean anything you want it to mean. Stick with the "God hates fags" arguement. You may insult our sensibilities, but not our intelligence.

2) Now on to gay marriage. You bring up the "we don't care what you think" arguement and claim its a contradiction with the work towards marriage rights. Okay, I'm a libertarian and I go by the "I don't give a damn what you think" arguement too. Maybe I can broaden it for you.

The "I don't give a damn" arguement demands that you respect others' choices and your own. From gun rights - everyone should be free to own guns - to free speech - everyone should be allowed to speak freely, the IDGAD arguement requires that you live your life and allow others to live theirs. It does not require that you reciprocate respect, admiration, or fraternity to those with other opinions or lifestyles. It only requires you to be concerned with your own rights while realizing others should be entitled to the same rights you enjoy. Hence, I dont give a damn how you live your life and you shouldn't give a damn how I live mine.

Now that we've gotten the definition of the arguement used, you may say, "But I do give a darn, because, well, I honestly find you a vile and offensive creature." You continue to give your opinion of how marriage is an institution built for the sole purpose of creating children.

Let me divide the concept of marriage for you into two seperate parts. One is the legal definition that involves the government and its concerns. The other is the religious nature which, frankly, I don't care to argue.

The government has a vested interest in marriage because it maintains stable relationships between two persons, it helps eliminate dependency on welfare and promotes a stable environment for children if the couple chooses to raise children. The institution of marriage is multifaceted and is not exclusively meant to promote child-birth. There are many easier ways to promote child-birth, including telling all teens to go out and get laid. And don't start with "its also about rearing children in a safe environment!" If you were so concerned about rearing children in a safe environment, you would start by allowing gay parents to adopt children who are already born into a life of despair, your own moral postscripts notwithstanding.

Additionally, monies collected from marriage licence costs are distributed to programs to help maintain marriages around the state. Marriage laws protect interests, properties and finances. The state is not concerned with moral considerations and child birth but with a whole slate of political and economic interests. The cold, hard truth is that marriage is controlled and governed by the state for these purposes, and not the sole purpose of childbirth.

Marriage may have been used by certain religions as a bond between two persons. However, would you say that bond is exclusively to promote children? Would you say this bond is exclusively reserved for Christians? Should atheists be denied the right to marriage since obviously God wouldn't bless their union? In terms of government, a civil marriage is the same thing as a religious marriage, sans God.

P.S. I'm not sure how you interpreted all legal rights invested in the instutition of marriage solely intend to protect children. Kinda reaching there, bud.

3) Come on, thats not an arguement. ;)

Since we're discussing deviancy of all kinds, I'll just say that I'll get around to responding to your article once I'm done studying for and have taken my Econ test from a professor who appears to be some form of Saddo-Massachist. Until then, I just won't have the time, sorry!

I'm sure somebody else will chime in though ;)

Thanks for the response!

If I read the words "Marginal Cost" one more time, I'm going to have a nervous break down, so it's time for a study break on the Foo.

Let's see what I can do in the few minutes I'm going to give myself here.

Organ Donation/Blood Transfusion - smoke screens. These follow perfectly "natural" laws, even though the technology that made them possible was not always available in the past.

Homosexuality among other animals - from my understanding (which I admit to be limited), cases of homosexuality among male animals have a lot more to do with establsihing pecking orders among packs and territory than they do with any sexual urge the animal has. I'll study up on this later with more time.

Sexual Orientation as Choice - yes, I firmly believe that the sexual orientation of a person is a choice. There are things that can happen in a person's life that would influence a person one way or another (example - a personal friend of mine has an overriding distrust of men because she had a long string of horrible boyfriends and her father beat her and belittled her frequently, for example, leading her to choose a lesbian lifestyle according to her own self-analysis). From a biological point of view, it only makes sense - why would a sizable portion of a population be pre-programmed to not complete the most basic of functions, procreation? Wouldn't the process of natural selection handled them long ago if they'd existed? Even animals that display some homosexual behavior in nature aren't purely homosexual (to my knowledge, read above)

Marriage - one of the purposes (and in my opinion one of the most important purposes) to marriage is the rearing of children in a situation which is ideal. Statistics proving the idealness of this situation are readily available and I won't quote them here. Also, as a person who did grow up in a single-parent family (parents divorced at age 4), I can honestly attest to seeing very big gaps between myself and those who grew up in more supportive families.

When a child is placed for adoption due to whatever circumstance, that child (in most cases) becomes the child of the "state" who should place that child in the best situation. I won't say that all single parents are terrible (as the product of one myself), but I will argue that it is by far an ideal alternative to place children in a home with both a mother and a father.

Then again, the entire adoption system in this country is so out of wack many parents are forced to adopt foreign children, but I digress. That's another thread. I do acknowledge the existence of the problem, though.

Military - hey c'mon, it's a military argument, I quoted Sun-Tzu, what more do you want? ;) Seriously, though, Clinton shouldn't have stepped on the military's toes by making the "don't ask don't tell" policy. The military knows who it wants and who it needs and their recruitment policy doesn't need to be made a political pawn.

That's all I have time for now... time to write a brief paper on consumer surplus... er something... I'm sure the arguements I've put up are full of holes, so have at 'em.

Good to get a decent discussion on the board, though!

Regarding the animal stuff; I read a report (I can find the link again if someone wants) that stated that Bonobos [Our closest primate] are 100% bisexual. From what I remember and understand, they mate for babies during the mating season, and do whatever they like the rest of the year. There have also been multiple cases of

About some of the comments above; you honestly can't compare people wanting marriage between a very young minor and two adults of the same sex... it's entirely different. The minor not only is not legally consenting, but is just that -- a minor. They're not fully grown, they can't know what they want as well as an adult.

All I ask for is the right to have marriage licenses for same-sex couples as done by the government. I do not ask for anything remotely religious. It would be absurd to ask for that and ultimately pointless. It's not that I want recognition or acceptance by people, but that I want the same benifits that straight couples get when they decide to commit to each other. I believe that marriage is about commitment -- stopping the partners from being promiscuous, which is a big societal goal. With less promiscuity brings less spread of STDs and a more stable community in general. I think most would agree that a neighborhood of married couples is a much more stable neighborhood than one of bachelors -- nothing to tie them down.

If you have an argument against secular same-sex Marriage LICENSES then please say it in response here, but I really don't want to even think about arguing with regard to religious same-sex marriage as that seems to be a pointless argument to me.

Marriage is not a "church institution." Many people who are not religious or are not Christian get married. Ceremonies themselves are not always religious, nor are they always held in a church. For many people the entire concept of marriage does not involve religious belief.

I think it's about time gays had equal marriage rights. If anything it's a fundamental human right to be in love with anyone you want. To deny a couple in love the same benefits as any other couple is unfair.

"Gays and Lesbians should not be allowed the right to adopt children, as their choices are not consistent with people who want to have children."

How does this make them inferior parents in any way?

A lot of people seem to think that not having a mother and father to establish proper gender roles will screw up a child psychologically for life. Frankly my father is much more feminine in personality than my mother. My mother owns the business and makes the money, my father is the more subservient of the two. Traditional gender roles in my house were reversed and I consider myself to be a relatively well adjusted person.

Should single heterosexual people be allowed to adopt? Their "choices are not consistent" with people who want to have children, as they may not be interested in getting married or conceiving. Both the single heterosexual and the gay couple may have legitimate desire to raise a child, and I do not believe their sexuality determines their ability as a parent.

"If life is so fucking unbearable being gay, change."

I take it you have no understanding of the concept of love?

I know the drill. I have a political science test on theories of war. Economics isn't that bad. I almost double majored in it. But, we all make mistakes. ;)

Please define what you consider biologically natural? Is genetic engineering natural? How about the creation of new life? Scientist are currently creating organisms that use chemicals in their DNA completey different from any other terrestrial species. Is artificial fertilization natural? Please, define what is biologically natural; its hard for me to hit a moving target.

Ah, so reading on, homosexuality is actually natural and desirable under certain circumstances? 8) Let me see how I'll string this arguement together.

True, in some animal societies, homosexuality serves a social, and therby, natural purpose. At least, this is according to you. However, under these circumstances, you say homosexuality is not a choice, but an instinct geared toward social relations, territorial concerns, etc. Okay.

Would that mean if homosexuality served merely as a social phenomenon in human relationships, and not as a replacement for heterosexuality, you would consider it natural? There are many instances in human society today and historically where homosexuality was used to assert dominance and to "enhance" masculinity. After all, homosexuality doesn't replace heterosexuality, but complements it in establishing masculinity and strength. I'll provide links if you want. Do you think I'm oversteping my assumptions?

So is homosexuality always wrong, or only sometimes wrong, or is there a disclaimer on a bed tag somewhere that gives certain rules and regulations to its practice? I'd like to know.

Now, as we know, humans have a choice. And sex isn't merely meant for the act of procreation. In fact, its fun. And, some of our smarter animal companions know this too. In fact, dolphins and certain monkees don't really care whether they're having sex with guys or girls. They do it many times for fun. Not that I particularly want to equate these intelligences with our own. But if homosexuality is unnatural, then these creatures are certainly unusual in their natural expression of it.

Your anecdote regarding your friend is nice, but hardly representative of millions of people. And, let me ask you this question. Do you find men attractive? Ever? Do you think you could have sex with a man? When (or if, since you're in BYU) you see two males kissing, do you get turned on? If you're the person I think you are, you would be digusted. In fact, you would not only be morally indignant, but physically repulsed. If its a choice for homosexuals to become hetereosexual, then its obviously a choice for you to do the same. However, judging merely the physical reaction of most men, they'd rather take a leap off the Sears Tower.

As for natural selection and evolution. You could view homosexuality on nature's cap on the burgeoning human population. A sort of biological safegaurd. Its also possible that, because of the supremacy of the human species not only over its terrestrial counterparts but also natural selection itself, homosexuality is a "luxury," along with other human traits that can coexist with human society while not contributing to its continuance. In terms of natural selection, no it doesn't make sense. But humans have evolved beyond conventional restraints of natural selection. Food, habitat and predators are nearly nonexistant problems. Additionally, homosexuality in itself doesnt burden society. Many homosexuals are productive members of society. Homosexuality merely, and simply, doesn't perpetuate itself. Our species' growth slows. This, in itself, can be viewed as a form of natural selection.


On marriage, I believe I have already touched on this arguement for you. "After all, its their choice not to get married and live an old fashioned lifestyle ideally, if not actually, suited for child rearing."

Let me continue. I know that having a two parent family is ideal. However, one parent is better than none. And, in the case of artifical impregnantion, being alive is better than being non-existant. While we're busy talking about an ideal world, peope live in the real world.

And on to the military. Politically, what Clinton did was stupid. But, you can still argue whether it would be to the military's benefit to admit or reject gays.


Thanks for the good discussion and for your good humor. I'm always somewhat sarcastic when I post, but its not to belittle you or your opinion. Its usually to carry an idea to its furthest extreme and to point at how funny it may be. Its not personal, just political. :D

...the grammar. I use more commas than periods. And I just wanted to know one thing about BYU.

Is it a conservative instutition? Does its conservatism flavor the classes there? I know Tom Delay, a Texan politician, told some supporters never to send their children to Baylor University or Texas A&M University because they had lost their conservatism. They are not teaching creationism as fact in their university classes despite being two of the most conservative universities in the state.

See you're a new foob. Welcome to Kungfoo. Its our job to make your stay as uncomfortable as possible. ;)

Seriously, welcome to the board. Always good to have another opinion.

Thanks :)

Glad to see someone else who isn't so obivously against this... heh

~mars

By not allowing gays and lesbians to adopt, you condem the children in halfway houses wating to be adopted, to more mental and physical abuse as they wait for only straight people to adopt them.

First of all, love and sex are human instincts. You can't just try to ignore what goes on around you and not fall in love or have sex...It doesn't work, just look at all the sick fuck priests who rape little (and not so little...and I mean that in an age-way) boys and girls! The world I "created" for you is not meant to be a logical world, because the points that many people here are trying to argue (God says homosexuality is wrong, they are going to hell; people who are homosexual are bad and inhuman) are illogical, so obviously any answer you give against that is going to be illogical...BECAUSE IT ALL IS! In this world, there are 2 (well, 3/4 really, but 2 that we are talkig about) sexualities. Homosexual and Heterosexual. In an alternate universe such as the one I created, there would also be both. Therefore, even if it was thought wrong, heterosexual people would probably have kids. So, there wouldn't only be 2 people on the Earth...and then none.

"So you see, if God created a gay world"...there would still be reproduction, because there will always be people who go against the grain of society.

What I was trying to get you to do was not analyse and critique my opinion, it was to make you see that there are two sides to every story, and if the tables were turned, you would suffer the same. That's all. I guess it's not my fault if there are ignorant people in this world. No wonder people kill others and do all crazy shit.

You mean we're both political science majors, arguing about something?

Wow, that's a formula for an argument that will NEVER end if I ever saw one... lol

I just decided to drop this post on here to inform you I probably won't get around to responding until tomorrow, maybe Thursday. I've really got to focus on studying for this econ test.

Side Note about BYU - Econ 110 is largely reported as the most FAILED class on campus. The professor's an awesome teacher, but his tests are as enjoyable as the iron maiden. Sure, they're multiple choice... A-K.

I'm confident I'm going to do well on it, but with only two tests and the final to make or break my grade, I'm not taking any chances.

I'll get back on this ASAP!

I do. You miss the point.

True love isn't limited. There is nothing that is unbearable when you truly love someone.

The point is, deal with it and shut the fuck up.

Ahh but marriage is.

It is true heathens do get "married" but they are using a religious right. Again an AC misses the point. Those services that are not held by a religious organization or those that are held by the state are not MARRIAGE. They are a legal union and nothing more.

Marriage was a significant religious event that has been bastardized by others to fulfill their need to be with someone.

The fundamental right is to love anyone sure. It is not a fundamental right to be married to anyone you want. Love does not equal marriage or a right to marry.

Based on those grounds, if gays were allowed to marry. why cannot a pedophile "love" a child and marry them? Love is love right?

The government had no business sticking it's nose into marriage matters. Licensing people to marry. performing services, etc. They had no business getting involved. Unfortunately, those who don't follow scripture wanted all the benefits without all the responsibility. The result? The world we live in today.

If the church isn't involved then a "marriage" shouldn't take place. If someone wants to enter a non-church sanctioned union, go to a lawyer and get a contract written up regarding rights, allowances, etc. Become life-partners whatever.

The state of marriage shouldn't change however the laws should. I'm all for their rights and being considered a family if they want to be. I don't feel gays or anyone who isn't religious should be "married."

The laws have finally started making progress when it comes to gays in the fact that insurance companies are getting more pressure to allow someone to share their benefits with their "partner" regardless of sex. It is finally being recognized in the fact that they are a significant other. Core issues like the decision making power for a terminally ill sig-other needs to be addressed next.

Basically, state/government sanctioned unions (along with all legal rights) ok, marriage not ok unless the church allows it (if God wants you married He'll marry you. If what you are doing is a sin He'll let you know without a doubt.)

What do you learn in Econ 110 btw?

"You can't just try to ignore what goes on around you and not fall in love or have sex...It doesn't work,"

Yes you can. You can choose to abstain. I did it for several years.

"just look at all the sick fuck priests who rape little (and not so little...and I mean that in an age-way) boys and girls!"

How the hell do you tie something like love and sex together with sick acts? Learn to argue. Regarding the priests, take a gander at all the pedophiles who are NOT religious. It goes on everywhere asshat.

"The world I "created" for you is not meant to be a logical world, because the points that many people here are trying to argue (God says homosexuality is wrong, they are going to hell; people who are homosexual are bad and inhuman)..."

WRONG. God says the act of laying with another man as you would a woman is wrong. He says a woman doing the same is wrong. He does not say the people are themselves wrong. The key is to not ACT on the impulses.

God also says there is forgiveness through the blood fo Christ. It's funny how you religious intollerant assholes fail to mention everything and only want to pick and choose what you use to argue. Nowhere in the bible does it say a homosexual person is bad and inhuman. The sin is bad but not the person. Christ admonishes us to love the person regardless and to try and help as we are able.

"are illogical, so obviously any answer you give against that is going to be illogical...BECAUSE IT ALL IS!"

No it is illogical because you created a false analogy that doesn't work both ways. It is impossible for it to work both ways because physiologically humans would die out if there were only gay people (not including artificial insemination, if in fact there are also lesbians in the world.) The reason the logic fails is because the homosexuality fails when it comes to nature.

"Therefore, even if it was thought wrong, heterosexual people would probably have kids. So, there wouldn't only be 2 people on the Earth...and then none."

And thus, homosexuals would "die-out" to an extent as the heterosexuals take over. Natural selection which is scientific and not bible based will further the species.

Are you trying to create a world where everyone born of a heterosexual coupling is gay except for a few "mutants?" In a situation like this the species would again die out unless abnormal means were taken to keep the species going.

"What I was trying to get you to do was not analyse and critique my opinion, it was to make you see that there are two sides to every story, and if the tables were turned, you would suffer the same."

But there aren't two sides to the story. The fantasy you proposed was illogical. I wouldn't suffer, I would do what was right. I don't consider standing up for what I know is right to be suffering. If you feel you are suffering because of what you believe in perhaps you should rethink things.

"I guess it's not my fault if there are ignorant people in this world. No wonder people kill others and do all crazy shit."

Yes it's amazing. The same people who profess to be so openminded and those who are only trying to shed light on things happen to be the same hypocrites who turn out the lights and consider any opinion but the one they are trying to profess invalid.

The issue here is that you are preaching to the choir in some respects. While I still think the act of homosexuality is wrong, I still love the people just as much as I do heterosexuals. You are trying to force people to believe your way because all others are in your opinion wrong. You are NOT open minded and have no tollerance for what others think if you cannot even handle the simple critique of your little fantasy world. If one cannot make logical sense of what you are saying chances are it's complete bullshit.


And so in reply to your :mfinger: Got anything else to say you little hypocritical buttslut? The only ignorance you are at fault for is your own. Of course you could hide fromt hat responsibility and blame it ony oru abusive father but that's your issue not mine.

Concerning "marriage" I would have to say YES, athiests should NOT be allowed to "marry."

I think the government should provide a different service with the "rights of marriage" to keep things fair but marriage should be left to the church.

Basically for me it is a terminology issue. A simple solution would be to change the terms. This way everyone is happy. The church can no longer complain about gays being "married" since the government would be doing their own thing.

This would also help curb the "separation of church and state" argument the filthy lefties are so happy to throw out there. Think about it. Marriage is a church/spiritual institution. What right does the government have getting involved in it? If the government doesn't have any right to get involved, the dirty lefties have no leg to stand on when it comes to their rights to get married if they aren't part of a church.

It's easy to turn arguments on the silly extremists and I get much pleasure from it. Something that feels this good must be a sin :D

A vote for me is a vote to change the terminology :D

Gays in the military:

1) Hairspray makes a great weapon.
2) The shreiking can really disconcert the enemy.
3) The lisping makes great auditory camoflage in the jungle.

Who wouldn't want a fag defending their nation? :D

Seriously though. Who cares? Aside from the homophobes who are worried about some guy getting a boner when they are showering what is the issue? The Navy has survived for many a year, a couple of gays in the army or marines won't kill them.

Is it anyone's business whether a guy likes to buttfuck or suck a cack? No more than it is anyone's business whether a guy likes to eat a bitch out. Capice?

:D

So you are saying those who practice bisexual and gay sexual practices are closely akin to apes? ;)

I'll go with that hehe.

Seriously though. I'm all for the legal rights of gays etc. Just change the wording is all I'm asking :D IS THAT TOO MUCH TO ASK? (That wasn't me yelling at you that was me yelling in the direction fo the dirty lefty liberals on the east coast making asshat decisions and arguments. ;) )

As stated before I have issues with ANY secular marriage.

Welcome to the Foo.

P.S. Do you like big hairy dicks or do you prefer a properly groomed one?
P.P.S. I'm just giving you a proper welcome no worries :D

"And, in the case of artifical impregnantion, being alive is better than being non-existant. "

I dunno about that. I'm thinking if hoochie's mom swallowed what was in the turkey baster instead of douching with it being non-existant in his case would have been beneficial to the rest of us :D

Slippery slope.

Think about it...

Gay kid straight parents. The kid goes through all sorts of turmoil thinking they are abnormal etc.

Reverse it.

I'd rather err on the side of caution, showing the kid what a normal home is like. He can make the decision to be gay if he wants but I'm not of themindset to forcefeed them gayness or the ideals fo being gay (or rather the acts that go along with being gay) as ok.

"A lot of people seem to think that not having a mother and father to establish proper gender roles will screw up a child psychologically for life. Frankly my father is much more feminine in personality than my mother. My mother owns the business and makes the money, my father is the more subservient of the two. Traditional gender roles in my house were reversed and I consider myself to be a relatively well adjusted person. "

But there was still a mother and father. Regardless of who takes the subservient role the nature of family life is very different. "My two dads" would be just that. I don't care if one of them acts like a woman or not.

Were the gender roles really reversed? Were you sucking on your dad's tit? Did he teach you how to douche? Did your mother catch you flipping through her pr0n?

In a same sex marriage, unless the kid is of the same sex, there will be issues. Do you want to be the dad trying to show your little girl how to use a tampon? There are many reasons for the opposite sex to be there. They are better equipped to handle different situations (not including jobs, or financial matters etc.)

If we were best able to handle things as only one sex, we would all be hermaphrodites, or asexual. We wouldn't need to couple with the opposite sex.

That said I think it would have been a riot growing up with gay parents. I'd be the subject of a lot of ridicule in school but it would have been quite the experience for many a story.

Reverend Jyxned is a troll by defintion found here [link] His possible reply to this comment and his previous postings will confirm this.

As a troll-basher I feel it is my duty to inform the uninformed.

:) Have a nice day folks! :)

I have read all of the above posts. I understand each point of view. (not that I agree, but I understand the logic.) However, I feel that a gay person has the right to enter marriage and receive the same amount of advantages as the next. Here is what ticks me. Why are single (gay or straight) people punished because they have no spouse. No tax breaks, no insurance for the loved one at home, etc. It pisses me off that it seems the government encourages marriage. So Jynx, is it really exclusively a religious institution after all? Or do you think the government has perverted a religious ritual?

Until the govt gets it's hands out of my single pocket, I feel that any two consenting ADULTS should be able to marry. Because really it has no bearing on the church anymore. All I have to do to be married is pay the 25 bucks and sign the paper. So, if it has nothing to do with religion, how can any religious organization dictate what constitutes a marriage?

Maybe I should marry my best friend. If more people did that maybe the divorce rate would go down ;) She likes the same things I do and we wear the same size shoes. I have had fiances with less in common.

You'll also notice by the definition listed Hoochie is the kind of troll that points to others calling them a troll in order to direct attention elsewhere.

There is a difference Hoochie. I'm not trolling when I'm insulting you. I'm just being an asshole because I can be.

When you make those little jibes in an article you post trying to stir up trouble is trolling. As is starting a conversation of a controversial nature looking to get people riled up.

I'm an asshole to you because you are a twat. Plain and simple. No trolling there, I'm just saying it like it is.

The fact that I can apply you in an analogy when discussing a matter with another foobie is just a bonus.

I'm sorry you are so insecure with yourself. Not understanding the nature of trolling won't help you... oh wait you DO understand the nature of a troll which is why you do it so well when the mood strikes.

I do sometimes feel bad putting a witless opponent in their place but when I'm bored and have nothing better to do at work, it helps to pass the time.

Have a nice day in the sandbox at recess.

Yes I do believe it is a religious institution that the government perverted so they could rape the people of more money.

Again I'll say it: Change the terminology and the government can do whetever they want regarding living with a sig-other, their rights, etc. :D

When it comes to tax breaks the only real breaks you get are if you have kids. Until recently, married people were penalized. You got a bigger break being single.

Last year we filed separate because the taxes would have resulted in less of a refund. This year we'll file joint.

I all you want is a legal contract for 25 bucks that is the state's/federal government's perogative. I don't think they should be marrying people. Money has taken over in all aspects. Look at prenups. They have taken a religious bond and turned it into a legal issue. Why not just change the system to allow for everyone and leave marriage to the church?

I'm repeating myself way too much... I'll stop now.

" I have read all of the above posts. I understand each point of view. (not that I agree, but I understand the logic.) However, I feel that a gay person has the right to enter marriage and receive the same amount of advantages as the next. Here is what ticks me. Why are single (gay or straight) people punished because they have no spouse. No tax breaks, no insurance for the loved one at home, etc. It pisses me off that it seems the government encourages marriage. So Jynx, is it really exclusively a religious institution after all? Or do you think the government has perverted a religious ritual?

Until the govt gets it's hands out of my single pocket, I feel that any two consenting ADULTS should be able to marry. Because really it has no bearing on the church anymore. All I have to do to be married is pay the 25 bucks and sign the paper. So, if it has nothing to do with religion, how can any religious organization dictate what constitutes a marriage?

"Maybe I should marry my best friend. If more people did that maybe the divorce rate would go down She likes the same things I do and we wear the same size shoes. I have had fiances with less in common."

Sometimes the answer to life's problems are staring you in the face.


It's funny... guys get along with guys better and women with women. It seems odd in some respects that people would marry the opposite sex but we do. I'm lucky in that my wife and I ARE best friends. It has been a growing relationship and will continue to do so.

Congrats to you :) I could only aspire to be so blessed. Until then I am still eyeing my girl friends shoe collection....

If you have nothing else in common at least you have shoes. That alone makes up more than 75 of a good marriage :D

I can say, from going through the coming out process myself, that it's really not a thing about feeling abnormal with regard to your parents *if the parents are understanding and aren't closed-minded* ... my parents haven't ever forced any kind of rules on me that would make me think that being straight is the only way, and if a same-sex couple brought up a child -- they should do the same... let the kid know that they're probably going to like the opposite sex just because that's more common and that they're not weird or messed up.

I can see your side of the argument about how the opposite sex is required ... but is it *really*? or is that just how our society works? It's a tough argument and I'm not going to try to argue either side of it... but I just want you to think that maybe things aren't as set in stone as you think.

I personally would never want to have kids while our society continues as is; just because I wouldn't want them to have to be ridiculed their whole lives because of their parents. Maybe if the society were more accepting and the kids would have a normal, un-tormented time at school I would consider it.

I agree that an exclusively secular union should be legalized for same-sex couples, obviously, but I also think that there's no reason for it not to be called marriage. Why not just accept that the government has 'perverted' it and just let the terminology stick... it's still the same thing, a purely secular, legal contract... all that requiring it be called a union does is makes you feel special because you can get married and we can't.

I'd fully support a bill for a civil union between same-sex couples that has all the benefits of straight marriages in the eyes of the government regardless of what it's named, but I'm just saying that is there really a point to argue over this just so the name will be different? does it really matter *that* much?

~mars

The bible may state that a man should not lie with a man the same way he does with a woman, but he doesn't. Biologically it is impossible.

The issue here is not whether homosexual relationships are right or natural, but whether a loving relationship lasting decades should be recognised by law. Whether the love two men feels for each other is likened to that between a man and a woman or a very strong love such as a brother, both are recognised under law as legal bonds. If two people decide to share their lives, who has the power to stop them.

You have no right to deny a person their wishes if those wishes do not adversely affect society, and they don't. The only problem you have is your fear of your own homosexual tendancies. Why don't you discover who you are and what your sexuality is before trying to defend your stance.

You claim to be a liberal thinker, by definition believing that people are allowed to do anything they chose unless causing harm to others. Recognising love between two people can not possibly be detrimental to society, in fact it would lead to more tolerance and eventually, a peaceful world. It would dispell the us and them theory that you continue to spout, for human beings are capable of many forms of love, even for you.

That means sleeping with them you stupid cunt. It has nothing to do with putting your dick in the man's non-existant pussy.

"The issue here is not whether homosexual relationships are right or natural, but whether a loving relationship lasting decades should be recognised by law."

Not according to the church. Law should have no bearing one way or another with love. Law should NOT take emotions into consideration. Law is a blind emotionless entity.

"If two people decide to share their lives, who has the power to stop them."

No one is stopping them. Currently I'm not sure of any state that considers it illegal to live with someone of the same sex. Changing laws is another matter.

"You have no right to deny a person their wishes if those wishes do not adversely affect society, and they don't. The only problem you have is your fear of your own homosexual tendancies. Why don't you discover who you are and what your sexuality is before trying to defend your stance."

I have the right by God to oppose sin. I have the right to NOT accept it. I have the duty to not condone it. I have a responsibility to help folks out of sin as I'm able when I'm not busy dealing with my own.

Since I have no fear your attempt at an insult fails. I know exactly who I am. This is why I can faithfully follow God. First and foremost I'm a Christian. Second I'm a husband to a beautiful woman. I'm as comfortable with my sexuality as you can get. I have no problems joking with my gay friends, nor do I have the inclination to get them in the sack. If it was God himself asking me to suck his dick, I'd say no thanks.

"You claim to be a liberal thinker, by definition believing that people are allowed to do anything they chose unless causing harm to others."

I do. They can live with eachother, they can fuck eachother. I don't give a shit. I do care when someone destroys a sacred religious event like marriage with a blasphemous act. I do NOT approve of changing the law which will affect MY right to free religion. My religion says no gay marriage (still researching the specifics because unlike you I am interested in educating myself) and by allowing a union as marriage you are destroying the fundamentals of my religious freedom.

"It would dispell the us and them theory that you continue to spout, for human beings are capable of many forms of love, even for you."

I state nothing of the sort. Set the strawman aside and bring your issues straight to me. I have no problem putting you in your place and will continue to do so. It is written: "What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us?" ROM8:31

Never has it been an us vs. them thing for me, rather, it has been a me vs. you. I take each person and get a feel for them as an individual. Unlike you I don't judge the whole based on an individual. I won't make broad claims about a group of people unless I'm joking. It would appear many of you do however every time you throw around that tired, "intollerance" argument.

If I were intollerant I would be lobbying for laws forbidding homosexual encounters altogether. I would make it jailtime every time you stuck yout dick in some other guy's ass. There are a few areas that do have laws like this but they don't cover homosexuality, they cover anyone sticking a dick in someone's ass. This means men can't buttfuck their wives either.

Pull your head out of your over-fisted ass and take a look around. Your arguments are without merit and they have been found wanting. It is a good thing your opinion doesn't matter because I would feel bad for the gays who deserve the same rights as everyone else (that also means rights that do not infringe on the rights of others) got stuck with you defending their position.

You do more harm for the gay rights position than good.

I've kept an open mind and listened to what you had to say. I found it lacking and invalid. Thus, my opinion remains the same. If you had actually read the things I've said I'm not opposed to gay rights. I'm just opposed to anyone who isn't religious getting "married." The government can have their legal contracts, leave marriage to those who believe in what it stands for.

Have a nice ignorant life fucktard.

Ok let me get a little more specific. Say you are a gay kid being raised in a church environment where you have those church folks surrounding you who want to pray for a change so you won't be gay?

You can't depend on the fact that you will have tollerant parents or relatives etc.

When it comes to people baing gay, many factors come into play. Some believe it is genetics, others choice, while others feel they are forced into it. There are cases and evidence to support all of the reasons. Because of this, you could end up causing someone who would normally be straight to think they should be gay because their "parents" are. Note the "could" up there. Two men were not designed to have a child, neither were two women. Let the opposite sex couple bring up the children and teach them tollerance and let the child be what they will.

Take the wild animals that some folks are fond of bringing up noting their bi or homo-sexual natures. Do the two males that are out boinking take and rear young?

That removes the societal argument.

But hey, if it was a choice of being raised by abusive parents or a gay couple, I'd send the kid to the gay couple. The lesser of two evils :D

"Why not just accept that the government has 'perverted' it and just let the terminology stick... it's still the same thing, a purely secular, legal contract... all that requiring it be called a union does is makes you feel special because you can get married and we can't. "

Because that very same government gave me my freedom of religion which I choose to exercize because it is a matter of faith. I'm suggesting a change to make everyone happy. In the current situation one side or the other will be unhappy with the way things turn out.

It has nothing to do with feeling "special." It has to do with following biblical law. For some of us the Word means more than personal happiness.

My suggestion would also keep non-religious couple from marrying as well. they would have to go the government union route. Secular folks can have their thing, the religious theirs. Everyone's happy.

:D

Because of this, you could end up causing someone who would normally be straight to think they should be gay because their "parents" are. Note the "could" up there.

Find any statistical evidence that proves that a child raised by gay parents are more likely to be gay.

Yes, there has been research. Yes, there is an answer. No, it does not prove your point. Although, I did take note of the "could." ;)

I will follow with links if you want them.

It took me a while to recover from that guy/girl accusing you of being gay.

I do agree with you on this: Law should have no bearing one way or another with love. Law should NOT take emotions into consideration. Law is a blind emotionless entity. And because I agree with this, I support gay marriage regardless of the whining and gnashing of teeth that any person, religious or not, may feel compelled to perform.

Now, you say that taking the revered "Christian" tradition of marriage and applying it to gay couples is wrong. Normally, I would agree that taking any Christian tradition - i.e. baptism - and applying it to atheists / gays / Democrats would not only be wrong, but inane. Why the need to get baptised / blessed anyway?

However, I'm not sure that marriage is an exclusively Christian tradition. Additionally, I'm not sure when God had a trademark on the word "marriage". Furthermore, I wasn't completely aware that Christians, specifically your Christian religion, had a patent on the process of marriage. I may be somewhat misinformed on this though. The patent office couldn't give me a straight answer and God wouldn't pick up the long distance charges on my phone call.

Now, I'm not sure how me taking the word marriage, cursing in the name of God, playing Pope and blessing everyone in sight, etc. takes away from your freedom to practice your own religion. Marriages still go on in churches, for better or worse, binding two persons in holy matrimony. The Pope still goes around blessing things, regardless of whether or not I respect him, swear in the name of the Most Holy, or hang a cross above my bed.

Would it be acceptable if maybe I made a church instead and allowed people to marry their boyfriends, girlfriends, life partneres, dogs, cats and ccousins? If it was in the name of God, would it make it better? Or perhaps, since it would actually offend the very principles your Church stands for and practices, you would rather have it banned and be made illegal because it impairs your "religious freedom."

I fervently promote freedom of speech, whether someone wants to claim the value of freedom of speech - ACLU- or opposes it - Nazi party. If you asked me if I support either group's right to practice their speech, whether it contradicts the princples that allow it, I'd say yes. I feel the same towards marriage. Regardless if someone takes the principle of marriage contrary to the purpose its currently used for and practices it in a manner for which it may or may not have been intended, I don't really care.


But then, thats my opinion. I already know yours.

Well it isn't documented but I do actually know someone who has gay parents. This person was born to a mother and father, they got divorced and the father got with another guy.

Currently the child has gay leanings.

It basically falls under "peer pressure." Granted your parents are not your peers but they are very influential. This would be demonstrated by the parent who is abusive and ends up raising an abusive child who then abuses their children. Learned behavior.

Research tends to be very biased towards whoever is paying for it to prove their point. I would rather form opinions based on what I see myself first then I'll take into consideration both sides.

Feel free to post the links however don't expect it to change my opinion on the matter :D

I was also looking at this from your point of view. I'm sure we will never come into agreement at all because our views on the origin of marriage, but I do have two questions:

If you were studying a remote tribe and their family lifestyles, would you refer to the exclusive pairing of a man and a woman for purposes of raising a family as marriage?

Why is the word "marriage" so important if its application is the same? Wouldn't it, by any other word, have the same meaning? Shouldn't the deeper meaning be defined by the process which created it, whether that process included the state or the church, rather than a combination of letters?

I made it broad for a reason. Religious could be any religious ceremony. I'll give that much but no more because while I still think any marriage out of the christian church doesn't count, I also believe in our rights - specifically religious freedom.

Do jews marry gay people? Do the people of islam? I don't think there are many if any religious organizations that marry gay couples so I wouldn't say it is just a Christian tradition or edict to not marry them.

As for taking away from my religion, I would have to say when you ridicule something that is sacred to someone you are being patently offensive and it diminishes what they hold sacred. If what they hold sacred is diminished because of someone's actions, they no longer have the same religious freedom.

Mind you this is just my personal feeling on the matter and I apply it to everyone equally which is why I would suggest a terminology change and the government getting their hands out of it :D

Now to quote you, " Marriages still go on in churches, for better or worse, binding two persons in holy matrimony." Looka t what you said... HOLY matrimony. Why do secular folks care to get united in HOLY matrimony? Seems rather insulting, they are taking the holiness out of the event because of their lack of faith. People still do it, but it is wrong. If you want to be an athiest great... more power to you. Don't be a hypocrite in being an athiest though. All or nothing.

Now what the pope does doesn't matter. Think about it, if you don't believe then the is just babbling. He is not infringing upon your views because there is nothing to infringe upon. He is like that homeless man on the street cussing at his imaginary friend. Does this affect you? Not hardly.

Now take this scenario... people are in church worshiping. Some fucktard who doesn't believe walks in and makes it known he doesn't believe and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. He is a disruption and that disruption can keep people from worshiping freely. Suddenly, their rights are leaned on.

Perhaps it is a skewed way of looking at it but for those with faith, the person without it mocking religion is more of a disruption than the guy who is talking to "god" on the street.

I lived a non-Christian life for many years. I think it is safe to say that I have seen both sides. Personal experiences tell me that the non-believers tend to be a bit too antagonistic considering the stance they are trying to take. If you don't believe, why do you care? It is a logic quandry at times but it leads back to people just out to screw others.

But I digress...

I do appreciate the questions though. Maybe this is where I should call you a troll as the trolls desire. After all according to them everyone who disagrees with me is a troll. :rolls eyes:

Even though you are a heathen you are ok with me :D

I would consider it mating for life actually.

Because everyone (majority) understands marriage to be a "holy Union" of two people. I'm pretty sure everyone's idea of a marriage is one normally done by a Priest, minister, reverend, pastor, etc. (Rednecks in vegas and those who go to a Justice aside)

Like I said before it comes down to trying to make everyone happy. Allowing gay "marriage" will step on toes and the half that are against it are going to be offended. Look at what they did with the whole pledge issue. Lots of people were pissed off.

I offer a solution that would eliminate much of the problem. I don't hear anyone else offering a solution that would benefit both parties.

To sum up, the law of diminishing returns basically says that you reach a point where the more energy/workers you throw at a task, the less return you get per worker.

Rev does this all the fucking time. The more he argues a point, the more his point becomes transparent and negligible.

By the way, I got a C in Econ 101, but I love the law of diminishing returns.

Oh yeah, the penny is still there.

I'll accept that. Glad that you're willing to accept the idea at all.

"Take the wild animals that some folks are fond of bringing up noting their bi or homo-sexual natures. Do the two males that are out boinking take and rear young? "

There was actually a documented case where two female vultures that stayed together during their entire lives (in a zoo, I know it's captivity, not wild, but there were other straight partnerships in the same zoo -- seems that vultures tend to 'marry') stole an egg from another pair of vultures and reared it as their own chick.

I would tend to say that homosexuality isn't a choice, but isn't a thing of genetics either. My doctor told me of a report that focuses on the time in the womb that a baby spends, and apparently regular males get 4 spikes of testosterone during the 9 months, and some get 3. The ones that get 3 have a higher likelihood of being gay later in life.

I never felt a choice, I just knew... my whole life... ever since I even began to think about such things. I don't see how I could have been influenced in any way... I didn't actually meet another out gay person until nearly a year and a half after I came out.

:)

I would like to see a link to this documentation.

Mating and marrying are two VERY different things.

Spikes in the hormones ARE genetics. Even without these factors there are others who are gay by choice. Those same spikes can also influence physiological development. This is how hermaphrodites are produced as well as some transsexuals (the trannies are influenced by the mental hormonal influences such as those that can influence sexual orientation.)

I've done the reading on this genetic/hormone subject a while back. Old news. This is why I allowed for differences in sources for gayness. There are many cases where a person turns "gay" because they have been hurt by the opposite sex too often. Homosexuality can be a learned behavior and a defense mechanism as well as an innate characteristic.

As for your little anecdote... goody. I'm so happy you knew. Want a cookie?

I don't have a clue what scriptual writings you've read! Christopher Columbus taught the world was flat, not any form of scripture. The sun revolves around us- I'm not sure, but I'm definite it wasn't God's scripture...You should read up on your scriptures before you try to quote them and display unneccessary ignorance....

Who are you to say what is immoral or not? Scripture clearly states to treat everyone with the same kindness and respect as everyone else. Just because someone loves differently than you doesn't make them wrong. Who are you to judge?

now if you'd only press the submit button once. :)

i'd like to quote Mad Max off of the John Boy and Billy Big Show. He did a little thing on homosexuals. I'm paraphrasing... but it went like this:

"And if someone doesn't like gays, automatically they are uneducated. Oh! if we teach them they'll like us! if we just educate them... then they won't be afraid! HEY! I got it! I just don't get it!"

:D

'You can choose to abstain. I did it for several years. '

Rev., you know better than that. You didn't choose abstinence, women chose it for you.

Me? Ignorant? Excuse me for using a Jynxism (hey I just made that up! Cool!) but Columbus said that the world was ROUND, FUCKTARD. Don't tell others to do their research before you've done yours, asshat. (Woah! Two Jynxisms! I guess Rev is good for something after all! Just kidding Rev.)

General Response:

First of all, let