PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriage



Thomas
11-05-2008, 12:24 AM
Prop 102 just passed in the state of Arizona, explicitly defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Personally, I'm quite pissed about this. What are your opinions before I go off into a tangent?

Vera
11-05-2008, 12:29 AM
If you love gays so much why don't you marry 'em! Er, which you technically can't do anymore. Um..

Just kidding. Super-lame IMO.

Moose
11-05-2008, 07:30 AM
yeah i dont really get it...the only reason people should be concerned about gay marriage is because it would be easier for illegal immigrants to get in, then marry a friend, etc.


but it's pretty silly to say 2 people cant get married under the government.

a church is a church, it is their rules, but many people can get married through the government and avoid the church, so i dont really understand the total moral stand point. if marriage was so sacred, you wouldnt have such a high divorce rate.

the point is, gays should be allowed to married, but i totally understand the national security point of it (illegal immigration,) as well as, the point of: well i dont want to have my taxes going towards their benefits as a union.

but i dont feel those 2 things outweigh two people having the right to get married.

we arent talking about through the church here, we are talking about through the government. in that case, a couple, gay or straight, should be able to become a union.

Superdope
11-05-2008, 07:37 AM
http://www.collider.com/uploads/imageGallery/I_Now_Pronounce_You/i_now_pronounce_you_chuck_and_larry_movie_poster.j pg

Little_Miss_1565
11-05-2008, 07:46 AM
the point is, gays should be allowed to married, but i totally understand the national security point of it (illegal immigration,) as well as, the point of: well i dont want to have my taxes going towards their benefits as a union.

I'm not sure you understand how marriage works at all. First, how does gay marriage undermine national security/immigration, and what specifically makes it a gay marriage issue and not a heteronormative marriage issue? In addition, how do taxes go towards a married couple's benefits? Married couples GET tax benefits, as in on their 1040EZs; they do not receive them from other taxpayers.

Jesus
11-05-2008, 07:57 AM
Gah, Arizona I could understand even though it's crap. But a ban also passed in California (well 95% counted and 52% vs 48%, so not much will change).
Fucking lame.

I'll never understand civil or equal rights being determined on a state by state basis in the same country. Nor do I think it's a good thing.

_Lost_
11-05-2008, 08:17 AM
its banned in california now? I thought for sure they would make it legal there! WOW! This is sad. This has always seemed like a nonissue in my mind. If two people are in love, they should be able to get married regardless of their genders. I hate how there is supposed to be this separation between church and state, yet the church influences EVERYTHING in the government. Its none of their business who is boinking who. And its not right for same sex couples to not get the same rights as hetero couples.

Jesus
11-05-2008, 08:22 AM
The la times is following it pretty nicely on their site: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage5-2008nov05,0,1545381.story

F@ BANKZ
11-05-2008, 09:46 AM
I'm opposed to gay 'marriages', but in favour of some kind of legitimate binding partnership. Although that means I am opposed to this act, In honesty, when there's no religious bond I fail to see much of a point in a binding ceremony at any rate; you can vow to care and uphold fidelity without legal recognition. The reason I am against same-sex 'marriages' is because the Church prohibits homosexuality in any situation, and it should be impune from political ideas of modern times, within reason. I think their acknowledgement and respect for people's choice should suffice. I know that makes me hypocritical, in that I don't respect homosexuals' right to choose whether to be married or not; perhaps it should be open to the discretion of individual Churches rather than having a right or wrong label slapped onto the issue.

hshduppsnt
11-05-2008, 09:53 AM
what I can't understand simply is
1) why it matters to one person what another person does
2) why a california constitutional amendment only needs a simple majority to pass? Why have other props? why not just make Everything a constitutional amendment and leave the california supreme court out of it from here on...

bah... ignorant people make me sick... and don't fool yourselves into thinking its religious piety or whatever garbage... voting yes on this is just plain ignorant and discriminatory...

JohnnyNemesis
11-05-2008, 09:53 AM
I've often taken the "why do you want your love to be seen as legitimate by a society that refuses to even accept you" stance on Gay Marriage. Like, there's so much wonderful stuff in gay culture that shouldn't be wrapped up in striving to be more like heterosexual people.

Nevertheless, the banning of gay marriage is vile hateful bullshit, plain and simple. Any gay couple that disagrees with my previous paragraph should have the right to show their disagreement by getting married and receiving all the kinds of benefits anyone else gets, including, yeah, people seeing their relationship as "legitimate".

There shouldn't be a single legal and consensual thing I do with someone I'm romantically interested in that a gay person shouldn't also be able to do. It's a violation of human rights and dismissal of humanity on such a basic level that it seriously sickens me.

Fuck Prop 8, 'Zona, and Cali.


I think their acknowledgement and respect for people's choice should suffice.

But how does that respect even exist if they deny them the right to marry? I personally don't see how it does or how it can.

hshduppsnt
11-05-2008, 10:02 AM
^ well said...

don't forget Florida - it passed a 60% required majority over there...

and one more but I forget who at the moment...

F@ BANKZ
11-05-2008, 10:07 AM
I've often taken the "why do you want your love to be seen as legitimate by a society that refuses to even accept you" stance on Gay Marriage. Like, there's so much wonderful stuff in gay culture that shouldn't be wrapped up in striving to be more like heterosexual people.

Nevertheless, the banning of gay marriage is vile hateful bullshit, plain and simple. Any gay couple that disagrees with my previous paragraph should have the right to show their disagreement by getting married and receiving all the kinds of benefits anyone else gets, including, yeah, people seeing their relationship as "legitimate".

There shouldn't be a single legal and consensual thing I do with someone I'm romantically interested in that a gay person shouldn't also be able to do. It's a violation of human rights and dismissal of humanity on such a basic level that it seriously sickens me.

Fuck Prop 8, 'Zona, and Cali.



But how does that respect even exist if they deny them the right to marry? I personally don't see how it does or how it can.

I'm not sure if 'legitimate' was an accurate term for me to use, I just meant legally binding.

Secondly, the Church's acceptance is generally seen as a compromise. Whereas people living a homosexual lifestyle has no impact on Churches whatsoever, it is only right that they should leave them in peace. When they get married, however, that does directly involve The Church. If they are legally bound to accept gay marriages (I'm not certain whether this was the case before or not) that makes a mockery of their right to choose. This is why (I don't know whether or not you saw my edit, either) I suggested that there should be legislation in place to allow individual Churches to decide. This would mean that any marriages that did happen would have genuine sanction from The Church, and that ministers would not have to compromise their religious beliefs to suit laws of the time.

JohnnyNemesis
11-05-2008, 10:10 AM
I understand what you're saying a bit more; I see what you mean a bit there.

sKratch
11-05-2008, 10:13 AM
If I'm understanding you correctly, you don't understand gay marriage correctly. It doesn't force churches to marry gay people. A church that wants to marry gays can marry gays. The courts, however, have to marry gays. And that's what gives marriage legal legitimacy. You can get married in a church, but without a legal marriage certificate it doesn't mean jack (although I believe clergypeople can provide it).

F@ BANKZ
11-05-2008, 10:21 AM
I understand what you're saying a bit more; I see what you mean a bit there.

Ty, I have phrasing with my problems from to time to.


If I'm understanding you correctly, you don't understand gay marriage correctly. It doesn't force churches to marry gay people. A church that wants to marry gays can marry gays. The courts, however, have to marry gays. And that's what gives marriage legal legitimacy. You can get married in a church, but without a legal marriage certificate it doesn't mean jack (although I believe clergypeople can provide it).

That's true. I did say in my first point that I was not certain about whether this was the way originally or not. I suppose then that I prefered it the way it was before also.

mrs_hollandova
11-05-2008, 10:35 AM
Who cares about gays? I think they only need to show themselves, they want us to pay attention to them... Im really not interested in this.
There are milion other problems in the world. And they are promiscuous anyway...
Marriage is not for fun - to make a party and show who I wanna have sex with. They can have some kind of registration, but not marriage.

JohnnyNemesis
11-05-2008, 10:39 AM
And they are promiscuous anyway...

And heterosexual people aren't?


Marriage is not for fun - to make a party and show who I wanna have sex with.

Can someone else handle this one? My brain is leaking out of my ears.

hshduppsnt
11-05-2008, 10:45 AM
Marriage is not for fun - to make a party and show who I wanna have sex with.

What makes this differentiation different with heterosexual couples? Oh yeah Heterosexual couples bind for life as partners and never stray, never disrespect each other. That's why you never see domestic violence, adultry, and divorce amongst heterosexual couples...

oh wait...

EDIT: Of a less Sarcastic Nature - one cannot generalize to say some are abusing marriage to make a point, because you get that in every facet of life. Are you against interracial couples? What is the difference there? This issue has become an issue not because people are promiscuous and partying and want to have fun but because those who have found who they want to spend their lives with want to be able to do so and get the same legal status that heterosexual couples enjoy currently.

mrs_hollandova
11-05-2008, 10:47 AM
I just think they do it for fun, not because they are in love.

JohnnyNemesis
11-05-2008, 10:52 AM
Holy fucking shit.

nieh
11-05-2008, 10:52 AM
The reason I am against same-sex 'marriages' is because the Church prohibits homosexuality in any situation, and it should be impune from political ideas of modern times, within reason. I think their acknowledgement and respect for people's choice should suffice. I know that makes me hypocritical, in that I don't respect homosexuals' right to choose whether to be married or not; perhaps it should be open to the discretion of individual Churches rather than having a right or wrong label slapped onto the issue.

You can get married by a judge, a ship captain, or a guy in Las Vegas dressed like Elvis, none of whom have any connection to the church, and yet the legal asect of their marriage is still completely binding.

hshduppsnt
11-05-2008, 10:52 AM
I just think they do it for fun, not because they are in love.

Well this I can't help but tell you that I know people who aren't doing it for fun. However, I'm not sure what else I can say to change your view on this.


They can have some kind of registration, but not marriage.

However, I'll come back to this point. What the proposed bills are doing are preventing exactly that. Perhaps its a bad usage of the term marriage in the religious sense vs marriage in the state sense but that's what they're dealing with, registration at the governmental level to say they are together, to get the tax benefits and rights other couples who are together have.

mrs_hollandova
11-05-2008, 10:54 AM
Well this I can't help but tell you that I know people who aren't doing it for fun. However, I'm not sure what else I can say to change your view on this.



However, I'll come back to this point. What the proposed bills are doing are preventing exactly that. Perhaps its a bad usage of the term marriage in the religious sense vs marriage in the state sense but that's what they're dealing with, registration at the governmental level to say they are together, to get the tax benefits and rights other couples who are together have.

So do you think they want to married because of money?

nieh
11-05-2008, 10:58 AM
Wow...
You're an idiot.

medi01
11-05-2008, 10:59 AM
"I say no to gay marriage, as it'll lead to gay divorce, and that'll be bitchy" - quality

hshduppsnt
11-05-2008, 11:02 AM
So do you think they want to married because of money?

They want to be married so that they can be the same as everyone else. There should be no distinction or discrimination

wheelchairman
11-05-2008, 11:04 AM
So do you think they want to married because of money?

This is a matter of law, not what you think about gays. You're not even really on topic. You're just taking advantage of the topic to say stupid thing about gays.

The issue is do gay people deserve the same rights as straight people?

Personally I think the answer is so obvious. Do you really think that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights? Is that really your opinion?

mrs_hollandova
11-05-2008, 11:07 AM
This is a matter of law, not what you think about gays. You're not even really on topic. You're just taking advantage of the topic to say stupid thing about gays.

The issue is do gay people deserve the same rights as straight people?

Personally I think the answer is so obvious. Do you really think that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights? Is that really your opinion?

Its not like I hate them. Some of them are nice like Matt Lucas, and hes married to man. I just dont think two men or two women can make a family.

Jesus
11-05-2008, 11:13 AM
You can get married by a judge, a ship captain, or a guy in Las Vegas dressed like Elvis, none of whom have any connection to the church, and yet the legal asect of their marriage is still completely binding.

word

I still can't believe people in the US think it would force churches to marry gays, after all these years debunking that claim. A wedding in front of the church has no legal value on its own. The state (sadly) gives church weddings legal value by giving certain ministers the power to do legal weddings. I guess the confusion for a lot of people sort of follows out of this mixing of church and state. In a bunch (if not most) of Western European countries this is dealt differently, there church weddings have zero legal value. My guess is if people would clearly understand that gays aren't gonna go married in their churches or something, it would be easier to pass I think (even though the homophobia still remains, it at least would get passed).

wheelchairman
11-05-2008, 11:31 AM
Its not like I hate them. Some of them are nice like Matt Lucas, and hes married to man. I just dont think two men or two women can make a family.

Yes that's called biology and is also not relevant.

Thomas
11-05-2008, 12:38 PM
I just think they do it for fun, not because they are in love.


So do you think they want to married because of money?

Holy fucking shit, you are a goddamn idiot. You think gay people are trying to get married for fun? You think they have absolutely no feelings toward each other in a way that would make them want to spend their lives together and recieve the same benefits hetero couples receive? I don't even know what to say to you. People like you are bringing this nation back to the goddamn stone ages, one proposition at a time.


I say we completely get rid of the term "marriage" and give EVERYONE, gay and straight couples, civil unions. The legal benefits are the same, after all, and it would be equal. Lets outlaw divorce while we're at it, too.

Little_Miss_1565
11-05-2008, 01:10 PM
That's true. I did say in my first point that I was not certain about whether this was the way originally or not. I suppose then that I prefered it the way it was before also.

Then you might as well hop aboard a time machine back a few centuries. The state rather than the church has been the arbiter and controller of marriage for a very long time. In all honesty, church weddings are more of a symbolic ceremony right now. If you're not religious and you're straight, you can be married and not have to involve the church at all.


I just think they do it for fun, not because they are in love.

Because it's tons of fun to risk being murdered in a lot of places in this country for dating someone their same sex?


You can get married by a judge, a ship captain, or a guy in Las Vegas dressed like Elvis, none of whom have any connection to the church, and yet the legal asect of their marriage is still completely binding.

YES.


So do you think they want to married because of money?

*facepalm*

How about love.

Desperado
11-05-2008, 01:20 PM
Personally, I think that marriage should be taken away from government all together. Let it be strictly a religious thing; the churches can then deny gays the right to marry all they want without violating any rights because it's a sepeate religion. If people really marry for love, which they do, then I don't see why they shouldn't do this. Still, if they keep marriage a government prospect with benefits the answer is obvious. Yes, allow gay marriage.

What's annoying about the debate is that children are bought up. People seem to think that the only reason that people get married is to have kids, which is udder rubbish. There are different reasons to get married.

Sunny
11-05-2008, 03:19 PM
Who cares about gays? I think they only need to show themselves, they want us to pay attention to them... Im really not interested in this.
There are milion other problems in the world. And they are promiscuous anyway...
Marriage is not for fun - to make a party and show who I wanna have sex with. They can have some kind of registration, but not marriage.

wow, you sound pretty vile.

are you actually married? i've been married for 3 years, and trust me, it's pretty much been a big fun sex party. maybe the married people you know are just doing it wrong. in fact, they probably are.

gay people are just as "promiscuous" as straight people, and it's the straight people that have been trying hard to devalue the institution of marriage with spousal abuse, divorce, cheating and getting married for the money. so fuck off.


btw - for those who said the Christian church has every right telling people they can't get married, sure! they certainly do! the Bible says it's icky, so whatever. the Bible also says shellfish and shaving the hair on your temples is icky, but hey, if you want to stick to a religious text in a selective manner that facilitates your own phobias, and it doesn't make you feel like a raging hypocrite, GO WILD.

however, Prop 8 has NOTHING to do with churches. hell, marriage has nothing to do with churches. i'm married and it didn't take going to church at all... fancy that! shocking as it is, not all Americans are Christians. however, ALL Americans should have the right to marry, and certain Christians need to finally realize they have no right to impose their arbitrary "values" on the rest of us.

...especially if they're based on something as obsolete as Leviticus, which is where the whole "homos are gross" thing comes from. why don't you sell your daughters to slavery, too? Leviticus says it's OK, so it must be... amirite?

nieh
11-05-2008, 03:24 PM
why don't you sell your daughters to slavery, too? Leviticus says it's OK, so it must be... amirite?

Because what if they're bought by the homos?

Jesus
11-05-2008, 03:36 PM
Divorce rate between gay couples is lower than with heterosexuals. Studies in (holland/belgium) showed that on average the divorce rate within the first 5 years after marriage between gay couples was around 3% compared to around 12% for heterosexuals. So I think they take it quite seriously.
Promiscuity is higher though, makes no sense to deny that. Although the gap is closing (with promiscuity rising with heterosexuals). Which also shows, sadly, in aids studies.

F@ BANKZ
11-05-2008, 04:06 PM
Okay, I need to learn to be less ambiguous on here.
To all: my conclusion was like most others: that I am against this act. Please bear that in mind when considering my reasoning.


You can get married by a judge, a ship captain, or a guy in Las Vegas dressed like Elvis, none of whom have any connection to the church, and yet the legal aspect of their marriage is still completely binding.
Hi, I distinguished that by 'marriage' I referred to a religious process, whereas by 'legitimate bond' I meant a civil partnership as it is called in the UK. Personally I consider a marriage to the legal documentation and a ceremony sanctioned by a religious establishment, as I am fully accustomed to using the term 'civil partnership'.


Wow...
You're an idiot.
To the subject of this; can't you see how unfair it is to say 'they' as if homosexuals are part of a cohesive movement, consider that gays are individuals just like the rest of us.


"I say no to gay marriage, as it'll lead to gay divorce, and that'll be bitchy" - quality
Quality.


word

I still can't believe people in the US think it would force churches to marry gays, after all these years debunking that claim. A wedding in front of the church has no legal value on its own. The state (sadly) gives church weddings legal value by giving certain ministers the power to do legal weddings. I guess the confusion for a lot of people sort of follows out of this mixing of church and state. In a bunch (if not most) of Western European countries this is dealt differently, there church weddings have zero legal value. My guess is if people would clearly understand that gays aren't gonna go married in their churches or something, it would be easier to pass I think (even though the homophobia still remains, it at least would get passed).
I don't know if you were talking about me, and I mean no offence, especially if you were not, so I'll be laconic. I'm from Britain, and judging by the content of this thread, there was no easy way for me to know the intricacies of the American legislation even via the link I clicked. I elucidated my uncertainty and that I was speaking hypothetically. I am hardly the target for whatever anybody in America has to say in relation to internal affairs, and the very fact that same-sex marriage in Church is legal in America (for in Britain, it is not) shows that I was not being excessive in trying to consider all potentials.


Then you might as well hop aboard a time machine back a few centuries. The state rather than the church has been the arbiter and controller of marriage for a very long time. In all honesty, church weddings are more of a symbolic ceremony right now. If you're not religious and you're straight, you can be married and not have to involve the church at all.
I might well have missed your point, but if I did not: by 'used to be' I was refering to what I had described in my first post; the legislation immediately before this proposition was passed.

As to all of BBS, when somebody says something genuinely stupid, I think we should try to make them see the error of their ways without making them defensive.

Little_Miss_1565
11-05-2008, 04:14 PM
Personally, I think that marriage should be taken away from government all together. Let it be strictly a religious thing; the churches can then deny gays the right to marry all they want without violating any rights because it's a sepeate religion. If people really marry for love, which they do, then I don't see why they shouldn't do this. Still, if they keep marriage a government prospect with benefits the answer is obvious. Yes, allow gay marriage.

Making marriage a purely religious act would be incredibly ridiculous for me, as I would like to get married at some point but would instantly burst into flame if forced to go to a church to do it. Keeping it a civil service/ceremony opens it up to everyone, and I agree, that it is a civil matter should mean that it is an option available to gay couples as well as straight.

WebDudette
11-05-2008, 04:34 PM
A kid in my English class wrote a research paper about gay marriage. He looks at it as something curable and puts it a step below terrorism. I'm not even exaggerating.

Another kid who is anti-gay marriage said this:


nothing will stop homosexuality nor promiscuity. but making homosexual marriage illegal will keep at least one good moral in this country. for this current generation has seem to lost all.

I fucking hate Arizona sometimes.

Static_Martyr
11-05-2008, 04:46 PM
I still can't believe the damn thing passed....we had a viral campaign going on and everything, through the internet. I knew that wouldn't help much, but....I guess, with Obama taking the office of Prez so smoothly, I started to get my hopes up about the rest of American society. Clearly, I got my hopes up too high :(

It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who thinks gay marriage isn't going to make the world explode, though. That's kind of a hard perspective to come by down here on the Bible belt -_- There's an old lady around here that actually believes the California Supreme Court ruling from awhile back (that allowed gay marriage) is what caused all of the hurricanes we had been having 0_0

jacknife737
11-05-2008, 05:27 PM
This thread = one giant *facepalm*

The fact that in 2008, gay marriage is even a contested electoral issue is fucking pathetic. The state should not practice discrimination based on sexual orientation, there are no rational arguments against granting gays and lesbians civil marriage. Church's obviously should not be forced to perform ceremonies if they feel such weddings go against their doctrines, but then again, how many marriages are religious these days anyways?

Moose
11-05-2008, 05:39 PM
on an earlier post...i may have misunderstood the benefits thing...

...when it comes to national security, we have a law that states if you are illegal, but marry a legal, they cant force you out of the country. I know a woman who married an illegal man for money, so they can stay in the country. she got 10,000 for it. in theory, it would be even easier to do this with a friend you have connections with in the country instead of hunting down a female or paying someone. it opens up new avenues for illegal immigrants to sneak into the country and then stay here.


but even so, i feel those reasons do not outweigh the fact that under the government, gays should be allowed to get married, form a union.

we aren't saying a church isnt allowed to deny gay marriage or recognize gay marriage, they can do whatever they want, but under the government, 2 PEOPLE with real emotions and feelings and thoughts should be allowed to form a union (get married.)


and replying to the other comments in this post. Just because you are against gay marriage, doesnt mean you hate gay people. The same way if you are for pro-choice you dont want to kill babies. Now, do some people hate gay people? yes. but that doesnt mean every person who is against gay marriage hates gay people. they have their reasons. some are valid, some i dont agree with, but that doesnt necessarily mean they hate gay people.

anyhow, back to the point, gay marriage should be a vote on the people by each state. if the people vote no, so be it. in another 10 years, or 4 years, or 8 years, the discussion can be re-opened up and voted on again.

i do not feel gay marriage threatens america and americans way of democracy, freedom, capitalism, and life in any significant way short term or long term. it is just giving a right to a people to form a union under the government, and therefore, should be legal.

cool 2 hate 681
11-05-2008, 05:47 PM
edit edit edit

F@ BANKZ
11-05-2008, 05:59 PM
i voted yes on prop 8

That's great, but you might want to say why; otherwise to some you might look like a homophobic, who's ashamed of being homophobic, and does not want to be identified as homophobic, but is so homophobic he cannot conceal his homophobia.

Sunny
11-05-2008, 06:51 PM
i voted yes on prop 8

fucking clownshoes.

calichix
11-05-2008, 06:57 PM
I think there should've been trap doors that were activated by people voting yes on 8, and they should have fallen into an oubliette full of shit so they could understand what their brains are going through.

cool 2 hate 681
11-05-2008, 07:20 PM
ok sorry not trying to start fights i was wrong to post that

Llamas
11-05-2008, 10:02 PM
I've often taken the "why do you want your love to be seen as legitimate by a society that refuses to even accept you" stance on Gay Marriage. Like, there's so much wonderful stuff in gay culture that shouldn't be wrapped up in striving to be more like heterosexual people


Personally, I think that marriage should be taken away from government all together. Let it be strictly a religious thing; the churches can then deny gays the right to marry all they want without violating any rights because it's a sepeate religion. If people really marry for love, which they do, then I don't see why they shouldn't do this. Still, if they keep marriage a government prospect with benefits the answer is obvious. Yes, allow gay marriage.

What's annoying about the debate is that children are bought up. People seem to think that the only reason that people get married is to have kids, which is udder rubbish. There are different reasons to get married.

These two posts bring up very important points. The question about legalizing gay marriage really overlooks a broader issue, and that is the issue of marriage in general. Personally, I have virtually no interest in getting married (which could change, but I at least have no interest as long as I'm in my 20s). Society makes someone like me out to be a bad guy, who should not be in any serious relationships or possibly have kids. Single parents still have stigmas attached to them... unmarried couples who live together do, too.

One problem I have with marriage is just that it is instilled in our heads at a very young age. We're supposed to grow up, find a job, find a spouse, and have kids. We don't even realize we can question this until we're adults, and many people still never question it. I'd say roughly half my friends (most of whom are quite liberal, open-minded people) have never questioned marriage, and already are or will soon be married.

Basically, I think marriage should be an option for anyone (including gays, bis, transsexuals, etc), but it should be just that- an OPTION. I definitely don't understand how anyone can be opposed to letting gay people get married, especially with the detachment from church.

BTY, I honestly don't believe the bible says anywhere that being gay is wrong; some people have just twisted a few passages so they seem to say homosexuality is wrong.

XYlophonetreeZ
11-05-2008, 10:28 PM
I've often taken the "why do you want your love to be seen as legitimate by a society that refuses to even accept you" stance on Gay Marriage. Like, there's so much wonderful stuff in gay culture that shouldn't be wrapped up in striving to be more like heterosexual people.

Nevertheless, the banning of gay marriage is vile hateful bullshit, plain and simple. Any gay couple that disagrees with my previous paragraph should have the right to show their disagreement by getting married and receiving all the kinds of benefits anyone else gets, including, yeah, people seeing their relationship as "legitimate".

There shouldn't be a single legal and consensual thing I do with someone I'm romantically interested in that a gay person shouldn't also be able to do. It's a violation of human rights and dismissal of humanity on such a basic level that it seriously sickens me.

Fuck Prop 8, 'Zona, and Cali.



But how does that respect even exist if they deny them the right to marry? I personally don't see how it does or how it can.
Extremely well said. I agree with every word of this, and even if I didn't it would still be very well-put.


I just think they do it for fun, not because they are in love.
You saw it here, folks: Katy Perry's influence on society!

P.S., go die in a fire.

Kennytar
11-05-2008, 10:54 PM
I have nothing against gay couples getting married but in my mind marriege means family and I am against gay couples adopting kids.

Thomas
11-06-2008, 12:28 AM
I have nothing against gay couples getting married but in my mind marriege means family and I am against gay couples adopting kids.

And why is that?

Hypno Toad
11-06-2008, 12:39 AM
I don't see what the problem with gay marriage is. What the hell does the government care? I suppose the problem is there are too many "evangelicals" out there, and the Politicians are all covering their asses so they don't lose the votes.

But, a right is not given, it is earned. So if the gays really want it, then they will either have to move, or fight for it. I doubt they are just going to get it in Arizona.

About the adoption thing too, I know a kid that has two lesbians for parents, the kid is quite fucked up personality wise. It could just be a coincidence, but I don't like the idea of gay adoption. babies are born with some basic instincts and expectations, and it is kind of mean to put them in a backwards situation, though ultimately it is up to the people who want to adopt.

Kennytar
11-06-2008, 01:58 AM
And why is that?

Cos I think that kids need father (male) and a mother (female) figure. I'm not saying anything bad about single parents. I mean that if u have (for example) 2 fathers and one acts like female and other male what kind of fucked up vision u get out of family or about your sex/opposite sex. I'm not saying that gays arent able to love or that they are bad parents. not at all...just there should be some limits!

mrs_hollandova
11-06-2008, 02:27 AM
Cos I think that kids need father (male) and a mother (female) figure. I'm not saying anything bad about single parents. I mean that if u have (for example) 2 fathers and one acts like female and other male what kind of fucked up vision u get out of family or about your sex/opposite sex. I'm not saying that gays arent able to love or that they are bad parents. not at all...just there should be some limits!

Hehe, exactly

Vera
11-06-2008, 02:47 AM
Your sig might say "come to Slovakia" but I don't think you're doing a very good job promoting your country in this thread.

I'd say more but I'm sick of arguing about somebody else's uninformed, archaic views on other people's personal lives.

Jesus
11-06-2008, 03:15 AM
Well most of Eastern Europe, is lets say quite backwards on homosexuality though. So she is doing us a favor.

With gay adoption there is quite a difference between theory and practice. Given that most of the countries where kids are being adopted from are in Latin America, East Asia and Africa. And they generally don't "send" kids to gay couples or single parents (only a small percentage succeed this way compared to heterosexual couples). Gay adoption in practice has to do with surrogacy or ivf. Which results in one partner of a same sex couple being a parent and the other having no legal rights or duties towards these kids. Which causes obviously a lot of problems when the actual parent dies, gets ill or the couple divorces. But we all know being able to make kids the natural way is the best qualification to be a good parent, so all of this obviously doesn't matter.

PS. For this amendment in California only a simple majority was needed. So to repeal it, is a bigger majority needed or is a simple enough?

F@ BANKZ
11-06-2008, 04:20 AM
Cos I think that kids need father (male) and a mother (female) figure. I'm not saying anything bad about single parents. I mean that if u have (for example) 2 fathers and one acts like female and other male what kind of fucked up vision u get out of family or about your sex/opposite sex. I'm not saying that gays arent able to love or that they are bad parents. not at all...just there should be some limits!

We have covered this in depth in classes of mine, and one point I had not considered is the effect should not be hugely different to that of single-parent relationships. The fact is, same-sex couples are not going to try to form a mother/father relationship with their children, just to raise them in their own way. I heard about somebody in our school who did not realise he was raised from a same-sex family until the age of 18, when his best friend made allusion to it; personally I doubt the effect would be as potent as many people think, but I have no statistics to prove either way.

Kennytar
11-06-2008, 04:26 AM
But we all know being able to make kids the natural way is the best qualification to be a good parent, so all of this obviously doesn't matter.


Good point!

Kennytar
11-06-2008, 04:31 AM
We have covered this in depth in classes of mine, and one point I had not considered is the effect should not be hugely different to that of single-parent relationships. The fact is, same-sex couples are not going to try to form a mother/father relationship with their children, just to raise them in their own way. I heard about somebody in our school who did not realise he was raised from a same-sex family until the age of 18, when his best friend made allusion to it; personally I doubt the effect would be as potent as many people think, but I have no statistics to prove either way.

How you can not realise that :confused:
Anyway, still there isnt no father-mother figures. Kids who have been raised by gay couples have much harder time to be a parent theirselves. It's kinda the same with single parenting, but as Jesus pointed up - usually sinlge parents cant adopt kids.

JohnnyNemesis
11-06-2008, 06:50 AM
But the thing is, the two of you had mother and father figures and you're still really fucking stupid, so that goes against your point. lolz.

0r4ng3
11-06-2008, 07:21 AM
I know lots of kids that grew up with a father and a mother, and they're pretty fucked up.

And what about single parents that adopt? You don't have to be married to adopt a kid. What about all the kids who didn't have a father (or mother) because they ran out on a hetero marriage?

JoY
11-06-2008, 08:01 AM
But the thing is, the two of you had mother and father figures and you're still really fucking stupid, so that goes against your point. lolz.

I didn't come in to actually SAY something, or to make an actual point. because frankly in this matter I so firmly believe my opinion is the only right & correct opinion, that anyone not having the same opinion is absolutely unworthy of any type of discussion with me.

that being said, badabing badaboom, Ricky! <3

F@ BANKZ
11-06-2008, 10:11 AM
But the thing is, the two of you had mother and father figures and you're still really fucking stupid, so that goes against your point. lolz.
This coming from the guy misunderstood both of my points in light of his own moronic prejudice.

Kennytar
11-06-2008, 11:30 AM
But the thing is, the two of you had mother and father figures and you're still really fucking stupid, so that goes against your point. lolz.

Having mother and father doesn't mean You still grow up not fucked up. Thats not the point here at all.

Thomas
11-06-2008, 11:36 AM
Are you saying that not having a mother and a father means that the kid will be fucked up?

JohnnyNemesis
11-06-2008, 12:31 PM
This coming from the guy misunderstood both of my points in light of his own moronic prejudice.


...what ?

Amiralanal
11-06-2008, 12:38 PM
Gay people marrying and gay people having kids isnt the same thing?

Moose
11-06-2008, 12:40 PM
i could see people being concerned over artificial insemination, but when it comes to adopting, there really shouldnt be any concern.

would you rather have a kid in a foster home, or being raised by loving people?

it is pretty much as simple as that.

Little_Miss_1565
11-06-2008, 02:31 PM
I think there are a lot of more productive ways to handle this discussion than telling anyone to "go die," people.


Cos I think that kids need father (male) and a mother (female) figure. I'm not saying anything bad about single parents. I mean that if u have (for example) 2 fathers and one acts like female and other male what kind of fucked up vision u get out of family or about your sex/opposite sex. I'm not saying that gays arent able to love or that they are bad parents. not at all...just there should be some limits!

No. Kids do not need a specifically male and specifically female parental duo. I've noticed from my own observation that kids seem to fare better with two parents regardless of the gender identities of those parents over single parenting just because kids are a huge undertaking. Also, there's a pyramid of needs that has been developed when describing the emotional development of people across socioeconomic classes, and in it it says that people do not develop themselves culturally unless their most basic needs of food, shelter, and security are met. Generally one parent ends up being the main caregiver and the other parent more of a fun counterpoint. When one parent is tasked with all of it, it can feel overwhelming and that often gets communicated to the kids. I don't know if I'm making any sense, I've had way too much coffee today. But you don't need a mom and a dad literally in order to raise kids.

Unless you're talking about not letting kids 'catch the gay' from their homo parents, in which case that is fucked up.


How you can not realise that :confused:
Anyway, still there isnt no father-mother figures. Kids who have been raised by gay couples have much harder time to be a parent theirselves. It's kinda the same with single parenting, but as Jesus pointed up - usually sinlge parents cant adopt kids.

Then how do you explain Angelina Jolie adopting a couple kids as a single parent -- and technically she keeps adopting as a single parent as she and Brad Pitt are not married and don't seem to plan to be. Kids raised by gay couples do not have a harder time becoming parents themselves, so I have no idea where you're getting this. Adopted children often come with a whole host of difficulties, especially if they have been adopted at an older age out of abusive or otherwise difficult situations. The process of raising these children has nothing to do with whether or not their parents are gay.


But the thing is, the two of you had mother and father figures and you're still really fucking stupid, so that goes against your point. lolz.

Snap!


i could see people being concerned over artificial insemination, but when it comes to adopting, there really shouldnt be any concern.

would you rather have a kid in a foster home, or being raised by loving people?

it is pretty much as simple as that.

Yes. But I have no idea why anyone would be concerned about in vitro babies.

Kennytar
11-06-2008, 02:53 PM
I think there are a lot of more productive ways to handle this discussion than telling anyone to "go die," people.

Thanks!



No. Kids do not need a specifically male and specifically female parental duo. I've noticed from my own observation that kids seem to fare better with two parents regardless of the gender identities of those parents over single parenting just because kids are a huge undertaking. Also, there's a pyramid of needs that has been developed when describing the emotional development of people across socioeconomic classes, and in it it says that people do not develop themselves culturally unless their most basic needs of food, shelter, and security are met. Generally one parent ends up being the main caregiver and the other parent more of a fun counterpoint. When one parent is tasked with all of it, it can feel overwhelming and that often gets communicated to the kids. I don't know if I'm making any sense, I've had way too much coffee today. But you don't need a mom and a dad literally in order to raise kids.

Unless you're talking about not letting kids 'catch the gay' from their homo parents, in which case that is fucked up.



I agree and I did understand your point :)
My point (that got little carried away by mother-father figure), that I like everyone to think of is that there are gender identities and they are different. I guess its too late for me to explain it better.
Plus catching the gay is smth that we should worry about...



Then how do you explain Angelina Jolie adopting a couple kids as a single parent -- and technically she keeps adopting as a single parent as she and Brad Pitt are not married and don't seem to plan to be.


Angelina Jolie part said everything already :)



Kids raised by gay couples do not have a harder time becoming parents themselves, so I have no idea where you're getting this. Adopted children often come with a whole host of difficulties, especially if they have been adopted at an older age out of abusive or otherwise difficult situations. The process of raising these children has nothing to do with whether or not their parents are gay.



I didnt say that. I meant that having no father-mother figure makes it much more difficult to handle your own kids.

Kennytar
11-06-2008, 02:57 PM
i could see people being concerned over artificial insemination, but when it comes to adopting, there really shouldnt be any concern.

would you rather have a kid in a foster home, or being raised by loving people?

it is pretty much as simple as that.

Agreed, tho...

Well, actually there is 2 women gay couples too, so it isn't only about adopting kids.

Kennytar
11-06-2008, 02:58 PM
Gay people marrying and gay people having kids isnt the same thing?

Sorry!


..about leading the topic into wrong way...

WebDudette
11-06-2008, 03:23 PM
Gay marriage and gay parents are two different things.

There are gay couples that adopt children already, the right to get married isn't going to change that.

F@ BANKZ
11-06-2008, 03:25 PM
...what ?

Okay, so that you can understand.


G
T
F
O


My point was that the people in a single-sex relationship would not want to try and emulate the role of the traditional couple, not that they would do whatever the heck is most irresponcible because they iz gayz, your own prejudice brought you to that conclusion.

wheelchairman
11-06-2008, 04:10 PM
My point was that the people in a single-sex relationship would not want to try and emulate the role of the traditional couple, not that they would do whatever the heck is most irresponcible because they iz gayz, your own prejudice brought you to that conclusion.

Except that you provided no basis for your claim. Statistically or otherwise. It was a claim based either on your own personal experience with gay parents or from assumptions you have on gay parenting. (unless of course you actually have some evidence to back up your claim)

F@ BANKZ
11-06-2008, 04:33 PM
Except that you provided no basis for your claim. Statistically or otherwise. It was a claim based either on your own personal experience with gay parents or from assumptions you have on gay parenting. (unless of course you actually have some evidence to back up your claim)

What? If you go through this whole thread the closest you will come to a statistic is probably '102' and 'it's pretty silly to say 2 people cant get married', nobody ever uses statistics here, what's more the subject of my statement is not numerically immeasurable at any rate, and since I openly professed to not using them I really don't have the foggiest idea what you're trying to get at.

I also said that I studied it in various classes. Classes are not the most reliable of all sources but, do you really think I need evidence to corroborate that gay couples generally are not going to emulate the role of a mother and a father in the same household!? No you don't; what the other user said was positively farcical.

I'm far past bored of this thread now, let's wrap it up.

wheelchairman
11-06-2008, 04:42 PM
I also said that I studied it in various classes. Classes are not the most reliable of all sources but, do you really think I need evidence to corroborate that gay couples generally are not going to emulate the role of a mother and a father in the same household!? No you don't; what the other user said was positively farcical.


Yes I do think so if you're gonna make a claim as controversial as that. I don't think it's obvious that gay parents can't create a functioning family. Now I'm no expert on gender roles, or their importance to a family unit, but as I've seen no evidence to the contrary, why should I believe that gay parents should not adopt?

Or were you just making a statement that gay parents wouldn't be able to emulate a traditional mother/father unit, but that it would not impact or impound their ability to be parents. If that was your intention, that too was also irrelevant. I've seen statistics used quite often. I've seen source criticism used also frequently. Most recently in the debate on taxes in the US. However just because people don't back up their claims doesn't mean that that should be the precedent for discussions.

In fact I personally often criticize people for not backing up their claims in this forum. Don't feel like I am singling you out for this.

T-6005
11-06-2008, 04:51 PM
Per has a point. Shifting gender roles means that even the traditional family is redefined. The caretaker/provider dichotomy has changed. One parents isn't expected to stay home and take care of the kids while the other one works.

If same-sex couples are themselves unable to stick to a "traditional" mother-stays-home, father-brings-home-the-bacon formula, why should we care whether gay couples try to emulate that or not?

More importantly, however, what basis do we have for assuming that it is the most successful form of parental organization? Perhaps two gay parents is exactly what all kids needs to provide a stable, sexually homogeneous family life!

F@ BANKZ
11-06-2008, 05:12 PM
In fact I personally often criticize people for not backing up their claims in this forum. Don't feel like I am singling you out for this.

That's fair then, it's due criticism, sorry if I came across as exasperated. By mother/father I really mean all aspects, but essentially carer/disciplinarian. This is all theoretical, but the carer/disciplinarian is established because of people's genders, not to suit them. Women are generally gentler with their children, whereas men are less so, and thus are firmer. With single-sex relationships, both guardians are of the same gender, so if this relationship is formed, it is quite likely to have been fabricated. (I only skimmed your posts to catch the jist, but I'm in a hurry I am afraid; sleep is a good thing).

JohnnyNemesis
11-06-2008, 08:02 PM
*Passive-aggressive bullshit*

Oh, that's what you meant.

Where the hell did that come from? I was even trying to understand you despite your failure to communicate, and you thanked me for that/my patience with your admitted shitty phrasing. Why jump on me now?

Seriously, fuck you.


If same-sex couples are themselves unable to stick to a "traditional" mother-stays-home, father-brings-home-the-bacon formula, why should we care whether gay couples try to emulate that or not?

This is an excellent point.

Moose
11-06-2008, 09:11 PM
Yes. But I have no idea why anyone would be concerned about in vitro babies.

I really wouldn't know why either. I rather have a gay couple adopt because those children need homes.

Llamas
11-06-2008, 10:22 PM
*Sigh* this thread is so very depressing. I hate seeing opinions of such closed-minded people. I've never seen anyone who could give a clear and concise reason that a child needs both a masculine male and a feminine female to be raised right. I was raised by such parents, actually, and my masculine father turned out to be a huge reason why I kinda hate guys a lot of times and sort of prefer girls. Hetero parents made me a fag!!!! lolz. I've seen gay couples raising kids, and those kids are wonderful. Their parents give them so much love. Obviously a kid with gay parents has just as much a chance of getting fucked up as one with straight parents, but there is just no evidence anywhere that having gay parents makes you MORE likely to be messed up.

But how did we get on the topic of gays adopting kids, anyway? I thought we were talking about marriage... I guess this just plays into the bullshit that getting married and having kids go hand in hand are supposed to always be linked. You have one, you better have the other.

calichix
11-06-2008, 11:22 PM
it's just fucking outrageous that you yahoos have all the resources to GET IT and take the concrete blocks out of your heads and replace them with brains but you don't and you deny basic civil rights and vote on your power tripping terrified repressed ethos rather than conscience or common sense. you're such fucking tools. step outside your walmart box and use your noggins you fucking retard blockheads because youre ruining the world and soiling humanity's rep. :mad:

jacknife737
11-06-2008, 11:34 PM
*Sigh* this thread is so very depressing. I hate seeing opinions of such closed-minded people. I've never seen anyone who could give a clear and concise reason that a child needs both a masculine male and a feminine female to be raised right. I was raised by such parents, actually, and my masculine father turned out to be a huge reason why I kinda hate guys a lot of times and sort of prefer girls.

I'm not saying that they do (and i fully support gay adoption, ect, ect, ect) but, i do feel that a boy needs an older male role model in his life, now be that a father, an uncle, or family friend. I do feel that male-bonding is important to a boy's development.

Llamas
11-07-2008, 02:35 AM
I'm not saying that they do (and i fully support gay adoption, ect, ect, ect) but, i do feel that a boy needs an older male role model in his life, now be that a father, an uncle, or family friend. I do feel that male-bonding is important to a boy's development.

I see it as, any child of any gender should be raised in an environment that gives the child access to bonding with many different types of people. So, on a level I agree... I agree that it would not be beneficial for, say, two super butch lesbos whose friends are all quite similar in that regard (which happens a lot) to raise a kid and for that kid to never be around any men or feminine women, for example.

But I don't see it as dichotomous. I think that raising a kid in an environment where all the women are super girly and dainty and do housework and never leave the house, while the men go to work all day and come home to watch sports and drink beer, is just as bad as what I mentioned above.

Little_Miss_1565
11-07-2008, 07:30 AM
My point was that the people in a single-sex relationship would not want to try and emulate the role of the traditional couple, not that they would do whatever the heck is most irresponcible because they iz gayz, your own prejudice brought you to that conclusion.

Whoa, guys, I think you've been jumping on F@ unfairly. He says single-sex couples would not WANT to emulate traditional couple roles, not that they CAN'T. Supported in evidence by my friends who have to explain to retarded family members when they go public with their plans to be committed to eachother officially -- "but which one of you will be the bride and which one of you will be the groom?" The answer is no. But F@, they're not disagreeing with you out of predjudice.


Except that you provided no basis for your claim. Statistically or otherwise. It was a claim based either on your own personal experience with gay parents or from assumptions you have on gay parenting. (unless of course you actually have some evidence to back up your claim)

But that's the thing, gay parents just *are*, outside the milieu of the mommy/daddy binary. I agree also with what's been said a couple posts above me that male children need a strong male role model in order to grow up with a strong idea of what it is to be a man in a world giving strikingly conflicting messages to boys about how they should behave, and not resolving those conflicts leads to a great deal of neurotic bullshit. But the same for female children -- each sort of child needs a corresponding role model, whether it's a parent or a close family friend or what.

JohnnyNemesis
11-07-2008, 08:11 AM
ps. Quick general apologies for my short temper in this thread/most threads in this section of the forum. Rough work days + people dismissing other people's very HUMANITY kind of gets under my skin.

F@ BANKZ
11-07-2008, 09:40 AM
Oh, that's what you meant.

Where the hell did that come from? I was even trying to understand you despite your failure to communicate, and you thanked me for that/my patience with your admitted shitty phrasing. Why jump on me now?

Seriously, fuck you.
I must say that I'm embarrassed today, I usually try to make a point of not flying off the rails. I jumped on you because your second response was more aggressive than your first, though mine were disproportionate and vulgar


Whoa, guys, I think you've been jumping on F@ unfairly. He says single-sex couples would not WANT to emulate traditional couple roles, not that they CAN'T. Supported in evidence by my friends who have to explain to retarded family members when they go public with their plans to be committed to eachother officially -- "but which one of you will be the bride and which one of you will be the groom?" The answer is no. But F@, they're not disagreeing with you out of predjudice.
Ty, that is correct.

JohnnyNemesis
11-07-2008, 09:52 AM
I must say that I'm embarrassed today

Nah, don't be. I sent you a quick apology PM. Now we can get back on track.


He says single-sex couples would not WANT to emulate traditional couple roles, not that they CAN'T.

This was sort of what I was trying to say in the beginning, but I have an annoying habit (that I'm usually not aware of) of using overly intellectual language when I'm worried that I'm being unclear about something:


I've often taken the "why do you want your love to be seen as legitimate by a society that refuses to even accept you" stance on Gay Marriage. Like, there's so much wonderful stuff in gay culture that shouldn't be wrapped up in striving to be more like heterosexual people.

OffspringHead
11-07-2008, 10:20 AM
I think all of you should shut the fuck up because whether you have mommy or daddy, mommy and mommy, or daddy and daddy, as long as your fucking parents love you, raise you with good morals, you'll be a good person as an adult. Anyone who thinks that gay people shouldn't be parents should shut the fuck up, go to church, pray to their god for the kids and the gay parents, and just leave everyone else the fuck alone. Why the fuck should we be agaisnt gay marriage and gay adopting when the people fucking preaching it really fucking believe that the world is a few million years old. Wow. Talk about fucking retarded. And it's just as retarded how gay people shouldn't get married or have kids. End of discussion. Now go to fucking church.

T-6005
11-08-2008, 10:00 AM
I think all of you should shut the fuck up because whether you have mommy or daddy, mommy and mommy, or daddy and daddy, as long as your fucking parents love you, raise you with good morals, you'll be a good person as an adult. Anyone who thinks that gay people shouldn't be parents should shut the fuck up, go to church, pray to their god for the kids and the gay parents, and just leave everyone else the fuck alone. Why the fuck should we be agaisnt gay marriage and gay adopting when the people fucking preaching it really fucking believe that the world is a few million years old. Wow. Talk about fucking retarded. And it's just as retarded how gay people shouldn't get married or have kids. End of discussion. Now go to fucking church.

Maybe I'm not very good at reading comprehension, but I assumed that those of us with a brain were saying this in a slightly more erudite manner.

HeadAroundU
11-08-2008, 11:53 AM
This thread = one giant *facepalm*

The fact that in 2008, gay marriage is even a contested electoral issue is fucking pathetic. The state should not practice discrimination based on sexual orientation, there are no rational arguments against granting gays and lesbians civil marriage. Church's obviously should not be forced to perform ceremonies if they feel such weddings go against their doctrines, but then again, how many marriages are religious these days anyways?
I approve. You summed it up perfectly. Except, it shouldn't be called marriage.

As for Eastern Europe and lady hollandova, well, Slovakia is a very religious country. Our prime minister and church came to agreement that they wouldn't touch sensitive issues. So, the national disscussion hasn't occured. We are 10 years behind on that issue. Give her a break.

EU wants us to allow gay people adopt kids. We signed some paper but it's not definitive. It's gonna be interesting...

bighead384
11-08-2008, 12:15 PM
I think all of you should shut the fuck up because whether you have mommy or daddy, mommy and mommy, or daddy and daddy, as long as your fucking parents love you, raise you with good morals, you'll be a good person as an adult. Anyone who thinks that gay people shouldn't be parents should shut the fuck up, go to church, pray to their god for the kids and the gay parents, and just leave everyone else the fuck alone. Why the fuck should we be agaisnt gay marriage and gay adopting when the people fucking preaching it really fucking believe that the world is a few million years old. Wow. Talk about fucking retarded. And it's just as retarded how gay people shouldn't get married or have kids. End of discussion. Now go to fucking church.

Ever hear of...the "F" word?

IamSam
11-08-2008, 02:07 PM
I think all of you should shut the fuck up because whether you have mommy or daddy, mommy and mommy, or daddy and daddy, as long as your fucking parents love you, raise you with good morals, you'll be a good person as an adult. Anyone who thinks that gay people shouldn't be parents should shut the fuck up, go to church, pray to their god for the kids and the gay parents, and just leave everyone else the fuck alone. Why the fuck should we be agaisnt gay marriage and gay adopting when the people fucking preaching it really fucking believe that the world is a few million years old. Wow. Talk about fucking retarded. And it's just as retarded how gay people shouldn't get married or have kids. End of discussion. Now go to fucking church.

Dear god sarcasam alert.
But what if, hypothetically, the gay people begin adopting all the children that will become beautiful later on in life. Over time they'll become gay and beautiful. And there will then be only ugly people to procreate with. That's not a world I want to live in my friend. A world full of ugly people popping out babies just to keep the species alive, no thank you.

Jules69
11-09-2008, 08:13 AM
All I want to say about this is, that the fact that this is something we need to vote on is bullshit!!!!!! Human adults marry human adults!! End of story!! We should ban hetro marriage for a while, and let the majority have fake marriage certificates!!!:D:eek:I will remain ashamed of this country!!!

Moose
11-09-2008, 05:08 PM
All I want to say about this is, that the fact that this is something we need to vote on is bullshit!!!!!! Human adults marry human adults!! End of story!! We should ban hetro marriage for a while, and let the majority have fake marriage certificates!!!:D:eek:I will remain ashamed of this country!!!


...this is a bit of an overreaction.

Static_Martyr
11-09-2008, 06:20 PM
...this is a bit of an overreaction.

I am 99% sure that that was a hyperbole....

Llamas
11-09-2008, 07:38 PM
HAU, am I right in saying that the Czech Republic has something close to gay marriage?

deleterious
11-09-2008, 10:26 PM
HAU, am I right in saying that the Czech Republic has something close to gay marriage?

omg I love your name. llamas are the best!

Vera
11-10-2008, 01:33 AM
HAU, am I right in saying that the Czech Republic has something close to gay marriage?

Wikipedia says civil union like in a bunch of European countries, including mine; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gay_Rights.png

wheelchairman
11-10-2008, 01:36 AM
Ha! Eastern Oregon is where all the red necks live.

_Lost_
11-10-2008, 07:29 AM
Ha! Eastern Oregon is where all the red necks live.

pshaw! I think the term you were looking for here was "mormons".

T-6005
11-10-2008, 11:05 AM
I have met many smart, interesting mormons.

wheelchairman
11-10-2008, 11:42 AM
I think the real problem here is that if gay marriage were legal, gays might try and force you to marry them, and some of them are really strong. With gay marriage illegal this cruelty is no longer tempting to the single and lonely and depraved gay man.

Llamas
11-10-2008, 12:30 PM
Wikipedia says civil union like in a bunch of European countries, including mine; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gay_Rights.png

Yeah I knew it was more than CR, I just was kind of surprised that CR has it, but Slovakia doesn't. But I didn't know it was civil union. Thanks.

HeadAroundU
11-10-2008, 01:04 PM
HAU, am I right in saying that the Czech Republic has something close to gay marriage?
Well, besides being gay and having lots of ateistic satanic worshippers...:D...they have civil union.

It's all about religion. Czechs are very ateistic. Not much porn is being made in Slovakia too! I watched some interview with a famous Czech pornking. He was pointing that out, how religious we are. He was arrested here not a long ago, for banging 2 women at some party. :D

_Lost_
11-10-2008, 02:35 PM
I think the real problem here is that if gay marriage were legal, gays might try and force you to marry them, and some of them are really strong. With gay marriage illegal this cruelty is no longer tempting to the single and lonely and depraved gay man.

and now we finally get to the root of the problem. Now all we need to do is find a way to tie this to sesame street and bert and ernie. Hell! Its already the reason for childhood obesity and hobos!

XYlophonetreeZ
11-11-2008, 01:18 AM
But it's annoying, there are all these conservative kids in my school who are upset and are starting to blame black people...For the first time you can see peoples' true colors come out.
I copied this from the Obama victory thread because I thought it was interesting that white liberals are doing the same thing. Happy as they are that Obama was elected, they give themselves all the credit in the world for that. Then, when Prop 8 passed in California, they're pointing the blame squarely at- guess who- black people!

It's true that the the African-American community voted overwhelming for Prop 8, but the No on 8 campaign also did a piss-poor job at reaching African-American voters. Even Obama is being indirectly blamed, because, as moaners are complaining, were another candidate running, fewer black people would have made it to the polls.

I get why people are upset it didn't pass. I am too. I also get why they're asking "what if," because people always do that shit when their side doesn't win. But when you go and decide that your solution is to have fewer black peoples' voices be heard next time, then that's just as racist as Tyler's high school conservatives above.

Bipolar Bear
11-11-2008, 06:10 PM
hell even straight marriage shouldn't be allowed

hshduppsnt
11-12-2008, 09:24 PM
hell even straight marriage shouldn't be allowed

interesting line of thinking you have going there... hahaha... care to elaborate?

zendor
11-13-2008, 08:51 AM
well i just wanna say that i think everything should be allowed, i mean, it's like u wanna do something and somebidy says you can't....

i mean, the real question is Why can't u do that, If it is church, i have never heard or read anything about gay marriage, I think it's just that people can't see gays as normal people.

It's like prohibiting marriage to somebody with physical deficiency. Have u understood?

Moose
11-13-2008, 11:00 PM
speaking to someone against gay marriage, they actually made real points.


i still disagree, but they made some good points, and i think what needs to happen, is that a system needs to be created to make sure certain things arent exploited...something to satisfy both sides.

...whether or not that can be done is a different story.

Little_Miss_1565
11-14-2008, 07:04 AM
i still disagree, but they made some good points, and i think what needs to happen, is that a system needs to be created to make sure certain things arent exploited...something to satisfy both sides.

.....how is marriage "exploited" by gays?

JohnnyNemesis
11-14-2008, 08:50 AM
Yeah, and it's also been exploited by heterosexuals for decades upon decades now...

Smash_Returns
11-14-2008, 10:12 AM
I really don't get it. It's such a stupid thing to ban. I mean honestly, how is it bad for anyone? I they want to get married, I say let them. How is this any different from any form of sexism or racism? I mean, I truly find the whole argument stupid, because the people against gay marriage have no solid reasoning behind their stance against it.

Moose
11-14-2008, 02:14 PM
.....how is marriage "exploited" by gays?


some people think it wouldnt necessarily be taken advantage of by gays, but by other people, and i guess gays as well...

...i dont remember the whole argument...i really think it was kind of overblown, so i didnt pay attention all that much, but basically the person was saying something like the joint benefits you get when you are married, tax breaks, illegal immigration, etc etc. saying like people will get married just to have these certain benefits, either through false marriage, or gays will just get married to get these things.

the only specific thing i remember the person saying is: "let's say gay marriage is legal in new jersey, but not in new york, but let's say one of the people who are married works in ny, and they want the benefits they get from their job to also be applied to their spouse (joint benefits or whatever it is called)...i guess they were saying how it would take the money of the new york taxpayer when the shouldnt, among some other crap...

i dont know much about the system of marriage and what benefits you get out of it...i understand the illegal immigration point, and that would be my only real concern...i personally dont care if gays get benefits (or joint benefits) through marriage...they are a family.

...i really dont believe gay marriage would bring the end of civilization...im more worried about how my government is run, than a person's personal decision on who they are with...the legalization of gay marriage doesnt make everyone gay...its okay, we will still breed. haha. sometimes i think people actually believe gay marriage will make others gay haha.


i do worry about illegal immigrants coming into the country and marrying (through pay or friendship) another person so they can then stay in the country...i mean there are some concerns, but i think most of these issues can be worked out through compromise and thought. maybe not all of them, but certainly enough...and i think the bad doesn't outweigh the good, and it also doesn't outweigh the fact that gay marriage under the government will eventually occur in the majority of the US and the world, whether these people like it or not.

to sum it up, even with the proper concerns raised in the case against gay marriage, it really doesn't outweigh the fact that many of these people want to get married the way a straight couple wants to get married. they arent necessarily looking to exploit anything, but just want that symbolism of marriage, or whatever they see it as.

people even exploit straight marriage...obviously this opens up doors for even more of that, but i think you can think of certain things to at least protect against some of those cases.

but i rather always give more rights to the people, than take away...gay people deserve to form a union under the government...there is no church involved...it is a personal thing.

Llamas
11-14-2008, 08:47 PM
...i dont remember the whole argument...i really think it was kind of overblown, so i didnt pay attention all that much, but basically the person was saying something like the joint benefits you get when you are married, tax breaks, illegal immigration, etc etc. saying like people will get married just to have these certain benefits, either through false marriage, or gays will just get married to get these things.
And straight people don't do this ALL the damn time??? wtf.


the only specific thing i remember the person saying is: "let's say gay marriage is legal in new jersey, but not in new york, but let's say one of the people who are married works in ny, and they want the benefits they get from their job to also be applied to their spouse (joint benefits or whatever it is called)...i guess they were saying how it would take the money of the new york taxpayer when the shouldnt, among some other crap...
This really doesn't make any sense. I'm thinking the person couldn't have made very good points if you can't remember any of them...



i do worry about illegal immigrants coming into the country and marrying (through pay or friendship) another person so they can then stay in the country...
...straight people do that all the time. Just because you can marry someone of your own gender isn't going to suddenly make everyone do that. They already do.


the fact that gay marriage under the government will eventually occur in the majority of the US and the world, whether these people like it or not.
I definitely don't think it will eventually be legal in most of the world; north america, the western half of europe, and australia are the only places where I see it being a likely majority...

JohnnyNemesis
11-14-2008, 08:53 PM
Thank you for having the patience to respond to that, Brianna. I think my head is going to explode from banging it against the desk too much...

Llamas
11-14-2008, 08:57 PM
I honestly can't believe I did. As I was reading it, I found myself more and more surprised that this massively long post had absolutely nothing to say, and it said the same strings of nothing over and over again. By the time I realized how bad it was, though, I'd already written most of my reply. :P

JohnnyNemesis
11-14-2008, 08:58 PM
Hah! The SAME thing happened to me! I just didn't go through with it.

Llamas
11-14-2008, 09:00 PM
What can I say, I'm a woman who finishes what I set out to do.


so y havent we done it yet? lolz.

Moose
11-14-2008, 09:44 PM
I honestly can't believe I did. As I was reading it, I found myself more and more surprised that this massively long post had absolutely nothing to say, and it said the same strings of nothing over and over again. By the time I realized how bad it was, though, I'd already written most of my reply. :P

yeah...it didnt have much to say...

...my bad.

Thomas
11-16-2008, 05:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE

I couldn't have said it better myself.

randman21
11-16-2008, 07:27 PM
Exactly what I said when someone showed me that video for the first time. The man can be awesome when he wants to be.

jacknife737
11-16-2008, 07:37 PM
If Olbermann wanted, i would let him have me.

XYlophonetreeZ
11-16-2008, 11:18 PM
I love Keith Olbermann about 50% of the time and think he's full of shit the other 50%.

That rant definitely falls into the "love" category.

djme1233
11-18-2008, 05:39 PM
Wow, it was definitely . . . . . . . interesting, to read this thread. I had a lot of time to kill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Awesome reference.

I don't understand the sentiments over the passing of Prop 8 either.
My church told our congregation how we "should vote" and it frankly pissed me off that my church was trying to break the "separation of church and state" boundary. America was founded to escape a theocracy, and now there's some people trying to establish one with their own theocratic view.

That, I am against.

But, yeah

Ninty Man
11-22-2008, 11:16 AM
Wow, it was definitely . . . . . . . interesting, to read this thread. I had a lot of time to kill.


Awesome reference.

I don't understand the sentiments over the passing of Prop 8 either.
My church told our congregation how we "should vote" and it frankly pissed me off that my church was trying to break the "separation of church and state" boundary. America was founded to escape a theocracy, and now there's some people trying to establish one with their own theocratic view.

That, I am against.

But, yeah

US WAS FOUNDED ON THAT??? WOW... then the high taxes and the second class citizens that were the people of the colonies didn't made that little thing Independence explode, uh?

I don't think that US has a real sepatation of church and state, I Mean, in the courts they swear over the bible, and your one dollar ticket says IN GOD WE TRUST!

Fuck... many politicians says thanx God, and that kind of stuff... so... where's the separation? I mean, ministers and fathers of -whatever- church don't get elected, but the religion is a pretty deep state on the daily life of you guys!

And yes, I'm mexican, and my country is catholic and religious as fuck, but... hey, I'm agnostic, and many mexican politicians- is with c or t??? I don't remember- try to make their statements apart from religion, well... because we have a problem here called PAN, catholic church influential as fuck, etc.

And that's where it gest to the main subject:
Gay marriage is NOT LEGAL in Mexico. In Mexico City is some crap called "sociedades de convivencia" - or, in english... well, I don't know how to translate such a moronic term- which make the gay people like "being married" but... they don't use the marriage term.

Here we had heavy protest of the Catholic church, and well... It hasn't get bigger because we have bigger problems -like the Secretary of state of Mexico died in a weird plane crash on one of the main avenues in Mexico City-but... is pretty damn creepy that some people could decide over others will... and that's wrong!

And I don't live in USA, but... is a really big issue the inmigration problem to put it on the map? I mean... I'm pretty damn sure a mexican won't marry a men to get the citizenship, because mexicans normally are kinda homophobic and well... they maybe would just make money and return to Mexico with your families -and I'm speaking only for possible mexican inmigrants-

So, my conclusion is:

What is the big issue about gay marriage? They are humans, they have feelings, needs, the only difference is they like other things, and no one should make them second class citizens.

And they should adopt kids, because the family structure is so different that the standard nowadays, thay it doesn't really matter if a kid has two daddies... the only thing they need is the love and right education from his/her parents /mothers.

Sorry if I wrote that much, and wrong after all... I would improve my English someday XD.

Smash_Returns
11-29-2008, 11:05 PM
Honestly, I find the whole subject pointless to argue on.

If it becomes legal nationally, nothing bad will happen.

Religions will be pissed, be who the fuck cares (from a theoretical political viewpoint). I think that the politicians are just too blinded by their own beliefs to see that there really is no way for it to be bad.

And claiming gays will exploit marriage more than heterosexuals is just... stupid.

bighead384
12-03-2008, 07:00 PM
I was on a right-wing message board the other day and I have to admit...I had no idea that conservatives go this far out of their way to create anti-gay rights rhetoric. They say the most unbelievable shit
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The people arguing for bestiality in Sweden say that the animals are consenting. Animals usually go along with these things, which could be interpreted as a consent. Animals are often the penetrators in these cases as well (such as with the Enumclaw, WA case where the man’s organs were impaled by the horse that was banging him)... which would OBVIOUSLY be considered consent. Animals have a habit of not minding humping anything. Dogs hump legs all the time.

Your case is weak. Animals have a choice if they’re obviously going along with the sex.

"Human Homosexuality is about love, unity, and being seen as a partnership"

who the hell are you to define "love"?! Who the hell is the government to define "love"?! Who’s to say that those people practicing bestiality don’t love their animals?! I "love" my dog... I WANT MY FUCKING RIGHT TO MARRY MY DOG. Do you have the right to tell me whether I do or don’t love my dog?!

You’re hypocritical. If you want to accept homosexuality into society, then you have ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE to not accept bestiality. If you don’t accept bestiality, you’re practicing segregation by your own standards.

what are you talking about? All humans CAN get married. Every American has the right to get married as long as they follow the laws created by society. Every American has the right to get married to someone of the opposite sex. Society has determined that gay marriage is destructive to families and society as a whole. Why doesn’t society get to determine what’s best
anymore? Why are the "rights of the minority" more important than society as a whole?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I don’t hate anyone or anything. The problem here is you’ve created a God of your choosing...one that doesn’t size up to the God of record. Now you can go ahead and change God’s word all you want...but it doesn’t make it so. You are demonstrating that "your God" is nothing more than YOU. Hey, you are free to choose to live whatever lifestyle you deem appropriate for yourself...but it’s about time you stop expecting society to accept your choice. Decisions have consequences...you can’t make yourself feel validating by shoving your lifestyle down my throat. If you want to support the homosexual lifestyle, so be it. Stop expecting society to approve of your choices.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Why are our laws set up so that man can only marry woman and woman can only marry man? It’s because of the Bible. Western Christianity has, over the centuries, been the sole supplier of Western morality. Right now, the laws of the country say you can only marry a member of the opposite sex whom is not related by blood. Our laws say that because the BIBLE says that. The West as we know it today is constructed on the moral values on the Bible. The Bible defines many of our moral values, including those of marriage.

Let’s say that we take the Bible out of the picture. We give homos marriage licenses, effectively removing the Biblical definition of marriage from our society. Now, the STATE is the only body that can define marriage. So government gives homos marriage rights... but it does NOT give pedophiles, zoophiles, polygamists and so on THEIR marriage rights. Keep in mind that the STATE is the ONLY body that defines marriage now... NOT the Bible. Wouldn’t that mean that the STATE is now effectively oppressing the religious rights of Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and other groups that advocate polygamy? Wouldn’t that mean that the STATE is oppressing the religious rights of Muslims who want to marry and sleep with a 9 year old girl according to the rights given to them by their religion? Wouldn’t that mean that the STATE is oppressing the freedom of a man to sleep and marry his cow? If this nation no longer recognizes that the Bible is the foundation of its morals, then yes it is oppression by the State. We either make it clear that the Bible defines marriage in our nation as it has done since recorded history can remember, or we give marriage rights to everyone and everything. If a man wants to marry his cow, he will have the right to do so. If a man wants to marry his daughter, he will have the right to do so. If a man wants to marry all 3 of his 9 year old triplets, he will have the right to do so... because the Bible no longer defines marriage, the State does.

wheelchairman
12-04-2008, 04:38 AM
Unless you're conservative yourself, I personally wouldn't go out of my way to join a message board with beliefs diametrically opposed to mine. People who are particularly politically active on the internet are weird as hell. I would know, I've been posting on a political forum for years. :p

pyrimid
12-04-2008, 10:19 PM
First off are you religious?

If not, you should not get married, it is a religious ceremony!

How can you be married and not be religious?

Most religions do not allow gays, yet some gays want to get married, sorry this makes no sense to me.

Marriage is a religious ceremony so why is the government involved, is their not a separation of church and state?

Government should stay out of the marriage business; it is religious, not contractual until you register your marriage at the local government office. Then it becomes a contractual issue, but if you never register your marriage with the government there is no enforceable contract.

This being said I feel that Civil Unions among any two individuals should be the same as the modern version of government marriage.

Last point on rights, everyone has the same rights, some want special rights because they practice different life styles, is this right?

Marriage is not a right, look it up.

Equal treatment for race, sex, beliefs, is a right.

Equal treatment for your lifestyle, (sexual preference) is not a right.

Color of skin cannot changed, behavior can.

Just my opinion

Moose
12-04-2008, 11:29 PM
well, i wouldnt say being gay is a behavior you can change...

also...is anyone on this board saying gays should be married under a church?...

...i think we are talking about civil unions. i think people are getting mixed up.

a civil union is under the government. marriage is a religious matter, and obviously if that religion doesnt want gays to be married, then that is their right to deny those people marriage.

we have to understand that we cannot step on other people's rights at the same time we are giving rights to other people.

there is a balance and it must be dealt with correctly.


this shouldnt have to do with any sort of prejudice, just what is correct under the constitution now and going forward.

civil unions should be granted by the state and voted on by the people of that state. as should issues like abortion. then you must decide on certain other things (through voting i suppose) involving these issues. example:

wikipedia: New Jersey: "To illustrate the possible difference between civil unions and domestic partnerships, the state of New Jersey enacted a domestic partnership law in 2004, offering certain limited rights and benefits to same-sex and different-sex couples; however, after a state Supreme Court ruling in 2006 that same-sex couples must be extended all the rights and benefits of marriage, the state legislature passed a new civil unions law, effective in 2007, which fulfills the court's ruling."


I have been trying to explain on this board about certain difficulties in people accept gay marriage. But I remember one person saying marriage couples dont obtain benefits of any sort through their union. This is one of the reasons people use in the argument against gay marriage. They believe gay people shouldnt get these benefits or "their" money. If they arent for it, why should it come out of their tax dollars is the argument. They would use the same argument if the government pays for abortions, if that were made legal state by state.

There are a lot of little things that need to be worked out, but I think it is fair to say gay civil unions should be allowed if the people of the state vote it so. However, do not expect or demand a church or any religion to marry gay people if they do not want to.

NGNM85
12-04-2008, 11:56 PM
First off are you religious?
If not, you should not get married, it is a religious ceremony!

Not necessarily. Atheists get married, my aunt was married by a justice of the peace, it was nice, but there was no religious element.


How can you be married and not be religious?

See the former.


Most religions do not allow gays, yet some gays want to get married, sorry this makes no sense to me.
Marriage is a religious ceremony so why is the government involved, is their not a separation of church and state?

Some religions do accept gays, like some offshoot christian denominations, like the unitarians, if I'm not mistaken. Nothing sanctioned by Rome, of course. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state in fact I think it's become far too lax and needs to be reinforced. However, that does not apply, what this is about is the right for gays and lesbians to be able to have the same rights as heterosexuals, to get married, much like my aunt did. (Except to a person of the same gender.) Nobody is going to force any church to change it's policy, ignorant as it may be.


Government should stay out of the marriage business; it is religious, not contractual until you register your marriage at the local government office. Then it becomes a contractual issue, but if you never register your marriage with the government there is no enforceable contract.

Thats' what they would like.


This being said I feel that Civil Unions among any two individuals should be the same as the modern version of government marriage.

But they aren't. First of all, there are more than a few states without civil unions, second, they're not legally the same as marriages. Gays simply want to have the state grant them the same rights as heterosexuals, and to call it what it is; "marriage."


Last point on rights, everyone has the same rights, some want special rights because they practice different life styles, is this right?

Homosexuals, or at least the movement for gay marriage don't want more rights than you, they want the same rights as you, also, you're useage of the phrase "life styles" is dubious, but I'll get to that.


Marriage is not a right, look it up.
Equal treatment for race, sex, beliefs, is a right.
Equal treatment for your lifestyle, (sexual preference) is not a right.
Color of skin cannot changed, behavior can.

Well, it's not that black and white. This could easily be contested on the grounds of the 14th amendment, which garuntees the liberty of US citizens and to equal under those laws. Homosexuals are US citizens but don’t have the legal privileges of heterosexuals. THAT said, there’s an enormous inherent fallacy here, which is you're identification of homosexuality as an activity, rather than an inborn orientation. The mainstream scientific community would disagree with you on that. In the 1970's homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a psychiatric condition because it was irrevocably proven otherwise. Now, no intelligent person could claim that people just decide to be homosexuals. Did any of us decide to be straight? I didn't have any choice in the matter. Behavior is irrelevant. If I had never had physical relations with a woman and joined a seminary at 18 and lived out the rest of my life celibate, I would not cease to be heterosexual. It's an innate quality. The only logical conclusion, and a preponderance of scientific data suggests, that homosexuality is an innate, naturally occuring biological phenomena, which, incidentally, has been observed in plenty of other species. That makes it the same as race, and thus equally deserving of legal recognition and protection.

pyrimid
12-05-2008, 12:01 AM
1. well, i wouldnt say being gay is a behavior you can change...


2. we have to understand that we cannot step on other people's rights at the same time we are giving rights to other people.



3. just what is correct under the constitution now and going forward.

1. It still is a behavior, like the polygamists argument


2. But people are doing that all the time, let us not talk about the smoking bans or the legislation to curb obesity by limiting fast foods, if people want to do stupid things they should be allowed to as long as they are not harming anyone else (I know the second hand smoke argument, there is no reason to ban smoking from an entire city even in their private homes)


3. Marriage is not in the constitution, look it up

Moose
12-05-2008, 12:28 AM
3. Marriage is not in the constitution, look it up



look up article 4.


that is why the state and the people within it should handle gay marriage.

pyrimid
12-05-2008, 12:29 AM
1. that does not apply, what this is about is the right for gays and lesbians to be able to have the same rights as heterosexuals,


2. Homosexuals, or at least the movement for gay marriage don't want more rights than you, they want the same rights as you



3. Well, it's not that black and white. This could easily be contested on the grounds of the 14th amendment, which garuntees the liberty of US citizens and to equal under those laws. Homosexuals are US citizens but don’t have the legal privileges of heterosexuals. THAT said, there’s an enormous inherent fallacy here, which is you're identification of homosexuality as an activity, rather than an inborn orientation. The mainstream scientific community would disagree with you on that. In the 1970's homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a psychiatric condition because it was irrevocably proven otherwise. Now, no intelligent person could claim that people just decide to be homosexuals. Did any of us decide to be straight? I didn't have any choice in the matter. Behavior is irrelevant. If I had never had physical relations with a woman and joined a seminary at 18 and lived out the rest of my life celibate, I would not cease to be heterosexual. It's an innate quality. The only logical conclusion, and a preponderance of scientific data suggests, that homosexuality is an innate, naturally occuring biological phenomena, which, incidentally, has been observed in plenty of other species. That makes it the same as race, and thus equally deserving of legal recognition and protection.


1. Gays have the same rights as everyone else, please tell me what rights gays do not have that straits have, By the way marriage is not a right….. you are confusing laws with rights


2. Under the present laws they have the same rights as you and I have.



3. This is where I have to contest your findings. Dr. Young is to whom you referring to when you talk about the studies in the 70’s and you have to refer to the whole study if you are going to use it at all it was also stated in the study that the Asexual among the population concluded that the formation of sexuality did not develop until puberty, and that the lack of sexuality in a portion of the population denoted that the behavior was a learned issue that may be impacted by both environment as well as genetics. This is in complete opposition to Dr. Skinner’s findings that with the proper training and reinforcement any one can be trained to do anything. Of course I am simplifying the these studies as to not take up several pages and bore the masses.

pyrimid
12-05-2008, 12:59 AM
look up article 4.


that is why the state and the people within it should handle gay marriage.

U.S. Constitution

Article IV


Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.


Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.


Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.


Please show me where it gives the right to marriage?

Thomas
12-05-2008, 01:11 AM
You are a goddamn idiot and I'm not even gonna go into detail about why. There are just a few things I want to point out.


First off are you religious?

If not, you should not get married, it is a religious ceremony!

How can you be married and not be religious?

Most religions do not allow gays, yet some gays want to get married, sorry this makes no sense to me.

Are you claiming that no gays are religious? Many, if not most, gay people I know still believe in God, go to church, etc.




2. But people are doing that all the time, let us not talk about the smoking bans or the legislation to curb obesity by limiting fast foods, if people want to do stupid things they should be allowed to as long as they are not harming anyone else (I know the second hand smoke argument, there is no reason to ban smoking from an entire city even in their private homes)



Stop using rhetoric like " if people want to do stupid things". Also, people do no have the right to infringe on other people's rights.


1. Gays have the same rights as everyone else, please tell me what rights gays do not have that straits have, By the way marriage is not a right….. you are confusing laws with rights

Gays do not have the same right in the current state of affairs. Even though it's a religious ceremony, it is recognized by the government. Laws (and government, for that matter) were created to protect rights, and nothing else. Something's terribly wrong when laws are infringing upon the rights of others.

NGNM85
12-05-2008, 01:49 AM
You are a goddamn idiot ..

Not very productive, but a solid asessment, nontheless.

pyrimid
12-06-2008, 01:27 AM
You are a goddamn idiot and I'm not even gonna go into detail about why. There are just a few things I want to point out.

So rather than having a intelligent conversation you decide to start name calling.


Are you claiming that no gays are religious? Many, if not most, gay people I know still believe in God, go to church, etc.

No I never made that claim, I just ask why if it is a religious ceremony by a church that does not want you to be there then why not change the laws. You keep saying it is a right to be married, no it is not. What you are talking about is the entitlements that the government attaches to marriage.


Also, people do no have the right to infringe on other people's rights.

I do not know what institution you went to but you have that all wrong.

“The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the federal government of the United States, protecting the rights of all citizens” “The Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to petition, and freedom of the press. It also prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting establishment of religion and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”


Gays do not have the same right in the current state of affairs. Even though it's a religious ceremony, it is recognized by the government. Laws (and government, for that matter) were created to protect rights, and nothing else. Something's terribly wrong when laws are infringing upon the rights of others.

You contradict your self here, earlier you stated you have the right to infringe upon others rights now you say you cannot, I guess it is ok as long as people believe the same way you do.

Llamas
12-06-2008, 01:31 AM
The law and constitution don't dictate what is RIGHT; they dictate what is LEGAL. Just because it was written years and years ago doesn't mean it's logical or fair today.

pyrimid
12-06-2008, 01:59 AM
The law and constitution don't dictate what is RIGHT; they dictate what is LEGAL. Just because it was written years and years ago doesn't mean it's logical or fair today.

You are absolutely correct, what is needed is acceptance and legislation to change the existing laws. We do not need some judges to tell us that what we are doing is unconstitutional by some loophole in some amendment that has nothing to do with it in the first place.

What we need to do is to get people to stop tolerating and start accepting the fact that this is morally correct. The laws need to be changed but not the way others are talking about. If you remove the entitlements from marriage, then you take away the religious aspect of the argument. The entitlements are what are sought after by most. The religious portion can be achieved through churches that are accepting of such lifestyles as in the polygamist communities. Even though I do not agree with polygamy they have taken it outside of the legal means and are fighting the system through dissent and separating them selves from what they feel is not conducive to their way of life.

Many churches already accept the gay community, and will perform marriages for them. They are just not recognized by the government, and this is where the law and religious aspect collide.

Thomas
12-06-2008, 06:45 AM
You contradict your self here, earlier you stated you have the right to infringe upon others rights now you say you cannot, I guess it is ok as long as people believe the same way you do.

where the fuck did you get that from?

And quite frankly, I'm tired of dealing with people like you, so yes, I'm going to take the low road and start name calling because people like you are scumbag pieces of shit.

Ninty Man
12-06-2008, 07:20 PM
MMM... the US constitution should be reviewed, and, for the good of that country, YOU MUST QUIT EVERY ASPECT OF RELIGION in the politics and civil life... and I'm very serious

Smash_Returns
12-06-2008, 07:54 PM
Honestly, marriage is not entirely religious. Legally, it's just a division of property. (Shared bank accounts, households, etc...)

pyrimid
12-08-2008, 02:24 AM
MMM... the US constitution should be reviewed, and, for the good of that country, YOU MUST QUIT EVERY ASPECT OF RELIGION in the politics and civil life... and I'm very serious

Sounds good while we are at it why don’t we just do away with that stupid part of the constitution about freedom of speech……

Maybe it would stop people from saying stupid things.

But then again maybe that is why it is there to begin with.

WebDudette
12-08-2008, 02:43 AM
Ship Captains and Judges can legally marry people. Marriage is by no means a religious event.

If a church doesn't want to marry to men I am fine with that, but when they go the courts and it gets denied, well it disappoints me.

pyrimid
12-08-2008, 03:03 AM
And quite frankly, I'm tired of dealing with people like you, so yes, I'm going to take the low road and start name calling because people like you are scumbag pieces of shit.

So would you be saying these things if I was Gay and had these points of view?

Well I am not alone many in the gay community feel as I do that it is not the marriage issue that is at the heart of this it is the entitlements, many organizations like the LCR, Independent Gay Forum, Human Rights Campaign to name a few feel that the Gay Marriage issue as it stands is not appropriate.

Let the religious people alone. They have their beliefs, their rituals, and so on. That is their right, Freedom of Religion, (1st amendment) the same amendment that gives the right to talk about all this stuff.

What needs to be changed is the laws as to entitlements. Why should someone who is single not have the same entitlements as someone who is married?

Why can I not have a friend that I choose to live with and support on my medical insurance or considered as my dependant?

Because the laws are skewed toward the married, allowing everyone to be married is not the answer, changing the laws to make entitlements equal will allow marriage to go back to those who value it, and allow those who just want to be together for what ever reason to do that also.

Ninty Man
12-08-2008, 01:35 PM
Sounds good while we are at it why don’t we just do away with that stupid part of the constitution about freedom of speech……

Maybe it would stop people from saying stupid things.

But then again maybe that is why it is there to begin with.

LOL, don't put words I didn't wrote dude -or girl, whatever the fuck you are-

Is very dangerous that in USA people justifies everything in God... I'm agnostic and in Mexico -even this is a pretty religious country- THE POLITICIANS DON'T SAY THINGS LIKE GOD BLESS YOU, because you can't justify politic decitions in religion, is wrong, and if you do that, then we should let the fucking bishops rule the country...

No dude, you're so wrong. Religious marriages don't affect you, and NO ONE REALLY. Just because you have a close mind doesn't mean that you're right... In fact, I believe that you think gay people are against nature don't you?

Thomas
12-08-2008, 01:45 PM
So would you be saying these things if I was Gay and had these points of view?

Well I am not alone many in the gay community feel as I do that it is not the marriage issue that is at the heart of this it is the entitlements, many organizations like the LCR, Independent Gay Forum, Human Rights Campaign to name a few feel that the Gay Marriage issue as it stands is not appropriate.

Let the religious people alone. They have their beliefs, their rituals, and so on. That is their right, Freedom of Religion, (1st amendment) the same amendment that gives the right to talk about all this stuff.

What needs to be changed is the laws as to entitlements. Why should someone who is single not have the same entitlements as someone who is married?

Why can I not have a friend that I choose to live with and support on my medical insurance or considered as my dependant?

Because the laws are skewed toward the married, allowing everyone to be married is not the answer, changing the laws to make entitlements equal will allow marriage to go back to those who value it, and allow those who just want to be together for what ever reason to do that also.

Freedom of religion IS at stake, here, though. Just because Gay marriage would be allowed, it wouldn't mean the churches HAVE to marry gay people if they don't want to. I don't give a flying fuck about what the churches believe. So many of the churches across the country have become sick and twisted anyway.

There are some churches, though, that WOULD like to marry gay people. In fact, you could say that their religion would tell them that they have an OBLIGATION to do justice for those who are in love, but the government is denying that. By allowing gay marriage, NO church would be forced into having to marry anyone they don't want to marry. It would be unconstitutional to do that. However, by banning gay marriages, the churches that wouldn't want to marry gay people anyway won't have to, but those that would like to practice it, would be denied that right.

Allowing Gay marriage would "let the religious people alone" as you said. banning Gay marriage does, in fact, violate the other churches right to practice part of their own religion.

SweetTatyana
12-08-2008, 04:59 PM
Yeah, I totally agree that religion needs to learn it's boundaries, I know before it had a lot of control but those days are over.
I think with gay marriage, I do not see any reason why who someone marries is any business of the government unless it is hurtful in some way, and if two people honestly love eachother, they should have the right to marry regardless of who or what gender they are.
In addition, if religion wants to argue it's against the "sanctity of marriage", they need to wake up, there are far worse offenders for that crime.

Smash_Returns
12-08-2008, 11:18 PM
Yeah, I totally agree that religion needs to learn it's boundaries, I know before it had a lot of control but those days are over.
I think with gay marriage, I do not see any reason why who someone marries is any business of the government unless it is hurtful in some way, and if two people honestly love eachother, they should have the right to marry regardless of who or what gender they are.
In addition, if religion wants to argue it's against the "sanctity of marriage", they need to wake up, there are far worse offenders for that crime.

QFT.

Just face it, the only reason why gay marriage isn't legal is because of religious BS. There is NO legal reason for it to be banned.

http://www.foureyesjokeshop.com/ProductImages/nerd_glasses.jpg
Glasses. If you wore them, you might not be so blind.

pyrimid
12-09-2008, 03:12 AM
Freedom of religion IS at stake, here, though. Just because Gay marriage would be allowed, it wouldn't mean the churches HAVE to marry gay people if they don't want to. I don't give a flying fuck about what the churches believe. So many of the churches across the country have become sick and twisted anyway.

There are some churches, though, that WOULD like to marry gay people. In fact, you could say that their religion would tell them that they have an OBLIGATION to do justice for those who are in love, but the government is denying that. By allowing gay marriage, NO church would be forced into having to marry anyone they don't want to marry. It would be unconstitutional to do that. However, by banning gay marriages, the churches that wouldn't want to marry gay people anyway won't have to, but those that would like to practice it, would be denied that right.

Allowing Gay marriage would "let the religious people alone" as you said. banning Gay marriage does, in fact, violate the other churches right to practice part of their own religion.

I agree with you in most of what you are saying, but as it is any church can if it chooses can right now marry anyone they choose to gay, straight, polygamist, ect., it is if the government recognizes the marriage as legal. And in fact a Transgendered friend was just married legally here in Arizona. She was recognized by the state as married because she had her sex legally changed from man to woman. This is not a fight with religion this is a fight with the legal system. Whichever way the laws are changed they do need to be changed.

pyrimid
12-09-2008, 03:22 AM
Is very dangerous that in USA people justifies everything in God... I'm agnostic and in Mexico -even this is a pretty religious country- THE POLITICIANS DON'T SAY THINGS LIKE GOD BLESS YOU, because you can't justify politic decitions in religion, is wrong, and if you do that, then we should let the fucking bishops rule the country...

This is why here we have a separation of church and state, if you read our constitution it is to insure that the religious community can never do that. That is what places like the Middle East are for; Religious intolerance is the rule of the day there.


No dude, you're so wrong. Religious marriages don't affect you, and NO ONE REALLY. Just because you have a close mind doesn't mean that you're right... In fact, I believe that you think gay people are against nature don't you?

It would be hard for me to think that I am against nature….

But then again you can take solace in the fact that you would gay bash and not even know that you are doing it.

SweetTatyana
12-09-2008, 02:16 PM
QFT.

Just face it, the only reason why gay marriage isn't legal is because of religious BS. There is NO legal reason for it to be banned.

http://www.foureyesjokeshop.com/ProductImages/nerd_glasses.jpg
Glasses. If you wore them, you might not be so blind.

Hmm I am new here, whats QFT?

And yeah, I'm not sure what that rude graphic was about considering I said pretty much what you said. I think religion needs to back out of their lives and stop attempting to influence governments - especially if majority doesn't agree (not sure if it does in the states or not). As well as showing that religions argument was not strong considering there are far worse offenders so I am not sure what I am blind to if we basically have the same argument. Don't say rude things after my posts please, I have not attempted to be rude or offend you in any way and there is no reason I deserve it back.

Vera
12-09-2008, 03:13 PM
QFT - Quoted For Truth

In other words, he was in agreement with you.

HeadAroundU
12-09-2008, 04:13 PM
froggy delusions
Just delete all your posts.

Smash_Returns
12-09-2008, 07:54 PM
Hmm I am new here, whats QFT?

And yeah, I'm not sure what that rude graphic was about considering I said pretty much what you said. I think religion needs to back out of their lives and stop attempting to influence governments - especially if majority doesn't agree (not sure if it does in the states or not). As well as showing that religions argument was not strong considering there are far worse offenders so I am not sure what I am blind to if we basically have the same argument. Don't say rude things after my posts please, I have not attempted to be rude or offend you in any way and there is no reason I deserve it back.

I wasn't directing the graphics towards you :). It was toward the other people who weren't you, saying it was bad for no reason.

And QFT means 1 of 2 things (they essentially mean the same thing):
Quoted For Truth
Quite Fucking True

I was agreeing with you. I wasn't trying to be rude (at least not towards you).

SweetTatyana
12-10-2008, 01:28 AM
Ohh I am soo sorry I am new to threads and I didnt understand - sorry! :)

iPunk247
12-20-2008, 08:42 PM
nothing against Gay Marriage but i don't know wether to approve/disaprove of that though. does it say in the HOLY BIBLE about love or hate such sins? yikes! i am also not an ANTHEIST nor ANARCHIEIST or whatever but just a lil bit confused with everything in levels of THE HUMAN RACE world. so to speak. -_- imma just lurk my way by my curiosity and be aware of other stuff. (in general so to speak) sorry. i may be an ignorant soul but not a total donut!

adombomb222
12-20-2008, 08:49 PM
Honestly, I believe that it’s bullshit that government can tell people how to live their lives. There is suppose to be separation of church and state – if that’s true, then why do they have a say? How can you deny people, gay or otherwise, the recognition of marriage, of the securities that marriage brings to two people?

SelphieFairy
12-29-2008, 11:54 PM
In California, domestic partnerships have all the same rights as marriages do... but I definitely don't think it's the same at all... it sounds to me like "seperate but equal."

The prop that made banning gay marriage in California legal BARELY passed... and it's already getting heavily challenged, espescially since there were already so many gay couples before it passed.


Honestly, I believe that it’s bullshit that government can tell people how to live their lives. There is suppose to be separation of church and state – if that’s true, then why do they have a say? How can you deny people, gay or otherwise, the recognition of marriage, of the securities that marriage brings to two people?

well, i don't know about other states, but I know specifically this is definitely not the case for California; you have to know a little history. Basically, in 2000, prop 22 was passed, and banning same-sex marriage, but it was overturned by the California supreme court in 2004 for being unconstitutional. Prop 8 was passed last November, "defining" marriage as between a man and a woman ONLY, overruling the court, and making it OK to not recognize same-sex marriages.


so it ain't the government... it's us, sadly.

T-6005
12-30-2008, 03:46 PM
I blame the apathetic non-voting liberal majorities.

Moose
01-01-2009, 03:36 PM
i had a conversation with someone against gay marriage, but at the end, somehow, we both settled on civil unions...which really is the same thing, just a different word.

this person said marriage is i guess a religious term that the churches use, which, if true, is fair enough i suppose to just call it something else, but technically, still having it be marriage.

if marriage is a religious term used to define a union between a man and a woman under a church/God, then i suppose to keep the separation of church and state continuous, you would have to call it civil unions and not marriage, which really, can be the same thing and idea with the same benefits.

so for those opposed, can we all agree on that?...not the term marriage, just civil union?

Al Coholic
01-01-2009, 04:23 PM
I hate it when people use the argument that marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of yhears. The concept of marriage has changed from genereation to generation.

People arranged marriages for thousands of years. Brides have been bought and sold since before currency. Polygamy has been around since before Christ.

Hundreds of years ago people married within their trade. If you were a carpenter, you best marry a carpenters daughter so she can work in the shop too. Likewise with a blacksmith, sheppard, whatever.

It was only within the last 150 years that because of industrialization, people have been marrying for love. Back then, it was also acceptable to marry your cousin.

Not even 60 years ago, a black man couldn't even date, let alone marry a white woman in many states. By law.

Marriage as a concept is as fluid as society. Within the last generation we have seen radical changes in the publics perceptions on homosexuals, and a continued increase in support of gay marriage and civil unions. I personally don't care. If both marriage and civil unions had the same rights, then I'd think it perfectly acceptable for the term marriage to remain heterosexual. I wouldn't care if it did or didn't, but I understand the argument.

The problem is, civil unions lack thousands of rights marriages have. The whole system reeks of the 'seperate but equal' bullshit that was ruled unconstitutional for race. Why for sexuality?

Currently, its not gonna happen. There are almost no homosexual representatives in congress, or any branch of government for that matter. And some of the largest influences are churches and organizations whose priests and members have extreme anti-gay views. However, the newer generations seem to buy into these views less and less. Its hard to teach kids at school about the injustices of jim crow laws and segregation, then turn around in church and have them believe that gays are sinners that are condemed to hell, and lesser people because of it.

Research into homosexuality has continually proven that homosexuals aren't gay by choice. They're just gay in the same why the rest of us are just straight. It's also shown that they make, on average, just as good parents, and that their children are no more likely to be gay.

I don't know to what extent this has to be proven. Put a researcher on the news on one side whos spent his whole life researching this and has just completed the most comprehensive study ever on the subject. On the other side, put some firebrand preacher who discredits him and his organization without backing it up. He cuts in with rhetoric about gays and god. Give them three minutes to cut eachother off and you haven't convinced anyone of anything.

Eventually though, the tide will turn and people will begin to be more accepting. In fifty years, sure, I could see gay marriage. Or atleast equal rights for gays and civil unions. But as the system currently stands, it's a good ways off.