<!--QuoteBegin--kida+Aug 13 2003, 09:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Aug 13 2003, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I heard from my friend, who said that on a science show, homo-sexual people are attracted to the same gender from birth. Regular humans are attracted to the opposite sex, but instead in most "cases" of homo-sexuals, they are attracted to the same gender.
I really have no idea if there is a truth to this. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Scientific evidence does indeed support the notion that homosexuality is genetic. Naturally, this completely invalidates claims that g@ys should simply "not be ****" and marry people they aren't attracted to, or claims that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they might somehow "infect" their adopted children with g@yness.
<!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Aug 14 2003, 12:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Aug 14 2003, 12:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unfortunately, you seem to be talking about a completely different issue than I am. Why is legislation that bars "g@ys" from marriage automatically homophobic?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if you were black and I said you shouldn't be allowed to get married because of it, that wouldn't be racist?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps it's time to open up your mind and stop calling conservatives homophobic, anti-g@y, etc etc. Perhaps they have good reason? Marriage is a tradition, most importantly, and deeply rooted in the various religions (in the west, Judeo-christian theology). When Judeo-christian theology leaves no room for homosexuality, why are homosexuals trying to force their way into a time-honored tradition?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so this is a religious crusade? marriage is not only judeo-christian. it has equivalents in all religions, and a marriage can be secular as well. neither judaism nor christianity is the state religion of the US. in fact, in the US, church and state are supposed to be separate. the state is intended to be secular, and unbiased toward any religion, but the state should bar g4ys from any form of marriage because they're trampling a judeo-christian tenet? if a particular priest doesn't think g4ys should be married under his denomination, he would fully have the right to not perform the ceremony. the state, however, has no place blanket-denying this right to all homosexuals. the government saying g4ys shouldn't be married is no different from the government saying blacks shouldn't ride at the front of the bus or jews should be put to work in concentration camps.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My only explanation is that they want attention, and want to feel accepted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...too true. I see your point -- g4ys should not feel accepted. maybe we should make them all wear scarlet "G"s on their shirts, so none of us get confused about who to throw stones at...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, homosexuals aren't even barred from marriage - they can marry someone of the opposite sex anyway, but unfortunately their choice of lifestyle makes them decline that option.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never realized it was a choice to be g4y... wow, if I had, maybe I would have chosen a life of denying the legitimacy of my own sexuality and living in the closet... or maybe I would have chosen to be openly g4y and being hated and disapproved of by probably near half the population... that would be such a phun choice... I guess those crazy f4gs who choose that lifestyle really know what they're doing... too bad I'm stuck being str8. now I'll never know the joy of having to marry some woman I don't love just so my family will accept me, thereby making both my unloved spose's and my own self-loathing spiral out of control...
yep, some things are just meant to remain taboo. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow, lots of flawed logic in this post. I'll address them one by one.
First: If you were black, and I said you shouldn't be allowed to get married because of it, it would be my own opinion and not based off of any religious belief that the institution of marriage is based upon.
Second: Marriage has its equivalent in all religions, but the fact is that the United States law only recognizes monogamy, because the institution is based on Judeo-christianity. This considerably limits the number of religions that qualify. Why did they make polygamy illegal? In the same way, they have every right to deny homosexual marriage, which is forbidden by the same Judeo-christian tenets. It has nothing to do with denying homosexuals their rights - nobody forces them to become homosexuals.
Thirdly: Homosexual acceptance by society is not something that should be dealt with by the government. If homosexuals were being discriminated against in hiring practices, or education, or welfare, that would be the job of the government to correct. The government's job is not to tell you how to think.
Fourth: I don't even want to deal with this argument, it's just plain flamebait. Maybe you can insert some rationality into it and then I can refute it.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 12:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 12:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You still haven't addressed the issue of what makes marriage a right. *edit* Also, in the article you most kindly provided, the author makes the point that the homosexual advocacy group isn't *just* going for civil rights, it's going for access to "the institution of marriage". To me, that tells me one thing: they are not really concerned about civil egalitarianism as societal acceptance. However, like my initial statement, they are being completely hypocritical in the way they go about it. This argument has come full circle. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why do you keep switching topics so much?
And more importantly, what the hell are you talking about most of the time?
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 14 2003, 01:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 14 2003, 01:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--kida+Aug 13 2003, 09:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Aug 13 2003, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I heard from my friend, who said that on a science show, homo-sexual people are attracted to the same gender from birth. Regular humans are attracted to the opposite sex, but instead in most "cases" of homo-sexuals, they are attracted to the same gender.
I really have no idea if there is a truth to this. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Scientific evidence does indeed support the notion that homosexuality is genetic. Naturally, this completely invalidates claims that g@ys should simply "not be ****" and marry people they aren't attracted to, or claims that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they might somehow "infect" their adopted children with g@yness. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Scientific evidence also shows that genetics in part determines whether a person will be violent or not.
Does this mean we can excuse pathological killers because "they're genetically predisposed"? I'm not equating homosexuality with crime, but the same genetic argument is invalid, because being genetically predisposed to one thing or another does not take away someone's ability to think, or reason.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why do you keep switching topics so much?
And more importantly, what the hell are you talking about most of the time? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I keep switching topics because other people bring up various things that have little to do with the initial questions.
More importantly, most of the time I'm talking about what you're talking about. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 13 2003, 10:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 13 2003, 10:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First: If you were black, and I said you shouldn't be allowed to get married because of it, it would be my own opinion and not based off of any religious belief that the institution of marriage is based upon.
Second: Marriage has its equivalent in all religions, but the fact is that the United States law only recognizes monogamy, because the institution is based on Judeo-christianity. This considerably limits the number of religions that qualify. Why did they make polygamy illegal? In the same way, they have every right to deny homosexual marriage, which is forbidden by the same Judeo-christian tenets. It has nothing to do with denying homosexuals their rights - nobody forces them to become homosexuals.
Thirdly: Homosexual acceptance by society is not something that should be dealt with by the government. If homosexuals were being discriminated against in hiring practices, or education, or welfare, that would be the job of the government to correct. The government's job is not to tell you how to think. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First: Fine. Whatever. Do you deny that it makes you a racist? You're completely dodging the question here.
Second: I see you subscribe to the "homosexuality is a choice" school of thought. I probably can't convince you otherwise on that. However, might I convince you of this "separation of church and state" thing that says that religious tenets aren't a valid basis for legal rulings? You could make a reasonable social case against polygamy, since it'd probably open up all sorts of tax loopholes and whatnot. You can't make a reasonable social case against homosexual marriage - you can only make a RELIGIOUS case, and in legal matters, that just doesn't count.
Third: I agree. The goverment does not have a responsibility to make homosexual marriage socially acceptable. However, it does have a responsibility to make it LEGAL, since we've established that it's a Constitutional right granted to all citizens. There is a difference between "socially acceptable" and "legal."
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 13 2003, 10:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 13 2003, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Does this mean we can excuse pathological killers because "they're genetically predisposed"? I'm not equating homosexuality with crime, but the same genetic argument is invalid, because being genetically predisposed to one thing or another does not take away someone's ability to think, or reason. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your argument is only valid if homosexuality is on the same level as crime, though. Sure, homosexuals could all join monasteries and be celibate for their entire lives, and then the marriage issue would never come up. Why should they have to, though? In the case of killers, it's obvious that venting their genetic urges causes other people harm. THIS IS NOT TRUE OF HOMOSEXUALS.
This is the THIRD time I have repeated this point, Wheee, so if there's some part of it you're not getting, please let me know so I can explain it better: Bob and Fred living in a homosexual relationship together, which may include getting married, does NOT negatively impact, oppress, hurt, or kill Joe the Straight Guy. There is therefore no rational basis for legally restricting the scope of their relationship.
[edit] Furthermore, in a previous post you said "nobody forces them to become homosexuals". If you accept that homosexuality is genetic, well, that invalidates that earlier comment. You might as well say "nobody forces black people to become black people - if they want the same rights as white people, they should just be white!"
<!--QuoteBegin--kida+Aug 13 2003, 10:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Aug 13 2003, 10:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wheee are you saying that you actually don't like blacks marrying?
please use another example, instead of bringing racial agendas into this topic... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Kida, if you haven't read the entire thread up to this point, please do so. I introduced the issue of interracial marriages as a comparison point for the current discussion. I'm taking it as a given that we all agree that it's not okay to legally prohibit interracial marriages - my hope is that we can launch from there into agreeing that it's not okay to legally prohibit same-sex marriages either.
[edit - and with that, I'm going to bed. As I predicted, it's not possible to change people's minds on this topic, and I've just started repeating myself over and over, being ignored each time. My time is more valuable than this.]
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 01:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 01:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> First of all, I keep switching topics because other people bring up various things that have little to do with the initial questions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, I beleive the specific change in the conversation I was refering to you started yourself with no prompting from anyone else.
DiscoZombie: Even if it's just to make a point, you should probably cool it with the potentially offensive words. That's the kind of stuff that could get this topic locked even quicker.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, in the article you most kindly provided, the author makes the point that the homosexual advocacy group isn't *just* going for civil rights, it's going for access to "the institution of marriage". To me, that tells me one thing: they are not really concerned about civil egalitarianism as societal acceptance. However, like my initial statement, they are being completely hypocritical in the way they go about it. This argument has come full circle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. By making that statement, it's clear that the article has deceived you into buying into this whole "grand g4y conspiracy" thing. But there's one blatant omission in all the talk of "overthrowing the institution of marriage" and other junk: what the hell is wrong with that? That Daniels guy said something about homosexual advocacy groups "gambling in the courts until they get what they want," as if it's some sort of outrage that must be stopped. This guy's only argument against the legalization of homosexual marriage is that the advocacy groups are trying to use the courts to alter the institution of marriage to make it legal? Was there ever any question of that? Sounds like some flawed reasoning to me, that has no actual argument against the issue, and so uses circular reasoning and claims of conspiracy theories against the "sacred ways of marriage" in whatever religion.
Which, I may remind you, should have no sway in court, since church and state are <i>supposed</i> to be separated.
As I recall on the first page, someone said something to the effect of "not supporting homosexual marriages not because he has anything against the adults, but for the kids." Back to the original point of the topic, how is objecting to g4y marriages homophobic? Because of statements like that. Think about it. Nothing against the adults? Then why is anything deemed wrong with two homosexual adults raising a child?
I personally know someone who was raised by two women, and he's one of the funniest and coolest people I knew. I also live in the Bay Area, and although the levels of homosexual tolerance here are most likely somewhat exaggerated in other parts of the country, he was able to live a life free from any stigma toward having homosexual parents, which would be far more "damaging" then having two people of the same sex raise him.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 14 2003, 01:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 14 2003, 01:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wow, lots of flawed logic in this post. I'll address them one by one.
First: If you were black, and I said you shouldn't be allowed to get married because of it, it would be my own opinion and not based off of any religious belief that the institution of marriage is based upon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> OK, so you're saying the bible doesn't stipulate that interracial marriages are wrong but it does stipulate that intra-gender marriages are wrong? I'm no bible scholar, so I don't know if that's true or not. Let's say, playing the devil's advocate, that according to the bible, God said 2 men should not sleep together. What would this have to do with the law of the state of California anyway? I noticed I'm not the first person in this thread to point out the separation of church and state... and what is religious belief but the collective opinions of a flock of sheep anyway? You claimed that, if I believed blacks shouldn't marry whites, it would be my own opinion only, but if I believed women shouldn't marry women, it would be backed by a whole religion. A) there are priests who willingly marry same sex couples every day, and Christians who believe in it, so it is not the religion as a whole that is against the concept; it is individuals. B) The whole of the south believed blacks shouldn't even own their own lives before the civil war. If we were to go back in time, and I confronted a man from South Carolina about interracial marriage, he'd say, "it's wrong, and it's not just my own opinion, it's based off the doctrine of the Confederate nation," etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second: Marriage has its equivalent in all religions, but the fact is that the United States law only recognizes monogamy, because the institution is based on Judeo-christianity. This considerably limits the number of religions that qualify. Why did they make polygamy illegal? In the same way, they have every right to deny homosexual marriage, which is forbidden by the same Judeo-christian tenets. It has nothing to do with denying homosexuals their rights - nobody forces them to become homosexuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So because a person can only have one spouse in the US, judeo-christianity is (are) the state religion(s)? This makes <i>me</i> the one using flawed logic? Nobody besides God forces people to become homosexuals, just like no one besides God forces a black man to be black. Like I said in my last post, if you think homosexuality is a choice, I'd like to know the perks of that choice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thirdly: Homosexual acceptance by society is not something that should be dealt with by the government. If homosexuals were being discriminated against in hiring practices, or education, or welfare, that would be the job of the government to correct. The government's job is not to tell you how to think.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great, it sounds like we're agreed -- the government should stay entirely out of the pants of its citizens and not descriminate. Why is marriage different from those other things? If a person doesn't think his or her rabbi or priest should do same-sex marriages, that person should speak with that religious official, who could in turn express his or her own beliefs on the issue. Why should the law have any say whatsoever in the process? Marriage really is two separate things. You're right -- it originated as a religious thing in various religions. Now, it's both a religious thing, and, at the same time, a legal thing. On the religious end, religion is so large and splintered now that it can be twisted to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. There will be priests who will organize pro-life rallies and there will be priests who marry g4ys. It's between the couples and the priests and no one else. On the government end, all men (and women) are created equal, inalienable rights, yada yada, the gov. has no place in this, nuff said.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fourth: I don't even want to deal with this argument, it's just plain flamebait. Maybe you can insert some rationality into it and then I can refute it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I admit I got a little off the handle at the end. I just don't understand how homosexuality can be viewed as a choice. I guess it's a choice as much as it's a choice to stick your hand on a hot stove, or to bang your head against the wall... or maybe it's a choice in that a g4y person can choose to be g4y or they can instead choose to jump off a bridge... but if there are people who believe it's an actual choice, like choosing coffee or tea, then I'd like to know why anyone would pick homosexuality over heterosexuality.
Also, as a side note, I mean no offense to anyone, anywhere. I just enjoy a good debate. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> a couple months ago, I got a writing assignment instructing me to admit whether I thought the media was liberally biased or conservatively biased, and then I had to argue the OTHER side. That's even more fun than arguing your own side sometimes...
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
Personally, I don't know about you guys, but I just can't stand it. I'm not gonna allow g@y marriages. Why? Because its immorral, and its telling our kids "Its ok to be ****". Which, well, frankly, its not. I actually have GOOD reasons for this, too.
1: You go to some countries, they kill you for it. No, I'm not talking Afghanistan, and places like that. I'm talking small countries in Europe, much of Russia, many cities in Canada.
2: They'll be discriminated for it. We all know the kids will, because the adults are. And kids are MUCH more cruel than adults.
3: Its dangerous. You have a 23% chance of CREATING AIDS, sypholis, and other deseases during g@y sex. Thats just how it is.
4: Its a choice. While America is the land of the free, there have been NUMEROUS studies I've seen on MANY news TV shows(not the news, stuff like Dateline, and like that), that prove that there is no variable in your mind to change whether you like men or women. You like the opposite sex, NO MATTER WHAT. You may be raised to believe differently, but thats because you've been raised to think the opposite on that matter.
Well, there's my 2 cents. All my information came from valid places, like the news, and news TV shows. /me shrugs. I just hope that They weren't wrong. I don't like being lied to.
I am unsure if g.y is censored on the forums, so I will just replace it with 3 stars.
Because the rights of married vs. non-married couples are different, the state is therefore stating its support for both *** marriages and hetero. By preventing same-sex marriages, you are discriminating and preventing couples from having tax priveleges, etc. If a *** couple contributes to the society in the same way that a hetero couple does, should they not recieve the same benefits and priveleges?
<b>However</b>, I disagree with it completely. The act of allowing marriages causes the state to be in a compromised position in which it must condone an "immoral act", in my opinion. I think, as a kid, I would not want *** parents, instead of traditional hetero parents. Having *** parents would increase the likelihood of the child being ***, subjecting them to discrimination in school and life, and compromising the values of children. This perpetuates the *** lifestyle, and says that it is okay, but we know that it is not, because it isn't the natural order of reproduction. By allowing marriages between same sexes, what is to stop the state from also allowing other forms of non-traditional marriages, which compromises moral values.
[edit] added a few extra things you should think about [/edit]
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited August 2003
First of all, I think its hilarious that everyone was forced to spell g@y using leet speak throughout this thread. This just proves that leet speak will exist so long as there are filters on the internet. (V1agra anyone?)
Now, off to the races.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 3: Its dangerous. You have a 23% chance of CREATING AIDS, sypholis, and other deseases during g@y sex. Thats just how it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is absolutly 0 chance of creating a disease through any type of sex. There is a greater chance of <b>transmitting</b> STDs during anal sex because of the increased friction. This is true whether the sex is between a man and a man or between a man and a woman. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 4: Its a choice. While America is the land of the free, there have been NUMEROUS studies I've seen on MANY news TV shows(not the news, stuff like Dateline, and like that), that prove that there is no variable in your mind to change whether you like men or women. You like the opposite sex, NO MATTER WHAT. You may be raised to believe differently, but thats because you've been raised to think the opposite on that matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As far as I've heard nothing has been proven either way on the matter, although there have been several correlational studies that have found hormonal differences between g@y people and strait people.
For more compelling proof, talk to a g@y person. I guarantee you that not a single one will tell you that they had a choice in the matter. Choosing to be strait is about as unthinkable and awkward for them as choosing to be g@y would be for us.
I think the key point of this debate is whether you think the government should legislate morality.
Personally, I think the purpose of legislation is to protect our rights, and not to legislate morality. Murder isn't illegal because it is immoral, it is illegal because it infringes upon someone else's rights.
Two g@y people getting married aren't infringing on anyone else's rights, therefore it should be legal.
Something important to note, is that legal marriage is a completely separate thing from religious marriage, in my view, and in the view of the law. For instance, there is a process for getting an anulment in the catholic faith. It has nothing to do with the process of getting a legal devorce. The two 'institutions' are separate in everything but name. It is very possible for two people to be legally devorced but still be married as far as the church is concerned. The law isn't required to recognize religious marriage, and religions aren't required to recognize legal marriage. G@y marriage would be the second type, a legal marriage, which may or may not be given any recognition by tradition or by religious institutions.
before i jump in the hot water at the deep end, im gonna make aure i have a lifeline to pull myself out
I am not a homophobe right, here we go...
G4y marriages are wrong. I agree with Quaunaut here, for much the same reasons, apart from 3 (<b>moultano and Liger, dont be picky</b> with words, you just create enemies) STDs are just as much a part of heterosexual relationships as they are homosexual relationships
As to whether g4y people have a choice of their sexuality, it depends. If they are "born" g4y, they can still choose not to "be" g4y. A friend-of-a-freind was "born" g4y, and because he is a Christian and he knows that being g4y is wrong, everyday is a struggle. He has a wife and children, but he still feels attracted towards other men, and he has to resist that. IMO, he is a braver and stronger man to resist his own strong feelings instead of "going along" and expresisng himself as a g4y person.
Homosexuality has become a bigger part of everyday life, and, in some ways, it appears to me that it is almost a fasion. i know it sounds terrible to put it that way, but that is how it appears to me. homosexuality has now become "cool", and people who are 100% heterosexual are now truing to fin in with the crowd by being something they are not, and i think that that is wrong
Jesus taught us to "love the sinner, hate the sin", so i have nothing against g4y people. If i had a freind and i found out he was g4y, he would still be my friend. I would make it clear to him that i was nto g4y, and we would continue as we were before.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Two g@y people getting married aren't infringing on anyone else's rights, therefore it should be legal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When they adopt a child (as many of them want to do) they are infrigning on the childs right to be brought up in a normal family with a mum and a dad.
there are many other things that dont infringe on peoples rights and are illegal, yet i dont hear you complaining about them - drug abuse for example, (if you wanted to be extreme) murder (when they are dead they have no rights, so they cannot be infringed)
<!--QuoteBegin--Quaunaut+Aug 14 2003, 02:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Quaunaut @ Aug 14 2003, 02:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 3: Its dangerous. You have a 23% chance of CREATING AIDS, sypholis, and other deseases during g@y sex. Thats just how it is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agreed with all your points, excepting this one. You're refering to a desise. A contidion caused by microscopic life forms. Now, I don't know about alot of stuff, but I'm pretty sure at least Pasture disproved instant creationism.
Now if you want to change "creating" to "catching" then I believe you're actually statistically correct, however, it's just as true for loose straight people...
I'll abstain from the rest of this discussion excepting to state that I have nothing against homosexuals. Now religous Zealots...
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited August 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Aug 14 2003, 03:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 14 2003, 03:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> G4y marriages are wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But I think what we are debating here is not whether g@y marriages are wrong but whether they should be legal. They really are distinct questions. You may feel that not being a christian is wrong, should that make it illegal?
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Aug 14 2003, 01:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 14 2003, 01:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Aug 14 2003, 03:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 14 2003, 03:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> G4y marriages are wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But I think what we are debating here is not whether g@y marriages are wrong but whether they should be legal. They really are distinct questions. You may feel that not being a christian is wrong, should that make it illegal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it shouldn't be legal, it encourages other children to be ***, and in being ***, compromising the balance of things.
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Aug 14 2003, 09:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 14 2003, 09:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Aug 14 2003, 03:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 14 2003, 03:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> G4y marriages are wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But I think what we are debating here is not whether g@y marriages are wrong but whether they should be legal. They really are distinct questions. You may feel that not being a christian is wrong, should that make it illegal? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> its quite simple
if sometihng is wrong, it should be illegal. murder is wrong, and it is illegal, drink-driving is wrong, and it is illegal.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Aug 14 2003, 03:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 14 2003, 03:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Aug 14 2003, 09:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Aug 14 2003, 09:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Aug 14 2003, 03:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Aug 14 2003, 03:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> G4y marriages are wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But I think what we are debating here is not whether g@y marriages are wrong but whether they should be legal. They really are distinct questions. You may feel that not being a christian is wrong, should that make it illegal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> its quite simple
if sometihng is wrong, it should be illegal. murder is wrong, and it is illegal, drink-driving is wrong, and it is illegal.
does that make any sense to you? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Soooo, you think not being a christian should be illegal? What about drinking on the sabbath? What about divorce?
According to Christ keeping money for your worldly enjoyment is evil. Should we be required by law to give all of our worldly possessions away to charity?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the purpose of legislation is to protect our rights, and not to legislate morality. Murder isn't illegal because it is immoral, it is illegal because it infringes upon someone else's rights.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> from myself earlier
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
This is just something my dad pointed out a LONG time ago.
If you don't like ***, that doesn't mean your homophobic. Their making it sound like were scared of them or their lifestyle.
That sounds like manipulation to me.
I personally am not scared of a g@y person, I just don't respect them at all. I have my moral beliefs, and I won't be DISrespectful to them, but I won't respect them at all.
no, because christianity isnt wrong. there is nothing wrong with drinkning on the sabbath either,a dn yes, divorce is wrong, but people make mistakes, get married to the wrong person. The only (christianity) valid reason for a woman to divorce her husband is him having sex with another woman.
you read between the lines too much.
keeping money for worldy enjoyment is not evil I am a christian, yet i still like saving up some money to go to the cinema every now and then with my mates to enjoy myself. Jesus will not comdemn me to hell because of that. What jesus is warning about is that we dont know when we are going to die. When we die, the things we have stockpiled on earth are no use to us, whereas if we have stockipiled our treasures in heaven, we will be able to enjoy them forever.
Jesus is saying that you should stockpile your treasures in heaven. Dont go through life living in a cardboard box. God wants you to have fun.
by all means, give your money away to charity if you want. dont let me stop you. just remember to keep enough to live on
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
I think you misread, I asked if you thought that <b>not</b> being a christian should be illegal, because according to christian doctrine it is clearly wrong.
You still didn't answer the question. Should we be required by <b>law</b> to give away all but we need to live to charity?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I disagree with it completely. The act of allowing marriages causes the state to be in a compromised position in which it must condone an "immoral act", in my opinion. I think, as a kid, I would not want *** parents, instead of traditional hetero parents. Having *** parents would increase the likelihood of the child being ***, subjecting them to discrimination in school and life, and compromising the values of children. This perpetuates the *** lifestyle, and says that it is okay, but we know that it is not, because it isn't the natural order of reproduction. By allowing marriages between same sexes, what is to stop the state from also allowing other forms of non-traditional marriages, which compromises moral values.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any questions, Wheeee, why the opposition of g4y marriages is usually referred to as homophobic? Calling someone homophobic does sound a bit too broad and judgemental, but that's what it is. Just like how someone who makes racist jokes could, in fact, be called racist.
Not the natural order of reproduction? First off, g4y people don't actually "reproduce." Sterile guys don't reproduce either, but there's no hate toward them. Second, do you actually think someone would <i>choose</i> to be g4y ? Given the stigma against them, who would? Therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude that they were <i>born</i> that way. So were crippled people, and blind people, and that's not "normal" either, is it, but there aren't any laws preventing them from, say, walking down the street. So being g4y is just as "natural" as being straight.
About possible awkwardness for any child growing up with g4y parents: that's probably the only argument against same-sex marriages that holds much weight. But, of course, there's a flaw with that too: marriage doesn't equal having kids. Sure, in a perfect world it would, but there are plenty of heterosexual couples who never have kids.
So perhaps the argument should be against <i>same-sex *adoption*</i>? The primary reason against this is the possible negative feelings toward the child as he grows up. Why would he experience this? Because many people have problems with homosexuals. So how would this child be able to grow up normally? For people to think about things such as what I wrote in the second paragraph and realize that <i>there's nothing wrong with it</i>. Does it promote the g4y lifestyle? Yes, but maybe <i>there's nothing wrong with it</i>. Is the child more likely to be g4y ? I'm fairly sure that studies have shown this is not true. Any difficulties that a child adopted into a same-sex marriage could experience are caused solely by the people who opposed same-sex marriages in the first place.
And, just out of curiosity, what are these "other forms of non-traditional marriages, which compromise moral values" you're refering too?
yes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, congrats then. Your beliefs are logically consistent. There's not really anything more to debate since the basic difference in philosophy has been exposed, and both of us are willing to carry our philosophies to their logical conclusion. I might point out that your beliefs go against the constitution, but my guess is that it probably doesn't matter to you.
I would fight to the death to prevent your opinions from becoming law, but I can respect you for the logic behind them. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
I really have no idea if there is a truth to this. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scientific evidence does indeed support the notion that homosexuality is genetic. Naturally, this completely invalidates claims that g@ys should simply "not be ****" and marry people they aren't attracted to, or claims that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they might somehow "infect" their adopted children with g@yness.
if you were black and I said you shouldn't be allowed to get married because of it, that wouldn't be racist?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps it's time to open up your mind and stop calling conservatives homophobic, anti-g@y, etc etc. Perhaps they have good reason? Marriage is a tradition, most importantly, and deeply rooted in the various religions (in the west, Judeo-christian theology). When Judeo-christian theology leaves no room for homosexuality, why are homosexuals trying to force their way into a time-honored tradition?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so this is a religious crusade? marriage is not only judeo-christian. it has equivalents in all religions, and a marriage can be secular as well. neither judaism nor christianity is the state religion of the US. in fact, in the US, church and state are supposed to be separate. the state is intended to be secular, and unbiased toward any religion, but the state should bar g4ys from any form of marriage because they're trampling a judeo-christian tenet? if a particular priest doesn't think g4ys should be married under his denomination, he would fully have the right to not perform the ceremony. the state, however, has no place blanket-denying this right to all homosexuals. the government saying g4ys shouldn't be married is no different from the government saying blacks shouldn't ride at the front of the bus or jews should be put to work in concentration camps.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My only explanation is that they want attention, and want to feel accepted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...too true. I see your point -- g4ys should not feel accepted. maybe we should make them all wear scarlet "G"s on their shirts, so none of us get confused about who to throw stones at...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, homosexuals aren't even barred from marriage - they can marry someone of the opposite sex anyway, but unfortunately their choice of lifestyle makes them decline that option.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never realized it was a choice to be g4y... wow, if I had, maybe I would have chosen a life of denying the legitimacy of my own sexuality and living in the closet... or maybe I would have chosen to be openly g4y and being hated and disapproved of by probably near half the population... that would be such a phun choice... I guess those crazy f4gs who choose that lifestyle really know what they're doing... too bad I'm stuck being str8. now I'll never know the joy of having to marry some woman I don't love just so my family will accept me, thereby making both my unloved spose's and my own self-loathing spiral out of control...
yep, some things are just meant to remain taboo. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, lots of flawed logic in this post. I'll address them one by one.
First: If you were black, and I said you shouldn't be allowed to get married because of it, it would be my own opinion and not based off of any religious belief that the institution of marriage is based upon.
Second: Marriage has its equivalent in all religions, but the fact is that the United States law only recognizes monogamy, because the institution is based on Judeo-christianity. This considerably limits the number of religions that qualify. Why did they make polygamy illegal? In the same way, they have every right to deny homosexual marriage, which is forbidden by the same Judeo-christian tenets. It has nothing to do with denying homosexuals their rights - nobody forces them to become homosexuals.
Thirdly: Homosexual acceptance by society is not something that should be dealt with by the government. If homosexuals were being discriminated against in hiring practices, or education, or welfare, that would be the job of the government to correct. The government's job is not to tell you how to think.
Fourth: I don't even want to deal with this argument, it's just plain flamebait. Maybe you can insert some rationality into it and then I can refute it.
*edit*
Also, in the article you most kindly provided, the author makes the point that the homosexual advocacy group isn't *just* going for civil rights, it's going for access to "the institution of marriage". To me, that tells me one thing: they are not really concerned about civil egalitarianism as societal acceptance. However, like my initial statement, they are being completely hypocritical in the way they go about it. This argument has come full circle. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you keep switching topics so much?
And more importantly, what the hell are you talking about most of the time?
I really have no idea if there is a truth to this. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scientific evidence does indeed support the notion that homosexuality is genetic. Naturally, this completely invalidates claims that g@ys should simply "not be ****" and marry people they aren't attracted to, or claims that they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they might somehow "infect" their adopted children with g@yness. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Scientific evidence also shows that genetics in part determines whether a person will be violent or not.
<a href='http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=wrangham22m&date=20020322' target='_blank'>link</a>
Does this mean we can excuse pathological killers because "they're genetically predisposed"? I'm not equating homosexuality with crime, but the same genetic argument is invalid, because being genetically predisposed to one thing or another does not take away someone's ability to think, or reason.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why do you keep switching topics so much?
And more importantly, what the hell are you talking about most of the time?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, I keep switching topics because other people bring up various things that have little to do with the initial questions.
More importantly, most of the time I'm talking about what you're talking about. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Second: Marriage has its equivalent in all religions, but the fact is that the United States law only recognizes monogamy, because the institution is based on Judeo-christianity. This considerably limits the number of religions that qualify. Why did they make polygamy illegal? In the same way, they have every right to deny homosexual marriage, which is forbidden by the same Judeo-christian tenets. It has nothing to do with denying homosexuals their rights - nobody forces them to become homosexuals.
Thirdly: Homosexual acceptance by society is not something that should be dealt with by the government. If homosexuals were being discriminated against in hiring practices, or education, or welfare, that would be the job of the government to correct. The government's job is not to tell you how to think.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First: Fine. Whatever. Do you deny that it makes you a racist? You're completely dodging the question here.
Second: I see you subscribe to the "homosexuality is a choice" school of thought. I probably can't convince you otherwise on that. However, might I convince you of this "separation of church and state" thing that says that religious tenets aren't a valid basis for legal rulings? You could make a reasonable social case against polygamy, since it'd probably open up all sorts of tax loopholes and whatnot. You can't make a reasonable social case against homosexual marriage - you can only make a RELIGIOUS case, and in legal matters, that just doesn't count.
Third: I agree. The goverment does not have a responsibility to make homosexual marriage socially acceptable. However, it does have a responsibility to make it LEGAL, since we've established that it's a Constitutional right granted to all citizens. There is a difference between "socially acceptable" and "legal."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your argument is only valid if homosexuality is on the same level as crime, though. Sure, homosexuals could all join monasteries and be celibate for their entire lives, and then the marriage issue would never come up. Why should they have to, though? In the case of killers, it's obvious that venting their genetic urges causes other people harm. THIS IS NOT TRUE OF HOMOSEXUALS.
This is the THIRD time I have repeated this point, Wheee, so if there's some part of it you're not getting, please let me know so I can explain it better: Bob and Fred living in a homosexual relationship together, which may include getting married, does NOT negatively impact, oppress, hurt, or kill Joe the Straight Guy. There is therefore no rational basis for legally restricting the scope of their relationship.
[edit]
Furthermore, in a previous post you said "nobody forces them to become homosexuals". If you accept that homosexuality is genetic, well, that invalidates that earlier comment. You might as well say "nobody forces black people to become black people - if they want the same rights as white people, they should just be white!"
please use another example, instead of bringing racial agendas into this topic...
please use another example, instead of bringing racial agendas into this topic... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kida, if you haven't read the entire thread up to this point, please do so. I introduced the issue of interracial marriages as a comparison point for the current discussion. I'm taking it as a given that we all agree that it's not okay to legally prohibit interracial marriages - my hope is that we can launch from there into agreeing that it's not okay to legally prohibit same-sex marriages either.
[edit - and with that, I'm going to bed. As I predicted, it's not possible to change people's minds on this topic, and I've just started repeating myself over and over, being ignored each time. My time is more valuable than this.]
Actually, I beleive the specific change in the conversation I was refering to you started yourself with no prompting from anyone else.
EDIT: wheee didn't mean to offend you if I did.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, in the article you most kindly provided, the author makes the point that the homosexual advocacy group isn't *just* going for civil rights, it's going for access to "the institution of marriage". To me, that tells me one thing: they are not really concerned about civil egalitarianism as societal acceptance. However, like my initial statement, they are being completely hypocritical in the way they go about it. This argument has come full circle.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. By making that statement, it's clear that the article has deceived you into buying into this whole "grand g4y conspiracy" thing. But there's one blatant omission in all the talk of "overthrowing the institution of marriage" and other junk: what the hell is wrong with that? That Daniels guy said something about homosexual advocacy groups "gambling in the courts until they get what they want," as if it's some sort of outrage that must be stopped. This guy's only argument against the legalization of homosexual marriage is that the advocacy groups are trying to use the courts to alter the institution of marriage to make it legal? Was there ever any question of that? Sounds like some flawed reasoning to me, that has no actual argument against the issue, and so uses circular reasoning and claims of conspiracy theories against the "sacred ways of marriage" in whatever religion.
Which, I may remind you, should have no sway in court, since church and state are <i>supposed</i> to be separated.
As I recall on the first page, someone said something to the effect of "not supporting homosexual marriages not because he has anything against the adults, but for the kids." Back to the original point of the topic, how is objecting to g4y marriages homophobic? Because of statements like that. Think about it. Nothing against the adults? Then why is anything deemed wrong with two homosexual adults raising a child?
I personally know someone who was raised by two women, and he's one of the funniest and coolest people I knew. I also live in the Bay Area, and although the levels of homosexual tolerance here are most likely somewhat exaggerated in other parts of the country, he was able to live a life free from any stigma toward having homosexual parents, which would be far more "damaging" then having two people of the same sex raise him.
First: If you were black, and I said you shouldn't be allowed to get married because of it, it would be my own opinion and not based off of any religious belief that the institution of marriage is based upon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, so you're saying the bible doesn't stipulate that interracial marriages are wrong but it does stipulate that intra-gender marriages are wrong? I'm no bible scholar, so I don't know if that's true or not. Let's say, playing the devil's advocate, that according to the bible, God said 2 men should not sleep together. What would this have to do with the law of the state of California anyway? I noticed I'm not the first person in this thread to point out the separation of church and state... and what is religious belief but the collective opinions of a flock of sheep anyway? You claimed that, if I believed blacks shouldn't marry whites, it would be my own opinion only, but if I believed women shouldn't marry women, it would be backed by a whole religion. A) there are priests who willingly marry same sex couples every day, and Christians who believe in it, so it is not the religion as a whole that is against the concept; it is individuals. B) The whole of the south believed blacks shouldn't even own their own lives before the civil war. If we were to go back in time, and I confronted a man from South Carolina about interracial marriage, he'd say, "it's wrong, and it's not just my own opinion, it's based off the doctrine of the Confederate nation," etc.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Second: Marriage has its equivalent in all religions, but the fact is that the United States law only recognizes monogamy, because the institution is based on Judeo-christianity. This considerably limits the number of religions that qualify. Why did they make polygamy illegal? In the same way, they have every right to deny homosexual marriage, which is forbidden by the same Judeo-christian tenets. It has nothing to do with denying homosexuals their rights - nobody forces them to become homosexuals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So because a person can only have one spouse in the US, judeo-christianity is (are) the state religion(s)? This makes <i>me</i> the one using flawed logic? Nobody besides God forces people to become homosexuals, just like no one besides God forces a black man to be black. Like I said in my last post, if you think homosexuality is a choice, I'd like to know the perks of that choice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thirdly: Homosexual acceptance by society is not something that should be dealt with by the government. If homosexuals were being discriminated against in hiring practices, or education, or welfare, that would be the job of the government to correct. The government's job is not to tell you how to think.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great, it sounds like we're agreed -- the government should stay entirely out of the pants of its citizens and not descriminate. Why is marriage different from those other things? If a person doesn't think his or her rabbi or priest should do same-sex marriages, that person should speak with that religious official, who could in turn express his or her own beliefs on the issue. Why should the law have any say whatsoever in the process? Marriage really is two separate things. You're right -- it originated as a religious thing in various religions. Now, it's both a religious thing, and, at the same time, a legal thing. On the religious end, religion is so large and splintered now that it can be twisted to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. There will be priests who will organize pro-life rallies and there will be priests who marry g4ys. It's between the couples and the priests and no one else. On the government end, all men (and women) are created equal, inalienable rights, yada yada, the gov. has no place in this, nuff said.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fourth: I don't even want to deal with this argument, it's just plain flamebait. Maybe you can insert some rationality into it and then I can refute it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I admit I got a little off the handle at the end. I just don't understand how homosexuality can be viewed as a choice. I guess it's a choice as much as it's a choice to stick your hand on a hot stove, or to bang your head against the wall... or maybe it's a choice in that a g4y person can choose to be g4y or they can instead choose to jump off a bridge... but if there are people who believe it's an actual choice, like choosing coffee or tea, then I'd like to know why anyone would pick homosexuality over heterosexuality.
Also, as a side note, I mean no offense to anyone, anywhere. I just enjoy a good debate. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> a couple months ago, I got a writing assignment instructing me to admit whether I thought the media was liberally biased or conservatively biased, and then I had to argue the OTHER side. That's even more fun than arguing your own side sometimes...
With that, I bid all a good night ;p
1: You go to some countries, they kill you for it.
No, I'm not talking Afghanistan, and places like that. I'm talking small countries in Europe, much of Russia, many cities in Canada.
2: They'll be discriminated for it. We all know the kids will, because the adults are. And kids are MUCH more cruel than adults.
3: Its dangerous.
You have a 23% chance of CREATING AIDS, sypholis, and other deseases during g@y sex. Thats just how it is.
4: Its a choice.
While America is the land of the free, there have been NUMEROUS studies I've seen on MANY news TV shows(not the news, stuff like Dateline, and like that), that prove that there is no variable in your mind to change whether you like men or women. You like the opposite sex, NO MATTER WHAT. You may be raised to believe differently, but thats because you've been raised to think the opposite on that matter.
Well, there's my 2 cents. All my information came from valid places, like the news, and news TV shows. /me shrugs. I just hope that They weren't wrong. I don't like being lied to.
Because the rights of married vs. non-married couples are different, the state is therefore stating its support for both *** marriages and hetero. By preventing same-sex marriages, you are discriminating and preventing couples from having tax priveleges, etc.
If a *** couple contributes to the society in the same way that a hetero couple does, should they not recieve the same benefits and priveleges?
<b>However</b>, I disagree with it completely. The act of allowing marriages causes the state to be in a compromised position in which it must condone an "immoral act", in my opinion. I think, as a kid, I would not want *** parents, instead of traditional hetero parents. Having *** parents would increase the likelihood of the child being ***, subjecting them to discrimination in school and life, and compromising the values of children.
This perpetuates the *** lifestyle, and says that it is okay, but we know that it is not, because it isn't the natural order of reproduction. By allowing marriages between same sexes, what is to stop the state from also allowing other forms of non-traditional marriages, which compromises moral values.
[edit] added a few extra things you should think about [/edit]
Now, off to the races.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
3: Its dangerous.
You have a 23% chance of CREATING AIDS, sypholis, and other deseases during g@y sex. Thats just how it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is absolutly 0 chance of creating a disease through any type of sex. There is a greater chance of <b>transmitting</b> STDs during anal sex because of the increased friction. This is true whether the sex is between a man and a man or between a man and a woman.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
4: Its a choice.
While America is the land of the free, there have been NUMEROUS studies I've seen on MANY news TV shows(not the news, stuff like Dateline, and like that), that prove that there is no variable in your mind to change whether you like men or women. You like the opposite sex, NO MATTER WHAT. You may be raised to believe differently, but thats because you've been raised to think the opposite on that matter.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as I've heard nothing has been proven either way on the matter, although there have been several correlational studies that have found hormonal differences between g@y people and strait people.
For more compelling proof, talk to a g@y person. I guarantee you that not a single one will tell you that they had a choice in the matter. Choosing to be strait is about as unthinkable and awkward for them as choosing to be g@y would be for us.
I think the key point of this debate is whether you think the government should legislate morality.
Personally, I think the purpose of legislation is to protect our rights, and not to legislate morality. Murder isn't illegal because it is immoral, it is illegal because it infringes upon someone else's rights.
Two g@y people getting married aren't infringing on anyone else's rights, therefore it should be legal.
Something important to note, is that legal marriage is a completely separate thing from religious marriage, in my view, and in the view of the law. For instance, there is a process for getting an anulment in the catholic faith. It has nothing to do with the process of getting a legal devorce. The two 'institutions' are separate in everything but name. It is very possible for two people to be legally devorced but still be married as far as the church is concerned. The law isn't required to recognize religious marriage, and religions aren't required to recognize legal marriage. G@y marriage would be the second type, a legal marriage, which may or may not be given any recognition by tradition or by religious institutions.
I am not a homophobe
right, here we go...
G4y marriages are wrong. I agree with Quaunaut here, for much the same reasons, apart from 3 (<b>moultano and Liger, dont be picky</b> with words, you just create enemies) STDs are just as much a part of heterosexual relationships as they are homosexual relationships
As to whether g4y people have a choice of their sexuality, it depends. If they are "born" g4y, they can still choose not to "be" g4y. A friend-of-a-freind was "born" g4y, and because he is a Christian and he knows that being g4y is wrong, everyday is a struggle. He has a wife and children, but he still feels attracted towards other men, and he has to resist that. IMO, he is a braver and stronger man to resist his own strong feelings instead of "going along" and expresisng himself as a g4y person.
Homosexuality has become a bigger part of everyday life, and, in some ways, it appears to me that it is almost a fasion. i know it sounds terrible to put it that way, but that is how it appears to me. homosexuality has now become "cool", and people who are 100% heterosexual are now truing to fin in with the crowd by being something they are not, and i think that that is wrong
Jesus taught us to "love the sinner, hate the sin", so i have nothing against g4y people. If i had a freind and i found out he was g4y, he would still be my friend. I would make it clear to him that i was nto g4y, and we would continue as we were before.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Two g@y people getting married aren't infringing on anyone else's rights, therefore it should be legal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When they adopt a child (as many of them want to do) they are infrigning on the childs right to be brought up in a normal family with a mum and a dad.
there are many other things that dont infringe on peoples rights and are illegal, yet i dont hear you complaining about them - drug abuse for example, (if you wanted to be extreme) murder (when they are dead they have no rights, so they cannot be infringed)
You have a 23% chance of CREATING AIDS, sypholis, and other deseases during g@y sex. Thats just how it is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agreed with all your points, excepting this one. You're refering to a desise. A contidion caused by microscopic life forms. Now, I don't know about alot of stuff, but I'm pretty sure at least Pasture disproved instant creationism.
Now if you want to change "creating" to "catching" then I believe you're actually statistically correct, however, it's just as true for loose straight people...
I'll abstain from the rest of this discussion excepting to state that I have nothing against homosexuals. Now religous Zealots...
But I think what we are debating here is not whether g@y marriages are wrong but whether they should be legal. They really are distinct questions. You may feel that not being a christian is wrong, should that make it illegal?
But I think what we are debating here is not whether g@y marriages are wrong but whether they should be legal. They really are distinct questions. You may feel that not being a christian is wrong, should that make it illegal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it shouldn't be legal, it encourages other children to be ***, and in being ***, compromising the balance of things.
But I think what we are debating here is not whether g@y marriages are wrong but whether they should be legal. They really are distinct questions. You may feel that not being a christian is wrong, should that make it illegal? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
its quite simple
if sometihng is wrong, it should be illegal. murder is wrong, and it is illegal, drink-driving is wrong, and it is illegal.
does that make any sense to you?
But I think what we are debating here is not whether g@y marriages are wrong but whether they should be legal. They really are distinct questions. You may feel that not being a christian is wrong, should that make it illegal? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its quite simple
if sometihng is wrong, it should be illegal. murder is wrong, and it is illegal, drink-driving is wrong, and it is illegal.
does that make any sense to you? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Soooo, you think not being a christian should be illegal? What about drinking on the sabbath? What about divorce?
According to Christ keeping money for your worldly enjoyment is evil. Should we be required by law to give all of our worldly possessions away to charity?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the purpose of legislation is to protect our rights, and not to legislate morality. Murder isn't illegal because it is immoral, it is illegal because it infringes upon someone else's rights.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> from myself earlier
If you don't like ***, that doesn't mean your homophobic. Their making it sound like were scared of them or their lifestyle.
That sounds like manipulation to me.
I personally am not scared of a g@y person, I just don't respect them at all. I have my moral beliefs, and I won't be DISrespectful to them, but I won't respect them at all.
no, because christianity isnt wrong. there is nothing wrong with drinkning on the sabbath either,a dn yes, divorce is wrong, but people make mistakes, get married to the wrong person. The only (christianity) valid reason for a woman to divorce her husband is him having sex with another woman.
you read between the lines too much.
keeping money for worldy enjoyment is not evil I am a christian, yet i still like saving up some money to go to the cinema every now and then with my mates to enjoy myself. Jesus will not comdemn me to hell because of that. What jesus is warning about is that we dont know when we are going to die. When we die, the things we have stockpiled on earth are no use to us, whereas if we have stockipiled our treasures in heaven, we will be able to enjoy them forever.
Jesus is saying that you should stockpile your treasures in heaven. Dont go through life living in a cardboard box. God wants you to have fun.
by all means, give your money away to charity if you want. dont let me stop you. just remember to keep enough to live on
You still didn't answer the question. Should we be required by <b>law</b> to give away all but we need to live to charity?
yes
This perpetuates the *** lifestyle, and says that it is okay, but we know that it is not, because it isn't the natural order of reproduction. By allowing marriages between same sexes, what is to stop the state from also allowing other forms of non-traditional marriages, which compromises moral values.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any questions, Wheeee, why the opposition of g4y marriages is usually referred to as homophobic? Calling someone homophobic does sound a bit too broad and judgemental, but that's what it is. Just like how someone who makes racist jokes could, in fact, be called racist.
Not the natural order of reproduction? First off, g4y people don't actually "reproduce." Sterile guys don't reproduce either, but there's no hate toward them. Second, do you actually think someone would <i>choose</i> to be g4y ? Given the stigma against them, who would? Therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude that they were <i>born</i> that way. So were crippled people, and blind people, and that's not "normal" either, is it, but there aren't any laws preventing them from, say, walking down the street. So being g4y is just as "natural" as being straight.
About possible awkwardness for any child growing up with g4y parents: that's probably the only argument against same-sex marriages that holds much weight. But, of course, there's a flaw with that too: marriage doesn't equal having kids. Sure, in a perfect world it would, but there are plenty of heterosexual couples who never have kids.
So perhaps the argument should be against <i>same-sex *adoption*</i>? The primary reason against this is the possible negative feelings toward the child as he grows up. Why would he experience this? Because many people have problems with homosexuals. So how would this child be able to grow up normally? For people to think about things such as what I wrote in the second paragraph and realize that <i>there's nothing wrong with it</i>. Does it promote the g4y lifestyle? Yes, but maybe <i>there's nothing wrong with it</i>. Is the child more likely to be g4y ? I'm fairly sure that studies have shown this is not true. Any difficulties that a child adopted into a same-sex marriage could experience are caused solely by the people who opposed same-sex marriages in the first place.
And, just out of curiosity, what are these "other forms of non-traditional marriages, which compromise moral values" you're refering too?
*edit* Changed all the **** 's for readability.
yes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, congrats then. Your beliefs are logically consistent. There's not really anything more to debate since the basic difference in philosophy has been exposed, and both of us are willing to carry our philosophies to their logical conclusion. I might point out that your beliefs go against the constitution, but my guess is that it probably doesn't matter to you.
I would fight to the death to prevent your opinions from becoming law, but I can respect you for the logic behind them. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
*offers hand for a shake*
i can go back to sleep now
*shakes hand offered*