Voters in 11 states reject gay marriage

Originally posted by contourGL1996:

Originally posted by Fat Mike:
[begin rant]

I saw two of my gay friends break down in tears last night when they found out measure 36 passed, adding discrimination to our state's constitution. Not a single freaking state rejected these measures. I'm sure God is pleased that all his loving followers have worked so hard to keep our families, children and marriages safe from those dirty queers...

I swear, everytime I see some SUV with a Jesus fish on one side and a "one man, one woman" sticker on the other, I get so damn disgusted. Some middle-aged seacow who has never met a homosexual person in her life thinks it's their Christian duty to prevent "those sick gay people" from trying to have any sort of freedoms or rights. Meanwhile they continue to instruct all their followers about how treating gay people like actual human beings is a sin. It's probably only because gay people can't produce more soldiers for God's army. And only straight marriages can be pure and holy - even while daddy is banging the secretary, mommy is popping valuum and your daughter keeps getting felt up by the youth leader. But at least queers can't marry now because everyone knows they're the ones with the real problems.

Will people ever f*cking realize that they shouldn't try to decide what people can do in their personal lives, and that they shouldn't worry about it because it doesn't effect them?

[end rant]

Sorry, had to vent.

I agree 100%

Originally posted by Fmr12B:
It's not the religious behind all of this.

I'm with Bush on this one, lets explore civil unions, and let the term Marriage be for a man and a woman. If we allow gays to marry then what else are we opening the door to?

Polygamy?

Maybe a Bisexual 3-some of 2-guys & 1 woman all want to be married.

We wouldn't want to dicriminate against anyones sexual agenda.

Well put.

I wouldn't care Davo. They already enjoy family related benefits and would probably only see marginal increase or benefit in anything else.

And they would pay more in taxes. I say bring it on.

Now, can you Davo give a reason to ban gays from marrying?

If it's not your @$$, don't worry about it. If they want to get married, let them get married. It's not like heterosexual marriage is setting a great example in this nation anyways. I'd be more upset at homosexuals if they were trying to disolve the union of marriage altogether because it's discriminatory against their sexual preference. Rather, they want to conform to our social ideals and ask for their opportunity to live a normal life and since so many of us tightwads have such a hard time with gay people, we deny them that right.

And speaking of slippery slopes...

If they ban gay marriage today mainly for certain religious purposes, will they next ban OTHER types of marriages that don't fit their religion?

Like FMR said, so maybe a guy and two chicks should be able to marry then? I mean come on, it's not you, so why does it matter.

We have to have certain things certain ways. We're not killing gay people or stealing their property, they're just not allowed to marry.

Originally posted by Fmr12B:
It's not the religious behind all of this.

I'm with Bush on this one, lets explore civil unions, and let the term Marriage be for a man and a woman. If we allow gays to marry then what else are we opening the door to?

Polygamy?

Maybe a Bisexual 3-some of 2-guys & 1 woman all want to be married.

We wouldn't want to dicriminate against anyones sexual agenda.

Why not ban the term "Marriage" altogether save for those in a Judeo-Christian religion, and turn any non-religious joining of two people into Civil Unions?

What drives me nuts is how people can equate gay marriage with being a "gateway" marriage, which makes no [censored] sense what so ever. The term marriage seriously needs a redefinition to fit the times. A union between two adult-aged, non related human individuals makes total sense as a definition to me.

You people scream about the sanctity of marriage, but you don't give a rat's ass about the straight folks who've been destroying the institution for decades by marrying FAR too young, too stupid, too often, or for OTHER gains be it financial or otherwise. I mean, look at how many celebrity marriages have failed. Do you think that all celebrity marriage should be banned because they may not create a child? What about two people who marry but are infertile. I guess they're screwed under your terms, right?

And to ask the inevitable question- how would the concept of two same-sex individuals alter how much you care about your marriage to your spouse? If it alters it, your marriage isn't as strong as you thought now, is it?

You are COMPLETELY missing the point. It has no affect on one's personal life in that manner (in reference to the " how would the concept of two same-sex individuals alter how much you care about your marriage to your spouse?").

And marriage is not so you can have a baby last time I checked. Now, under the Christian religion, to have a baby you should be married, it is not, to be married you should have a baby.

I agree 100%.

And who are any of us to decide on what love is and what bounds it holds? People today hold polygamous relationships. Although it's weird to me and you, do I have the right to tell them they can't be together because I can't handle their relationship?

These people are trying to eliminate the stigma their lifestyle has of being a "wild & crazy promiscuous" lifestyle and show the world that they can hold a serious, committed relationship just as easily as anyone else can and we refuse to validate their efforts because we have a hard time watching 2 guys make out in public. I bet nobody complains when it's 2 girls, right?

just typical hypocrisy in america. Today my client was talking about how happy she was about bush winning. Then i was saying how i dont care much for politics because I see both sides of most issues. I made an example of mexican illegal immigrants which she went off on a big tirade. 5 minuts later she was telling me about her housekeeper that is an "illegal" mexican. Total hypocrite!!

I'm fine with them being together but not LEGALLY MARRIED.

Umm dude, a lotta guys will complain about girls too. I only don't complain if they're hot, and then that's just cuz I'm your average guy. If I think about it I really don't like it and think it's wrong, but that's using my brain on top of my shoulders (doesn't get used much

). And I'm sure plenty of women complain. But that has NOTHING to do with it. I can live with them doing that stuff. But again, they should not be able to be LEGALLY MARRIED. Refer to FMR's post.

Originally posted by daenku32:
Now, can you Davo give a reason to ban gays from marrying?

Marriage is the oldest and most basic social institution. Gay 'marriage' disrupts that social institution.

I'm all for legal recognition of homosexual relationships. Anything less than that would be discrimination. I don't understand why the homosexual community puts so much emphasis on beoming heterosexuals. This is analagous to the feminists basing the success of their movement on how much more like men they can become. If homosexuals put as much energy into building the prestige and significance of their relationships as they put into trying to become part of a historically and socially heterosexual institution, they would advance much further towards 'equality'.

EDIT: Please note religion has nothing to do with this.

Originally posted by bishop375:
Do you think that all celebrity marriage should be banned

YES! good idea!

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Like FMR said, so maybe a guy and two chicks should be able to marry then? I mean come on, it's not you, so why does it matter. We have to have certain things certain ways. We're not killing gay people or stealing their property, they're just not allowed to marry.

For the same reason a Mormon guy can't marry two women today in Utah - it's against the law; a law that would be applied indiscriminately if gays were free to marry.

Same thing applies to two brothers, underage kids, a brother and sister etc; it is nonsensical to suggest that ending discrimination against gays opens the path to other forms of marriage that are currently against the law - no one is suggesting that these laws be overturned.

The difficulty is that the term "marriage" applies to both a civil union (civil, as in civil rights) and the religious ceremony and both are rooted in history.

The term "civil union" simply doesn't exist in any legalistic way (you don't go to city hall to apply for a civil union license), so gays right now have no other way to express their wish, but to demand the right to marry.

Originally posted by Fmr12B:
It's not the religious behind all of this.

I'm with Bush on this one, lets explore civil unions, and let the term Marriage be for a man and a woman. If we allow gays to marry then what else are we opening the door to?

Polygamy?

Maybe a Bisexual 3-some of 2-guys & 1 woman all want to be married.

We wouldn't want to dicriminate against anyones sexual agenda.

Agreed, and the thread starter is clearly immature.

Frankly, I don't know why the government is involved, at all. Why does the gov care about a religious sacrament?

I'm all for powers of attorney and legal partnerships. If I want someone to have legal say over my medical care, or bank accounts, or whatever, I need to talk to a lawyer.

"Marriage" is meant to be procreative. Sorry guys. The "Gay Marriage" dog doesn't hunt.

As for the Christian Right, and their battle to "save marriage." I think we lost that battle when the Anglican Church accepted contraception back in, what, 1930?

For you homosexuals out there, I wouldn't worry. You enjoy an incredible rate of cultural shift--one that no other "minority" has ever seen. "Gay Marriage" or not, I think within a few years there will be no difference, in the societal mindset, between gay people living monogomously and re-married divorcees.

Confused?

"What God has joined, let no man put asunder." Divorce is a no-no, but, furthermore, the man who then seeks relations with another woman commits adultery--a mortal sin, no more or less severe than if one man "lies down" with another. In either case, you're going to Hell (if you read it that way.)

Yet, hardly anyone bats an eye at the 50% divorce rate, (vs the tiny percentage of gay people). And, therein lies the great hypocrisy.

Me? I'm Catholic. I'm against homosexuality, adultery, and all forms of sin, but I'm no angel, either. And I have no more problem with gay people than I do with deaf people. Frankly, I'm conflicted on a number of issues, and I don't think there are any easy answers in this one.

Sorry for the ramble.

On another note: In Ohio, they "gay marriage ban" is really strict. They got tricky and didn't post the actual text of the amendment on the ballot, but a summary of it. The summary leaves out the part that bans a "common law" marriage between a man and a woman. I know Ohio is bible belt, but come on, common law marriages have been accepted since the 1950's.

I'm fine with them defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, but they should make one further distinction. A true "marriage" is something that is supported by the church.

If a couple is joined together, homosexual or hetrosexual, and it is not recgonized by the church, but by the state, then it is a "civil union" which gives the same benefits of a "marriage". If the state wants to marry a dog and a cat, I couldn't care less. Let the church and state stay seperate. Give civil unions to those who don't want the church involved, and give marriages to those who do. It's that simple.

That is my .02

Originally posted by bishop375:

Originally posted by Fmr12B:
It's not the religious behind all of this.

I'm with Bush on this one, lets explore civil unions, and let the term Marriage be for a man and a woman. If we allow gays to marry then what else are we opening the door to?

Polygamy?

Maybe a Bisexual 3-some of 2-guys & 1 woman all want to be married.

We wouldn't want to dicriminate against anyones sexual agenda.

Why not ban the term "Marriage" altogether save for those in a Judeo-Christian religion, and turn any non-religious joining of two people into Civil Unions?

What drives me nuts is how people can equate gay marriage with being a "gateway" marriage, which makes no [censored] sense what so ever. The term marriage seriously needs a redefinition to fit the times. A union between two adult-aged, non related human individuals makes total sense as a definition to me.

You people scream about the sanctity of marriage, but you don't give a rat's ass about the straight folks who've been destroying the institution for decades by marrying FAR too young, too stupid, too often, or for OTHER gains be it financial or otherwise. I mean, look at how many celebrity marriages have failed. Do you think that all celebrity marriage should be banned because they may not create a child? What about two people who marry but are infertile. I guess they're screwed under your terms, right?

And to ask the inevitable question- how would the concept of two same-sex individuals alter how much you care about your marriage to your spouse? If it alters it, your marriage isn't as strong as you thought now, is it?

First, what we have here is a childish rant and attempt to bring a lot of factors into the issue that are irrelevant. The whole point that was made by the citizens of those 11 states was that people do NOT want to re-define marriage. Traditionally, marriage has been between one man and one woman. We are not changing anything, only reaffirming the fact.

Originally posted by DJ Capp 911:
just typical hypocrisy in america. Today my client was talking about how happy she was about bush winning. Then i was saying how i dont care much for politics because I see both sides of most issues. I made an example of mexican illegal immigrants which she went off on a big tirade. 5 minuts later she was telling me about her housekeeper that is an "illegal" mexican. Total hypocrite!!

And so that represents all of us that want a ban on same-sex marriage, right?

Originally posted by Davo:

Originally posted by daenku32:
Now, can you Davo give a reason to ban gays from marrying?

Marriage is the oldest and most basic social institution. Gay 'marriage' disrupts that social institution.

I'm all for legal recognition of homosexual relationships. Anything less than that would be discrimination. I don't understand why the homosexual community puts so much emphasis on beoming heterosexuals. This is analagous to the feminists basing the success of their movement on how much more like men they can become. If homosexuals put as much energy into building the prestige and significance of their relationships as they put into trying to become part of a historically and socially heterosexual institution, they would advance much further towards 'equality'.

EDIT: Please note religion has nothing to do with this.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
it is not, to be married you should have a baby.

It is to a Catholic.

But, in about 1930 (see my other post) the Anglican Church accepted non-procreative sex as a "bonding" activity. Other religions followed suit.

Marriage (to a Catholic) is a sacrament that includes having children and raising them to be Catholic. It also includes sex as "recreation," but denounces artificial contraception as a worldly interference in heavenly affairs (not to mention, a sin.)

Originally posted by RogerB:

And I have no more problem with gay people than I do with deaf people. Frankly, I'm conflicted on a number of issues, and I don't think there are any easy answers in this one.

Sorry for the ramble.

Surely you're not suggesting we let deaf people get married too???

Originally posted by red99sesport:
common law marriages have been accepted since the 1950's.

Common law marriage is illegal in the state of NM. Technically, an unmarried man and woman cannot live together for more than six months. The law dates back to the 1880's to keep US Soldiers from shacking up with Mexican prostitutes, thereby "neglecting" their duties as soldiers.

speaking of "we", what is Canada's take on the subject?
i know in Mexico, gay people are treated like sick freaks

By no means am I happy with the divorce rate. I think it is far too easy to get married today, and again far too easy to get divorced. People should be given pause before making such a committment. I don't pretend to have the answers here, as you can't force religious beliefs on others, but clearly some type of mandatory counseling is a first step to both marriage and divorce. American society is and has been based on the family, and gay marriage simply doesn't fit that.

Originally posted by Sandman333:
American society is and has been based on the family, and gay marriage simply doesn't fit that.

First of all, consiering more than half of today's marriages end in divorce i hate to think that our society is based on it, but if it is that explains why our society is so [censored] up right now. 2nd, how is it that gay marriage does not constitute a family? My gay brothers relationship with his partner and their relationship with my family now is far better than the "family" that i grew up in??????

Originally posted by svt4stv:
speaking of "we", what is Canada's take on the subject?
i know in Mexico, gay people are treated like sick freaks

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not allowed under the Canadian Charter of Rights (which BTW was written not too long ago, so has the benefit of 20th century understanding of things) and so on that basis, gay marriages have been upheld to be legal in the courts. A number of provinces had challenged them.

Now, municipalities in a number of provinces (mine included) are not allowed to deny anyone a marriage license on the basis of sexual orientation.

There is a very strong lobby against gay marriage, spearheaded by a wide range of religious groups - although the lobby is strong, the overall population is generally ambivalent.

It seems inevitable here that gay marriage will withstand any court challenge, and we will be forced to the next step which IMO will be to decide if the term "marriage" should be applied only to the religious sacrament.

A gay marriage does not fit the traditional definition of a family, on which this country is based. Sorry for the confusion.

I think a change of language and a better conceptual definition of what "marriage" and "civil unions" really are would help both sides come to a solution, but I'll be damned if I can come up with something solid.

This is one that seems to piss one side or the other off, no matter how you cut it.

IMHO, regardless of sexual orientation, equal rights, benefits and penalties should be given gays or straits through some sort of ceremony that publicy declares their dedication to one another when so desired. I think these "unions", should be available to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

"Marriage", the commonly-known and MILLENIA-old popular religious institution between ONE man and ONE woman should be protected as an article of religion that does carry some form of Federal or State recognition (notice that I don't specify any PARTICULAR religion, just religion in general).

As some on here have said in the past, changing language in this case smacks of segregation to a degree and seperate isn't always "equal"...

...but I'm flat-out of ideas on an issue that both sides have a massive amount of legal and religious standing on.

Yeah, and I bet they really enforce that one too. You know that in Michigan until 5 or so years ago you could be inprisioned if you swore infront of a woman or a child.

Anyway, common law marriages are legal in a lot of places. Most states have a provision that says something like this (pharaphrased of course): if a man and woman reside in the same residence for a period of 7 (or whatever) years, and have a relationship that approximates a marriage, then they are afforded the same rights and protections of a legally married couple.

Ohio now has no such provision, which means that people will lose their healthcare and have to file taxes seperately, more importantly they will lose the right to authorize emergency, and potentially life saving medical procedures.

Yeah, this is just like the flag-burning issue of a few decades ago. There really isn't a solution to please everyone.

Before I read all of this... I'm going to put my opinion in.

I am a christian... and by that I believe being homosexual or performing in homosexual acts is wrong. Again this is *MY* belief and I have the right to say this. But then again, I believe in the constitution and I feel putting a ban on this ruins a person's right to "pursue happiness". As a christian, you are supposed to stand up for your beliefs, which I am doing. But I am also saying that I would not go up to someone and say eeeww... your gay! I would keep to myself. Not only that, I believe I am standing up for my beliefs by saying it is wrong... but as a United States citizen I believe you have the right to do what you wish as long as it doesn't ruin the rights of another United States citizen. All I am saying is it is ok to state your beliefs that it is wrong, just as I do. But don't put a ban on people that wish to do the wrong, if they are religous in any way they no the consequences of being homosexual and are willing to accept them.

Steve

So say a gay couple gets married, what does that prove. They get a tax break? So that means a friend and his roommate can go and get hitched and get all the benefits? You donâ�?��?�t have to get married to prove that you really love the person.

Originally posted by N-terst8:
Before I read all of this... I'm going to put my opinion in.

I am a christian... and by that I believe being homosexual or performing in homosexual acts is wrong. Again this is *MY* belief and I have the right to say this. But then again, I believe in the constitution and I feel putting a ban on this ruins a person's right to "pursue happiness". As a christian, you are supposed to stand up for your beliefs, which I am doing. But I am also saying that I would not go up to someone and say eeeww... your gay! I would keep to myself. Not only that, I believe I am standing up for my beliefs by saying it is wrong... but as a United States citizen I believe you have the right to do what you wish as long as it doesn't ruin the rights of another United States citizen. All I am saying is it is ok to state your beliefs that it is wrong, just as I do. But don't put a ban on people that wish to do the wrong, if they are religous in any way they no the consequences of being homosexual and are willing to accept them.

Steve

See, that's all I ask from the Christian community. Go ahead and believe it's wrong. That's your decision. But don't try to change our laws to reflect your beliefs on everyone else. Thanks for understanding that Steve.

Originally posted by Sandman333:
A gay marriage does not fit the traditional definition of a family, on which this country is based. Sorry for the confusion.

You define a traditional family by the culture in which you were brought up in. Who are you to force your beliefs upon others who were not raised the same way and do not believe in what you believe in?

Originally posted by N-terst8:
Before I read all of this... I'm going to put my opinion in.

I am a christian... and by that I believe being homosexual or performing in homosexual acts is wrong. Again this is *MY* belief and I have the right to say this. But then again, I believe in the constitution and I feel putting a ban on this ruins a person's right to "pursue happiness". As a christian, you are supposed to stand up for your beliefs, which I am doing. But I am also saying that I would not go up to someone and say eeeww... your gay! I would keep to myself. Not only that, I believe I am standing up for my beliefs by saying it is wrong... but as a United States citizen I believe you have the right to do what you wish as long as it doesn't ruin the rights of another United States citizen. All I am saying is it is ok to state your beliefs that it is wrong, just as I do. But don't put a ban on people that wish to do the wrong, if they are religous in any way they no the consequences of being homosexual and are willing to accept them.

Steve

Go Steve!

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Sandman333:
A gay marriage does not fit the traditional definition of a family, on which this country is based. Sorry for the confusion.

You define a traditional family by the culture in which you were brought up in. Who are you to force your beliefs upon others who were not raised the same way and do not believe in what you believe in?

The culture was there LONG before I was born. This is the point you missed completely.

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Sandman333:
A gay marriage does not fit the traditional definition of a family, on which this country is based. Sorry for the confusion.

You define a traditional family by the culture in which you were brought up in. Who are you to force your beliefs upon others who were not raised the same way and do not believe in what you believe in?

The culture was there LONG before I was born. This is the point you missed completely.

Culture change isn't a bad thing. This country wasn't based on tradition. We were so sick of tradition that we dropped everything we owned and sailed across the Atlantic to start a better, more progressive society. Our culture is in a constant state of change, and at some point we're going to have to adapt society to better serve these changes.

I still don't see how that gives anyone the right to push their beliefs on anyone, no matter how old the culture or tradition is.

It's not a culture I believe in or was raised in, so why am I made to live in a society that feels the need to evangelize it's beliefs on everyone that it doesn't agree with? THAT is not what this country was founded on. THAT is the primary reason that people left Europe for the New World, for the freedom to practice their beliefs without persecution.

Originally posted by Fat Mike:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Sandman333:
A gay marriage does not fit the traditional definition of a family, on which this country is based. Sorry for the confusion.

You define a traditional family by the culture in which you were brought up in. Who are you to force your beliefs upon others who were not raised the same way and do not believe in what you believe in?

The culture was there LONG before I was born. This is the point you missed completely.

Culture change isn't a bad thing. This country wasn't based on tradition. We were so sick of tradition that we dropped everything we owned and sailed across the Atlantic to start a better, more progressive society. Our culture is in a constant state of change, and at some point we're going to have to adapt society to better serve these changes.

Apparently, according to popular vote, you are in the minority here, and hence must concede to the wants of the majority. It's law now. It's what the people want and believe. Just because you and a minority of voters disagree doesn't mean it will or should be changed. The people have spoken, and their voice is overwhelmingly clear. Just deal with it.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
I still don't see how that gives anyone the right to push their beliefs on anyone, no matter how old the culture or tradition is.

It's not a culture I believe in or was raised in, so why am I made to live in a society that feels the need to evangelize it's beliefs on everyone that it doesn't agree with? THAT is not what this country was founded on. THAT is the primary reason that people left Europe for the New World, for the freedom to practice their beliefs without persecution.

Problem is, we are not living under a dictator. The vast majority have spoken, and they do not want gay marriage. As much as you do not like it, you have to accept it. That is the facts of the situation.

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by Fat Mike:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Sandman333:
A gay marriage does not fit the traditional definition of a family, on which this country is based. Sorry for the confusion.

You define a traditional family by the culture in which you were brought up in. Who are you to force your beliefs upon others who were not raised the same way and do not believe in what you believe in?

The culture was there LONG before I was born. This is the point you missed completely.

Culture change isn't a bad thing. This country wasn't based on tradition. We were so sick of tradition that we dropped everything we owned and sailed across the Atlantic to start a better, more progressive society. Our culture is in a constant state of change, and at some point we're going to have to adapt society to better serve these changes.

Apparently, according to popular vote, you are in the minority here, and hence must concede to the wants of the majority. It's law now. It's what the people want and believe. Just because you and a minority of voters disagree doesn't mean it will or should be changed. The people have spoken, and their voice is overwhelmingly clear. Just deal with it.

So, this is the precedent then, right?

Every time something new comes along that changes things or creates a shift in the norm we'll just litigate it out of existence? Geez, what would've ever happened to the television or rock & roll...

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by Fat Mike:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Sandman333:
A gay marriage does not fit the traditional definition of a family, on which this country is based. Sorry for the confusion.

You define a traditional family by the culture in which you were brought up in. Who are you to force your beliefs upon others who were not raised the same way and do not believe in what you believe in?

The culture was there LONG before I was born. This is the point you missed completely.

Culture change isn't a bad thing. This country wasn't based on tradition. We were so sick of tradition that we dropped everything we owned and sailed across the Atlantic to start a better, more progressive society. Our culture is in a constant state of change, and at some point we're going to have to adapt society to better serve these changes.

Apparently, according to popular vote, you are in the minority here, and hence must concede to the wants of the majority. It's law now. It's what the people want and believe. Just because you and a minority of voters disagree doesn't mean it will or should be changed. The people have spoken, and their voice is overwhelmingly clear. Just deal with it.

Yes, lets all just deal with it, because giving in to the majority is just so damn comforting. Why can't those queers understand that Sandman? You think they'd realize that the "majority" knows what's best for their lives...

Originally posted by Fmr12B:
It's not the religious behind all of this.

I'm with Bush on this one, lets explore civil unions, and let the term Marriage be for a man and a woman. If we allow gays to marry then what else are we opening the door to?

Polygamy?

Maybe a Bisexual 3-some of 2-guys & 1 woman all want to be married.

We wouldn't want to dicriminate against anyones sexual agenda.

I agree, though i have many gay friends and i feel they deserve the right to have the same civil liberties as a married couple, i don;t think it would be right to call it marrage.

i too feel, the word "marrage" should be reserved for a man and woman...as FMR12B stated,

Quote:

Polygamy?

Maybe a Bisexual 3-some of 2-guys & 1 woman all want to be married.

And like him, i feel thats not right.....

But i am a strong supporter for Civil rights for all Gay and Lesbians.

Lupe

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by Fat Mike:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Sandman333:
A gay marriage does not fit the traditional definition of a family, on which this country is based. Sorry for the confusion.

You define a traditional family by the culture in which you were brought up in. Who are you to force your beliefs upon others who were not raised the same way and do not believe in what you believe in?

The culture was there LONG before I was born. This is the point you missed completely.

Culture change isn't a bad thing. This country wasn't based on tradition. We were so sick of tradition that we dropped everything we owned and sailed across the Atlantic to start a better, more progressive society. Our culture is in a constant state of change, and at some point we're going to have to adapt society to better serve these changes.

Apparently, according to popular vote, you are in the minority here, and hence must concede to the wants of the majority. It's law now. It's what the people want and believe. Just because you and a minority of voters disagree doesn't mean it will or should be changed. The people have spoken, and their voice is overwhelmingly clear. Just deal with it.

So, this is the precedent then, right?

Every time something new comes along that changes things or creates a shift in the norm we'll just litigate it out of existence? Geez, what would've ever happened to the television or rock & roll...

Where is the litigation? It was put to popular vote, largely because it is a hot topic today. I suppose you would rather that someone with your point of view simply dictate how things are going to be, because then you would get your way? How could things have been any more fair and honest than what we now have? 11 seperate states all agreed independantly that they did not want to allow gay marriage. The people in those states made those decisions directly. Democracy at work.

Originally posted by Fat Mike:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by Fat Mike:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Sandman333:
A gay marriage does not fit the traditional definition of a family, on which this country is based. Sorry for the confusion.

You define a traditional family by the culture in which you were brought up in. Who are you to force your beliefs upon others who were not raised the same way and do not believe in what you believe in?

The culture was there LONG before I was born. This is the point you missed completely.

Culture change isn't a bad thing. This country wasn't based on tradition. We were so sick of tradition that we dropped everything we owned and sailed across the Atlantic to start a better, more progressive society. Our culture is in a constant state of change, and at some point we're going to have to adapt society to better serve these changes.

Apparently, according to popular vote, you are in the minority here, and hence must concede to the wants of the majority. It's law now. It's what the people want and believe. Just because you and a minority of voters disagree doesn't mean it will or should be changed. The people have spoken, and their voice is overwhelmingly clear. Just deal with it.

Yes, lets all just deal with it, because giving in to the majority is just so damn comforting. Why can't those queers understand that Sandman? You think they'd realize that the "majority" knows what's best for their lives...

You would rather that we toss out the entire democratic process??????

Originally posted by fazzman2000:
So say a gay couple gets married, what does that prove. They get a tax break? So that means a friend and his roommate can go and get hitched and get all the benefits? You donâ�?��?�t have to get married to prove that you really love the person.

Married people don't get a tax break, they get a tax penalty.

Bush finally passed some tax reform that will decrease the penalty to zero.

Originally posted by Fat Mike:
[begin rant]

I saw two of my gay friends break down in tears last night when they found out measure 36 passed, adding discrimination to our state's constitution. Not a single freaking state rejected these measures. I'm sure God is pleased that all his loving followers have worked so hard to keep our families, children and marriages safe from those dirty queers...

I swear, everytime I see some SUV with a Jesus fish on one side and a "one man, one woman" sticker on the other, I get so damn disgusted. Some middle-aged seacow who has never met a homosexual person in her life thinks it's their Christian duty to prevent "those sick gay people" from trying to have any sort of freedoms or rights. Meanwhile they continue to instruct all their followers about how treating gay people like actual human beings is a sin. It's probably only because gay people can't produce more soldiers for God's army. And only straight marriages can be pure and holy - even while daddy is banging the secretary, mommy is popping valuum and your daughter keeps getting felt up by the youth leader. But at least queers can't marry now because everyone knows they're the ones with the real problems.

Will people ever f*cking realize that they shouldn't try to decide what people can do in their personal lives, and that they shouldn't worry about it because it doesn't effect them?

[end rant]

Sorry, had to vent.

I feel the same way, Im simply astounded that it passed, it has partially shaken my faith in the average American. Like I said on another forum, I dont give a [censored] how homophobic you are its so blatantly obvious that a gay-marriage ban goes against what the constitution says and does its ridiculous. Between that and probably reelecting Bush largely on moral/religious based issues (QUEERS DONT RUIN MY MARRIAGE

/ NO I TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT ABORTION, YOU HAVE NO SAY!) Im all out of faith.

Also, when you see those stickers just try to get their attention and then call them fag or faggot, since theyre obviously homophobic. Quick and easy. Also, Id like to meet someone whos marriage was effected in any way because 2 gay guys got married. But at least the argument FOR the ban doesnt have a leg to stand on so arguing that it shouldnt have passed is really really easy.

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by Fmr12B:
It's not the religious behind all of this.

I'm with Bush on this one, lets explore civil unions, and let the term Marriage be for a man and a woman. If we allow gays to marry then what else are we opening the door to?

Polygamy?

Maybe a Bisexual 3-some of 2-guys & 1 woman all want to be married.

We wouldn't want to dicriminate against anyones sexual agenda.

Agreed, and the thread starter is clearly immature.

How the hell is ammending the state constitution to ban gay-marriage mature? [censored] its not even constitutional. How many time has polygamy been legal? But a marriage between two adults has been legal for as long as the country has been around, who am I to say WHO those two people can be? At the foundation of American values I simply cannot, that freedom and nondescrimination should be cherished and preserved. Although if you can convince me that gay people getting married is some how going to desanctitize your marriage, shoot.

One important thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that the bills that were voted on were very... limited, would be the word I guess. And make the country seem a little more discriminatory that it really is.

The question proposed in them was whether or not to support homosexual marriage, not civil unions.

Only 35% of the nation currently supports homosexual marriage but 65% support civil unions. Anyone who expected a "marriage" bill to pass was delusional. In most states though, a "civil union" bill would have passed. The problem is that, despite all the talk of these "civil unions", there is no legal definition of what one is, therefore we can't vote on whether we want that or not.

Before homosexuals can be granted a civil union, the government needs to remove all mentionings of the word "marriage" from within itself and leave that term to those that perform a religious ceremony and adopt the term "civil union" as a government-recognized institution of two committed individuals.

We've been down this road on CEG many times and I don't really have the time to regurgitate everything I've said before but just a few things:

Those who keep saying the term "marriage" applies to a union of man and woman in a religious sense: How many people do you know today that are married but were NOT married in a church and have no religious affiliation? I know LOTS. Do you call them "civily unioned" or some garbage like that? No you call them MARRIED. That's just a BS excuse for people who want to prevent gays from being married.
As far as tradition and all that...look around you marriage has already changed a lot. We went from a time when marriages were ARRANGED (yeah that's real sacred) to a time where essentially no one could marry outside their race or religion, no one lived together or had sex BEFORE marriage, to today. Today, where people get married and divorced on a whim. Today, where there's more than a handful of TV "reality" shows making a circus of marriage. Today, where nearly every state has a no fault divorce law. And people have the audacity to talk about the SANCTITY of marriage? Please. What marriage and family is has drastically changed or the years (like it or not) and will continue to do so.
There was a time when the majority said it was ok to burn witches and heretics at the stake because they were the work of the devil. There was a time when the majority said that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. There was a time when the majority was for laws that discriminated against blacks...did that make the MAJORITY right back then? While this is not exactly the same issue the point is still there...it's discrimination pure and simple and all of the cover up bs excuses and religious jargon will not change that.

I wonder if 100 years ago, when women were trying to get the right to vote, if people were saying "If we give it to you what's next? Is your dog gonna want to vote next?!"

Originally posted by sigma:
I wonder if 100 years ago, when women were trying to get the right to vote, if people were saying "If we give it to you what's next? Is your dog gonna want to vote next?!"

I can't have an opinion....

In regards to Proposal 2
MapOfTaziFoSho (1:00:01 PM): woops voted yes on that one...so did 9-10 other ppl

$^&*#$^&%*# (6:17:46 PM): You are an ignorant [censored]... I feel bad for you Pete, I thought you had a shred of decency... because of you and people like you, civil rights are set back 30 years... because of you and people like you, average, everyday, tax paying, HUMAN BEINGS, lives are now ruined. You tender to what society wants you to do... you get this false feeling of happiness... when deep down, you really don't know what the [censored] you are talking about. They say ignorance is bliss, I disagree... ignorance is stupidity.

I voted the way I wanted to. I didn't have some big disucssion with a group about this issue. This was a gut feeling that I followed.

Originally posted by sigma:
Is your dog gonna want to vote next?!"

In Chicago, they probably do, along with the dead people.

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
I still don't see how that gives anyone the right to push their beliefs on anyone, no matter how old the culture or tradition is.

It's not a culture I believe in or was raised in, so why am I made to live in a society that feels the need to evangelize it's beliefs on everyone that it doesn't agree with? THAT is not what this country was founded on. THAT is the primary reason that people left Europe for the New World, for the freedom to practice their beliefs without persecution.

Problem is, we are not living under a dictator. The vast majority have spoken, and they do not want gay marriage. As much as you do not like it, you have to accept it. That is the facts of the situation.

Well in that case ship me back down to alabama and have me start picking cotton again. Just because the majority votes for it doesn't make it right. The majority could be misinformed.

Originally posted by Freakshow:

Those who keep saying the term "marriage" applies to a union of man and woman in a religious sense: How many people do you know today that are married but were NOT married in a church and have no religious affiliation? I know LOTS. Do you call them "civily unioned" or some garbage like that? No you call them MARRIED. That's just a BS excuse for people who want to prevent gays from being married.

So becasue i disagree with the teminology of a bill, im trying to prevent gays form being married????

Try telling that to my gay frineds!!! Who happen to agree with what im saying. Im sure there the minority in there thinking, but they do agree with me and so do there frineds.

now, i give you credit to, you don;t know anything about me and i do not know anything about you, so all we have to go by is the overall view of society, our personal experience and what we do research.

And i never said they should be called "civily unioned", honestly i don't know what to call it....but if my opinion's make you think the way that you feel in you quote above, then so be it....and im sorry you feel that way, because im not a bad person IMO or an uneduacated person...im mearly a person with a set of opinions that differ from what certain people think is right....I never said my opinion was right, and i never try to force my opinion on others, but i acept other peoples opinions as there own, and respect them for that.

Lupe

Originally posted by Freakshow:
We've been down this road on CEG many times and I don't really have the time to regurgitate everything I've said before but just a few things:

Those who keep saying the term "marriage" applies to a union of man and woman in a religious sense: How many people do you know today that are married but were NOT married in a church and have no religious affiliation? I know LOTS. Do you call them "civily unioned" or some garbage like that? No you call them MARRIED. That's just a BS excuse for people who want to prevent gays from being married.
As far as tradition and all that...look around you marriage has already changed a lot. We went from a time when marriages were ARRANGED (yeah that's real sacred) to a time where essentially no one could marry outside their race or religion, no one lived together or had sex BEFORE marriage, to today. Today, where people get married and divorced on a whim. Today, where there's more than a handful of TV "reality" shows making a circus of marriage. Today, where nearly every state has a no fault divorce law. And people have the audacity to talk about the SANCTITY of marriage? Please. What marriage and family is has drastically changed or the years (like it or not) and will continue to do so.
There was a time when the majority said it was ok to burn witches and heretics at the stake because they were the work of the devil. There was a time when the majority said that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. There was a time when the majority was for laws that discriminated against blacks...did that make the MAJORITY right back then? While this is not exactly the same issue the point is still there...it's discrimination pure and simple and all of the cover up bs excuses and religious jargon will not change that.

Well Said

Childish rant? What was irrelevant in my post? None of it. Nor was it childish. You can try to put whatever spin you want on it, but the point is that there is NO solid argument AGAINST gay marriage outside of quasi-cultural and religious arguments. Cultures change with time. The values you and I have today are completely different from what they were hundreds of years ago on this soil.

The fact of the matter is this- there IS no solution to this that will ever satisfy both sides. Either redefining marriage or destroying it altogether and creating nothing but federal/state civil unions, they're both bad choices. The question is which one sucks less- blatant sexism or "ruining it" for everyone.

Bottom line, it didn't pass, anywhere. Cry a river somewhere else or get over it.

approriate at this juncture or no?

Originally posted by Freakshow:

Originally posted by sigma:
I wonder if 100 years ago, when women were trying to get the right to vote, if people were saying "If we give it to you what's next? Is your dog gonna want to vote next?!"

Zing!

Measure 36 in Oregon changed the constitution to say marriage can only be between one man and one woman. Voting no on the issue simply left the constitution as how it is [was...] and left the issue open for debate. Instead, people decided that there should be no room for discussion and set us way back in trying to establish basic rights for homosexuals.

Voting no on the measure would not have legalized gay marriage, and that's what none of the opposition seemed to understand. Now, every gay friend I have is depressed and devistated by the result of this ballot measure, while the people who voted yes on it can sleep well tonight thinking they did God's will by taking away the rights of those sinners. God gave man free will, why can't Christians give other people free will?

While I was disappointed with the voters in those 11 states for adding hate and discrimination into their Constitutions, reading this thread has left me bewildered.

I truly do not understand why people oppose gay marriage. Allowing homosexuals to make the commitment that too many heterosexuals take for granted does not have any effect on heterosexuals. Your marriage is suddenly not any less than it was, it is not preventing you from doing anything or affecting you in any way. It only allows gay and lesbian people equal access to a social institution.

Calling a homosexual couple a "civil union" while calling a heterosexual couple a "marriage" is the same as sending black children and white children to two different schools. Even if they are identical, they are not equal. This premise was ruled on by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board, and applies to all governmental institutions, including marriage.

The slippery slope of polygamous marriage (totally different type of commitment) or of close relatives (potential for biological harm) are unrelated to removing gender discrimination in giving lifelong commitments equal billing.

I will only consider the term "civil union" acceptable and equal if all heterosexual commitments of the same type are given the same name.

I am not asking anyone to approve of gays or of gay marriage. You can hate it as much as you want, call me names on the street, whatever. I am not hurting you in any way or affecting you in any way by getting married. However, you are harming me when you put additional roadblocks between me and my right to marry the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.

Originally posted by Fat Mike:
Voting no on the measure would not have legalized gay marriage, and that's what none of the opposition seemed to understand. Now, every gay friend I have is depressed and devistated by the result of this ballot measure, while the people who voted yes on it can sleep well tonight thinking they did God's will by taking away the rights of those sinners. God gave man free will, why can't Christians give other people free will?

You're making way too many blanket statements, generalizations, assumptions and stereotypes for someone who's arguing for equality and rights.

Originally posted by svtcarboy:
blah blah blah hate blah blah discrimination blah blah blah hate blah blah call me names blah blah blah harming me

Seriously dude...

Originally posted by svtcarboy:
While I was disappointed with the voters in those 11 states for adding hate and discrimination into thier Constitutions, reading this thread has left me bewildered.

I truly do not understand why people oppose gay marriage. Allowing homosexuals to make the commitment that too many heterosexuals take for granted does not have any effect on heterosexuals. Your marriage is suddenly not any less than it was, it is not preventing you from doing anything or affecting you in any way. It only allows gay and lesbian people equal access to a social institution.

Calling a homosexual couple a "civil union" while calling a heterosexual couple a "marriage" is the same as sending black children and white children to two different schools. Even if they are identical, they are not equal. This premise was ruled on by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board, and applies to all governmental institutions, including marriage.

The slippery slope of polygamous marriage (totally different type of commitment) or of close relatives (potential for biological harm) are unrelated to removing gender discrimination in giving lifelong commitments equal billing.

I will only consider the term "civil union" acceptable and equal if all heterosexual commitments of the same type are given the same name.

I am not asking anyone to approve of gays or of gay marriage. You can hate it as much as you want, call me names on the street, whatever. I am not hurting you in any way or affecting you in any way by getting married. However, you are harming me when you put additional roadblocks between me and my right to marry the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.

Good post. I challenge anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong, to actually go out and become friends with a gay person. They're some of the coolest and most sincere people I know. I don't hang out with them and look at them as gay people, I see them as my friends. And plus gay guys always hang out with some really hot chicks.

Bloodhound Gang... I wish i where queer so i could get Chicks!

Originally posted by Fat Mike:
I challenge anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong, to actually go out and become friends with a gay person. They're some of the coolest and most sincere people I know.

Ohhhhhh, pweeeeeeeeeaze, they are the same as all other ppl - cool and uncool, pleasant and unpleasant, greedy and generous, nasty and good-hearted. They are the most sincere people? Generally speaking - lemme ask you, how on Earth can you jump to conclusions based on your personal friendship with several Oregon homosexuals? Maybe you lucked in by having met only "coolest and most sincere" ones? Besides, Mike, u r like churning out/operating in absolute terms - the ppl u personally consider as the most sincere might seem exactly opposite to somebody else.

I guess that by labeling homosexuals in the way u did - u r not stepping far away from narrow-minded anti-homosexuals bumper stickers carrying old ladies.

I love how people that are for gay marriage love to preach respect for people's opinions, and accepting people for who they are....

But when someone has an opinion different from them, no matter if its based on faith, morals, whatever, those people are wrong and they are bigots and haters for having that opionion.

The true hypocrites are those that can't accept the fact that some (and by the votes, a majority) people think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

James, I'm right behind you there.

Well, maybe not THAT close. ;-)

But, I agree that it should be for EVERY couple of non-related, consenting age adults or for NONE of them.

By supporting a ban against gay marriage, you're condoning sexism in the worst way, and trying to actually make it legal to discriminate against a minority.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
I love how people that are for gay marriage love to preach respect for people's opinions, and accepting people for who they are....

But when someone has an opinion different from them, no matter if its based on faith, morals, whatever, those people are wrong and they are bigots and haters for having that opionion.

The true hypocrites are those that can't accept the fact that some (and by the votes, a majority) people think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Not sure whether it was addressed to me. Anywayz, first I never said that I was pro gay marriages. The term "old ladies" I used - or generally ppl imposing their views based on their morals or faith - I never said they were wrong - I again do not operate with such terms - they are just ppl I personally can't stand - exactly like I can't stand the militant homosexuals imposing their values upon me.

No, it wasn't, just a case of you being the last post for me to reply to!

That's what I figured. LOL

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
The true hypocrites are those that can't accept the fact that some (and by the votes, a majority) people think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

The overall point IMO is that the definition of marriage is based on opinion instead of any fact that concludes that a gay marriage is somehow degredational to this country's well being in some way. And although yes there are many who say that a marriage is between a man and a woman, they have no right to infringe on the rights of another person who thinks differently based on sexual preference. That is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
The true hypocrites are those that can't accept the fact that some (and by the votes, a majority) people think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Thinking a marriage should be between a man and a woman is an opinion. Trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment BANNING it is another.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
I love how people that are for gay marriage love to preach respect for people's opinions, and accepting people for who they are....

But when someone has an opinion different from them, no matter if its based on faith, morals, whatever, those people are wrong and they are bigots and haters for having that opionion.

The true hypocrites are those that can't accept the fact that some (and by the votes, a majority) people think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

I'm pretty sure no one here has claimed that those who believe as you do about heterosexual marriage are bigots and haters because of it.

But there could be a consititutional case made to that affect, if you try to deny gays their civil rights, on the basis of their sexual orientation.

And I also believe that one could successfully argue that a civil right is not a matter to be decided by popular vote.

If it was, the majority could potentially be dictating with impunity how virtually every minority should live; and those minorities would be without recourse.

It is in the very nature of civil rights that they should not be determined by the vagaries of the vote. How many amendments in the bill of rights were enacted for exaclty this reason. Most of them were relatively unpopular in their time, and it was difficult; but ultimately they have all proven to be the right thing to do.

I believe that gay marriage is being viewed today in much the same way that interracial marriages once were; and that the road to acceptance will be similarily difficult and just as inevitable.

Marriage is not a civil right; it is a right givin by laws, which were enacted by the people of this country. And I am leaving religous marriage out of that.

What are laws, if they aren't the people of this country's moral values and belief systems set on paper, and enforced by the courts?

If an overwhelming majority of people in this country feel that it is wrong to allow them to marry, why should they be allowed to impose their will on us? I am against gay marriage, civil unions, or whatver. Call me what you want, and I know I will get a $hit storm for this as I have in the past on here, but I think being gay is wrong based on moral and religious reasons, so sorry if I offend any of the live and let live, fell good'ers on here. Traditional values have been under constant attack in this country and I am glad that for once it was defended.

Just as it's someone's right to be gay, it's someone's else's right to not agree with it.

But it's nobody's right to take your freedoms away from you because you're gay.

Originally posted by svtcarboy:
While I was disappointed with the voters in those 11 states for adding hate and discrimination into their Constitutions, reading this thread has left me bewildered.

I truly do not understand why people oppose gay marriage. Allowing homosexuals to make the commitment that too many heterosexuals take for granted does not have any effect on heterosexuals. Your marriage is suddenly not any less than it was, it is not preventing you from doing anything or affecting you in any way. It only allows gay and lesbian people equal access to a social institution.

Calling a homosexual couple a "civil union" while calling a heterosexual couple a "marriage" is the same as sending black children and white children to two different schools. Even if they are identical, they are not equal. This premise was ruled on by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board, and applies to all governmental institutions, including marriage.

The slippery slope of polygamous marriage (totally different type of commitment) or of close relatives (potential for biological harm) are unrelated to removing gender discrimination in giving lifelong commitments equal billing.

I will only consider the term "civil union" acceptable and equal if all heterosexual commitments of the same type are given the same name.

I am not asking anyone to approve of gays or of gay marriage. You can hate it as much as you want, call me names on the street, whatever. I am not hurting you in any way or affecting you in any way by getting married. However, you are harming me when you put additional roadblocks between me and my right to marry the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.

And the carboy speaks!

Being a practicing Catholic, my views are slightly contradictory. Marriage is a holy sacrament between a Catholic man and woman as I belive. However, this is where separation of church and state come in. I support the legal union of couples whether heterosexual or gay. As the government has decided it is okay to use the term "marriage" for heterosexual legal partnerships it is only fitting therefore that the same term for all couples to legally come together.

It all comes down to a definition of the word "marriage," which has lost its original meaning among today's society. Personally I would consider all non-religious "married" couples to be simply under "civil union" relationships, but as the government has decided to associate the word "marriage" to those relationships I see absolutely no reason why gay couples should not legally "marry" in the terms of the government. The difference between common-law "marriage" and "civil union" if passed will yield results exactly as James says: separate.

FWIW - As for my religious views on homosexual relationships, that is another debate.

(I personally am at constant moral dilemma as to whether I do or do not support it given recent information and findings versus traditional views and age-old facts.) Regardless of religious (or even moral) views though, legal views are an entirely separate matter and should be treated as such. And I do have gay friends.

Originally posted by R_G:

Originally posted by Fat Mike:
I challenge anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong, to actually go out and become friends with a gay person. They're some of the coolest and most sincere people I know.

Ohhhhhh, pweeeeeeeeeaze, they are the same as all other ppl - cool and uncool, pleasant and unpleasant, greedy and generous, nasty and good-hearted. They are the most sincere people? Generally speaking - lemme ask you, how on Earth can you jump to conclusions based on your personal friendship with several Oregon homosexuals? Maybe you lucked in by having met only "coolest and most sincere" ones? Besides, Mike, u r like churning out/operating in absolute terms - the ppl u personally consider as the most sincere might seem exactly opposite to somebody else.

I guess that by labeling homosexuals in the way u did - u r not stepping far away from narrow-minded anti-homosexuals bumper stickers carrying old ladies.

I never said they were all cool and sincere, hence my usage of the word some. Some gay people I know annoy the hell out of me, but so do plenty of straight people. I just don't hang out with them then - but I don't try to take away their rights or tell them how to act. I'm simply stating that people shouldn't be afraid to get to know gay people. Also, as I have stated many times before, I'm not asking anyone to accept homosexual lifestyles - if you think they're wrong, then that's your choice. But I think it's really wrong that people opposed to it are so willing to change our constitution to take away rights from them. I don't see how those are absolute statements.

I think a lot of the opposition doesn't look at gay people as actual people, based on the fact that many of them avoid friendships with them. Our constitution was created to give rights to people and to protect our freedoms - not take them away from us.

Quote:

If an overwhelming majority of people in this country feel that it is wrong to allow them to marry, why should they be allowed to impose their will on us?

Just because the majority thinks a certain way, doesn't make discrimination right. We shouldn't have to vote on whether or not these people can marry. They're not imposing their will on anyone but themselves. You're the one imposing your will/beliefs on them. It doesn't effect you in any way if they get married.

"gays forcing their beliefs on me.."

That's the most asenine, ignorant thing I've read here all year.

Since when has a gay person confronted you and told you to start dating another dude? They're forcing their beliefs on you? Have you been watching too much Bravo or something? Talk about blatant homophobia.

Accepting opinions and respecting people does not strip our ability to have our own views on the opinions and actions of people.

However, it is hard to accept what you do not understand. I am utterly bewildered by the fact that so many people oppose same-sex marriage, and that people truly believe allowing gays and lesbians to marry has any impact on them or their lives.

Calling the amendments banning gay marriage bigotry and hatred (which I truly believe they are) does not mean I am calling the people who voted for it bigots and haters. This is the same as being able to hate what your child does while still loving them with the entire depth of your being.

How are gay people getting married imposing their will on anyone else and impacting anyone else? Heterosexuals will still be able to do and be everything they can do or be today.

Since there is no impact or harm to those outside the marriage, people can disapprove of the gay marriage as much as they want (like what can happen with straight marriages), but there is no right to deny gays equal access to marriage.

People can hold all the values they want, but they have no business to restrict the rights of others because of it when they are not impacted by it.

And what if a guy wants to marry 20 women. Or a horse. Or... I know those are extreme, but that's the point some people are making. It opens door for stuff. I think a civil would be ok. Marriage, by common definition, is The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife (dictionary.com). I'm not into changing long long standing traditions, especially ones that mean something to me.

I was pretty pissed to see that UT passed their anti-gay marriage ban, too. Here's my take on it:

1) Since it's discriminating against gays, the law-makers decided to make it look fair and add in some clause against common-law marriages, too. It passed only because the people saw "Gay Marriage" and got scared. Not enough consideration was taken into the other clauses.

2) Too many people confuse being gay as being perverse. Newsflash! Every gay man that walks by you didn't just check you out, and doesn't want to hump you!

Our manly insecurities are blinding us.

3) The stuff about other special interest groups jumping in is BS. Do you think poligamists really think it's right, or are they just horny?

4) The worst part about this fu*(ing ammendment is that it's now written into law that it's legal to descriminate againts someone because of their sexual preference. Rights have been denied based solely on sexual preference.

5) Edit: I'll remove this for the time-being.

Ok, I'm done ranting for now.

The fears of the slippery slope have no basis. The commitment remains the same, with a person choosing to enter a commitment with the person (s)he wants to spend the rest of their lives together.

Polygamy is not in the issue because it involves more than two consenting adults and completely changes the nature of the commitment and the relationship. Marrying an animal is completely different as animals are not able to express legal consent to any action.

People are spreading fear and paranoia as propaganda tools against gay marriage. They make no logical sense.

James, I'm asking for your opinion on this:

Originally posted by Davo:
I'm all for legal recognition of homosexual relationships. Anything less than that would be discrimination. I don't understand why the homosexual community puts so much emphasis on beoming heterosexuals. This is analagous to the feminists basing the success of their movement on how much more like men they can become. If homosexuals put as much energy into building the prestige and significance of their relationships as they put into trying to become part of a historically and socially heterosexual institution, they would advance much further towards 'equality'.

Originally posted by JaTo:
I think a change of language and a better conceptual definition of what "marriage" and "civil unions" really are would help both sides come to a solution...

I whole-heartedly agree.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
And what if a guy wants to marry 20 women. Or a horse. Or... I know those are extreme, but that's the point some people are making. It opens door for stuff. I think a civil would be ok. Marriage, by common definition, is The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife (dictionary.com). I'm not into changing long long standing traditions, especially ones that mean something to me.

Did giving women the right to vote open the door to household pets getting voting rights?

Of course not. And it's absolutely ignorant to even go down that slippery slope.

For hundreds if not thousands of years the concept of a divorce didn't exist -- we sure didn't mind altering the widespread traditional values and meaning of a marriage for that. Amazing how when something is convenient to people their opinion on it changes.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Just as it's someone's right to be gay, it's someone's else's right to not agree with it.

...and it's my goddamn right to make a law that descriminates against you because I don't agree with it.

I think divorce has existed longer than you think, atleast in some cultures.

I don't consider wanting to be able to marry wanting to become heterosexual. I'll be honest, I know of gays that want the term "civil union" used over "marriage". However, I have seen issues historically and within language of having the two as truly the same and equal.

I look at it as removing an artificial gender restriction on the exact same commitment. Since it is the same commitment, it should be known by the same title.

Feminism had substantial forays into the theory of androgyny (think Virginia Woolf), of having what is actually a genderless society. Also, as women were often objectified based on physical attributes (stating from the feminist point of view), they attempted to break away from having the attributes to objectify. Not to mention the considerable overlap with lesbians...

Originally posted by svtcarboy:
The fears of the slippery slope have no basis. The commitment remains the same, with a person choosing to enter a commitment with the person (s)he wants to spend the rest of their lives together.

Polygamy is not in the issue because it involves more than two consenting adults and completely changes the nature of the commitment and the relationship. Marrying an animal is completely different as animals are not able to express legal consent to any action.

People are spreading fear and paranoia as propaganda tools against gay marriage. They make no logical sense.

animal yeah... polygamy well if they all consent. i mean come on can't deny them that if they all love each other. it Is same commiment, just between multiple people together.

Kremit - I don't think that's really an issue. Do you think that letting homosexuals marry will really let the floodgates open and a bunch of perverse animal-lovers and polygamists are going to storm capitol hill? Honestly, do you think that's going to be a consequence?

Not animal (atleast not flood, crazy folk tho probably do something) but polygamy yes, it's quite possible. But again, marriage has a definition. To me, by definition, gays can't be married.

Man, I just can't see polygamists becoming an issue in our lifetime. Either way, I think your concerns are clouding the issue.

polygamy has already been an issue, before, this will open door for it agian.

and yes i'm sure my concerns cloud the issue, that's what people vote with is their concerns.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I think divorce has existed longer than you think, atleast in some cultures.

Yes. Yes it has. But if you want to suddenly be inclusive of the definitions that other cultures use because it's convenient (exactly what my point was) why do you get to pick and choose what parts of what definitions you want to accept?

Originally posted by sigma:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I think divorce has existed longer than you think, atleast in some cultures.

Yes. Yes it has. But if you want to suddenly be inclusive of the definitions that other cultures because it's convenient (exactly what my point was) why do you get to pick and choose what parts of what definitions you want to accept?

I went with dictionary.com most ocmmonly used definitoin.

A definition that has changed throughout the years.

Originally posted by sigma:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I think divorce has existed longer than you think, atleast in some cultures.

Yes. Yes it has. But if you want to suddenly be inclusive of the definitions that other cultures use because it's convenient (exactly what my point was) why do you get to pick and choose what parts of what definitions you want to accept?

Because its his opinion, and his beliefs.

Originally posted by sigma:
A definition that has changed throughout the years.

Since when did it change? I think it's been purdy consistent.

Originally posted by 98 SE:

Originally posted by svtcarboy:
While I was disappointed with the voters in those 11 states for adding hate and discrimination into their Constitutions, reading this thread has left me bewildered.

I truly do not understand why people oppose gay marriage. Allowing homosexuals to make the commitment that too many heterosexuals take for granted does not have any effect on heterosexuals. Your marriage is suddenly not any less than it was, it is not preventing you from doing anything or affecting you in any way. It only allows gay and lesbian people equal access to a social institution.

Calling a homosexual couple a "civil union" while calling a heterosexual couple a "marriage" is the same as sending black children and white children to two different schools. Even if they are identical, they are not equal. This premise was ruled on by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board, and applies to all governmental institutions, including marriage.

The slippery slope of polygamous marriage (totally different type of commitment) or of close relatives (potential for biological harm) are unrelated to removing gender discrimination in giving lifelong commitments equal billing.

I will only consider the term "civil union" acceptable and equal if all heterosexual commitments of the same type are given the same name.

I am not asking anyone to approve of gays or of gay marriage. You can hate it as much as you want, call me names on the street, whatever. I am not hurting you in any way or affecting you in any way by getting married. However, you are harming me when you put additional roadblocks between me and my right to marry the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.

And the carboy speaks!

Being a practicing Catholic, my views are slightly contradictory. Marriage is a holy sacrament between a Catholic man and woman as I belive. However, this is where separation of church and state come in. I support the legal union of couples whether heterosexual or gay. As the government has decided it is okay to use the term "marriage" for heterosexual legal partnerships it is only fitting therefore that the same term for all couples to legally come together.

It all comes down to a definition of the word "marriage," which has lost its original meaning among today's society. Personally I would consider all non-religious "married" couples to be simply under "civil union" relationships, but as the government has decided to associate the word "marriage" to those relationships I see absolutely no reason why gay couples should not legally "marry" in the terms of the government. The difference between common-law "marriage" and "civil union" if passed will yield results exactly as James says: separate.

FWIW - As for my religious views on homosexual relationships, that is another debate. (I personally am at constant moral dilemma as to whether I do or do not support it given recent information and findings versus traditional views and age-old facts.) Regardless of religious (or even moral) views though, legal views are an entirely separate matter and should be treated as such. And I do have gay friends.

I for one applaud you for being able to separate your religious beliefs from your opinions on how laws should be made in our country. If only more people would keep such an open and level head about this as you have shown we might not have any of these issues.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by sigma:
A definition that has changed throughout the years.

Since when did it change? I think it's been purdy consistent.

Years ago you would never have seen the word "legal" in the definition of "marriage". There was a time when you may have seen the phrase "lifelong committment" in that definition, but we striked that out of there because it didn't fit our modern idea of what a marriage is anymore.

And, amazingly, dictionary.com has "a union between two persons" (such as a same sex marriage) also as the definition of marriage. So apparently even your vaunted dictionary.com recognizes them as such.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
To me, by definition, gays can't be married.

I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just trying to convey a point here. (Forget the polygamy stuff. I don't know and/or care enough about it right now).

Definition - A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term...(dictionary.com)

So, if the meaning of marriage to me differs from the meaning of marriage to someone else, who's to say what's right?
If the meaning of the term "marriage" differs between me and another person, is the meaning it has to me wrong?

When I get married, I don't think the meaning of my marriage will be altered whether or not gays can marry.

oo no not change your meaning of marriage,, but the meaning yes...

sigma,, most commoon definiteiion, meaning what is commonly accepted, not abscure... is legal between man and women. Yes there are other definitions that can be interpreted hazily.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
oo no not change your meaning of marriage,, but the meaning yes...

are you trying to differentiate between "mine," "your," and "the" meaning of marriage?

Quote:

sigma,, most commoon definiteiion, meaning what is commonly accepted, not abscure... is legal between man and women. Yes there are other definitions that can be interpreted hazily.

Hey, I'm using your source. The #1 Definition -- "A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. "

Originally posted by sigma:

Quote:

sigma,, most commoon definiteiion, meaning what is commonly accepted, not abscure... is legal between man and women. Yes there are other definitions that can be interpreted hazily.

Hey, I'm using your source. The #1 Definition -- "A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. "

that is D, A (i.e. most used) is The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Originally posted by Derk2000:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
oo no not change your meaning of marriage,, but the meaning yes...

are you trying to differentiate between "mine," "your," and "the" meaning of marriage?

Well there is a difference. Everything means different things to everyone one of us. The=by the dictionary.

I think we've sunk to new lows on the issue when all we have left is arguing over which definition of marriage is "more" correct.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by sigma:

Quote:

sigma,, most commoon definiteiion, meaning what is commonly accepted, not abscure... is legal between man and women. Yes there are other definitions that can be interpreted hazily.

Hey, I'm using your source. The #1 Definition -- "A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. "

that is D, A (i.e. most used) is The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Do you really think that the sub-letters correspond to "most used"? So the further down you go the more "hazy" things get? Is this what they teach you in GA schools?

I feel like I should take offense that you think my marriage to my wife which is common-law is further down the list at (C) and must be a little more "hazy" than your chosen definition.

Originally posted by Freakshow:
I think we've sunk to new lows on the issue when all we have left is arguing over which definition of marriage is "more" correct.

I guess I'm just trying to point out that the definition of the term is relative, so why should one group of people be able to define it for someone else?

Sure, it took a lot of posts...

Originally posted by sigma:

Do you really think that the sub-letters correspond to "most used"? So the further down you go the more "hazy" things get? Is this what they teach you in GA schools?

I feel like I should take offense that you think my marriage to my wife which is common-law is further down the list at (C) and must be a little more "hazy" than your chosen definition.

They didn't teahc me anything down here.

Umm common law, that means it's legal right? U'r marriage has more than one letter u know, including a.

Yeah this has gotten way off from what i originally meant.

Quote:

Umm common law, that means it's legal right? U'r marriage has more than one letter u know, including a.

Wait a second... you mean "marriage" can have more than one definition? Even to the same person? I'm actually A, B, C and D.

No way?! Really? I can be all those at once?

I'm glad you see things our way now, Kremit.

Yeah, I already saw it that way. Gay marriage still isn't A. Man if I was a politician, can you imagine me saying my position on it. "Refer to definition A".

No, gay marriage isn't "A". But this isn't like a test where you have to meet all 4 definitions. By definition, and I'm just using the source that you brought up, if any one of those 4 are met it is a "marriage". I can be (B) and not (A) or be (C) and not necessarily fit into (B)... so why does a (D) have to meet (A) too?

The point is that the world isn't black and white. And you can't fit everyone and everything into neat little columns. It just doesn't work.

True, doesn't stop me from feeling the way I do, including A.

I pick E: You're all nuts!

Just make sure you completely fill in the bubble with your No. 2 pencil and don't leave any stray marks on your answer sheet or you might be labeled a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" If you finish your test early we suggest you go back and check all of your answers thoroughly.

NOTE: TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IT'S 2:33 IN THE MORNING...

Man, you guys...

I wonder sometimes if y'all remember that this is wholly a car forum.

Anywho, I tried (really I did) to stay out of this thread and the political election thread, but this has gotten under my skin enough to generate a reply.

The bottom line is that a majority of America is still heterosexual. I don't believe that there is any specific "reason", so to speak, that there aren't more homosexuals in this country, or that the right to be granted the same rights as a heterosexual marriage exists at the present time.

Based upon my religion, I don't believe gays should have the right to use the term "marriage". In all essence, it boils down to this so called discrimination, which is a load of hoagey to start with. For all I know, gays could want to use the word "marriage" because it's longer than the word "union". Forgive my short-sightedness, but you can ask me why I feel this way, and the only answer I will provide is "because I just do." It's how a majority of the baby-boomers in age were raised. They've passed it down to our generation. Marriage equals a man and a woman. Perhaps this is just a milestone in the never-ending road of evolution.

However, this isn't a slash against homosexuals in general. They aren't much different than any other group of people in the world. I respect them as any other human being. They still have the same organs inside them and the same blood coursing through their veins. I just don't see how people can fling around the word "discrimination" so carelessly though. What if we took all the long "bling" chains, rap music and 26 inch rims away from the black community, saying it provokes violence? Or maybe Gothic people shouldn't be allowed to wear black because it reminds other Christians of Satan.

It will never end. For every opinion that each one of you posts (and they are ALL opinions) there will be somebody else out there to counter it with their own opinion. Nothing in this entire thread is factual, save for the way the voting turned out.

Take a look around. There's segregation all over this world, and it will never leave. Gays and straights. As an example, I went back to my high school today to meet with an old Trigonometry teacher. I took a peek inside the lunch room and it was the same as it was last year. All the blacks sitting together. All the "preps" sitting together. All the Gothic people by themselves in their own little dedicated corner. It hasn't changed and I don't believe there's a very high chance of it changing in the future.

All I can say with confidence is that the coming years are going to be very interesting...

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
polygamy has already been an issue, before, this will open door for it agian.

and yes i'm sure my concerns cloud the issue, that's what people vote with is their concerns.

Will you show me some research or sources that support your argument that gay marriage will "open the doors for polygamy"? You're the first person I've encountered who has tried to use that as an argument. Please, enlighten me.

For the people for Gay Marriages;

I am for Gay Marriages; it will not affect how I and my fianc�?© view each other when we get married.

I just want the same rights as Gays. In the state of Cali, Homosexuals and their partners can claim themselves as life partners and get the same rights as people married, Insurance coverage being the biggest advantage, but me and my fianc�?© can not. Tell me how that is right.

Thanks,

Myfastse

Originally posted by Fat Mike:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
polygamy has already been an issue, before, this will open door for it agian.

and yes i'm sure my concerns cloud the issue, that's what people vote with is their concerns.

Will you show me some research or sources that support your argument that gay marriage will "open the doors for polygamy"? You're the first person I've encountered who has tried to use that as an argument. Please, enlighten me.

Research? NOpe , jsut think about it.

There will be no research, we've never been through this situation in the past.. But once you show people that you will give in, others will come and try to do the same with other things. I don't think kermits idea of a threesome trying to get married is far off. I don't think marriage should be redefined. I have no problem with gay people but if they want to be legally recognized it should not be marriage. If the majority of people don't want to redefine the term marriage then why the hell should we?! That would directly affect all of us, not just gay people. Call it a Civil Union? Sure i'm fine with that. It just seems like people are fighting so hard to redefine marriage but for what reason? Why not just focus to get a "civil union" and not piss the rest of the world off.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by Fat Mike:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
polygamy has already been an issue, before, this will open door for it agian.

and yes i'm sure my concerns cloud the issue, that's what people vote with is their concerns.

Will you show me some research or sources that support your argument that gay marriage will "open the doors for polygamy"? You're the first person I've encountered who has tried to use that as an argument. Please, enlighten me.

Research? NOpe , jsut think about it.

Yeah, I have, I'm waiting for you to actually think about it. Polygomy has been going on since the beginning of human culture: source

Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with polygamy. Trying to use that as an argument against it is a weak cop out for not having any other solid argument against it. And Kremit, just a couple weeks ago you posted this:

Quote:

My fiffy cent: I don't think what we FEEL is right or wrong should be forced on others. I don't think gays should marry. Heck, I don't think ppl should be gay. But that's what i think, it's not for me to force onto others. Also, I believe in God and believe it's up to Him, ultimately, to decide what is right and wrong. No need to have it in written law, the day comes for each of us in which we must come before the Lord,,, let the judgement be then.

Something bad happen to you lately, buddy? Why such a change of heart in such a short time?

Quote:

There will be no research, we've never been through this situation in the past.. But once you show people that you will give in, others will come and try to do the same with other things. I don't think kermits idea of a threesome trying to get married is far off. I don't think marriage should be redefined. I have no problem with gay people but if they want to be legally recognized it should not be marriage. If the majority of people don't want to redefine the term marriage then why the hell should we?! That would directly affect all of us, not just gay people. Call it a Civil Union? Sure i'm fine with that. It just seems like people are fighting so hard to redefine marriage but for what reason? Why not just focus to get a "civil union" and not piss the rest of the world off.

Once again, Polygamy is nothing new. It is not the issue at hand right now, and has nothing do to with gay marriage. And actually, a majority of the people DID decide to redefine marriage in our constitution by passing this measure. People for gay marriage didn't want to change the constitution in the first place to define marriage - they just wanted the chance to at least leave the topic open for debate.

Civil unions do not provide the same protection as marriage. Civil unions do not even exist for gays and lesbians, at least in Oregon. With the passing of this measure, we have no assurance that the legislature will even pass anything setting up civil unions. This measure is discrimination. It has plain and simply taken away rights from people of different sexual orientation. And I'm sure the second they would try to introduce civil unions for gays and lesbians, the same people opposed to gay marriage would get upset and do anything in their power to prevent them from achieving any sort of rights.

Gay marriage only effects gay people who wish to marry each other. It doesn't change any aspect of your life. Why is letting them have rights and freedom so far out of the question? Who the hell are we to decide what's best for their personal lives?

It seems we have collectively moved past the separation of state and church issue to focus on 2 key questions.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Marriage is not a civil right; it is a right givin by laws, which were enacted by the people of this country. And I am leaving religous marriage out of that. What are laws, if they aren't the people of this country's moral values and belief systems set on paper, and enforced by the courts?

Is marriage (civil union) a right? If not a right, what then â�?��?? a priviledge? Maybe the precedent has already been set to deny such a thing on the basis of a personal attribute. Maybe itâ�?��?�s just like a driverâ�?��?�s license and there can be any number of reasons to deny you one.

Perhaps marriage is a privilege to be earned by passing a test â�?��?? age (already there), income, housing status, health, intelligence â�?��?? these could all be really good criteria to assess your legal eligibility for marriage. Then of course you get into the trickier stuff that is typically considered civil rights issues â�?��?? race, gender, and religion. Is sexual orientation a personal attribute in the same way race and gender are, or is it more like having poor eyesight, bad driving skills, or a prior bad record?

Perhaps even that question doesnâ�?��?�t matter â�?��?? because even when it comes to civil privileges, there is no discrimination allowed on the basis of race, gender and religion â�?��?? and, as it is in most western countries today, sexual orientation.

The essence of the question is â�?�¦ is sexual orientation a legal criterion to discriminate?

SLIPPERY SLOPE: Personally I find it hard to understand how you can equate recognizing gay marriage to opening the door to legalized polygamy or any from of marriage. Issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples doesnâ�?��?�t mean you then must issue marriage license to a man and two women.

I think whatâ�?��?�s interesting, however, is that if you look at the precedents that have just been set by these amendments, that is in fact the precipice of the slippery slope. By putting the definition of marriage to a vote at the state level, you now in fact open the door to other redefinitions.

If, for example, the majority of people in Utah wanted to redefine marriage as being between one man and any number of women, there is now a clear precedent to do so. I would argue that the slippery slope to polygamy has already been created by the amendments themselves.

And perhaps other states will find other ways to redefine marriage â�?�¦ maybe limiting it to those of certain financial means, or health, or prior record â�?��?? all of which are current legal criteria to discriminate for the purposes of civil privileges.

If you accept the statesâ�?��?� legal right to define marriage in a discriminatory way (re: drivers license), you then accept the possibility that at some point you yourself may not qualify â�?��?? because if it isnâ�?��?�t a right for some people, then it isnâ�?��?�t a right for anyone.

Originally posted by Derk2000:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Just as it's someone's right to be gay, it's someone's else's right to not agree with it.

...and it's my goddamn right to make a law that descriminates against you because I don't agree with it.

Well then let me make it clear that I will be the first one creating a law against white people coming in my neighborhood because I don't agree with white people either. How logical does that sound?

You're a homophobe and that's fine, you don't have to like it. But there are no 1st or 2nd or 3rd class citizens in this country, if you earned it, you deserve to have your freedoms and no majority can take that from you.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Not animal (atleast not flood, crazy folk tho probably do something) but polygamy yes, it's quite possible. But again, marriage has a definition. To me, by definition, gays can't be married.

And again... the point is... why is that your business anyways??! Are you not secure in your sexuality enough that you just might go down the animal route if tempted?

Where I or anybody else decide to put their dick is none of your business. Period.

Lev 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

- That settles it.

Originally posted by Corbett:
Lev 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

- That settles it.

Not quite.

That just opens up a whole new can of jelly for the rest of this place to go postal over.

Originally posted by Corbett:
Lev 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

- That settles it.

I don't believe in your Bible. That does not settle it.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

And so I take my previous post and rest my case.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Corbett:
Lev 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

- That settles it.

I don't believe in your Bible. That does not settle it.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Which is exactly why you believe in Gay rights. You have no base for your moral beliefs.

Originally posted by SAV-ZX2:
it boils down to this so called discrimination, which is a load of hoagey to start with.
... I just don't see how people can fling around the word "discrimination" so carelessly though.

...There's segregation all over this world, and it will never leave. Gays and straights. As an example, I went back to my high school today to meet with an old Trigonometry teacher. I took a peek inside the lunch room and it was the same as it was last year. All the blacks sitting together. All the "preps" sitting together. All the Gothic people by themselves in their own little dedicated corner. It hasn't changed and I don't believe there's a very high chance of it changing in the future.

First of all, how can you say discrimination is a load of anything? The move to ban gay marriage (let's also note that they're trying to ban something before it's possible!) is nothing but blatant discrimination against the entire gay community. Whether or not you "agree on people being gay" (which IS a load of crap- so many people still see it as a choice) it does NOT mean that you should strip away a right.

You people want to say "What happens when you start allowing gay marrige?" Well, what happens when you start banning it? Who else doesn't get the right to marry? Anyone under 30? Over 50? White? Black? Asian? Where does it stop?

And your example of the lunchroom holds no water. There is a stark difference between a group of like-minded people. They hang out because they have similar interest, NOT because they're forced to by any rule or law. That's not segregation, that's gravitation.

So

You're making the claim that those who aren't Christian have no moral beliefs?

What about the KKK?

What about the Southerners who stood up for making black people sit in the back of the bus?

Don't criticize me with your red-neck adgenda. I feed the poor on Thanksgiving. I do volunteer work. My family business helps underprivileged families get their kids into preschool with government assistance. I probably do more good and show more morality than most of the Christians bother doing in a lifetime.

Pardon me for thinking with my brain instead of following what some book tells me to do.

Originally posted by Corbett:
Which is exactly why you believe in Gay rights. You have no base for your moral beliefs.

Actually, according to what Jesus taught, we should love people regardless of them being gay or straight. We should love each other, and whatever is done "wrong" is up for God to decide.

I love the bastardization of religion to allow discrimination. It's a wonderful thing.

If you want to be technical, our morals are FAR stronger than yours.

this country is following the steps of the Roman Empire.

That is all. Thank you.

Originally posted by RTStabler51:
this country is following the steps of the Roman Empire.

That is all. Thank you.

Absolutely.

Originally posted by bishop375:

Originally posted by Corbett:
Which is exactly why you believe in Gay rights. You have no base for your moral beliefs.

Actually, according to what Jesus taught, we should love people regardless of them being gay or straight.

That's crap.

Find me a passage where homosexuals existed back in Jesus' day. Back then, it was so minute that He didn't bother touching on it.

Originally posted by Corbett:
Lev 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

- That settles it.

Sounds pretty obvious to me. How about you?

And no, he never said ANYThing specific. Why? Because he was teaching love and tolerance for our fellow man. Wait, he didn't say our fellow woman. Show me a specific passage where women existed back in Jesus' time.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you, love thy enemies (and thy neighbor), let those of you without sin cast the first stone. Sounds like it should all be about tolerance to me.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
So

You're making the claim that those who aren't Christian have no moral beliefs?

What about the KKK?

What about the Southerners who stood up for making black people sit in the back of the bus?

Don't criticize me with your red-neck adgenda. I feed the poor on Thanksgiving. I do volunteer work. My family business helps underprivileged families get their kids into preschool with government assistance. I probably do more good and show more morality than most of the Christians bother doing in a lifetime.

No, I am saying they have no base for their moral beliefs. Where else would you get them from?

And I am not suggesting that the KKK or any racist group is justified. In fact, I am stongly against them.

Red-neck agenda? How can that be? I'm from Detroit. That's great you do all the great things but its sad there are no Christians in your life that are a good example for you. Hopefully one day that will change.

Originally posted by SAV-ZX2:

Originally posted by bishop375:

Originally posted by Corbett:
Which is exactly why you believe in Gay rights. You have no base for your moral beliefs.

Actually, according to what Jesus taught, we should love people regardless of them being gay or straight.

That's crap.

Find me a passage where homosexuals existed back in Jesus' day. Back then, it was so minute that He didn't bother touching on it.

So Jesus loved everbody except.... gays, Jews, Muslims, non-Christians? That's BS.

Originally posted by Corbett:
Lev 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

- That settles it.

And u don't wear clothes made of wool and cotton. U also never work on Sabath, right?

Originally posted by Corbett:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
So

You're making the claim that those who aren't Christian have no moral beliefs?

What about the KKK?

What about the Southerners who stood up for making black people sit in the back of the bus?

Don't criticize me with your red-neck adgenda. I feed the poor on Thanksgiving. I do volunteer work. My family business helps underprivileged families get their kids into preschool with government assistance. I probably do more good and show more morality than most of the Christians bother doing in a lifetime.

No, I am saying they have no base for their moral beliefs. Where else would you get them from?

And I am not suggesting that the KKK or any racist group is justified. In fact, I am stongly against them.

Red-neck agenda? How can that be? I'm from Detroit. That's great you do all the great things but its sad there are no Christians in your life that are a good example for you. Hopefully one day that will change.

You have NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

My ancestors were the FIRST Mexican Methodist Missionaries EVER. My family is deeply rooted in the Methodist and Catholic religions. We also know the meaning of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE which apparently Evangelical Christians have forgotten about completely.

And what does being Christian automatically qualify you to be a good person?!??! Charles Manson was Christian! Hitler was Christian! Intelligence was wasted on you.

Originally posted by bishop375:

Originally posted by Corbett:
Which is exactly why you believe in Gay rights. You have no base for your moral beliefs.

Actually, according to what Jesus taught, we should love people regardless of them being gay or straight. We should love each other, and whatever is done "wrong" is up for God to decide.

I love the bastardization of religion to allow discrimination. It's a wonderful thing.

If you want to be technical, our morals are FAR stronger than yours.

One of the things I find funny from the religious perspective his how "christians" will quote the hell out of the old testament but ignore the new. The old testament also talked about "eye for an eye" and stoning a man to death for sleeping with another man's wife. This all goes against jesus' teachings and the new testament if you believe in any of that but yet so many religious hypocrites will throw old testament quotes at gays all day long and totally ignore jesus teachings about tolerance and loving one another.

Oh and one other thing. If you truly believe that you are on a higher moral plane simply because you're "religious beliefs" make you so,then I'd pretty much chalk you up to just another mindless puppet who is incapable of thinking for himself/herself.

Excuse me?

Tear through the Old and New Testament. Paul's sermon to the Church of Corinth (Corinthians I or II; can't remember) discusses (in a totally confusing fashion) same-sex relations and of course Genesis, LONG before the time of Jesus, mentions homosexuals as well, or at least what is interpreted as the act of it.

Nobody is saying that it didn't exist back then, not even the Bible...

Originally posted by JaTo:
Excuse me?

Tear through the Old and New Testament. Paul's sermon to the Church of Corinth (Corinthians I or II; can't remember) discusses (in a totally confusing fashion) same-sex relations and of course Genesis, LONG before the time of Jesus, mentions homosexuals as well, or at least was is interpreted as the act of it.

Nobody is saying that it didn't exist back then, not even the Bible...

Even Greek and Roman culture was familiar with same-sex relations. In Greek times, if you competed in a wrestling event and lost you became the winner's slave for a day. This is way way way BC.

Beat me to it Jato. Homosexuals have been around pretty much as long as there have been people. Homosexuality was quite prominent in the Roman Empire and in many socities long before that, even well before the "coming of christ"

There's also some things in Exodus I believe about homosexual relations.

I don't really agree with homosexuality but I take a "whatever makes you happy stance on it" What really amazes me is how many completely ignorant people try to speak on the subject and cite "facts" that are total garbage that has been fed to them by their parents, friends, church etc without a single shred of research on their own.

Originally posted by contourGL1996:

Originally posted by Fat Mike:
[begin rant]

I saw two of my gay friends break down in tears last night when they found out measure 36 passed, adding discrimination to our state's constitution. Not a single freaking state rejected these measures. I'm sure God is pleased that all his loving followers have worked so hard to keep our families, children and marriages safe from those dirty queers...

I swear, everytime I see some SUV with a Jesus fish on one side and a "one man, one woman" sticker on the other, I get so damn disgusted. Some middle-aged seacow who has never met a homosexual person in her life thinks it's their Christian duty to prevent "those sick gay people" from trying to have any sort of freedoms or rights. Meanwhile they continue to instruct all their followers about how treating gay people like actual human beings is a sin. It's probably only because gay people can't produce more soldiers for God's army. And only straight marriages can be pure and holy - even while daddy is banging the secretary, mommy is popping valuum and your daughter keeps getting felt up by the youth leader. But at least queers can't marry now because everyone knows they're the ones with the real problems.

Will people ever f*cking realize that they shouldn't try to decide what people can do in their personal lives, and that they shouldn't worry about it because it doesn't effect them?

[end rant]

Sorry, had to vent.

I agree 100%

Well put. This is the saddest thread I have ever read at CEG. It truely shows the close mindedness and stupidity of the U.S. right now. It just blows me away. I guess growing up in close proximity to large cities has opened my mind to reality. I will not allow a book to dictate my beliefs or a guy in a robe to tell me whats best for my family. As I will not let either of these control my government.

My question is... is marriage a legal term or religious term?

Where to begin? I donâ�?��?�t have enough time to quote people on both sides so I will just respond in general.

First, as Jato said, a clear definition of civil union and marriage need to be defined. Perhaps marriage should not be used for legal purposes. Right now, itâ�?��?�s clear that both sides of the argument (generally speaking) are using different definitions. If you are gay or straight and make a legal commitment to your partner, it is a civil union regardless of whether you are catholic, agnostic, jewish, or democratic. If you are married in a church, you are participating in the sacrament of marriage, in addition to being legally united. Essentially, civil union is for everyone, marriage is what it was intended to be, a spiritual union. As far as the language goes, I canâ�?��?�t see how anyone would have a problem with either group saying they are married in laymen type discussions. It would seem silly to think that someone in a civil union would have to classify themselves in the following manner:

Nervous young man with a ring: Emily, blah blah blah, I love you, will you unite with me in a legally binding civil union?
Emily: Huh?

I guess I donâ�?��?�t see what harm there is in gay people calling their union a marriage as long as from a legal sense, they, like everyone else will be civil union.

Fat Mike, I donâ�?��?�t mean to single someone out, but you mentioned mentioned your gay friends. First, if you had friends that werenâ�?��?�t sincere, nice, and generally good people, I wouldnâ�?��?�t see why they would be your friends to begin with. To look at this objectively, you have to step back away from the scenario because by mentioning what great people they are, you are allowing the presentation of your opinion to become clouded. How good of people they are is completely irrelevant to the topic. Whenever anyone resorts to the â�?��?I have many black friendsâ�?�, or â�?��?I have a lot of gay friendsâ�?�, in my opinion you lost the argument before you even started. Itâ�?��?�s almost like responding to an argument with educational qualifications and proceeding to not provide any more data to back your point. Not a personal attack, just something to consider.

Kremit, your argument regarding the slippery slope also has no basis in reality and is completely fear driven. The distinction is extremely simple to make and easily enforced. A civil union cannot involve more than two people because of the economic impact (insurance, social security benefits, legal and custodial battles etc) and laws would remain in place banning incestual marriage because of the medical impact it could have (higher rates of birth defects). Lastly, people wanting to marry cows, cats, chickens, plants, vegetables (no matter how long and hard), or inanimate objects like a favorite cracker (saltine, not some random whitey) would not be allowed to do so because there is no consenting counterpart. I think svtcarboy did a pretty good job despite his obvious biases.

Sandmann, I know your military background has probably allowed you to do some traveling. Having said that, I must question your comments about the American family structure. Were you referring to the family while the country was being structured, or what it is now? From my experience, I do not see the US as having a very family based society, in fact, I have seen quite the opposite. Statistics I have seen seem to show that gay marriages tend to last longer than straight marriages. I know we are not looking at a statistically significant number compared to straight marriages, but what I have seen makes me believe that gay couples can actually be more dedicated to one another and their family than straight couples. Who knows, maybe gay people are more dedicated because of the social unacceptance. Or maybe they know something us straight people have forgotten about what makes a successful relationship.

Sorry that was so long. Probably didn't even make sense but i don't have time to proofread it right now.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Excuse me?

Tear through the Old and New Testament. Paul's sermon to the Church of Corinth (Corinthians I or II; can't remember) discusses (in a totally confusing fashion) same-sex relations and of course Genesis, LONG before the time of Jesus, mentions homosexuals as well, or at least what is interpreted as the act of it.

Nobody is saying that it didn't exist back then, not even the Bible...

Not only is this true ... consider this:

Ancient Greek culture (hundreds of years before Christ), which was, and continues to be, highly influential as one of the foundations of Western culture, featured open and accepted homosexuality. It was considered a "normal" part of their erotic life; and while some scholars believed it was practised only by the wealthy or elite, the common belief now is that it was simply accepted by all.

Isn't it ironic, that the American concept of goverment was founded within the concepts of democracy of a culture that openly accepted homosexuality?

Originally posted by neelnug:
My question is... is marriage a legal term or religious term?

Both, which has served as one of the major cruxes of the debate.

In reference to the subject line, thank god.

And tell me its not hypocritical to want to call it "marriage", which is an arrangment that was instituted by god in the bible, and in that SAME bible it clearly condemns homosexuality.

If homos want to be together, thats their thing, but don't start calling it "Marriage", because its not. Plain and simple.

The pitfalls for living in a democracy? The gay community has been trying to circumvent the democratic system for some time now by finding sympathetic judges in weak courts. During this they put out documentation saying that the majority of Americans supported gay marriage. If you are gay wouldn't you want a vote on the issue. That is what we do in America.
You would think the whole country was homosexual based on prime-time TV and what the media has pushed on us. If you are gay and want respect from the nation please donâ�?��?�t let the only public persona of homosexuality to be the overly eccentric and effeminate/butch version portrayed on TV. Combine this with a militant drive to force laws on Americans through courts versus letting us vote and of course we have a slanted view of â�?��?these poor people just trying to make itâ�?�.
Why is it that my views are considered to be bigotry and narrow-mindedness? Does being gay give you some sort of insight to how the world should be run that none of the rest of us seems to get?

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
In reference to the subject line, thank god.

And tell me its not hypocritical to want to call it "marriage", which is an arrangment that was instituted by god in the bible, and in that SAME bible it clearly condemns homosexuality.

If homos want to be together, thats their thing, but don't start calling it "Marriage", because its not. Plain and simple.

Your opinion is noted ... but what isn't subject to your opinion is the origins of the concept of marriage - it was part of the human experience long before the bible.

The bible may define marriage for Christians - but that's a far cry from defining marriage for the rest of the non-Christian world, or for that matter, for the purposes of extending civil rights or privileges.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
In reference to the subject line, thank god.

And tell me its not hypocritical to want to call it "marriage", which is an arrangment that was instituted by god in the bible, and in that SAME bible it clearly condemns homosexuality.

If homos want to be together, thats their thing, but don't start calling it "Marriage", because its not. Plain and simple.

People have been getting married without God or bible. No one is obligated to look into the bible when defining their marriage. Especially in legal matters. Otherwise you mind as well ban EVERYTHING that the bible condemns. Resulting in the burning of bill of rights.

Rkneeshaw... Marriage has been defined LONG BEFORE Christ ever existed. Romans practiced marriage as did the Greeks. And Jesus was a Jew and his family was also married. This is not a Christian-original idea, therefore the Christian community cannot take ownership of the institution.

If your church does not want to marry gays, that's well within the bounds of your church to decide, but your church doesn't run the country or my life and I will not abide by its rules.

DESIGN if you have such a problem with gays on TV, change the channel. I have a problem with Brittney Spears showing her ass all day long on TV, so I change the channel. You have a choice. It is immoral to remove someone elses right to choose no matter where they're from.

My earlier statement meant that the homo-sexual community was not exactly represented in the media in a manner that showed them as Americans that just want to get by in the world. It is one of the reason that I do change the channel. I agree with you about the Spears thing.

The laws of America do not give anyone the RIGHT to be married. For that matter it is not a right. The laws of the States simply recongnize an existing institution and the benifits to society by supporting it.

I do not feel threatened by the thought of SSM but it would have detrimental effects on the country as a whole. If you think that it is hard to afford and keep medical benifits now it would be impossible if anyone could be considered a spouse.

Originally posted by Fat Mike:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by Fat Mike:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
polygamy has already been an issue, before, this will open door for it agian.

and yes i'm sure my concerns cloud the issue, that's what people vote with is their concerns.

Will you show me some research or sources that support your argument that gay marriage will "open the doors for polygamy"? You're the first person I've encountered who has tried to use that as an argument. Please, enlighten me.

Research? NOpe , jsut think about it.

Yeah, I have, I'm waiting for you to actually think about it. Polygomy has been going on since the beginning of human culture: source

Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with polygamy. Trying to use that as an argument against it is a weak cop out for not having any other solid argument against it. And Kremit, just a couple weeks ago you posted this:

Quote:

My fiffy cent: I don't think what we FEEL is right or wrong should be forced on others. I don't think gays should marry. Heck, I don't think ppl should be gay. But that's what i think, it's not for me to force onto others. Also, I believe in God and believe it's up to Him, ultimately, to decide what is right and wrong. No need to have it in written law, the day comes for each of us in which we must come before the Lord,,, let the judgement be then.

Something bad happen to you lately, buddy? Why such a change of heart in such a short time?

Gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy but something to do with polygamists getting married. It will open a door to them (and possibly other weird things).

Nothing changed. I'm not trying to force my feelings on anyone. I didn't even vote. I'm just expressing my opinion. Though I believe keeping the law way it was goes with my opinion. I don't believe a constitutional ban is right, I do believe current laws were fine though.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Derk2000:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Just as it's someone's right to be gay, it's someone's else's right to not agree with it.

...and it's my goddamn right to make a law that descriminates against you because I don't agree with it.

Well then let me make it clear that I will be the first one creating a law against white people coming in my neighborhood because I don't agree with white people either. How logical does that sound?

You're a homophobe and that's fine, you don't have to like it. But there are no 1st or 2nd or 3rd class citizens in this country, if you earned it, you deserve to have your freedoms and no majority can take that from you.

Am I creating a law? Wow I didn't know that. But hey, if you feel so strongly against white people in your neighborhood, by all means, go ahead and try to make a law against them. That's your opinion, go for it.

I'm not scared of gay people, I don't get the phobe part of that definition (I know gay people, have no problem interacting with them). I don't agree with homosexuality, that's all. I didn't say there were any second rate citizens. Yes everyone deserves their freedoms, but I don't believe marriage is ANYTHING other than a legal union between MAN and WOMAN. This is just what I believe (well and the majority of america voted same), you don't have to agree with me.

Originally posted by DESIGN:
The laws of the States simply recongnize an existing institution and the benifits to society by supporting it.

Hate to break this to you but gay people are already marrying in their religions and what not, even without the government institution. They are already doing the commitments. We have an existing same-sex marriage institution.

And there is no question that legal marriage's biggest value is the promise and government pressure to committed relationships (divorce requires court action). And there is certainly even more proof that committing to a relationship is sexually healthy.

The bible is not just about the life of christ, it starts from the beginning of man (so long as you beleive in creation). And in that beginning, it was god that said that Adam should take Eve, a woman, as his wife. From then on, it was a bond between a man and a woman, instituted by god; the same god that condemns homosexuality.

Laws of countries and customs of all types of cultures are based on that first marriage.

Now if you don't beleive in the bible and creation, well then do what you want. But marriage, as defined by laws, is based on this religious ceremony from the bible's account of creation. There-in lies the problem.

This is a problem because of failure to seperate church and state when this country was founded. Unfortunately for the homosexuals, this country was founded on christian values which are based on the bible. But at the same time, this country prides itself in being fair and equal to all. Its a problem, but not my position to address it.

I do have a view though, and being christian, I don't want to see homosexuals be called "husband and husband" or whatever. Union, fine, whatever, but dont' be calling it marriage because it is against everything marriage has been defined as.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Not animal (atleast not flood, crazy folk tho probably do something) but polygamy yes, it's quite possible. But again, marriage has a definition. To me, by definition, gays can't be married.

And again... the point is... why is that your business anyways??! Are you not secure in your sexuality enough that you just might go down the animal route if tempted?

Where I or anybody else decide to put their dick is none of your business. Period.

Oo yes I would do many animals.

Umm your right it's not my business unless it's against morals and laws. All our laws are based on morals and it's stupid to try to deny that. Maybe it's not your business if I kill people.

Originally posted by Corbett:
Lev 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

- That settles it.

Doesn't quite settle it for everyone, but yes, this is basis for many people's feelings. It's their right for this to be their basis for how they feel.

Originally posted by DESIGN:
My earlier statement meant that the homo-sexual community was not exactly represented in the media in a manner that showed them as Americans that just want to get by in the world. It is one of the reason that I do change the channel. I agree with you about the Spears thing.

I agree and I wonder why the powers that be in the major networks choose to portray them as such. You and I both know that there are many well respected gay individuals leading companies and serving in government positions that do not deserve the stigma that they get from this type of attention.

Quote:

The laws of America do not give anyone the RIGHT to be married. For that matter it is not a right. The laws of the States simply recongnize an existing institution and the benifits to society by supporting it.

I do not feel threatened by the thought of SSM but it would have detrimental effects on the country as a whole. If you think that it is hard to afford and keep medical benifits now it would be impossible if anyone could be considered a spouse.

But once you start deciding on the basis of race, creed, gender, culture, color, sexual orientation you are violating the American citizens basic civil rights that JFK, Martin Luther King and others fought so hard for. We are supposed to judge people on the basis that they are card carrying American citizens who are supposed to go through the same struggles that each of us goes through every day. As soon as someone starts deciding that some people are more citizen than others, it is discriminization which is unethical and unconstitutional. You can believe in the Bible or the Koraan or the Old Testament or whatever... but if you don't believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you don't belong in this country at all.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
But marriage, as defined by laws, is based on this religious ceremony from the bible's account of creation.

Your local code must be different because the Indiana Code for marriage doesn't mention anything about Adam and Eve, the Bible, or any such requirement to keep marriage laws biblically acceptable.

Originally posted by bishop375:

Originally posted by Corbett:
Which is exactly why you believe in Gay rights. You have no base for your moral beliefs.

Actually, according to what Jesus taught, we should love people regardless of them being gay or straight. We should love each other, and whatever is done "wrong" is up for God to decide.

I love the bastardization of religion to allow discrimination. It's a wonderful thing.

If you want to be technical, our morals are FAR stronger than yours.

Yes we should all love each other. That means don't spit (example) on somebody because of their gender,race,etc. Bible is still says homosexuality is not right. For Christians, we feel we don't have to support homosexuality and are right in doing so. We also can't go out beating up gay people, but we don't have to support what they do or support them marrying as man and woman marry.

Kremit... if you and your family do not participate in the "weird things" then what impact does that have on you? None. I have my opinions too, I don't find same-sex relationships appealing to me personally, but I'm not about to deny someone else their rights because I find it funny. I find white people acting like black people funny, and although I make fun of them internally, I don't stop them from acting like that.

Originally posted by daenku32:

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
But marriage, as defined by laws, is based on this religious ceremony from the bible's account of creation.

Your local code must be different because the Indiana Code for marriage doesn't mention anything about Adam and Eve, the Bible, or any such requirement to keep marriage laws biblically acceptable.

My point was that its the same thing, and based on that. Why would they create a law and say "this law is based on the bible: "? Lets not get silly. Law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. The people that founded this country were christians, and for the most part based their laws on those beliefs. Especially marriage.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by bishop375:

Originally posted by Corbett:
Which is exactly why you believe in Gay rights. You have no base for your moral beliefs.

Actually, according to what Jesus taught, we should love people regardless of them being gay or straight. We should love each other, and whatever is done "wrong" is up for God to decide.

I love the bastardization of religion to allow discrimination. It's a wonderful thing.

If you want to be technical, our morals are FAR stronger than yours.

Yes we should all love each other. That means don't spit (example) on somebody because of their gender,race,etc. Bible is still says homosexuality is not right. For Christians, we feel we don't have to support homosexuality and are right in doing so. We also can't go out beating up gay people, but we don't have to support what they do or support them marrying as man and woman marry.

Kremit, I think for the first time I want to give you a high-five.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Kremit... if you and your family do not participate in the "weird things" then what impact does that have on you? None. I have my opinions too, I don't find same-sex relationships appealing to me personally, but I'm not about to deny someone else their rights because I find it funny. I find white people acting like black people funny, and although I make fun of them internally, I don't stop them from acting like that.

Oo my family doesn't kill people so what impact does murder have on me. We're not rapist. We don't rob people. And where am I stopping a gay person from being gay, no where.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:

Originally posted by daenku32:

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
But marriage, as defined by laws, is based on this religious ceremony from the bible's account of creation.

Your local code must be different because the Indiana Code for marriage doesn't mention anything about Adam and Eve, the Bible, or any such requirement to keep marriage laws biblically acceptable.

My point was that its the same thing, and based on that. Why would they create a law and say "this law is based on the bible: "? Lets not get silly. Law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. The people that founded this country were christians, and for the most part based their laws on those beliefs. Especially marriage.

so essentially what you're saying is forget what Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Scientists and the rest of the denominations want, just do what the Christians want, right?

This is not 1776. This country is not made up of 100% Christians. Stop trying to evangelize your beliefs on others forcefully. This is what gave Christianity a bad rap during the Inquisition and Crusades.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Kremit... if you and your family do not participate in the "weird things" then what impact does that have on you? None. I have my opinions too, I don't find same-sex relationships appealing to me personally, but I'm not about to deny someone else their rights because I find it funny. I find white people acting like black people funny, and although I make fun of them internally, I don't stop them from acting like that.

Oo my family doesn't kill people so what impact does murder have on me. We're not rapist. We don't rob people. And where am I stopping a gay person from being gay, no where.

You are trying to equate the presence of gay marriages to rape, murder and theft. These things are not equal. Two gay people walking by you will not kill you. A gay couple kissing will not take your money or violate your rights.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Kremit... if you and your family do not participate in the "weird things" then what impact does that have on you? None. I have my opinions too, I don't find same-sex relationships appealing to me personally, but I'm not about to deny someone else their rights because I find it funny. I find white people acting like black people funny, and although I make fun of them internally, I don't stop them from acting like that.

Oo my family doesn't kill people so what impact does murder have on me. We're not rapist. We don't rob people. And where am I stopping a gay person from being gay, no where.

Ok. Let's ban EVERYTHING. Let's not leave people the ability to do ANYTHING legally. Let's just toss Freedom of Religion in the canister. If you don't believe in the majority religion, you don't have rights to your beliefs.

If you are going to equate gay marriage to MURDER, you needs your bolts checked.

I think separation of church and state are being misunderstood. This does not mean you can't use your religion as a basis for how you vote. It means, govn't can not support one religion and not all others, and can not place any one religion over another. I see a conflict with this only in parts of govn't stuff that say "under God", but as this country was formed on Christianity, I believe it should remain that way. Laws are based on morals. For many of us, religion is a major part of our morals. It's our right for it to be a deciding part of our lives. Whatever someone else bases their morals on is their right as well. We are then allowed to vote on issues and majority wins. Period.

It is extemely ingorant to assume that because I am not directly affected by a law that it doesn't concern me. I am concerned about laws that affect my country.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:

Originally posted by daenku32:

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
But marriage, as defined by laws, is based on this religious ceremony from the bible's account of creation.

Your local code must be different because the Indiana Code for marriage doesn't mention anything about Adam and Eve, the Bible, or any such requirement to keep marriage laws biblically acceptable.

My point was that its the same thing, and based on that. Why would they create a law and say "this law is based on the bible: "? Lets not get silly. Law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. The people that founded this country were christians, and for the most part based their laws on those beliefs. Especially marriage.

so essentially what you're saying is forget what Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Scientists and the rest of the denominations want, just do what the Christians want, right?

This is not 1776. This country is not made up of 100% Christians. Stop trying to evangelize your beliefs on others forcefully. This is what gave Christianity a bad rap during the Inquisition and Crusades.

Since when are these other religions not allowed to vote?

Laws are based on knee-jerk opinions? Whatever the majority wants goes? No matter how illogical and destructive it might be?

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Kremit... if you and your family do not participate in the "weird things" then what impact does that have on you? None. I have my opinions too, I don't find same-sex relationships appealing to me personally, but I'm not about to deny someone else their rights because I find it funny. I find white people acting like black people funny, and although I make fun of them internally, I don't stop them from acting like that.

Oo my family doesn't kill people so what impact does murder have on me. We're not rapist. We don't rob people. And where am I stopping a gay person from being gay, no where.

You are trying to equate the presence of gay marriages to rape, murder and theft. These things are not equal. Two gay people walking by you will not kill you. A gay couple kissing will not take your money or violate your rights.

Exactly. I'm not making people not gay. Since when did not agreeing with gay marriage not allow someone to be gay? Listen to yourself.

Originally posted by daenku32:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Kremit... if you and your family do not participate in the "weird things" then what impact does that have on you? None. I have my opinions too, I don't find same-sex relationships appealing to me personally, but I'm not about to deny someone else their rights because I find it funny. I find white people acting like black people funny, and although I make fun of them internally, I don't stop them from acting like that.

Oo my family doesn't kill people so what impact does murder have on me. We're not rapist. We don't rob people. And where am I stopping a gay person from being gay, no where.

Ok. Let's ban EVERYTHING. Let's not leave people the ability to do ANYTHING legally. Let's just toss Freedom of Religion in the canister. If you don't believe in the majority religion, you don't have rights to your beliefs.

If you are going to equate gay marriage to MURDER, you needs your bolts checked.

You misunderstood.

Originally posted by DESIGN:
It is extemely ingorant to assume that because I am not directly affected by a law that it doesn't concern me. I am concerned about laws that affect my country.

On the list of the issues that affect your country... outsourcing, the economy, Iraq, terror, wide open borders, education, social security... gays getting married is so insignificant that for anyone to pay any more attention than 5 minutes is unecessary. Everyone should have equal rights, there are no 2nd class citizens. Done.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Kremit... if you and your family do not participate in the "weird things" then what impact does that have on you? None. I have my opinions too, I don't find same-sex relationships appealing to me personally, but I'm not about to deny someone else their rights because I find it funny. I find white people acting like black people funny, and although I make fun of them internally, I don't stop them from acting like that.

Oo my family doesn't kill people so what impact does murder have on me. We're not rapist. We don't rob people. And where am I stopping a gay person from being gay, no where.

You are trying to equate the presence of gay marriages to rape, murder and theft. These things are not equal. Two gay people walking by you will not kill you. A gay couple kissing will not take your money or violate your rights.

Exactly. I'm not making people not gay. Since when did not agreeing with gay marriage not allow someone to be gay? Listen to yourself.

Ok. How is gay marriage equal to murder ?

Originally posted by daenku32:
Laws are based on knee-jerk opinions? Whatever the majority wants goes? No matter how illogical and destructive it might be?

Knee-jerk? That's your opinion. Whatever the majority wants, yes. Illogical and destructive, again your opinion.

Originally posted by daenku32:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Kremit... if you and your family do not participate in the "weird things" then what impact does that have on you? None. I have my opinions too, I don't find same-sex relationships appealing to me personally, but I'm not about to deny someone else their rights because I find it funny. I find white people acting like black people funny, and although I make fun of them internally, I don't stop them from acting like that.

Oo my family doesn't kill people so what impact does murder have on me. We're not rapist. We don't rob people. And where am I stopping a gay person from being gay, no where.

You are trying to equate the presence of gay marriages to rape, murder and theft. These things are not equal. Two gay people walking by you will not kill you. A gay couple kissing will not take your money or violate your rights.

Exactly. I'm not making people not gay. Since when did not agreeing with gay marriage not allow someone to be gay? Listen to yourself.

Ok. How is gay marriage equal to murder ?

It's not. Point was that just because me and my family aren't gay, doesn't mean the issue doesn't affect me. We're also not murderers.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

On the list of the issues that affect your country... outsourcing, the economy, Iraq, terror, wide open borders, education, social security... gays getting married is so insignificant that for anyone to pay any more attention than 5 minutes is unecessary. Everyone should have equal rights, there are no 2nd class citizens. Done.

If it were really insignificant the debate across our country wouldn't be the way it is. I beleive that the foundation of the family is a CORE issue in America and honestly it is more important than any of those other things.

Originally posted by DESIGN:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

On the list of the issues that affect your country... outsourcing, the economy, Iraq, terror, wide open borders, education, social security... gays getting married is so insignificant that for anyone to pay any more attention than 5 minutes is unecessary. Everyone should have equal rights, there are no 2nd class citizens. Done.

If it were really insignificant the debate across our country wouldn't be the way it is. I beleive that the foundation of the family is a CORE issue in America and honestly it is more important than any of those other things.

Gay marriage will not prohibit a single traditional marriage from taking place.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy but something to do with polygamists getting married. It will open a door to them (and possibly other weird things).

Ok, you've brought this up in nearly EVERY REPLY TO THIS THREAD!

Can you prove to me in one other instance where extending CIVIL RIGHTS to a minority has lead to other "wierd things"

Let me provide you with a few examples of the courts providing Civil Rights to Minorities. See if you can find one instance!

1840s - Movevement for Women to Vote is started, 19th Amendment in 1920 protects their right.

1915 - Restrictive voting laws that were enacted by state governments were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

1954 - Supreme Court unanimously agreeing that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional (Brown vs. BOE)

1965 - Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, provided additional voter protection (especially blacks)

1967 - A Virginia law against interracial marriages was struck down, with the Supreme Court declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interfere unless they have good cause.

1970 - 26th Amendment Ratified to allow people 18 and older to vote

In this BRIEF timeline regarding Civil Rights, we see one common tie. Historically the Supreme Court has UPHELD Civil Rights when a majority is against it. I can only hope that this will continue. It is truly one of the fundamental strenghts of the United States.

Originally posted by daenku32:

Originally posted by DESIGN:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

On the list of the issues that affect your country... outsourcing, the economy, Iraq, terror, wide open borders, education, social security... gays getting married is so insignificant that for anyone to pay any more attention than 5 minutes is unecessary. Everyone should have equal rights, there are no 2nd class citizens. Done.

If it were really insignificant the debate across our country wouldn't be the way it is. I beleive that the foundation of the family is a CORE issue in America and honestly it is more important than any of those other things.

Gay marriage will not prohibit a single traditional marriage from taking place.

True, but did you read what he said. Foundation of the family. To him and others, that does not involve two gay men. And it's our right to vote that way.

Originally posted by Corbett:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Corbett:
Lev 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

- That settles it.

I don't believe in your Bible. That does not settle it.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Which is exactly why you believe in Gay rights. You have no base for your moral beliefs.

I'm buddhist. How about the basis of my moral beliefs? No good? Do I need some good Christian influence to help me see your holier-than-thou point of view?

I'm sorry, Tim, that's a horse-honky defense. Even still, if your beliefs are in Jesus, God, the Bible, where in there did it say "Those who don't believe what you believe are wrong and you're put on Earth to condemn them," hmm?

I'm getting a little steamed, so I'm just gonna watch this post for a little while.

I wish you guys would just shut up. None of your are going to change the others mind.....

Like when someone sues for something, it makes it through. Someone else jumps on with stupid case but based on other case it should pass as well. It's like that. No I don't know the specific examples. But they are out there. I can't gaurantee it will happen. I said it only as a possibility and definitely don't use it as the main reason I feel the way I feel.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by daenku32:

Originally posted by DESIGN:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

On the list of the issues that affect your country... outsourcing, the economy, Iraq, terror, wide open borders, education, social security... gays getting married is so insignificant that for anyone to pay any more attention than 5 minutes is unecessary. Everyone should have equal rights, there are no 2nd class citizens. Done.

If it were really insignificant the debate across our country wouldn't be the way it is. I beleive that the foundation of the family is a CORE issue in America and honestly it is more important than any of those other things.

Gay marriage will not prohibit a single traditional marriage from taking place.

True, but did you read what he said. Foundation of the family. To him and others, that does not involve two gay men. And it's our right to vote that way.

No, it's your right to LIVE that way and leave other people alone.

What's done is done. I hope something in the future can turn this around for everyone who's not Christian or straight.

Originally posted by Derk2000:

Originally posted by Corbett:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Corbett:
Lev 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

- That settles it.

I don't believe in your Bible. That does not settle it.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Which is exactly why you believe in Gay rights. You have no base for your moral beliefs.

I'm buddhist. How about the basis of my moral beliefs? No good? Do I need some good Christian influence to help me see your holier-than-thou point of view?

I'm sorry, Tim, that's a horse-honky defense. Even still, if your beliefs are in Jesus, God, the Bible, where in there did it say "Those who don't believe what you believe are wrong and you're put on Earth to condemn them," hmm?

I'm getting a little steamed, so I'm just gonna watch this post for a little while.

Your right that we should not condemn anyone. And you do have a basis for your moral beliefs. You have the right to vote, as well as all Americans, and majority wins.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Like when someone sues for something, it makes it through. Someone else jumps on with stupid case but based on other case it should pass as well. It's like that. No I don't know the specific examples. But they are out there. I can't gaurantee it will happen. I said it only as a possibility and definitely don't use it as the main reason I feel the way I feel.

That's so F'n weak I don't even know how to respond. You know what, there are alot of things that are possible. Does that mean we shouldn't make laws because something else COULD happen? Comeon.

Until you can point to a single instance of a protection of Civil Rights causing some other "wierd" stuff to happen, I would truly reconsider that argument.

People are scared about what they don't understand. They hide behind things (bible) or use them as crutches (religion) to protect themselves from the unknown or things that they cannot understand. Its human nature.

As for being a gateway for further changes... thats America...
I welcome open thinking and questioning of our current policy and ideas. Because of this women can vote, segregation is illegal etc. How is this different. If this were 50 years ago we would be talking about minorities rights. Wake up people, you cannot stop reality you cannot stop change.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:

Originally posted by daenku32:

Originally posted by DESIGN:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

On the list of the issues that affect your country... outsourcing, the economy, Iraq, terror, wide open borders, education, social security... gays getting married is so insignificant that for anyone to pay any more attention than 5 minutes is unecessary. Everyone should have equal rights, there are no 2nd class citizens. Done.

If it were really insignificant the debate across our country wouldn't be the way it is. I beleive that the foundation of the family is a CORE issue in America and honestly it is more important than any of those other things.

Gay marriage will not prohibit a single traditional marriage from taking place.

True, but did you read what he said. Foundation of the family. To him and others, that does not involve two gay men. And it's our right to vote that way.

No, it's your right to LIVE that way and leave other people alone.

What's done is done. I hope something in the future can turn this around for everyone who's not Christian or straight.

I'm sure it's not just Christians that voted that way. I'm sure there are aethesists that don't believe in gay marriage.

AGAIN, I am not making any body not be gay. I and others believe a certain way that things should be including family and it is our right to vote as so to preserve this.

Marriage is not a civil right. It is not a right at all.

I have no problems with the gay union movement. I'm not gay, so it doesn't effect me. I have no problem with homosexuals bind themselves legally to each other just like opposite sex couples do. My problem is with the tearing down of every institution that has been in place since the founding of this country. I.E Women demanding to be let into all male military schools, woman wanting to be get into all male golf course clubs. We don't demand to be apart of girl scouts or the red hat club.

That being said my argument is pretty much over the connotation/denoation of the word "marriage." For centuries it has stood for the union of a man and woman with the idea of build a family. I admit it's petty but can't this institution be left alone. Homosexuals are different so why not use a different word. Biologically they cannot produce offspring without external aid.

The whole idea of inclusion drives me nuts. While I don't believe anyone should be made fun of or discriminated against for being different. The fact is they are and situations have to handled differently. This has more to do with schooling than homosexuals.

-Andy

Originally posted by zgendron:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Like when someone sues for something, it makes it through. Someone else jumps on with stupid case but based on other case it should pass as well. It's like that. No I don't know the specific examples. But they are out there. I can't gaurantee it will happen. I said it only as a possibility and definitely don't use it as the main reason I feel the way I feel.

That's so F'n weak I don't even know how to respond. You know what, there are alot of things that are possible. Does that mean we shouldn't make laws because something else COULD happen? Comeon.

Until you can point to a single instance of a protection of Civil Rights causing some other "wierd" stuff to happen, I would truly reconsider that argument.

Yeah it's pretty weak. I don't care to dig deeper into it, especially as it's not the center of my reasoning. We should definitely consider ALL possible consequences when making laws.

Ok, reconsider it.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I think separation of church and state are being misunderstood. This does not mean you can't use your religion as a basis for how you vote. It means, govn't can not support one religion and not all others, and can not place any one religion over another.

Very very very good point.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
but as this country was formed on Christianity, I believe it should remain that way. Laws are based on morals. For many of us, religion is a major part of our morals. It's our right for it to be a deciding part of our lives.

Ok, but...

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Whatever someone else bases their morals on is their right as well.

But, if the majority are Christian and their votes are cast with a Christain basis/idea in mind, anyone who isn't Christian is SOL?

Kremit, I hope that one day you'll get to know a gay couple personally. Same for the rest of the gay-condemning community.

Quote:

I wish you guys would just shut up. None of your are going to change the others mind.....

We could always rewrite the Bible and change millions of people's minds overnight... sadly.

Originally posted by neelnug:
People are scared about what they don't understand. They hide behind things (bible) or use them as crutches (religion) to protect themselves from the unknown or things that they cannot understand. Its human nature.

As for being a gateway for further changes... thats America...
I welcome open thinking and questioning of our current policy and ideas. Because of this women can vote, segregation is illegal etc. How is this different. If this were 50 years ago we would be talking about minorities rights. Wake up people, you cannot stop reality you cannot stop change.

Or maybe they just believe that way and the Bible is part of their life.

This is their right, and it's sad to see it criticized that way (I don't see anyone criticizing why gay people choose to be gay in here).

Your right about that and that is why we vote. Majority wins and if eventually it changes, then it changes. But we vote in America, not let a few people dictate for everybody's life.

Originally posted by RTStabler51:
I wish you guys would just shut up. None of your are going to change the others mind.....

Please be more polite, next time. BTW, if you don't like the conversation we're having, don't read the post.

The only reason I engage in conversations like these is to learn. If we shutup, we'd never know where the other side was coming from, and we'd never get anywhere near a compromise.

Originally posted by daenku32:
Kremit, I hope that one day you'll get to know a gay couple personally. Same for the rest of the gay-condemning community.

Thanks for proving you don't read my posts. I said I know gay people and have no problem interacting with them. This is not gay condemning,,, get off of that. This is gay marriage issue.

Originally posted by Andy W.:
I have no problems with the gay union movement. I'm not gay, so it doesn't effect me. I have no problem with homosexuals bind themselves legally to each other just like opposite sex couples do. My problem is with the tearing down of every institution that has been in place since the founding of this country. I.E Women demanding to be let into all male military schools, woman wanting to be get into all male golf course clubs. We don't demand to be apart of girl scouts or the red hat club.

That being said my argument is pretty much over the connotation/denoation of the word "marriage." For centuries it has stood for the union of a man and woman with the idea of build a family. I admit it's petty but can't this institution be left alone. Homosexuals are different so why not use a different word. Biologically they cannot produce offspring without external aid.

The whole idea of inclusion drives me nuts. While I don't believe anyone should be made fun of or discriminated against for being different. The fact is they are and situations have to handled differently. This has more to do with schooling than homosexuals.

-Andy

I like the way you said that point of view.

Why does a person's sexual orientation have such a factor in making them different? Honestly, we're all different, even if your neighbor shares the same creed, color, culture, heritage, background... you're still different. Nothing makes you a carbon copy of the guy next to you. So you like hip-hop, does that make you more different? You dress preppy, does that make you more different? You could be the greatest baseball player in the world, but as soon as you taste the salami that's all the world seems to remember you for. As a country, we should be making strides to be inclusive, not exclusive. Are we going to hide our eyes to the fact that within a matter of years minorities will be the majority in this country? I see a scared nation unwilling to change, and change is what the constitution is all about. A living document that amends itself according to time.

Originally posted by Derk2000:

Ok, but...

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Whatever someone else bases their morals on is their right as well.

But, if the majority are Christian and their votes are cast with a Christain basis/idea in mind, anyone who isn't Christian is SOL?

I have a feeling it's not only Christians that voted against gay marriage. I'm sure some of my hindu friends may not agree with gay marriage as well.

Originally posted by Derk2000:

Originally posted by RTStabler51:
I wish you guys would just shut up. None of your are going to change the others mind.....

Please be more polite, next time. BTW, if you don't like the conversation we're having, don't read the post.

The only reason I engage in conversations like these is to learn. If we shutup, we'd never know where the other side was coming from, and we'd never get anywhere near a compromise.

Well put. Same here. Not looking to change anyone's mind really, other than possibly my own, though not likely on this issue.

Quote:

(I don't see anyone criticizing why gay people choose to be gay in here).

Choose to be gay, thats a funny one..... just as I chose to be straight or black or white or a woman, man or tall, short or intelligent.

We could solve this real quickly... just tell all the gay people to stop and choose to be straight again. How come I didn't see this solution before!

Originally posted by neelnug:

Quote:

(I don't see anyone criticizing why gay people choose to be gay in here).

Choose to be gay, thats a funny one..... just as I chose to be straight or black or white or a woman, man or tall, short or intelligent.

We could solve this real quickly... just tell all the gay people to stop and choose to be straight again. How come I didn't see this solution before!

I choose to be straight. but Ok however you want to put it BE GAY. there happy? Still you don't get it. This is about gay marriage not being gay.

12+ pages of bantering each other and telling each other you are wrong is not 'poliite'. There hasn't been much progress made in this thread. People are going to believe what they want, and none of this back and forth bantering is swaying each other.

Originally posted by Derk2000:

Originally posted by RTStabler51:
I wish you guys would just shut up. None of your are going to change the others mind.....

Please be more polite, next time. BTW, if you don't like the conversation we're having, don't read the post.

The only reason I engage in conversations like these is to learn. If we shutup, we'd never know where the other side was coming from, and we'd never get anywhere near a compromise.

Not meant to sway anyone. It's meant to better understand the other side of things. Though most of it is stupid crap, some of it does have meaning and is useful in understanding how others feel.

SOME of it has meaning, but most of this is back and forth debating.

Those states voted to not allow gay marriage. To those states the MAJORITY of the people do not believe in it. Thats the way the system is, and thats the way the system has worked for over 200+ years. It may eventually change, it may not.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Not meant to sway anyone. It's meant to better understand the other side of things. Though most of it is stupid crap, some of it does have meaning and is useful in understanding how others feel.

Wait, wait dude. I never told Kremit that he has to feel wrong for not supporting gay marriages. If that's something he and his family choose not to support that's fine. If his religious organization chooses not to support it that's fine. But you can't legally take a freedom away from a gay person that a straight person enjoys and not call it blatant discrimination.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Wait, wait dude. I never told Kremit that he has to feel wrong for not supporting gay marriages. If that's something he and his family choose not to support that's fine. If his religious organization chooses not to support it that's fine. But you can't legally take a freedom away from a gay person that a straight person enjoys and not call it blatant discrimination.

I do believe there should be something for gay people. It's not marriage though. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's my opinion. I'm done with this thread. PM me if you need a further response.

Originally posted by neelnug:

Quote:

(I don't see anyone criticizing why gay people choose to be gay in here).

Choose to be gay, thats a funny one..... just as I chose to be straight or black or white or a woman, man or tall, short or intelligent.

We could solve this real quickly... just tell all the gay people to stop and choose to be straight again. How come I didn't see this solution before!

You guys have to see the movie "But I'm a Cheerleader"

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Wait, wait dude. I never told Kremit that he has to feel wrong for not supporting gay marriages. If that's something he and his family choose not to support that's fine. If his religious organization chooses not to support it that's fine. But you can't legally take a freedom away from a gay person that a straight person enjoys and not call it blatant discrimination.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

Originally posted by RTStabler51:
SOME of it has meaning, but most of this is back and forth debating.

Those states voted to not allow gay marriage. To those states the MAJORITY of the people do not believe in it. Thats the way the system is, and thats the way the system has worked for over 200+ years. It may eventually change, it may not.

Just in another thread where I complained about EC, people were saying it was needed to avoid tyranny of majority.

These same people also are quite adamant in keeping the Constitution as-it-is. And are certainly quite aware of the importance of rights that no majority can take away.

Somehow, when it comes to gay marriage they however dismiss any possibility of a constitutional right to get married and the people are quick to use THEIR tyranny of majority to CHANGE the Constitution.

Quite frankly, if I was gay, I would claim my sexuality to be part of my religion and therefore force it to be included as a religious right.

I believe that banning gay marriage is direct gender discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional. But this I understand is hard for many to believe.

hmm. I have almost 666 posts. Eeexcellent....

I really dont want to read this entire thread, just to hear people argure back and forth about who is right, who is wrong, if its religion a choice or whatever.

The main point is that on the second day in November, 2004, a decent portion of eleven bigoted (homophobic?) states took the CIVIL RIGHTS away from roughly ten percent of the American public.

I guess if getting our hands tied behind our backs or having to ride on the back of the bus is what it takes to be an American then I guess I am a real American. Just make sure that when my rights are taken away, I still get to pay my share of taxes just like the remaining ninety percent of the country, because when it comes to the almighty dollar, we are all the same.

Obviously this is still a touchy subject, and it probably will be for quite some time. For now, Im going to stand behind the idea of, "66% of all Utahans can go [censored] themselves."

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:

Originally posted by daenku32:

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
But marriage, as defined by laws, is based on this religious ceremony from the bible's account of creation.

Your local code must be different because the Indiana Code for marriage doesn't mention anything about Adam and Eve, the Bible, or any such requirement to keep marriage laws biblically acceptable.

My point was that its the same thing, and based on that. Why would they create a law and say "this law is based on the bible: "? Lets not get silly. Law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. The people that founded this country were christians, and for the most part based their laws on those beliefs. Especially marriage.

Stop trying to evangelize your beliefs on others forcefully.

Dude, do not accuse me of that please. In no way do I see what I said above as any sort of "forcing" my beleifs on you. I'm offended by that remark.

Originally posted by neelnug:
People are scared about what they don't understand. They hide behind things (bible) or use them as crutches (religion) to protect themselves from the unknown or things that they cannot understand.

I don't hide behind anything. The thought of it makes me physically sick. I can't help that, I'm sorry. I'm not going to tell them they can't do that, or anything else because thats their choice. But I have my right to my opinion and feelings too.

What I dont' get is the whole gay movement thing. I've never had something shoved into my face from so many directions as gay rights. It's one thing to have equal rights, but to market it so that the public will begin to "accept" it feels wrong. We know its there, but we dont' have to be happy about it if we don't want to.

Originally posted by ExDelayed:

roughly ten percent of the American public.

Not trying to step back into arguement, just correcting info,,, roughly 6 percent.

Originally posted by ExDelayed:
The main point is that on the second day in November, 2004, a decent portion of eleven bigoted (homophobic?) states took the CIVIL RIGHTS away from roughly ten percent of the American public.

I think thats bullcrap. Gays didn't have anything taken away from them. They were prevented from making a legal arrangement between a man and woman something different than what it is.

Nobody has said they can't have some sort of union or whatever, they just can't call it marraige.

I don't see any reason why you need to use the adjectives you did to describe the states that voted it down. Thats unneccessarily aggressive. This is a peaceful debate.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:

What I dont' get is the whole gay movement thing. I've never had something shoved into my face from so many directions as gay rights. It's one thing to have equal rights, but to market it so that the public will begin to "accept" it feels wrong. We know its there, but we dont' have to be happy about it if we don't want to.

Well I've never had a movement shoved in my face harder than the evangelical preachers on at least 3 channels in my city blasting away with their interpretations of the bible and asking for money so they can pay for their BMW's and make weakminded people think they've paid their way into salvation. And they don't even make the effort to try to appeal to other denominations that don't understand them. I've had them come down to FIU and tell students that Princess Diana is burning in hell with Ghandi b/c they were not Christians. I find them sick too, yet I let them be. You have the right to feel how you want and believe in what you want but don't even attempt to infringe upon me for any reason.

And what if your kid turns out gay? Or lesbian? Would you appreciate your neighbors discriminating against him/her too? Would you appreciate a mass gathering of people united to make sure that your gay child could not be considered equal amongst Americans?

It's not just about you and your beliefs. You are not an island.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Not trying to step back into arguement, just correcting info,,, roughly 6 percent.

Ok, only 17,616,000 people lost their rights then.

They did? They had something taken away that they had before?

I liked the girl scout analogy. But I just woke up and I'm not thinking straight. But that doesn't mean I'm thinking gay, either.

I'll leave you with this. This is me and my friend, Big Gay Alex. He gave me a Hanson t-shirt in exchange for some sweet loving on camera.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
I think thats bullcrap. Gays didn't have anything taken away from them. They were prevented from making a legal arrangement between a man and woman something different than what it is.

Nobody has said they can't have some sort of union or whatever, they just can't call it marraige.

Maybe that's the first step for them then. My issue is that just because a person's sexual preference is different we have to make new terms for them to suit that difference? Howabout when thugs in the ghetto get married we call it "Hooked Up"? Howabout when hillbillies with no teeth get married we call it "Cousin Fuzzin"? (JOKE!) Why should we make it different?

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
Nobody has said they can't have some sort of union or whatever, they just can't call it marraige.

Quote:

Section 1. It is proposed to enact Utah Constitution Article I, Section 29, to read:

Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

That's Utah's amendment, so apparently there are to be no unions of any type, unless its a straight marriage.

Im not calling the citizens of those eleven states bigots or homophobes. Misinformed maybe, but they are still people, havent done any physical harm to me, so there is no reason for me to hate them as a person. I may not like their actions, but thats what this is about.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
I think thats bullcrap. Gays didn't have anything taken away from them. They were prevented from making a legal arrangement between a man and woman something different than what it is.

Sure they've had something taken away from them- the opportunity to have what the rest of us take for granted.

Kremit, the point you're missing is this- if you vote for a ban against gay marriage, you ARE spitting on gays because you have forced this country to strictly prohibit them from something. Why don't you realize that?

If the word "marriage" is so superficial, why are gay people fighting so hard for it? Many companies offer health insurance and benefits for "partners" and more are doing so every year. Do they just want to be included in the club that's been reserved for a man and woman since time began?

Originally posted by infuryum:
If the word "marriage" is so superficial, why are gay people fighting so hard for it? Many companies offer health insurance and benefits for "partners" and more are doing so every year. Do they just want to be included in the club that's been reserved for a man and woman since time began?

I think it's like how an earlier poster put it...

Doesn't matter if your gay or straight, you still pay the same taxes. Yet if you're gay, you are less of a citizen than the straight ones. You still get to die in a war you don't want to be in, but you can't get married... b/c we just can't handle that.

I propose we all go gay and ask for a tax break.

Originally posted by bishop375:
you ARE spitting on gays because you have forced this country to strictly prohibit them from something. Why don't you realize that?

Quote:

On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
�?· joint parenting;
�?· joint adoption;
�?· joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
�?· status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
�?· joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
�?· dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
�?· immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
�?· inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
�?· joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
�?· inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
�?· benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
�?· spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
�?· veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
�?· joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
�?· wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
�?· bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
�?· decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
�?· crime victims' recovery benefits;
�?· loss of consortium tort benefits;
�?· domestic violence protection orders;
�?· judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Obviously there are considerably more. So what rights arent being taken away again?

Oh Ex... please don't bring up the issue of gays with kids & child support... not today. Next election maybe.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Well I've never had a movement shoved in my face harder than the evangelical preachers on at least 3 channels in my city blasting away with their interpretations of the bible and asking for money so they can pay for their BMW's and make weakminded people think they've paid their way into salvation. And they don't even make the effort to try to appeal to other denominations that don't understand them. I've had them come down to FIU and tell students that Princess Diana is burning in hell with Ghandi b/c they were not Christians. I find them sick

me too. Those dudes aren't cool at all.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
And what if your kid turns out gay? Or lesbian? Would you appreciate your neighbors discriminating against him/her too? Would you appreciate a mass gathering of people united to make sure that your gay child could not be considered equal amongst Americans?

Please don't misunderstand my opinion as thinking they should be treated unfairly. If my child was supposedly born gay, then I would expect them to live a life that is equal with everyone esle, but they would never be "married" because marraige is between a man and a woman. Maybe a union, maybe something else. But its not marriage.

Originally posted by infuryum:
If the word "marriage" is so superficial, why are gay people fighting so hard for it? Many companies offer health insurance and benefits for "partners" and more are doing so every year. Do they just want to be included in the club that's been reserved for a man and woman since time began?

Its the want for the same rights that 94 percent (thanks for the correction Kremi

) of the population takes for granted.

With the way some of these new amendments are written, a company could easily not extend its domestic partnership rights to people within a certain state because the state wouldnt recognize the relationship. Saves the company quite a few bucks.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Oh Ex... please don't bring up the issue of gays with kids & child support... not today. Next election maybe.

I just copied and pasted to give an idea on some of the forbidden rights.

Originally posted by ExDelayed:
With the way some of these new amendments are written, a company could easily not extend its domestic partnership rights to people within a certain state because the state wouldnt recognize the relationship. Saves the company quite a few bucks.

So now we're concerned that rights MIGHT be taken away?

I know I'm just messing with ya.

Originally posted by infuryum:
So now we're concerned that rights MIGHT be taken away?

With Utah's amendment, all of those will be forbidden on Jan 1, 2005, for any couple, gay or straight, unless they are married.

Originally posted by bishop375:
if you vote for a ban against gay marriage, you ARE spitting on gays because you have forced this country to strictly prohibit them from something.

I may be reading this differently than you, but I dont' think thats right in the least. It would be if you said they can't be together, and can't consider it some kind of partnership, but reserving "Marriage" for what it is, for a man and a woman is not wrong.

Any gay person can get legally "married", it just has to be to a member of the oposite sex.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:

Originally posted by bishop375:
if you vote for a ban against gay marriage, you ARE spitting on gays because you have forced this country to strictly prohibit them from something.

I may be reading this differently than you, but I dont' think thats right in the least. It would be if you said they can't be together, and can't consider it some kind of partnership, but reserving "Marriage" for what it is, for a man and a woman is not wrong.

Any gay person can get legally "married", it just has to be to a member of the oposite sex.

Yeah... so much for marriage being about love and companionship. It's wonderful how we've demolished the ideals of marriage in this country. It's all about the benji's now.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
Any gay person can get legally "married", it just has to be to a member of the oposite sex.

Oh goodie. Now we can get into the subject of destroyed famlies when the married homosexual decides that the straight life isnt for them, gets a divorce, leaves their spouse and children. That creates a wonderful society.

Sarcasm, lets not go there.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Yeah... so much for marriage being about love and companionship. It's wonderful how we've demolished the ideals of marriage in this country. It's all about the benji's now.

Love and companionship?! You don't need marriage for that! Nearly ALL of your arguments are about the monetary rights of gay couples which REQUIRE a marriage in order to be binding. Pick one and stick with it.

Originally posted by infuryum:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Yeah... so much for marriage being about love and companionship. It's wonderful how we've demolished the ideals of marriage in this country. It's all about the benji's now.

Love and companionship?! You don't need marriage for that! Nearly ALL of your arguments are about the monetary rights of gay couples which REQUIRE a marriage in order to be binding. Pick one and stick with it.

Ahem... my arguements are not for the monetary rights of gay couples. My arguements are for the equal treatment of all citizens of this country as it pertains to the law and the government. My arguement for gay marriage is that if the gay society is trying to break its stigma of being a wild, promiscuous society by following common social practices of the rest of the nation, we should help them acheive their goal instead of keeping them from progressing in society. It's not like any of us are going to make them stop being gay. But if they're trying to have something better for themselves, why stop them on the basis of their orientation?

Originally posted by Fmr12B:
It's not the religious behind all of this.

I'm with Bush on this one, lets explore civil unions, and let the term Marriage be for a man and a woman. If we allow gays to marry then what else are we opening the door to?

Polygamy?

Maybe a Bisexual 3-some of 2-guys & 1 woman all want to be married.

We wouldn't want to dicriminate against anyones sexual agenda.

Yes. As long as there is a legally binding arrangement, you should be allowed to enter into whatever "marriage" you see fit.

America is once again proving it two-faced attitude towards true freedoms.

It is OK for you to be different, as long as you are like the rest of us.

THE MAJORITY IS WRONG.

Beowolf - that was beautiful

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
...if they're trying to have something better for themselves, why stop them on the basis of their orientation?

Because the majority of people simply don't believe it's right.

I think being gay is wrong. I don't agree with it and I think it's gross. The people who are blatantly gay and want the world to know they're gay annoy me. But not all gay folks are like that. Some of them act normal. I have normal gay friends. [/cliche] I joke about them being gay and they joke about me being straight. I don't agree with what they do and it grosses me out, but that doesn't mean I don't like the people who they are.

I don't, however, think that my friends should be able to be in a gay marriage. This has nothing to do with descrimination or thinking I'm better than someone else. It has to do with the act of being gay and the act of being straight. They are DIFFERENT. Don't pretend they're the same because they are not. Don't push for straight rights for gay people because it won't happen until gay people are in a majority. It might be unfortunate and you might think it's wrong. But enough people disagree with you. I'm not crying in my beer because all eleven states voted against it. I wonder how the gay community would react if my future wife (see below) and I wanted to adopt an openly gay child. Oh, the sh*t storm that would ensue...

Originally posted by DESIGN:
Marriage is not a civil right. It is not a right at all.

You are correct, marriage is not a civil right. However, excluding anyone from benefits granted to a group of people based on race, sex , color, religion or sexual orientation is discrimination and therefore infringment upon their rights and priviledges as a free and equal American.

Originally posted by infuryum:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
...if they're trying to have something better for themselves, why stop them on the basis of their orientation?

Because the majority of people simply don't believe it's right.

I think being gay is wrong. I don't agree with it and I think it's gross. The people who are blatantly gay and want the world to know they're gay annoy me. But not all gay folks are like that. Some of them act normal. I have normal gay friends. [/cliche] I joke about them being gay and they joke about me being straight. I don't agree with what they do and it grosses me out, but that doesn't mean I don't like the people who they are.

I don't, however, think that my friends should be able to be in a gay marriage. This has nothing to do with descrimination or thinking I'm better than someone else. It has to do with the act of being gay and the act of being straight. They are DIFFERENT. Don't pretend they're the same because they are not. Don't push for straight rights for gay people because it won't happen until gay people are in a majority. It might be unfortunate and you might think it's wrong. But enough people disagree with you. I'm not crying in my beer because all eleven states voted against it. I wonder how the gay community would react if my future wife (see below) and I wanted to adopt an openly gay child. Oh, the sh*t storm that would ensue...

See but that's the point. It doesn't matter what you believe or not! The law has nothing to do with one person's belief over another. The law is supposed to be based on fact.

Fact: Killing someone is directly infringing upon their rights to live.

Fact: Stealing from someone directly infringes upon their rights to have things to themselves.

Your backwards thinking can't come up with a single factual reason besides your personal opinion that shows that gay people are wrong. And if the majority was allowed to create legislature solely on personal beliefs, black people would still be sitting in the back of the bus, Jewish people would still be having signs that say "Christ Killer" in their front lawns, and women would still be housewives and nothing more.

One of the main problems is that extremists on BOTH sides of the argument have been allowed to put themselves in the position as "spokespersons" of one side or the other.

I am a Christian (well, I try to be one...), though I refuse to interpret passages in Romans, Genesis, and Corinthians as utter and irrefutable condemnations of homosexuals. I won't delve into the reasons why I believe thist, as it is another "War and Peace" post, but suffice to say that I don't see homosexuality as a one-way ticket to Hell, as so many fundamentalist of varying religious sects believe.

Slavery was practiced in Biblical times, Christian Kings kept harems, etc. Today these ancient establishments are considered morally reprehensible where they were morally acceptable during Biblical times. Are religious texts being two-faced about this?

Or were these cultural establishments that were formed outside of religious thought?

To extrapolate further, I have NO issue with homosexual unions and would greatly desire to have them see the light of day, with the same benefits and penalties that heterosexual marriage gives.

AT THE SAME TIME, I do take issue with a religious instition quite possibly forced to recognize marriages as something other than it has commonly held and for THOUSANDS of years and serves as a foundational institution and belief for them.

Federal law dictating what religions should and should not recognize (within reason) is JUST as wrong as religious institutions trying to force their beliefs on others through Federal law. Am I mandating that no chuches should have the option to not hold gay marriages? No.

This has nothing to do with Christian views, this has to do with VARIOUS religious commonly holding the that hold marriage as "one woman, one man".

Simply put, I despise the way both sides have approached this issue, as it has been rife will "all or nothing" verbage, tactics and ideology which is REALLY shortchanging any chance at getting a fair and equally agreeable solution created.

Religious fundamentalists piss me off on this just as much as extreme gay activists that would use Federal law to rabidly attack the church and it's beliefs. Again, from my view it's been the extremists on both sides that have ended up being the "spokespersons" and all they have helped do is further fan the flames instead of bridging a serious difference.

Any way you cut it, the civil rights of gays are being violated. IMHO, this is not in question. At the same time, violating the civil rights of the religious in turn isn't a solution, either.

There has to be a better solution than the one's that are being put in play today, but again, I'll be damned if I can coherently flush one out. It's a quagmire, no doubt about it.

I agree. I also think religious groups shouldn't have to swallow what they don't want to.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
I agree. I also think religious groups shouldn't have to swallow what they don't want to.

And they aren't forced to.

Even now they can refuse to marry any couple they want. Even if the couple can legally get married.

JaTo wins.

Originally posted by daenku32:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
I agree. I also think religious groups shouldn't have to swallow what they don't want to.

And they aren't forced to.

Even now they can refuse to marry any couple they want. Even if the couple can legally get married.

This is where calling all "joinings", be they homosexual or heterosexual as "civil unions" would come in handy, and designating "marriage" as a religious rite.

With the way things are now, good luck in getting either side to agree to this, as it's an "all or nothing" battle.

Originally posted by JaTo:
It's a quagmire, no doubt about it.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:

Nobody has said they can't have some sort of union or whatever, they just can't call it marraige.

So, if we change it to simply a civil union with all of benefits, detriments and priviledges of the current definition of marriage, you would be ok with it?

Ryan, let me ask you some questions. I don't know if you are/were married but for example sake, lets say you are.

1.) Would changing the legal terminology of your marriage to civil union offend you?

2.) Would you cease to use the term "married" when describing your relationship?

3.) Would there be any effect on anyone if some did a ctrl-F in all govt files for the word marriage and replaced with civil union?

4.) What are the ramifications for the straight people if they get their word taken away or expanded?

5.) Will allowing Serge and Antonio describing themselves as "married" in any way shape or form reduce the meaning of you marriage to your wife? Will it make it easier for you to divorce her in your mind? Does it affect the love you feel for her and the sanctity of the act of marriage?

YOu don't have to answer these, but just think about them for a bit. If anyone can answer yes to any single portion of number 5, I have a lot of sympathy for them. They obviously are in a relationship that is already doomed to failure. We need to look at the root cause of the problems, not find excuses of why the family structure in America is swirling straight down the crapper.

Kremit,

Stepping back from this and thinking about it for a bit, do you REALLY believe in the slippery slope argument? When reading it, I have a hard time distinguishing it from somethign The Onion would right. I am pretty well conservative, afterall, I am a repentent hate mongering catholic but I just don't understand the mindset of bickering over a word.

Howabout "legally married" as opposed to "cerimonially married"? That way both parties could say "yes, I am married" yet only one pertains to a court and a religion.

Marriage= man and women
Marriago= man and man
Marriaga= women and women

My employee who is against gay marriage had another idea. Call them traditional marriage and the other Kerry marriage.

Make them legally the same thing. Fixed the problem for both sides. PROBLEM SOLVED both sides win.

Originally posted by neelnug:
Marriage= man and women
Marriago= man and man
Marriaga= women and women

My employee who is against gay marriage had another idea. Call them traditional marriage and the other Kerry marriage.

Make them legally the same thing. Fixed the problem for both sides. PROBLEM SOLVED both sides win.

Other than the Kerry quote, I agree.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
And marriage is not so you can have a baby last time I checked. Now, under the Christian religion, to have a baby you should be married, it is not, to be married you should have a baby.

Yes, but I believe that Catholics think that procreation is one of the responsibilities under marriage, no? It may not be a defined requirement, but I think its implied. Uh, what the hell do I know, I was turned off by Christianity years ago.

Let me say one thing on the issue. Many here may not feel that denying gay marriage is a hateful thing. They may not even feel like they hate gays. But many who DID vote that way do. The following is an email sent to notable "log cabin republican" Andrew Sullivan:

"I wonder if you noticed that yesterday all eleven states that considered the question of gay marriage voted to ban it. ALL ELEVEN. I think this sends a very clear message -- true Americans do not like your kind of homosexual deviants in our country, and we will not tolerate your radical pro-gay agenda trying to force our children to adopt your homosexual lifestyle. You should be EXTREMELY GRATEFUL that we even let you write a very public and influential blog, instead of suppressing your treasonous views (as I would prefer). But I'm sure someone like yourself would consider me just an "extremist" that you don't need to worry about. Well you are wrong -- I'm not just an extremist, I am a real American, and you should be worried because eleven states yesterday proved that there are millions more just like me who will not let you impose your radical agenda on our country."

If that is how people feel, this country is in trouble. Fact is, this was the movtivating factor in what drove so many people to the polls, even in Ohio. And I think text like the above email ought to cause Republicans to reflect on their base.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:

Nobody has said they can't have some sort of union or whatever, they just can't call it marraige.

That is not true. Language in just about all the 11 states specifically prohibit any rights that a civil union would give gay couples.

Originally posted by GreenNuggs:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
And marriage is not so you can have a baby last time I checked. Now, under the Christian religion, to have a baby you should be married, it is not, to be married you should have a baby.

Yes, but I believe that Catholics think that procreation is one of the responsibilities under marriage, no? It may not be a defined requirement, but I think its implied. Uh, what the hell do I know, I was turned off by Christianity years ago.

Let me say one thing on the issue. Many here may not feel that denying gay marriage is a hateful thing. They may not even feel like they hate gays. But many who DID vote that way do. The following is an email sent to notable "log cabin republican" Andrew Sullivan:

"I wonder if you noticed that yesterday all eleven states that considered the question of gay marriage voted to ban it. ALL ELEVEN. I think this sends a very clear message -- true Americans do not like your kind of homosexual deviants in our country, and we will not tolerate your radical pro-gay agenda trying to force our children to adopt your homosexual lifestyle. You should be EXTREMELY GRATEFUL that we even let you write a very public and influential blog, instead of suppressing your treasonous views (as I would prefer). But I'm sure someone like yourself would consider me just an "extremist" that you don't need to worry about. Well you are wrong -- I'm not just an extremist, I am a real American, and you should be worried because eleven states yesterday proved that there are millions more just like me who will not let you impose your radical agenda on our country."

If that is how people feel, this country is in trouble. Fact is, this was the movtivating factor in what drove so many people to the polls, even in Ohio. And I think text like the above email ought to cause Republicans to reflect on their base.

You could substitute "gay" and "homosexual" for "black" in that statement and it would sound like it came out of the 50's & 60's. Hate is hate anyway you look at it.

LOLI was thinking!

Marriage
Garriage
Larriage

-Andy

... and then after the gays it's the latinos, and the blacks, and the jews, and the muslims, and where does it end?

One big happy Christian Aryan race in the US. How wonderful.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
... and then after the gays it's the latinos, and the blacks, and the jews, and the muslims, and where does it end?

One big happy Christian Aryan race in the US. How wonderful.

Hey how did you figure out the Republican's top secret plan for world white-inization?

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
... and then after the gays it's the latinos, and the blacks, and the jews, and the muslims, and where does it end?

One big happy Christian Aryan race in the US. How wonderful.

Hey how did you figure out the Republican's top secret plan for world white-inization?

Comments like that are as ridiculous as saying a democratic president is going to lead us right into socialism and does not help solve anything. The differences between the average democrat and average rebublican are fairly minute. Where is my moderate party at, damnit!

Originally posted by daenku32:
Kremit, I hope that one day you'll get to know a gay couple personally. Same for the rest of the gay-condemning community.

I already do. And it didn't do much to change my mind.

I'm not going to sit here and play this pissing match with you people though. If I want to believe that marriage is between a man and woman, then I'm going to do it, damned what anyone else thinks of me. Call me childish. I see that coming already. In fact, I'll save everyone the trouble.

I'm childish.

The bottom line is all the Bible thumping going on around here would mean nothing in counter to what I said earlier if I stated that I don't believe in any religion or homosexuality. Period.

I'm registered independent. I like to think I'm somewhere in the middle. There are many things that the progressive/liberals do that I'm not in support of, but I side a little more to the left... probably b/c I'm not rich.

Originally posted by dnewma04:

Ryan, let me ask you some questions. I don't know if you are/were married but for example sake, lets say you are.

1.) Would changing the legal terminology of your marriage to civil union offend you?

2.) Would you cease to use the term "married" when describing your relationship?

3.) Would there be any effect on anyone if some did a ctrl-F in all govt files for the word marriage and replaced with civil union?

4.) What are the ramifications for the straight people if they get their word taken away or expanded?

5.) Will allowing Serge and Antonio describing themselves as "married" in any way shape or form reduce the meaning of you marriage to your wife? Will it make it easier for you to divorce her in your mind? Does it affect the love you feel for her and the sanctity of the act of marriage?

1. Yes, because the religious ceremony that I performed was called "marriage". Because someone wants to twist that to include something it wasnt intended to, I shouldn't have to change what I call it and what it stands for.

2. No. Becasue I am married to a woman, it fits the definition of being "married".

3. Sort of. Legally, I guess they could mean essentially the same thing. But I am "married" to the full extent of its meaning and definition, so I dont' see why it would need to be changed, unless there were civil unions. So I guess whatever they need to do to take care of legal business.

4 & 5. It would greatly offend me to have gays say they are married. I'll tell you why. It's because that kind of lifestyle is disgusting to me. Allowing them to say they are married disrespects what I feel is a very honorable and sacred arrangement. It has been for thousands of years. Call it whatever you want, just dont call it marriage, becuase marriage is between a man and a woman.

If a law does get passed that says gays can be "married", then it will be a sad day. I won't love my wife any less, it won't have an effect on our relationship, but a part of the dignity of saying I'm "married" will be lost.

I would hope that people on both sides of the argument aren't basing their stances on whether or not they know a gay person. This is an important issue that should be based on more substance than "hey dudes, my friends gay and is nice, so i am for gay marriage".

Originally posted by dnewma04:

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
... and then after the gays it's the latinos, and the blacks, and the jews, and the muslims, and where does it end?

One big happy Christian Aryan race in the US. How wonderful.

Hey how did you figure out the Republican's top secret plan for world white-inization?

Comments like that are as ridiculous as saying a democratic president is going to lead us right into socialism and does not help solve anything. The differences between the average democrat and average rebublican are fairly minute. Where is my moderate party at, damnit!

Umm I guess you don't know of my hardcore conservatism and love of sarcastic comments?

Originally posted by DESIGN:
Marriage is not a civil right. It is not a right at all.

BS! As soon as the US GOVERNMENT based laws on marriage, it became a CIVIL RIGHT! You're kidding yourself if you don't see that.

--------------------------

1948, the California Supreme Court in Perez v. Lippold, 32 Cal.2d 711, held "The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights....[l]egislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws."

Loving vs Virginia, 1967
The Court found the institution of marriage, while social in nature, is also a basic civil right and cannot be restricted without very good reason.

Man rknee, you missed out on that history lesson about Separation of Church & State huh.

So they disgust you and it's not your beliefs and it's not what your religion wants... so lets just apply my religion to my government and deny gay people the right to be as equal as I am b/c they give me the jibblies. Get a grip.

Quote:

4 & 5. It would greatly offend me to have gays say they are married. I'll tell you why. It's because that kind of lifestyle is disgusting to me. Allowing them to say they are married disrespects what I feel is a very honorable and sacred arrangement. It has been for thousands of years. Call it whatever you want, just dont call it marriage, becuase marriage is between a man and a woman.

You know, 50-100 years ago, most people in this country said exactly the same thing about interracial marriage. And there are undoubtedly many in this country who still feel that way -- that the 'dignity' of their union has been disgraced by the State allowing a black and a white to marry.

But the States declared marriage a Civil Right and told them to suck it up and deal with it because blacks and whites were going to marry whether they liked it or not.

Originally posted by Andy W.:
LOLI was thinking!

Marriage
Garriage
Larriage

-Andy

Perfect. Problem solved!

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:

1. Yes, because the religious ceremony that I performed was called "marriage". Because someone wants to twist that to include something it wasnt intended to, I shouldn't have to change what I call it and what it stands for.

I think you missed that I specifically mentioned legal definition. In law, there is no difference between a civil marriage and a religious marriage. Chances are, as with most religions, your sacrament of marriage would still be protected to man and woman. To me, if the word is really that important, than we need to call all of them civil unions from a legal perspective. It seems to be something all "those gay people" seem to be okay with.

Quote:

2. No. Becasue I am married to a woman, it fits the definition of being "married".

Good. I wouldn't expect anyone to refer to their marriage as anything else because from a legal standpoint, it was called a civil union.

3. Sort of. Legally, I guess they could mean essentially the same thing. But I am "married" to the full extent of its meaning and definition, so I dont' see why it would need to be changed, unless there were civil unions. So I guess whatever they need to do to take care of legal business.

Couldn't agree more. This argument has to be based strictly on the legal sense, because that is the realm we are discussing. Now if the catholic church or some other religion decided to allow gay marriages, we are then taking on an entirely different, yet related subject.

Quote:

4 & 5. It would greatly offend me to have gays say they are married. I'll tell you why. It's because that kind of lifestyle is disgusting to me. Allowing them to say they are married disrespects what I feel is a very honorable and sacred arrangement. It has been for thousands of years. Call it whatever you want, just dont call it marriage, becuase marriage is between a man and a woman.

Since these vile gays are just looking for equal legal status, it seems that if we just replace marriage with civil union on the legal records, we are all set. The secular groups can legitimately base their definition of marriage on those beliefs, the govt treats them as equals. All that leaves for resolution is personal tolerance issues. Of course, this is the hardest to get past.

Quote:

If a law does get passed that says gays can be "married", then it will be a sad day. I won't love my wife any less, it won't have an effect on our relationship, but a part of the dignity of saying I'm "married" will be lost.

I just can't imagine allowing something like this to affect the dignity of my relationship or in anyway allow it to lessen the significance of my relationship. I bet you won't hear a single person say, "that Ryan, he and his wife sure had a great marriage before those gays started to be treated equally. now, i just don't know that his marriage means much anymore." Dignity is about poise, self-respect, self-worth, and nobility, if gay marriage lessens the dignity of your marriage, that is completely on you.

WOW!!! I just read ALL that. Im very proud of myself.

The descussion seems to be getting much more intelegent. Its just sad that this thread took about 23 pages to reach an intelegence factor that my brain could comprehend.

Anyway... Verry interesting, carry on.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
so lets just apply my religion to my government and deny gay people the right to be as equal as I am b/c they give me the jibblies.

I didn't mean to imply that. Let them have a civil union, but lets leave the definition of marriage alone. Its for a man and a woman.

Also, I don't think comparing this to racism is a valid comparison. Racism is about discriminating against a persons skin color, male or female. This is about reserving the religious ceremony of marraige for a man and woman as it was instituted for, not for those who choose an alternative lifestyle.

But then this opens the debate of whether being gay is a choice or not, which probably is the reason this is such a big deal; it's all opinion built on other supporting opinions, which are built on other supporting opinions to support the supporting opionions. You can show me studies that say they are born gay, but I can show you just as many that say it was a result of their upbringing or is their choice. This whole deal is just about the farthest thing from cut and dry.

I'd love for you to show me where someone says being gay is a conscious choice.

With the amount of hatred that this country has towards gay people and the way that gay people are negatively stigmatized all over this nation, why in the world would anyone choose to live this way consciously? You are misinformed.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
I didn't mean to imply that. Let them have a civil union, but lets leave the definition of marriage alone. Its for a man and a woman.

But, even if we are allowed our 'civil unions' your still going to have the proud parent that announces to their friends/family that their son or daughter is getting married. That parent is happy for their child and is not going to be going around saying, "Im so happy, my daughter is getting unioned!' It sounds like something that would happen at work, only with a little hazing involved.

The smartest standpoint, and it has been mentioned before, is to allow all couples, gay or straight civil unions. If you want to get married, you can go in front of the church of your choice. I dont care if the couple is issued a marriage license then. Perhaps if the union is performed by a church, then its a marriage, if it is not, then its a union.

In all the 'conversations' about this I have ever been in, not once has the subject of actually forcing religions to accept it and actually perform the marriages, come up. Everyone can keep their religions to themselves, thats between you and God. For the most part, I think everyone here can agree that what one person believes, even if they are of the same faith, it will still differ from what the next person believes.

IMHO, forcing the amendment through, and then using scare tactics is not the way to go. The Utah amendment never even went before the constitutional review board to iron out the flaws before it got voted on. Had it gone, they would have caught serious flaws in its wording. So instead of doing it the way it should have, now its going to cost the a ton of money (which will come from the taxpayers, of course) to fight it because of poor wording. The amendment here had the current attorney general and both of his competitors against it. The Utah Bar Association of Family Law was also against it. When you have lawyers saying a new law is a bad idea that should raise a giant red flag.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
I'd love for you to show me where someone says being gay is a conscious choice.

With the amount of hatred that this country has towards gay people and the way that gay people are negatively stigmatized all over this nation, why in the world would anyone choose to live this way consciously? You are misinformed.

Its amazing how many people believe it is. One day you just wake up and decide that you want to try the cawk.

So if it's a choice...did heteros make the choice also?

I am so glad that I'm not the only person who think that statement is utterly retarded.

Man I wish people would start thinking for themselves instead of following the crowd.

Amen...uh, er...I agree

Originally posted by SVZETEC:
So if it's a choice...did heteros make the choice also?

I believe it has to do with upbringing. Parents dont provide the right guidence regarding these issues and the children simply become "confused".

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by SVZETEC:
So if it's a choice...did heteros make the choice also?

I believe it has to do with upbringing. Parents dont provide the right guidence regarding these issues and the children simply become "confused".

So now you've resorted to calling gay people confused?

You bring me facts that state any of your claims to be true and I'll eat my words.

finaly started reading this thread and wanted to comment point a few things out that I feel

Originally posted by Fat Mike:

Originally posted by N-terst8:
Before I read all of this... I'm going to put my opinion in.

I am a christian... and by that I believe being homosexual or performing in homosexual acts is wrong. Again this is *MY* belief and I have the right to say this. But then again, I believe in the constitution and I feel putting a ban on this ruins a person's right to "pursue happiness". As a christian, you are supposed to stand up for your beliefs, which I am doing. But I am also saying that I would not go up to someone and say eeeww... your gay! I would keep to myself. Not only that, I believe I am standing up for my beliefs by saying it is wrong... but as a United States citizen I believe you have the right to do what you wish as long as it doesn't ruin the rights of another United States citizen. All I am saying is it is ok to state your beliefs that it is wrong, just as I do. But don't put a ban on people that wish to do the wrong, if they are religous in any way they no the consequences of being homosexual and are willing to accept them.

Steve

See, that's all I ask from the Christian community. Go ahead and believe it's wrong. That's your decision. But don't try to change our laws to reflect your beliefs on everyone else. Thanks for understanding that Steve.

first i agree with this, you shouldn't force your beleifs on other people, and to this the goverment shouldn't be telling people how to live their lives

next I want to suggest this is kinda like how the public felt about aids and sex back in the 80's and 90's, how it was wrong to talk about it

could it just be people need to become comfortable with this idea? that they need to stop fearing what they don't understand?

just food for thought ...

btw, I don't dislike homosexual people but I feel there is something inhearently wrong with the idea, but it isn't up to other or myself to say they are wrong and can't live a normal life, and yes my uncle is gay, and he is family and will be supported no matter how I feel

did anyone note that Virginias law pretty much forces homosexuals to move out of the state?

You know what? Lets test your logic:

I was raised in a broken home. I spent most of my youth living with my mother. I am not gay.

I have a personal friend who will remain nameless. He was raised by his father and his uncle, since his mother passed on. Not gay.

I have a girlfriend who was raised by her mother in an extremely rough circumnstance with very low income and tons of stress. Not gay.

I know a local baseball hero from my highschool days. Raised as a good Catholic. Picture perfect family. Dog & white picket fence & everything else. Great parents, always supportive. GAY.

Explain your logic?

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by SVZETEC:
So if it's a choice...did heteros make the choice also?

I believe it has to do with upbringing. Parents dont provide the right guidence regarding these issues and the children simply become "confused".

So now you've resorted to calling gay people confused?

You bring me facts that state any of your claims to be true and I'll eat my words.

Ok... Here we go.

Red I suggest you watch what and how you post. CI is already in danger of being taken down again for various abuses so please don't resort to the type of posting I just had to type over. Thank you-Freakshow.

Originally posted by Red92784:

Ok... Here we go.

deleted

So then does masturbating qualify as "being confused" as well? Howabout anal sex with a woman? Does that make you an "undercover" homo?

And since when is it your business where anybody else decides where to put their stuff?

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Red92784:

Ok... Here we go.

deleted

So then does masturbating qualify as "being confused" as well? Howabout anal sex with a woman? Does that make you an "undercover" homo?

And since when is it your business where anybody else decides where to put their stuff?

I don't know how anybody can still have the patience to form a reply to you when all you keep doing is asking questions.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Red92784:

Ok... Here we go.

deleted

So then does masturbating qualify as "being confused" as well? Howabout anal sex with a woman? Does that make you an "undercover" homo?

And since when is it your business where anybody else decides where to put their stuff?

There is only one place that a mans "stuff" is ment to be put. Masturbation is irrevelent.

I guess we do need an illustration.

[image]Damn rules[image/]

Duely noted.

This poster made a broad generalized statement that he feels applies to everyone. Although on a biological level, his views may be correct, on a human level his views do not apply to everyone since obviously humans are not dominated 100% by science. If they were, we would not be having this discussion, there would be no religion, nothing spiritual to believe in, no reason to hope, no reason to live other than a meaningless biological robotic life of reproduction. The Bible would have no purpose nor would any other text prophecising things like "rising from the dead" or "eternal life" because obviously we would not believe in these things.

I say we are different. I say humanity is indeed blessed in some way that all of us do not understand no matter how much we claim to. I say it is this uniqueness that sets the stage for our society. That only the facts be our laws and that the people live how they choose as long as everyone respects each other and gives each other the right to live as they wish.

Originally posted by SAV-ZX2:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Red92784:

Ok... Here we go.

deleted

So then does masturbating qualify as "being confused" as well? Howabout anal sex with a woman? Does that make you an "undercover" homo?

And since when is it your business where anybody else decides where to put their stuff?

I don't know how anybody can still have the patience to form a reply to you when all you keep doing is asking questions.

What is wrong with asking questions. It's better than remaining ignorant.

Furthermore... your blanket statement that a dick belongs only in a [censored] stems from your belief that sex is a vessel meant only for procreation. So that means that every time you've had sex with someone and did not make the effort to have a child you went against your own rules on what sex is for.

Sex is not just a means of reproduction. It is a way of showing a partner that you care for them in the utmost level a human can show. It can also be a way someone degrades another human being by raping them or extorting them into the act. Before you point at another human and criticize them about how and why they have sex, take a look at yourself and the people around you and see if they're living up to your own standards.

Originally posted by Red92784:

deleted

So you can only marry if you plan to have vaginal intercourse?

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Sex is not just a means of reproduction. It is a way of showing a partner that you care for them in the utmost level a human can show. It can also be a way someone degrades another human being by raping them or extorting them into the act. Before you point at another human and criticize them about how and why they have sex, take a look at yourself and the people around you and see if they're living up to your own standards.

This is still too broad. You don't cover 1 night stands. Sex is another form of social interaction and personal pleasure.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Duely noted.

This poster made a broad generalized statement that he feels applies to everyone. Although on a biological level, his views may be correct, on a human level his views do not apply to everyone since obviously humans are not dominated 100% by science. If they were, we would not be having this discussion, there would be no religion, nothing spiritual to believe in, no reason to hope, no reason to live other than a meaningless biological robotic life of reproduction. The Bible would have no purpose nor would any other text prophecising things like "rising from the dead" or "eternal life" because obviously we would not believe in these things.

I say we are different. I say humanity is indeed blessed in some way that all of us do not understand no matter how much we claim to. I say it is this uniqueness that sets the stage for our society. That only the facts be our laws and that the people live how they choose as long as everyone respects each other and gives each other the right to live as they wish.

Now that's the type of response I was looking for.

Originally posted by zgendron:
This is still too broad. You don't cover 1 night stands. Sex is another form of social interaction and personal pleasure.

You can also add masturbation into this since it isnt for procration. That now brings in 'Spilling your seed upon the Earth'

This is turning into a religious debate so we need to try to sway it back onto the subject. In my attempt to gently nudge this back to where it was supposed to be Ill add this.

Most parents (and would be parents) have/will have unconditional love for their children. There is very little that a child (even if they are grown) could do that would take that love away. Now, God loves all of his children and has told us to love thy neighbor. If man was created in God's image, we must take on some of his traits, like loving our children. Even though he might not completely approve of his childs choice, he will stand behind them. I would think that God, or any parent, would be happy that their child has found someone (even if they do not approve of the relationship) that they love and care about and are willing to devote the rest of their life to.

So its amazing how quickly that love for thy neighbor is forgotten because there are fags out there and they are going to get us.

And we are off to the lawsuit races!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137625,00.html

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
And we are off to the lawsuit races!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137625,00.html

This was inevitable. The ultimate irony of these amendments may very well be that they become the catalyst that pushes sexual orientation onto the same protected list as race, gender, and religion

Its about time that happens.

And when it does, all the current amendments and laws prohibiting gay marriage will go the way of the dinosaur.

Originally posted by ExDelayed:
Its about time that happens.

And when it does, all the current amendments and laws prohibiting gay marriage will go the way of the dinosaur.

Yeah! Forget the will of the people! Let a couple rouge judges decide what is best for us!

If that was the case, we'd still have slaves and your wife would be your property. Times have changed and the courtroom is what the laws happen now.

Originally posted by ExDelayed:
Times have changed and the courtroom is what the laws happen now.

And that is scarey as hell. When these nutcase liberal judges decide they know whats right, screw what the laws say, and make their own damn laws, then we lose our system of checks and balances.

Why even vote for laws anymore? Some stupid ass judge with a propaganda is going to make his mind up for the majority. To some of these judges it does not matter that 76% of Oklahomans want to make marriage be between man and a woman. No, if they don't want it, then it wont be there. Out of all the states, Oregon was the closest vote, and even there the vote was 57% to 43%. Sorry to all the people out there that want to bastardize what marriage means; the people of these 11 states have spoken. All you liberals can run to your nutcase judges now and work on overturning what an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted now.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Furthermore... your blanket statement that a dick belongs only in a [censored] stems from your belief that sex is a vessel meant only for procreation. So that means that every time you've had sex with someone and did not make the effort to have a child you went against your own rules on what sex is for.

Sex is not just a means of reproduction. It is a way of showing a partner that you care for them in the utmost level a human can show. It can also be a way someone degrades another human being by raping them or extorting them into the act. Before you point at another human and criticize them about how and why they have sex, take a look at yourself and the people around you and see if they're living up to your own standards.

Deleted. This is your last warning Red. I'd rather not have to lock or delete this thread because SOME people in here are actually having a valid discussion so please cease with the crude sexual references that CLEARLY violate forum rules.

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Furthermore... your blanket statement that a dick belongs only in a [censored] stems from your belief that sex is a vessel meant only for procreation. So that means that every time you've had sex with someone and did not make the effort to have a child you went against your own rules on what sex is for.

Sex is not just a means of reproduction. It is a way of showing a partner that you care for them in the utmost level a human can show. It can also be a way someone degrades another human being by raping them or extorting them into the act. Before you point at another human and criticize them about how and why they have sex, take a look at yourself and the people around you and see if they're living up to your own standards.

Sex IS a vessel for procreation. DELETED!!! Any one who thinks otherwise is "CONFUSED".

Honestly, even though put so harshly, he is just stating what a lot of people are saying and what I believe in (again its very harsh though). But RED, not to give them such a hard time... they have a life to live and its tough enough already...

Steve

Originally posted by N-terst8:

Originally posted by Red92784:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Furthermore... your blanket statement that a dick belongs only in a [censored] stems from your belief that sex is a vessel meant only for procreation. So that means that every time you've had sex with someone and did not make the effort to have a child you went against your own rules on what sex is for.

Sex is not just a means of reproduction. It is a way of showing a partner that you care for them in the utmost level a human can show. It can also be a way someone degrades another human being by raping them or extorting them into the act. Before you point at another human and criticize them about how and why they have sex, take a look at yourself and the people around you and see if they're living up to your own standards.

Sex IS a vessel for procreation. That was the origional design. DELETED! Any one who thinks otherwise is "CONFUSED".

Honestly, even though put so harshly, he is just stating what a lot of people are saying and what I believe in (again its very harsh though). But RED, not to give them such a hard time... they have a life to live and its tough enough already...

Steve

I was trying to make a point and he diddn't seem to be getting it. I was attempting not to be harsh but some people need to be slapped around a little. Besides, they can choose not to live that life. There are thousands of gay people who have turned their back on homosexuality and started living a normal life.

Red, I will just say you don't know how two men have sex. However, since I am willing to bet that neither you nor the rest of this site really wants to know, I'm not going there. I also won't go into how it's not limited to gay men.

For those who believe it is a choice to be gay, please share with us your stories of when and how you chose to be straight.

That so-called reassignment has no merit. The mind is suggestable and can be convinced of anything if indoctrinated well enough. Heck, look at those who still believe Iraq was behind 9-11!

My rule for any limit placed by government is that government only has the authority to protect people from harm caused by actions they do not or cannot consent to. Banning gay marriage does not qualify.

GreenNuggs, good to see you out here!

Originally posted by ExDelayed:
If that was the case, we'd still have slaves and your wife would be your property. Times have changed and the courtroom is what the laws happen now.

you have no idea what you're talking about. our whole legal system was founded on judge-made law. it has been around far longer than statutory law. have you ever heard of "common law"

this is when a judge decides a ruling in a case and subsequent cases that are similar look to it as precedence. this has been around since the Conquest of England, where we inherited our legal system.
statutory laws are typically very general in their structure and do not cover each and every detail. it is then up to the judges to interpret the law (statutes aka legislation) when it does not specifically mention something. this is the same thing they do when the Supreme Court discusses the Constitution. half the people say the 2nd amendment says people have the right to own guns and the other half say that's not what the forefathers meant. the 2nd amendment,as we all know, does not cover specifics as to "who" and "what". That is why it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret it, and any other argued/questioned issues.
some people in here blame and disrespect judges but they are 1000x smarter than our president. they dont get to where they are from kissing @sses and backstabbing people. Not to mention, when an issue is brought before the courts, the judges make their decisions based on the strongest argument presented to them. this is done by the lawyers and their clients in devising strategies and arguments for their agenda. dont be upset if the opposition is better at it than your side. if you have such a beef with the situation then get involved. For real get involved, not just sitting on your computer and throwing wild and uselss accusations and insults on a web forum. Move up in your party and get into the inner circle that is actually invovled in the struggle or go to law school and get your juris doctorate and help your cause in that sense. sitting at home whining about it doesnt do anything.

I'm saying that the problem with these "studies" on whether being gay is a result of upbringing vs predestination is that there are way too many variables.

I'm a firm beleiver that 95% of the reason a person is who they are is because of the way they were raised. Just because they were raised in a catholic household with picket fense and good solid income doesn't mean daddy wasn't molesting johny all his young life, or it doesn't mean that mommy didn't wish she had a daughter and dressed her son up in girls clothes behind closed doors, or if johnny spent most of his teenage years watching mom get dressed and shopping with mom and cooking with mom etc. There's so many factors that such studies, whether for gays being "born that way" or based on upbringing that any conclusions can be debated in themselves, let alone base the debate of whether they should be allowed to marry or not on them.

The laws of nature themselves contradict homosexuality. How does it even fit into the evolution theory (I beleive in creation)? I simply doubt that its something people are "born with" and it has more to do with the way they grew into adulthood. I'm not saying they consciously "choose" to be gay, in fact I think that in their mind, its probably normal to them, but unfortunately it was a series of unhealthy experiences that left them with that notion.

Quote:

The laws of nature themselves contradict homosexuality.

How so? Because it doesn't lead to reproduction of the species? Well neither does infertility and millions of people are born every year that way.

Homosexuality has been observed in almost every animal species on the planet. It commonly occurs yet appears to increase as population levels rise. There are numerous reasons why it fits very well into evolution theory. It can be an adaptation to an overcrowded environment and/or an environment where same-sex contact is far more common.

Nature is constantly changing, trying new things, seeing which work and which don't in which circumstances -- any sort of genetic 'abnormality' (and I hate to use that word) is not "against the law of nature" it is the law of nature.

Originally posted by svtcarboy:
Red, I will just say you don't know how two men have sex. However, since I am willing to bet that neither you nor the rest of this site really wants to know, I'm not going there. I also won't go into how it's not limited to gay men.

For those who believe it is a choice to be gay, please share with us your stories of when and how you chose to be straight.

That so-called reassignment has no merit. The mind is suggestable and can be convinced of anything if indoctrinated well enough. Heck, look at those who still believe Iraq was behind 9-11!

My rule for any limit placed by government is that government only has the authority to protect people from harm caused by actions they do not or cannot consent to. Banning gay marriage does not qualify.

GreenNuggs, good to see you out here!

Maybe not, but Im willing to bet that their not rubbing two sticks together under the bed sheets. I guess I was raised in an old fation way, with morals and values. Two men having sexual relations is immoral and repulsive. ::crude unecessary sexual reference:: They also dont need to de-moralise the term marrage. Call it something else if you must, but its not marrage. Marrage is a beautiful and honerable thing, weather religious or not it defines a loving relationship between a man and a women. THEY ALREADY STOLE THE RAINBOW!!! THEY CANT HAVE THE WORD MARRAGE TOO!!!

Well... I don't understand how mixed gender roles and homosexuality are related...

Until about 100 years ago, boys and girls were dressed identically until approximately 5 years of age... in dresses.

Most transvestites are heterosexual.

There are and have been a significant number of animals both domesticated and wild that are homosexual.

I have morals and values. However, they happen to disagree with yours in this specific area.

My dad was as straight as they come, yet his cooking was famous in our part of the county. There's a spice that's still known as "Jim's Red S***". I wish I could cook like him and my grandpa, but my sister got the knack, though I bake well.

I never saw my mom, my sister, or my grandma in any dresses... yet I would wrap myself in blankets as if I were wearing a dress and curl the hair on my sister's dolls.

Sorry... I don't buy the upbringing bit.

Sorry... marriage doesn't belong to you. It belongs to everybody. If you don't wish to personally recognize same-sex unions as marriages, that is your right. You don't have the right to force that others.

Originally posted by Red92784:
THEY ALREADY STOLE THE RAINBOW!!! THEY CANT HAVE THE WORD MARRAGE TOO!!!

LMFAO!

this may be a candidate for the new "best quote I have ever read!"

Originally posted by svt4stv:

Originally posted by Red92784:
THEY ALREADY STOLE THE RAINBOW!!! THEY CANT HAVE THE WORD MARRAGE TOO!!!

LMFAO! this may be a candidate for the new "best quote I have ever read!"

Thank you, thank you... But first I want to thank my mom and........

Originally posted by Red92784:
They also dont need to de-moralise the term marrage. Call it something else if you must, but its not marrage. Marrage is a beautiful and honerable thing, weather religious or not it defines a loving relationship between a man and a women. THEY ALREADY STOLE THE RAINBOW!!! THEY CANT HAVE THE WORD MARRAGE TOO!!!

Fisrt of all, if marriage is so sacred to you please at least learn to spell it correctly.

Seriously though, the term marriage has already be demoralized to a degree and it has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with hypocrite people who claim marriage is so sacred yet get divorced at a rate of (IIRC) no over 50% in the U.S. I've already covered this countless times; no fault divorce laws, media cirucising of marriage for ratings, etc. Homosexuals are not the ones who have demoralized or lessened the term marriage; it's the good "old fashioned" hetros that are doing a dandy job of that already.

Quote:

Maybe that's the first step for them then. My issue is that just because a person's sexual preference is different we have to make new terms for them to suit that difference? Howabout when thugs in the ghetto get married we call it "Hooked Up"? Howabout when hillbillies with no teeth get married we call it "Cousin Fuzzin"? (JOKE!) Why should we make it different?

Why shouldn't we make new terms. Afterall, it isn't a union between a man and a woman, therefore it cannot be considered a marriage. And your thugs and hillbillies analogy is ridiculous. White, brown, yellow, pink, red, orange, whatever color you are, it's still between a MAN and a WOMAN. I have no problem with homosexuals but fighting to make the legal union between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman seems to be turning into more of a ploy to get peoples attention. Why can you people just not realize it's not marriage, get over it, and find a new name for it.

Originally posted by DJ Capp 911:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
I still don't see how that gives anyone the right to push their beliefs on anyone, no matter how old the culture or tradition is.

It's not a culture I believe in or was raised in, so why am I made to live in a society that feels the need to evangelize it's beliefs on everyone that it doesn't agree with? THAT is not what this country was founded on. THAT is the primary reason that people left Europe for the New World, for the freedom to practice their beliefs without persecution.

Problem is, we are not living under a dictator. The vast majority have spoken, and they do not want gay marriage. As much as you do not like it, you have to accept it. That is the facts of the situation.

Well in that case ship me back down to alabama and have me start picking cotton again. Just because the majority votes for it doesn't make it right. The majority could be misinformed.

Wow, I am gone to work for a couple days and miss a couple hundred posts.

Anyway, so you think that given the chance, the general populace would vote to reinstate slavery? Talk about being out of touch with reality.

Originally posted by bishop375:
Childish rant? What was irrelevant in my post? None of it. Nor was it childish. You can try to put whatever spin you want on it, but the point is that there is NO solid argument AGAINST gay marriage outside of quasi-cultural and religious arguments. Cultures change with time. The values you and I have today are completely different from what they were hundreds of years ago on this soil.

The fact of the matter is this- there IS no solution to this that will ever satisfy both sides. Either redefining marriage or destroying it altogether and creating nothing but federal/state civil unions, they're both bad choices. The question is which one sucks less- blatant sexism or "ruining it" for everyone.

Apparently, according to the majority opinion, those traditional values have not changed as much as you think they have....

Originally posted by svtcarboy:
While I was disappointed with the voters in those 11 states for adding hate and discrimination into their Constitutions, reading this thread has left me bewildered.

I truly do not understand why people oppose gay marriage. Allowing homosexuals to make the commitment that too many heterosexuals take for granted does not have any effect on heterosexuals. Your marriage is suddenly not any less than it was, it is not preventing you from doing anything or affecting you in any way. It only allows gay and lesbian people equal access to a social institution.

Calling a homosexual couple a "civil union" while calling a heterosexual couple a "marriage" is the same as sending black children and white children to two different schools. Even if they are identical, they are not equal. This premise was ruled on by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board, and applies to all governmental institutions, including marriage.

The slippery slope of polygamous marriage (totally different type of commitment) or of close relatives (potential for biological harm) are unrelated to removing gender discrimination in giving lifelong commitments equal billing.

I will only consider the term "civil union" acceptable and equal if all heterosexual commitments of the same type are given the same name.

I am not asking anyone to approve of gays or of gay marriage. You can hate it as much as you want, call me names on the street, whatever. I am not hurting you in any way or affecting you in any way by getting married. However, you are harming me when you put additional roadblocks between me and my right to marry the person I want to spend the rest of my life with.

The reverse arguement also applies. What are gays missing out on by simply not giving the legal term "marriage" to their relationship? Are they any less committed to each other because of that? Seems the argument has been a little one-sided on this issue.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
I love how people that are for gay marriage love to preach respect for people's opinions, and accepting people for who they are....

But when someone has an opinion different from them, no matter if its based on faith, morals, whatever, those people are wrong and they are bigots and haters for having that opionion.

The true hypocrites are those that can't accept the fact that some (and by the votes, a majority) people think that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

BINGO!

Originally posted by Sandman333:

What are gays missing out on by simply not giving the legal term "marriage" to their relationship?

ummm...EQUALITY?

Originally posted by Freakshow:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

What are gays missing out on by simply not giving the legal term "marriage" to their relationship?

ummm...EQUALITY?

How so? They have the right to marry a woman if they want. You say it like a straight person is allowed to marry samesex but a gay person isn't.

Originally posted by Freakshow:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

What are gays missing out on by simply not giving the legal term "marriage" to their relationship?

ummm...EQUALITY?

They are not equal, the latest vote said so by denying them marriage in 11 states.

And that's exactly what the problem is: discrimination.

As far as Sandman's previous post. This thread wasn't really started because of gays not being able to use the term "marriage" (even though it's been a big part of the discussion) but with voting the way it went there isn't really even open discussion available for civil unions in a lot of states now. No matter how you cut it and no matter what the "majority" might say it is discrimination. I don't believe that people should have to accept homosexuality or like it or anything, but they should not be allowed to discriminate against it simply because it doesn't fit "their morals" just like no one should be allowed to force a black person to eat in a different restaurant simply because they're morals tell them black people are bad, wrong, or subhuman etc.

Originally posted by Freakshow:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

What are gays missing out on by simply not giving the legal term "marriage" to their relationship?

ummm...EQUALITY?

and that about sums it up. not that i agree with or anything because i'm still on the fence on this issue.

i see youre in the military (right?). what about gays in the military? the dont ask, dont tell policy is kind of discriminatory. dont ya think? (not trying to chum any flamebait here but curious as to people in here thoughts on that, especially our CEG servicemen).

they made such a big issue out of it years ago and now its kinda just forgotten. ever meet any men you knew were gay in the military? or do they have to hide it?

Originally posted by Freakshow:
And that's exactly what the problem is: discrimination.

The bottom line is that this will never end. Discrimination is always going to be around as long as there are two people walking the earth.

I've far beyond reached the end of seeing any more logic in this thread.

I've worked with some people that I suspected are gay and some that SEEM like the stereotypical homosexual but yes they are not allowed to be open about it. In fact, one guy I knew when I was stationed in NM was kicked out because he told the commander he was gay. We kinda think he WANTED to get out and that was the easy way but I don't think he was lying about being gay.

Personally, I think it's a trash policy...fluff designed in an attempt to make it SEEM like the military was trying to accept homosexuality but in reality they don't. The biggest issue to me would be working out housing problems if gays were openly allowed in the military but it could be done.

I think the major force driving the current lack of acceptance in the military is leaders fearing the disruption it would cause because of hateful, ignorant, gay basher types. Unfortunately there would be MANY problems with that but I believe that one day people will realize that we're all just people...period.

Don't get me wrong, I would probably (in some instances) feel a bit uncomfortable about it myself. I'm no bigot or homophobe but I'm also not gonna sit here and play like I'm a saint. But, overall I don't see what the problem is. There was a time certain races were not allowed in the military and eventually made major contributions to it once they were given a chance...I don't think homosexuals would be any different if given an opportunity.

Everyone also thought intergrating race was a bad idea also... look what happened... some of my really good friends are african-american.

Yeah that's what I was saying more or less.

Originally posted by Freakshow:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

What are gays missing out on by simply not giving the legal term "marriage" to their relationship?

ummm...EQUALITY?

So the definition of equality in this case is having the same things as heterosexuals? As I show here, this is a problem:

Originally posted by Davo:
I don't understand why the homosexual community puts so much emphasis on beoming heterosexuals. This is analagous to the feminists basing the success of their movement on how much more like men they can become. If homosexuals put as much energy into building the prestige and significance of their relationships as they put into trying to become part of a historically and socially heterosexual institution, they would advance much further towards 'equality'.

The gay community needs to re-focus its efforts and it will begin to gain more respect from the 70% or so people in this country who feel like the homosexual lifestyle is being rammed down their throats.

I don't think that homosexuals are trying to become hetrosexuals. From a sociological perspective, what they are attempting to do is assimilate into the rest of society as a whole. This is and has been a natural occurence for various subcultures throughout the history of "modern" society to attempt to mesh into their society while still holding some of their own cultural values. We may not agree with their culture as many did and still do not agree with various other subcultures in the U.S. which is where the conflict arises.

If homosexuals were really trying to be hetrosexual they would be out marrying people of the opposite sex. I don understand where you are coming from about the feeling that homosexuality is being forced down your throat (bad analogy I think lol) via the media but if you don't like homosexual sitcoms or shows you have every right to change the channel. If you don't like homosexuals being married you have every right to express your opinion. If you don't like homosexuals at all you have every right not to. What you don't have a right to do is discriminate and deny someone the right to be happy simply because you don't like their sexual preference, race, color, religion, etc.

Originally posted by Freakshow:
What you don't have a right to do is discriminate and deny someone the right to be happy simply because you don't like their sexual preference, race, color, religion, etc.

Amen.

Originally posted by Derk2000:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
To me, by definition, gays can't be married.

I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just trying to convey a point here. (Forget the polygamy stuff. I don't know and/or care enough about it right now).

Definition - A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term...(dictionary.com)

So, if the meaning of marriage to me differs from the meaning of marriage to someone else, who's to say what's right?
If the meaning of the term "marriage" differs between me and another person, is the meaning it has to me wrong?

When I get married, I don't think the meaning of my marriage will be altered whether or not gays can marry.

It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Originally posted by ZetecNinja:

Originally posted by Freakshow:
What you don't have a right to do is discriminate and deny someone the right to be happy simply because you don't like their sexual preference, race, color, religion, etc.

Amen.

I say Amen too, because you proved my point. The problem is that homosexuals consider 'marriage' as the only route to happiness. They need to think of ways other than membership into heterosexual institutions to be happy. I like the fact that Curves doesn't have any mirrors at any of its facilities. Should I try to get into Curves, or try to think of something else to be happy about at the club I go to now?

If you're so anti-discrimination, then maybe you'll join me in opposition to Affirmative Action.

I'm not really getting your point with the whole club thing. Marriage isn't a fitness club so I don't really see how your analogy equates Davo.

Not really sure either what AA has to do with this particular thread but I've been against AA for some time now. Maybe you think that because I oppose banning gay marriages I'm some sort of liberal and agree with all other liberal policies. Not sure if that's where the AA thing came or not but I've never said I was for AA.

Originally posted by Davo:

Originally posted by ZetecNinja:

Originally posted by Freakshow:
What you don't have a right to do is discriminate and deny someone the right to be happy simply because you don't like their sexual preference, race, color, religion, etc.

Amen.

They need to think of ways other than membership into heterosexual institutions to be happy.

As someone who does not appear to be homosexual, how can you make that statement?

I'm pretty sure I am not going to say anything that has not been said 10x over but all these people want is to be accepted and treated equal. Why is it so hard to do that?

Question, and to no one in particular:

What do gay couples call each other within their relationship? Certainly, it's not Husband and Wife. They don't use those terms (to my knowledge), because they would be silly to use in that type of situation. Which is which? They don't fit. And neither does the term "marriage" for a homosexual relationship.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
So

You're making the claim that those who aren't Christian have no moral beliefs?

What about the KKK?

What about the Southerners who stood up for making black people sit in the back of the bus?

Don't criticize me with your red-neck adgenda. I feed the poor on Thanksgiving. I do volunteer work. My family business helps underprivileged families get their kids into preschool with government assistance. I probably do more good and show more morality than most of the Christians bother doing in a lifetime.

Funny, but one of the groups targeted by the KKK was Catholics (Christians), no?

Originally posted by Freakshow:
I'm not really getting your point with the whole club thing. Marriage isn't a fitness club so I don't really see how your analogy equates Davo.

This point was to show that my reaction to liking something where I don't belong isn't to make it so that I belong there, rather to find something else to like.

Originally posted by Freakshow:
Not really sure either what AA has to do with this particular thread but I've been against AA for some time now. Maybe you think that because I oppose banning gay marriages I'm some sort of liberal and agree with all other liberal policies. Not sure if that's where the AA thing came or not but I've never said I was for AA.

Just seeing if you were going to selectively apply your anti-discrimination beliefs.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Corbett:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
So

You're making the claim that those who aren't Christian have no moral beliefs?

What about the KKK?

What about the Southerners who stood up for making black people sit in the back of the bus?

Don't criticize me with your red-neck adgenda. I feed the poor on Thanksgiving. I do volunteer work. My family business helps underprivileged families get their kids into preschool with government assistance. I probably do more good and show more morality than most of the Christians bother doing in a lifetime.

No, I am saying they have no base for their moral beliefs. Where else would you get them from?

And I am not suggesting that the KKK or any racist group is justified. In fact, I am stongly against them.

Red-neck agenda? How can that be? I'm from Detroit. That's great you do all the great things but its sad there are no Christians in your life that are a good example for you. Hopefully one day that will change.

You have NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

My ancestors were the FIRST Mexican Methodist Missionaries EVER. My family is deeply rooted in the Methodist and Catholic religions. We also know the meaning of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE which apparently Evangelical Christians have forgotten about completely.

And what does being Christian automatically qualify you to be a good person?!??! Charles Manson was Christian! Hitler was Christian! Intelligence was wasted on you.

I think you need to rethink your definition of Christian. Even Satan believes in Jesus, but I wouldn't exactly call him a Christian.

Originally posted by neelnug:

Originally posted by contourGL1996:

Originally posted by Fat Mike:
[begin rant]

I saw two of my gay friends break down in tears last night when they found out measure 36 passed, adding discrimination to our state's constitution. Not a single freaking state rejected these measures. I'm sure God is pleased that all his loving followers have worked so hard to keep our families, children and marriages safe from those dirty queers...

I swear, everytime I see some SUV with a Jesus fish on one side and a "one man, one woman" sticker on the other, I get so damn disgusted. Some middle-aged seacow who has never met a homosexual person in her life thinks it's their Christian duty to prevent "those sick gay people" from trying to have any sort of freedoms or rights. Meanwhile they continue to instruct all their followers about how treating gay people like actual human beings is a sin. It's probably only because gay people can't produce more soldiers for God's army. And only straight marriages can be pure and holy - even while daddy is banging the secretary, mommy is popping valuum and your daughter keeps getting felt up by the youth leader. But at least queers can't marry now because everyone knows they're the ones with the real problems.

Will people ever f*cking realize that they shouldn't try to decide what people can do in their personal lives, and that they shouldn't worry about it because it doesn't effect them?

[end rant]

Sorry, had to vent.

I agree 100%

Well put. This is the saddest thread I have ever read at CEG. It truely shows the close mindedness and stupidity of the U.S. right now. It just blows me away. I guess growing up in close proximity to large cities has opened my mind to reality. I will not allow a book to dictate my beliefs or a guy in a robe to tell me whats best for my family. As I will not let either of these control my government.

My question is... is marriage a legal term or religious term?

Why is it that those who attempt to take a moral stance based on religious teachings are automatically characterized as not being capable of thinking for themselves? It's not possible that we considered the alternatives and came to a rational conclusion on our own. You base this on what, the end result that our opinions differ from yours?

C'mon Davo that club comparison is a very weak arguement at best and well beneath what you are capable of. I'd expect more than a paper thin apples to oranges comparison like that from someone who normally prides themself on being an intelligent debater.

And on the AA thing; even if your "trap" had worked and you called me a hypocrite for selectively applying my beliefs it would still not change this particular issue.

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by neelnug:

Originally posted by contourGL1996:

Originally posted by Fat Mike:
[begin rant]

I saw two of my gay friends break down in tears last night when they found out measure 36 passed, adding discrimination to our state's constitution. Not a single freaking state rejected these measures. I'm sure God is pleased that all his loving followers have worked so hard to keep our families, children and marriages safe from those dirty queers...

I swear, everytime I see some SUV with a Jesus fish on one side and a "one man, one woman" sticker on the other, I get so damn disgusted. Some middle-aged seacow who has never met a homosexual person in her life thinks it's their Christian duty to prevent "those sick gay people" from trying to have any sort of freedoms or rights. Meanwhile they continue to instruct all their followers about how treating gay people like actual human beings is a sin. It's probably only because gay people can't produce more soldiers for God's army. And only straight marriages can be pure and holy - even while daddy is banging the secretary, mommy is popping valuum and your daughter keeps getting felt up by the youth leader. But at least queers can't marry now because everyone knows they're the ones with the real problems.

Will people ever f*cking realize that they shouldn't try to decide what people can do in their personal lives, and that they shouldn't worry about it because it doesn't effect them?

[end rant]

Sorry, had to vent.

I agree 100%

Well put. This is the saddest thread I have ever read at CEG. It truely shows the close mindedness and stupidity of the U.S. right now. It just blows me away. I guess growing up in close proximity to large cities has opened my mind to reality. I will not allow a book to dictate my beliefs or a guy in a robe to tell me whats best for my family. As I will not let either of these control my government.

My question is... is marriage a legal term or religious term?

Why is it that those who attempt to take a moral stance based on religious teachings are automatically characterized as not being capable of thinking for themselves? It's not possible that we considered the alternatives and came to a rational conclusion on our own. You base this on what, the end result that our opinions differ from yours?

I think some of it stems from the fact that MANY religious people do in fact attempt to force their beliefs and the bible's morals on others because in their eyes it is righteous to do "god's" work. The problem is these are usually the biggest hypocrites concerning religion because they totally disregard jesus' teachings of tolerance and forgiveness. Many religious people are close minded to anything that exists outside the realm of what their bible tells them. Obviously this is not all religious people but there are many extremists out there that give organized religion a bad name IMO.

Now I know you're going to fire back about homosexuals forcing their views on you so before you waste your time: No homosexual is asking you to TRY or BECOME homosexual. They are simply asking for equal rights under the law so that "they're forcing their lifestyle on me" arguement really doesn't work. Trust me, I was once on your side of this issue until I really objectively researched and thoght about the issue and I was forced to change my stance...and please spare me the Kerry flip flop jokes.

Quote:

Sandmann, I know your military background has probably allowed you to do some traveling. Having said that, I must question your comments about the American family structure. Were you referring to the family while the country was being structured, or what it is now? From my experience, I do not see the US as having a very family based society, in fact, I have seen quite the opposite. Statistics I have seen seem to show that gay marriages tend to last longer than straight marriages. I know we are not looking at a statistically significant number compared to straight marriages, but what I have seen makes me believe that gay couples can actually be more dedicated to one another and their family than straight couples. Who knows, maybe gay people are more dedicated because of the social unacceptance. Or maybe they know something us straight people have forgotten about what makes a successful relationship.

Mostly referring to what this country was, and the ideals it was founded upon. I would like to see us get back to that, a society based on morals and values. No matter what your religion or lack thereof, I believe that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong.

Example: When given psychiatric evaluations, one question often asked by patients of their doctors after admitting homosexual tendencies is whether or not there was some type of abuse or sexual trauma at a young age. This suggests a deviation from the norm.

Further example: Take the agnostic pragmatic approach. For the continuation of the species (talking procreation here), it is not logical that we were designed by nature to engage in homosexual activity.

This nation was founded on Christian morals and ideals. There is no getting around that. However, those same founders absolutly recognized the value of seperation of Church and State. There is beauty and grace in our current system. So, we can impart those values and ideals in a secular way. The traditional definition of marriage, whether religious or otherwise, has been between one man and one woman. The majority of those 11 states feel that we should not give special preferential consideration to a minority group by redefining marriage and thus compromising our values and ideals as a society. It has nothing to do with how gay marriage would effect individual relationships. That is an empty argument posed by pro-gay activists in an attempt to deflect from the true focus of the issue. The focus is what society defines as acceptable moral behavior. Society has spoken in 11 states, and their voice seems pretty loud and clear.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Rkneeshaw... Marriage has been defined LONG BEFORE Christ ever existed. Romans practiced marriage as did the Greeks. And Jesus was a Jew and his family was also married. This is not a Christian-original idea, therefore the Christian community cannot take ownership of the institution.

If your church does not want to marry gays, that's well within the bounds of your church to decide, but your church doesn't run the country or my life and I will not abide by its rules.

DESIGN if you have such a problem with gays on TV, change the channel. I have a problem with Brittney Spears showing her ass all day long on TV, so I change the channel. You have a choice. It is immoral to remove someone elses right to choose no matter where they're from.

I don't remember the Bible beginning only with the New Testament. Try reading Genesis for early teachings on marriage.

Originally posted by daenku32:
Laws are based on knee-jerk opinions? Whatever the majority wants goes? No matter how illogical and destructive it might be?

So you then should decide for us when we have thought enough about an issue that we are ready to vote on it? I guess that would be when our opinions align with yours?

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by DESIGN:
It is extemely ingorant to assume that because I am not directly affected by a law that it doesn't concern me. I am concerned about laws that affect my country.

On the list of the issues that affect your country... outsourcing, the economy, Iraq, terror, wide open borders, education, social security... gays getting married is so insignificant that for anyone to pay any more attention than 5 minutes is unecessary. Everyone should have equal rights, there are no 2nd class citizens. Done.

So because you deem this issue unimportant, we are not allowed to have a voice on it?

Sigh, the hyprocrites these days.

Originally posted by daenku32:

Originally posted by DESIGN:

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

On the list of the issues that affect your country... outsourcing, the economy, Iraq, terror, wide open borders, education, social security... gays getting married is so insignificant that for anyone to pay any more attention than 5 minutes is unecessary. Everyone should have equal rights, there are no 2nd class citizens. Done.

If it were really insignificant the debate across our country wouldn't be the way it is. I beleive that the foundation of the family is a CORE issue in America and honestly it is more important than any of those other things.

Gay marriage will not prohibit a single traditional marriage from taking place.

True, also completely irrelevant. We are talking about socially accepted values. Stop trying to redirect the issue. Fact: The majority deems homosexual behavior as unacceptable. That may change in the future, but for now that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Originally posted by zgendron:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy but something to do with polygamists getting married. It will open a door to them (and possibly other weird things).

Ok, you've brought this up in nearly EVERY REPLY TO THIS THREAD!

Can you prove to me in one other instance where extending CIVIL RIGHTS to a minority has lead to other "wierd things"

Let me provide you with a few examples of the courts providing Civil Rights to Minorities. See if you can find one instance!

1840s - Movevement for Women to Vote is started, 19th Amendment in 1920 protects their right.

1915 - Restrictive voting laws that were enacted by state governments were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court

1954 - Supreme Court unanimously agreeing that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional (Brown vs. BOE)

1965 - Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, provided additional voter protection (especially blacks)

1967 - A Virginia law against interracial marriages was struck down, with the Supreme Court declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interfere unless they have good cause.

1970 - 26th Amendment Ratified to allow people 18 and older to vote

In this BRIEF timeline regarding Civil Rights, we see one common tie. Historically the Supreme Court has UPHELD Civil Rights when a majority is against it. I can only hope that this will continue. It is truly one of the fundamental strenghts of the United States.

Time will tell, and if the SC strikes down the amendments, so be it.

Originally posted by neelnug:
People are scared about what they don't understand. They hide behind things (bible) or use them as crutches (religion) to protect themselves from the unknown or things that they cannot understand. Its human nature.

As for being a gateway for further changes... thats America...
I welcome open thinking and questioning of our current policy and ideas. Because of this women can vote, segregation is illegal etc. How is this different. If this were 50 years ago we would be talking about minorities rights. Wake up people, you cannot stop reality you cannot stop change.

Here we go again....

If you practice your faith, you can't think for yourself, hide behind your religion, and need a crutch to lean on because you are too weak.

That argument is stale. It was never accurate and grows more ridiculous every time it is posted.

Originally posted by Derk2000:

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I think separation of church and state are being misunderstood. This does not mean you can't use your religion as a basis for how you vote. It means, govn't can not support one religion and not all others, and can not place any one religion over another.

Very very very good point.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
but as this country was formed on Christianity, I believe it should remain that way. Laws are based on morals. For many of us, religion is a major part of our morals. It's our right for it to be a deciding part of our lives.

Ok, but...

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Whatever someone else bases their morals on is their right as well.

But, if the majority are Christian and their votes are cast with a Christain basis/idea in mind, anyone who isn't Christian is SOL?

So to fix it we should suppress Christian voters so that only x number of Christian votes can be cast, to correspond with x number of non-Christian votes and give the minorities the upper hand?

I'm so tired of this country bending over backwards to cater to minorities.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:

Originally posted by Andy W.:
I have no problems with the gay union movement. I'm not gay, so it doesn't effect me. I have no problem with homosexuals bind themselves legally to each other just like opposite sex couples do. My problem is with the tearing down of every institution that has been in place since the founding of this country. I.E Women demanding to be let into all male military schools, woman wanting to be get into all male golf course clubs. We don't demand to be apart of girl scouts or the red hat club.

That being said my argument is pretty much over the connotation/denoation of the word "marriage." For centuries it has stood for the union of a man and woman with the idea of build a family. I admit it's petty but can't this institution be left alone. Homosexuals are different so why not use a different word. Biologically they cannot produce offspring without external aid.

The whole idea of inclusion drives me nuts. While I don't believe anyone should be made fun of or discriminated against for being different. The fact is they are and situations have to handled differently. This has more to do with schooling than homosexuals.

-Andy

I like the way you said that point of view.

Why does a person's sexual orientation have such a factor in making them different? Honestly, we're all different, even if your neighbor shares the same creed, color, culture, heritage, background... you're still different. Nothing makes you a carbon copy of the guy next to you. So you like hip-hop, does that make you more different? You dress preppy, does that make you more different? You could be the greatest baseball player in the world, but as soon as you taste the salami that's all the world seems to remember you for. As a country, we should be making strides to be inclusive, not exclusive. Are we going to hide our eyes to the fact that within a matter of years minorities will be the majority in this country? I see a scared nation unwilling to change, and change is what the constitution is all about. A living document that amends itself according to time.

Yes, but my personal values don't go against someone dressing preppy or having red hair....

You keep missing that point.

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
... and then after the gays it's the latinos, and the blacks, and the jews, and the muslims, and where does it end?

One big happy Christian Aryan race in the US. How wonderful.

Now who is using the slippery slope argument?

Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Furthermore... your blanket statement that a dick belongs only in a [censored] stems from your belief that sex is a vessel meant only for procreation. So that means that every time you've had sex with someone and did not make the effort to have a child you went against your own rules on what sex is for.

Sex is not just a means of reproduction. It is a way of showing a partner that you care for them in the utmost level a human can show. It can also be a way someone degrades another human being by raping them or extorting them into the act. Before you point at another human and criticize them about how and why they have sex, take a look at yourself and the people around you and see if they're living up to your own standards.

Good job twisting that to fit your agenda. We'll just start calling you the spin-doctor.

Originally posted by ExDelayed:

Originally posted by zgendron:
This is still too broad. You don't cover 1 night stands. Sex is another form of social interaction and personal pleasure.

You can also add masturbation into this since it isnt for procration. That now brings in 'Spilling your seed upon the Earth'

This is turning into a religious debate so we need to try to sway it back onto the subject. In my attempt to gently nudge this back to where it was supposed to be Ill add this.

Most parents (and would be parents) have/will have unconditional love for their children. There is very little that a child (even if they are grown) could do that would take that love away. Now, God loves all of his children and has told us to love thy neighbor. If man was created in God's image, we must take on some of his traits, like loving our children. Even though he might not completely approve of his childs choice, he will stand behind them. I would think that God, or any parent, would be happy that their child has found someone (even if they do not approve of the relationship) that they love and care about and are willing to devote the rest of their life to.

So its amazing how quickly that love for thy neighbor is forgotten because there are fags out there and they are going to get us.

Hate the sin, not the sinner.

No one banned gays.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:

Originally posted by ExDelayed:
Its about time that happens.

And when it does, all the current amendments and laws prohibiting gay marriage will go the way of the dinosaur.

Yeah! Forget the will of the people! Let a couple rouge judges decide what is best for us!

Tell me about it....

Originally posted by ExDelayed:
If that was the case, we'd still have slaves and your wife would be your property. Times have changed and the courtroom is what the laws happen now.

Right, I'm sure the will of the people is still pro-slavery/anti-sufferage.....

That is so weak...

Originally posted by sigma:

Quote:

The laws of nature themselves contradict homosexuality.

How so? Because it doesn't lead to reproduction of the species? Well neither does infertility and millions of people are born every year that way.

Homosexuality has been observed in almost every animal species on the planet. It commonly occurs yet appears to increase as population levels rise. There are numerous reasons why it fits very well into evolution theory. It can be an adaptation to an overcrowded environment and/or an environment where same-sex contact is far more common.

Nature is constantly changing, trying new things, seeing which work and which don't in which circumstances -- any sort of genetic 'abnormality' (and I hate to use that word) is not "against the law of nature" it is the law of nature.

I would wholeheartedly disagree that it can be "observed in almost every animap species on the planet".

Further, most abnormalities are cast off as natural failures, as would homosexuality be should the bizzaar circumstance arise in which it became dominate. How would the species continue?

Originally posted by Freakshow:

Originally posted by Red92784:
They also dont need to de-moralise the term marrage. Call it something else if you must, but its not marrage. Marrage is a beautiful and honerable thing, weather religious or not it defines a loving relationship between a man and a women. THEY ALREADY STOLE THE RAINBOW!!! THEY CANT HAVE THE WORD MARRAGE TOO!!!

Fisrt of all, if marriage is so sacred to you please at least learn to spell it correctly.

Seriously though, the term marriage has already be demoralized to a degree and it has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has to do with hypocrite people who claim marriage is so sacred yet get divorced at a rate of (IIRC) no over 50% in the U.S. I've already covered this countless times; no fault divorce laws, media cirucising of marriage for ratings, etc. Homosexuals are not the ones who have demoralized or lessened the term marriage; it's the good "old fashioned" hetros that are doing a dandy job of that already.

Eh, what the hell, marriage is going the way of the dodo, so why not take one last shot and kill it entirely?

Did I get your reasoning correct?

Originally posted by svt4stv:

Originally posted by Freakshow:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

What are gays missing out on by simply not giving the legal term "marriage" to their relationship?

ummm...EQUALITY?

and that about sums it up. not that i agree with or anything because i'm still on the fence on this issue.

i see youre in the military (right?). what about gays in the military? the dont ask, dont tell policy is kind of discriminatory. dont ya think? (not trying to chum any flamebait here but curious as to people in here thoughts on that, especially our CEG servicemen). they made such a big issue out of it years ago and now its kinda just forgotten. ever meet any men you knew were gay in the military? or do they have to hide it?

Open gays in the military is detrimental to troop morale, and poor morale is a death sentence on a battlefield.

Side note: I never thought I would catch up with the end of this thread. Was reading and responding and kept seeing pages and pages added to the end....

Originally posted by Davo:

Originally posted by ZetecNinja:

Originally posted by Freakshow:
What you don't have a right to do is discriminate and deny someone the right to be happy simply because you don't like their sexual preference, race, color, religion, etc.

Amen.

I say Amen too, because you proved my point. The problem is that homosexuals consider 'marriage' as the only route to happiness. They need to think of ways other than membership into heterosexual institutions to be happy. I like the fact that Curves doesn't have any mirrors at any of its facilities. Should I try to get into Curves, or try to think of something else to be happy about at the club I go to now?

If you're so anti-discrimination, then maybe you'll join me in opposition to Affirmative Action.

Can I get an A-Men, brother?

Originally posted by Freakshow:

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Originally posted by neelnug:

Originally posted by contourGL1996:

Originally posted by Fat Mike:
[begin rant]

I saw two of my gay friends break down in tears last night when they found out measure 36 passed, adding discrimination to our state's constitution. Not a single freaking state rejected these measures. I'm sure God is pleased that all his loving followers have worked so hard to keep our families, children and marriages safe from those dirty queers...

I swear, everytime I see some SUV with a Jesus fish on one side and a "one man, one woman" sticker on the other, I get so damn disgusted. Some middle-aged seacow who has never met a homosexual person in her life thinks it's their Christian duty to prevent "those sick gay people" from trying to have any sort of freedoms or rights. Meanwhile they continue to instruct all their followers about how treating gay people like actual human beings is a sin. It's probably only because gay people can't produce more soldiers for God's army. And only straight marriages can be pure and holy - even while daddy is banging the secretary, mommy is popping valuum and your daughter keeps getting felt up by the youth leader. But at least queers can't marry now because everyone knows they're the ones with the real problems.

Will people ever f*cking realize that they shouldn't try to decide what people can do in their personal lives, and that they shouldn't worry about it because it doesn't effect them?

[end rant]

Sorry, had to vent.

I agree 100%

Well put. This is the saddest thread I have ever read at CEG. It truely shows the close mindedness and stupidity of the U.S. right now. It just blows me away. I guess growing up in close proximity to large cities has opened my mind to reality. I will not allow a book to dictate my beliefs or a guy in a robe to tell me whats best for my family. As I will not let either of these control my government.

My question is... is marriage a legal term or religious term?

Why is it that those who attempt to take a moral stance based on religious teachings are automatically characterized as not being capable of thinking for themselves? It's not possible that we considered the alternatives and came to a rational conclusion on our own. You base this on what, the end result that our opinions differ from yours?

I think some of it stems from the fact that MANY religious people do in fact attempt to force their beliefs and the bible's morals on others because in their eyes it is righteous to do "god's" work. The problem is these are usually the biggest hypocrites concerning religion because they totally disregard jesus' teachings of tolerance and forgiveness. Many religious people are close minded to anything that exists outside the realm of what their bible tells them. Obviously this is not all religious people but there are many extremists out there that give organized religion a bad name IMO.

Now I know you're going to fire back about homosexuals forcing their views on you so before you waste your time: No homosexual is asking you to TRY or BECOME homosexual. They are simply asking for equal rights under the law so that "they're forcing their lifestyle on me" arguement really doesn't work. Trust me, I was once on your side of this issue until I really objectively researched and thoght about the issue and I was forced to change my stance...and please spare me the Kerry flip flop jokes.

No, actually, i wasn't going to come back with anything. I just think it is very childish to say that someone who stands up for their morals and values, when based on religious teachings, can be nothing other than a puppet. It's a cop out when you (not you personally, freak) have no defense.

I have only read the past dozen posts or so, but if this has already been brought up then too bad.
My understanding of the legalization of gay marriages is that they want the right to be recognized as a married couple just like everyone else. However it is important to note that they also need to be married in order for them to recieve the rights of married couples. By this I mean take for instance two homosexual people are involved in a relationship for some time and they would have gotten married provided they could, and something happens to the other person and they die. All the stuff that, that person owns is taken away either given to the family of that person or the government, leaving the surviving spouse nothing. If they were married the survivng partner would be granted the rights the same as if a wife lost her husband and so forth.
Also without being married they can not obtain shared coverage on mportant things like life/health insurance etc. What happens if something were to happen to one of the people that were not or could not be covered, we the public would be covering it through our taxes.

I really dont care if they get married or not, its their deal. I guess whatever makes them happy, providing they arent trying to force their beliefs on me which I dont believe they are.

I also think its important to recognize the fact that it will eventually be legalized in the future so why prolong it. This is very similar to the issues the African Americans were dealing with regarding rights in the last century, and look where they are now.

It seems like the people with the most opposition to this are of the older generations. When they eventually become out numbered by the younger generations that dont see it as much of a problem as the current majority does it will be legalized.

Originally posted by Sandman333:
Fact: The majority deems homosexual behavior as unacceptable. That may change in the future, but for now that's the way the cookie crumbles.

And as stated numerous times throughout this thread at one time the majority deemed may races as less than human and laws were made to limit those people's freedoms. The majority was wrong in those instances and it took many years and a civil rights movement to get things changed.

On another note Sandman: you keep talking about "hate the sin not the sinner" I coulda swore that most religions were against hate period? Didn't jesus preach about tolerance and love thy neighbor and do unto others etc etc etc? Forget about the old testament, please show me one quote where jesus ever said "gays are wrong" "don't ever let those gays marry because it's wrong" or anything to that affect. All you can do from a biblical perspective is quote old testament references. Most people who truly believe christ died for our sins admit that much of the old testament became obsolete after that moment due to christ dying for all man's sins. If you're going to use the bible to suport your arguement at least use ALL of it and not just the parts that conveniently fit your views.

Quote:

So if it's a choice...did heteros make the choice also?

Good Point

Quote:

I believe it has to do with upbringing. Parents dont provide the right guidence regarding these issues and the children simply become "confused".

Clearly this person hasn't ever met a gay person! Funniest thing said on here since the start of the thread!
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa x 1000

I nearly wet my pants... "confused."

Originally posted by Sandman333:

No, actually, i wasn't going to come back with anything. I just think it is very childish to say that someone who stands up for their morals and values, when based on religious teachings, can be nothing other than a puppet. It's a cop out when you (not you personally, freak) have no defense.

Why would anyone ever need to have a defense to religiously based arguments? Religion is purely personal and subjective. And no one is ever forced to accept a religious teachings as facts.

Quote:

True, also completely irrelevant. We are talking about socially accepted values. Stop trying to redirect the issue. Fact: The majority deems homosexual behavior as unacceptable. That may change in the future, but for now that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Fact: You're wrong.

The majority of this nation have litle problem with homosexual behavior and 65% support civil unions for homosexual couples. Already faced with a majority of acceptance, "Homosexual Acceptance" (question posed is whether it's acceptable to engage in same-sex behavior) still increases by an average of 2% every year, constantly whittling away at the percentage of those against it. In a matter of one generation it will be virtually 100% accepted.

Just to put this into perspective -- approximately the same percentage of the population approves of homosexual relationships as inter-racial relationships (Gallup Polls).

With the percentage of acceptance being so close, I sincerely hope that we're not seeing the same people object to one as the other, but it certainly looks that way for a large part (not reaching that conclusion from those here). I have a hard time believing that there's someone out there that approves of homosexual relationships but not inter-racial ones, so roughly the same group of people must object to both.

Quote:

I would wholeheartedly disagree that it can be "observed in almost every animap species on the planet".

Just because you disagree with a fact doesn't make it not true. Just run a search on "Homosexual Observations Animals" and read the countless academic journals regarding not just homosexual activity in animals but homosexual coupling.

Quote:

Further, most abnormalities are cast off as natural failures, as would homosexuality be should the bizzaar circumstance arise in which it became dominate. How would the species continue?

Most are, yes. But homosexuality has a recorded existence in humans for millennia. A blink in terms of natural evolution, yes, but it's certainly not going anywhere. And if by some weird-ass reason homosexuality did suddenly become a majority of the population there would be a natural reason for it. Not every species is supposed to continue. That still doesn't mean it's "against the law of nature". Adjusting to your environment is the law of nature.

Originally posted by Freakshow:
The problem is these are usually the biggest hypocrites concerning religion because they totally disregard jesus' teachings of tolerance and forgiveness.

See now this is a BIG misconception. Jesus teaches tolerance and forgiveness but not when they violate god's laws, especially such laws that have been CLEARLY stated regarding the acts of homosexuality. When your brother wrongs you, then you forgive him, but if someone breaks god's laws, then they ALWAYS receieved punishment from God throughout the bible except in some merciful instances, but they were still punished non-the-less. You'll also notice that anytime God was lenient with his people when they broke his laws or commandments it was only in cases where they were repentant. No, they didn't just confess, but repentent means they turned BACK from their ways, and stopped doing it.

Lets not take the bible out of context and twist what it says into something that makes homosexuality acceptable to true christians.

And if you believe in the bible and god then you believe your god wil be the one exacting punishment for breaking the commandments not his people on earth. If we left it up to the PEOPLE to exact gods punishment we'd be back in the dark ages with the inquisition going on again.

And I am not twisting the bible to make homosexuality OK in the eyes of religious people who follow it. I'm simply pointing out a part that no one ever talks about when it comes to this isuue. Jesus preached tolerance and love for fellow man; not hate for people who didn't follow the right path.

Originally posted by Freakshow:

On another note Sandman: you keep talking about "hate the sin not the sinner" I coulda swore that most religions were against hate period? Didn't jesus preach about tolerance and love thy neighbor and do unto others etc etc etc? Forget about the old testament, please show me one quote where jesus ever said "gays are wrong" "don't ever let those gays marry because it's wrong" or anything to that affect.

Christians are urged to "hate what is bad". There's a good hate and a bad hate. Don't hate your neighbor or other human being, but its righteous to hate what is bad. Thats a theme that runs throughout the bible.

Show me one quote where Jesus says "gays are good, men lie with men, be merry". Never. You won't find anything even close to suggesting that, because it's not right.

Jesus death made the Mosaic Law obsolete. But god's principles are clearly conveyed there. Besides that, the command not to lie with men was also given in 1 Timothy, by Paul, AFTER Jesus was on earth.

There's no getting around it, homosexuality is dead wrong from the Bible's viewpoint.

I aggree, and I'm not saying anyone should hate a dude because he's gay. I think there's alot of people that like to twist what hte bible says though. Afterall, they made that gay biship a biship. That was incredible.

Homosexuality is "natural" in that the behavior has been observed in a number of species in nature.

However, it is NOT "normal" in that the behavior only takes place in up to 10-15% of most populations that have been sampled.

Abberrant behavior? Perhaps. Deviant behavior? Depends on your views of morality and what they are dictated by.

Okay scrap the "homosexuals aren't equal" bit. They have every right that any straight person has. They can get the same jobs, goto the same places, marry a member of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are equal. The gay marriage supporters always seem to cry about how homosexuals aren't equal because they can't marry a member of the opposite sex. No one can. Am i being discriminated against because i want to marry another guy? Of course not. Its a law that everyone must follow, not just homosexuals. That is why the whole discrimination bit doesn't hold up and won't hold up legally.

Originally posted by Sandman333:
Question, and to no one in particular:

What do gay couples call each other within their relationship? Certainly, it's not Husband and Wife. They don't use those terms (to my knowledge), because they would be silly to use in that type of situation. Which is which? They don't fit. And neither does the term "marriage" for a homosexual relationship.

Partner is the term I use

I have called my partner "wife" in order for people to understand the seriousness of the relationship & I don't think it's silly...we've been together longer than most of the heteros w/ spouses that I work w/(including the ones that were previously married & divorced during that time)...& I'm the youngest there @ 34 years old.

I use the term "girlfriend"...but it sounds like we haven't known each other for that long & doesn't project our commitment IMO. The word "lover" will never come out of my mouth, sounds like it's only sex

I don't believe I would jump on the gay marriage bandwagon...but I am a supporter. We both have well paying jobs, benefits & wills...I see no need for marriage, at least at this point, for us. There are many others out there that could benefit from this much more though.

And to reply to a previous post about women wanting to to look like men...

I am a fem & so is my girlfriend...if I wanted to be with a man I would be with a man. Not all lesbians are butch, just the obvious ones (so guess what, there's more queers out there than you recognize). But you should see my tool collection (keep your minds out of the gutter

)

Originally posted by SVZETEC:
But you should see my tool collection (keep your minds out of the gutter )

Originally posted by arjoel:
Okay scrap the "homosexuals aren't equal" bit. They have every right that any straight person has. They can get the same jobs, goto the same places, marry a member of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are equal. The gay marriage supporters always seem to cry about how homosexuals aren't equal because they can't marry a member of the opposite sex. No one can. Am i being discriminated against because i want to marry another guy? Of course not. Its a law that everyone must follow, not just homosexuals. That is why the whole discrimination bit doesn't hold up and won't hold up legally.

That pretty much makes zero sense. Thanks anyway though.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:

Originally posted by SVZETEC:
But you should see my tool collection (keep your minds out of the gutter )

Must I repeat myself?

Originally posted by Sandman333:

Mostly referring to what this country was, and the ideals it was founded upon.

So we should all be affluent white males, women be subservient, and own slaves.

And I'm not talking revisionist history here. I'm talking fact. Go look up WHO came here "in the beginning." I dare you to read A People's History of the United States.

I suppose it should also be alright for us to continue our ideals of moving across the world and slaughtering whoever happens to be there first. Funny, that's what happened here during our westward expansion.

The MAJORITY wanted Blacks to be given separate but "equal" rights, including their own schools, water fountains, seats on the bus. And guess what? Separate but equal was struck down. Why? Because it's a load of crap. You're trying to give gays a "separate but equal" version of "marriage," but won't even see it because you're so blindly following whatever BS you use to justify this discrimination.
NOBODY is trying to MAKE you gay, just trying to keep the country from discriminating against them in the damn Constitution.

Originally posted by Freakshow:

Originally posted by arjoel:
Okay scrap the "homosexuals aren't equal" bit. They have every right that any straight person has. They can get the same jobs, goto the same places, marry a member of the opposite sex. Homosexuals are equal. The gay marriage supporters always seem to cry about how homosexuals aren't equal because they can't marry a member of the opposite sex. No one can. Am i being discriminated against because i want to marry another guy? Of course not. Its a law that everyone must follow, not just homosexuals. That is why the whole discrimination bit doesn't hold up and won't hold up legally.

That pretty much makes zero sense. Thanks anyway though.

Good reply, way to run away from the facts. Explain what doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
...There's no getting around it, homosexuality is dead wrong from the Bible's viewpoint.

There still exists debate around this...

Allow me to throw out my trump card here. It somewhat parallels the argument on "behavior" vs. "choice".

What about hermaphrodites? Where do they fit into God's vision? Are they lumped into the gay category due to a technicality?

Are these people Damned the moment they came out of the womb? Any sexual choice they make doesn't change the fact that that choice could be construed as homosexual behavior...

...or does there exist another category of discrimination that religious zealotry should establish to remove civil rights from them?

I agree that religious marriage should remain sanctified and between a man and a woman, but denying civil unions under Federal or State law to gays is nothing short of putrid, 100% discrimination and hate that cheapens what this nation stands for. I agree that this nation was founded largely on Christian principles, but at the same time, those that founded this nation had their forebearers escaping England in order to avoid a similar sort of religious persecution that exists today. Seperation of Church and State is a double-edged sword that is being FAR too recklessly swung by some on both sides of the argument here.

There MUST be a balance reached on this. While I agree that NO church should be forced to recognize or hold gay marriages and that the definition of marriage should stay as "one woman, one man"; that doesn't mean that this country should wholesale ignore the civil rights of millions of upstanding, tax paying and patriotic US citizens.

At a Federal/State level, this isn't an argument over religion, though the zealots on both sides have ultimately gotten off track and MADE it into one. It's an agrument over basic civil rights that are being DENIED to a portion of our population.

Again, I don't know the answer, but I do know what answers are flat-out WRONG on this.

Originally posted by arjoel:
Its a law that everyone must follow, not just homosexuals.

In a limited way your statement may be currently true for some specific jurisdictions - but it is certainly not universally true, and therefore your term "everyone" is not appropriate.

There are many places where same sex marriages are not only recognized, but protected under a charter of rights. On that basis it would seem that Americans don't have the same right as other nationals; and perhaps more importantly, it seems that the residents of some states have greater protection/rights than the residents of other states.

Originally posted by arjoel:
That is why the whole discrimination bit doesn't hold up and won't hold up legally.

I believe you're swimming against the tide with this one ... in fact, in more and more jurisdictions everyday "sexual orientation" is being equated to race, gender and religion (which is a matter of choice BTW), as requiring protection from discrimination.

The irony of the 11 state amendments is that they will likely speed up this process in the U.S., as they are challenged and probably overturned in court.

Agreed. Which is why I called it an "abnormality".

Well I'm tired and going to bed. Obviously this will be an issue for many years to come.

I am impressed and glad to see that this thread has (other than 1 or 2 people making crude references) stayed civil. Nice to see that there are some people on here that can passionately debate their views without resorting to all the name calling and flaming that usually goes on.

'Night peoples!

Quote:

There's no getting around it, homosexuality is dead wrong from the Bible's viewpoint.

No, it's dead wrong from your interpretation of your Bible's viewpoint. I can find you just as many theologians that claim the Bible doesn't claim homosexuality is a sin as those that do.

Your Bible is not the Word of God. Your Bible is the Word translated and interpreted, depending on your particular version, potentially dozens of times. And each time passages are changed slightly to suit the times and/or are simply translated differently by different people. Read the Bible in Hebrew and it's not nearly as cut-and-dry a case as you would probably like it to be.

Originally posted by SAV-ZX2:

Originally posted by daenku32:
Kremit, I hope that one day you'll get to know a gay couple personally. Same for the rest of the gay-condemning community.

I already do. And it didn't do much to change my mind.

I'm not going to sit here and play this pissing match with you people though. If I want to believe that marriage is between a man and woman, then I'm going to do it, damned what anyone else thinks of me. Call me childish. I see that coming already. In fact, I'll save everyone the trouble.

But do you believe they shouldn't be allowed partnership rights, under a different name? Thats the inherent question. Because I just don't see why.

Two important points that are being completely missed in these threads. Some of the anti-gay marriage people in here said they would support civil unions. But the measures in 8 of these states specifically prohibited civil unions and they passed overwhelmingly. Part of the problem is the use of words, the language used in the provisions. But you guys, if you feel strongly about this, ought to recognize the distinction.

While George Bush supported an amendment to ban gay marriage, he has actually (very recently) expressed a support of civil unions. Considering this issue affects our fellow Americans, we ought get our semantics straight.

Originally posted by Red92784:
Besides, they can choose not to live that life.

Just like you can CHOOSE to open your mind and accept them, right?

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:

Originally posted by ExDelayed:
Times have changed and the courtroom is what the laws happen now.

And that is scarey as hell. When these nutcase liberal judges decide they know whats right, screw what the laws say, and make their own damn laws, then we lose our system of checks and balances.

Are you F'n Kidding Me????? Throughout our history it has been the courts that have NEEDED to step up to protect the minority's CIVIL RIGHTS! Without those judges, our lives today would be very discriminatory towards all minorities.

You know there were laws prohibiting people to vote, right? The courts had to stand up and call those laws unconstitutional. If the "nutcase" judges didn't reverse this law, women and blacks would not be allowed to vote.

Also, there were LAWS prohibiting Interacial Marriages. Again, the courts were required to step in and protect the minority.

Finally, we have segregation within the school systems. Once again, if it wasn't for those "nutcase" judges, we'd still be living in a VERY segregated world.

Should I bring up more examples of segregation throughout the country?

I guess you consider all these cases of judges protecting minority civil rights as completely wrong. These are more cases where those "nutcase" judges clearly overstepped their bounds and went against the majority.

Just like then, times are changing. Gay Marriage is inevitable, and it will happen in our lifetime. The way the current laws are written, these CITIZENS deserve the same rights and privledges as any other couple under the Constitution. You've truly shown your redneck ways with a statement like that.

Funny how I am far from the only one that thinks judges are overstepping their bounds.

Quote:

Gay Marriage is inevitable, and it will happen in our lifetime. The way the current laws are written, these CITIZENS deserve the same rights and privledges as any other couple under the Constitution. You've truly shown your redneck ways with a statement like that.

Wow can you say "I am dead wrong and have no idea about the person I am referring to as a redneck." If you can say those words, you should. Guess what buddy? I was born and raised in that little state to your west called New York, 10 minutes away from New York City. So you can take your typical northern hypocrite, I am better than everyone, attitude and shove it. Look past the tip of your nose "Mr. Kerry." There is a whole world out there that doesn't agree with that northern attitude.

Gee, this whole thread has been about respecting people's opinions and accpeting people for who they are. But you come in with some crap about me being a redneck. I don't care about being called a redneck, I am just trying to point out the typical hypocrisy that has run crazy throughout this thread. I have said it once, and I will say it again; all I hear in this thread is the crap about accpeting gays for who they are. But God forbid someone have a different value system than you. No, then we are all bible beating, redneck, KKK members. Can't have it both ways. Just as it is their "right" to be gay, it's my right to disagree with their lifestyle choices and do my best with my vote to make sure they don't desicrate marriage.

Originally posted by sigma:

Quote:

There's no getting around it, homosexuality is dead wrong from the Bible's viewpoint.

No, it's dead wrong from your interpretation of your Bible's viewpoint. I can find you just as many theologians that claim the Bible doesn't claim homosexuality is a sin as those that do.

Your Bible is not the Word of God. Your Bible is the Word translated and interpreted, depending on your particular version, potentially dozens of times. And each time passages are changed slightly to suit the times and/or are simply translated differently by different people. Read the Bible in Hebrew and it's not nearly as cut-and-dry a case as you would probably like it to be.

Absolutely. It's surprising that many people still think that it's the King James Version that was handed down from God.

Just look at the Book of Genesis. There are two versions of the creation story mentioned. There is the Priestly Creation Story (Gen 1:1-2:4). The world is created in six days, culminating with the creation of man on the sixth day. The Yahwist Creation Story follows right after (Gen 2:4-25). This one starts with the creation of man, and then subsequently a world is built up around man. And this is just one example!

Ancient Hebrew was written without vowels. So you may have "KNG DVD LVD." Is that King David lived, or loved? There were also the factors of sloppy handwriting and dittography.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
Just as it is their "right" to be gay, it's my right to disagree with their lifestyle choices and do my best with my vote to make sure they don't desicrate marriage.

What can you not understand here. Go ahead and have your opinions. That's great. That's not what this is about. THIS IS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS!!!

It was our government that looped laws into Marriage. Now it is our government that needs to extend these Civil Rights to ALL CITIZENS!!!

No one is saying anything about a religious marriage, or anything like that. THESE LAWS MUST BE EXTENDED TO ALL CITIZENS.

Originally posted by sigma:
Read the Bible in Hebrew and it's not nearly as cut-and-dry a case as you would probably like it to be.

One of the most quoted verses on homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22.

In transliterated Hebrew...

"Vâ�?��?�et zachar lo tishkav mishkâ�?��?�vey eeshah toeyvah hee."

The first part of the verse, literally, is, "And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

"toetvah' refers in Mosaic code to what type of sin. "toetvah" refers to "moral sin", a direct act of rebellion against God or His will.

I'll let everyone have fun figuring out just what the verse means. Maybe Moses suffered from poor grammer.

A somewhat liberal-leaning resource can be found . Goodness know you can find plenty from a more conservative viewpoint. I just read a good article that condemned homosexuality yet called for tolerance.

FWIW, I have no problem with civil unions. I see "marriage" more as a cultural religious act. Perhaps we need civil unions for hetero's as well.

Quote:

Funny how I am far from the only one that thinks judges are overstepping their bounds.

Yes, and a lot of people thought judges were overstepping their bounds when they gave women the right to vote too. What exactly is your point?

Originally posted by sigma:

Quote:

There's no getting around it, homosexuality is dead wrong from the Bible's viewpoint.

No, it's dead wrong from your interpretation of your Bible's viewpoint. I can find you just as many theologians that claim the Bible doesn't claim homosexuality is a sin as those that do.

Your Bible is not the Word of God. Your Bible is the Word translated and interpreted, depending on your particular version, potentially dozens of times. And each time passages are changed slightly to suit the times and/or are simply translated differently by different people. Read the Bible in Hebrew and it's not nearly as cut-and-dry a case as you would probably like it to be.