|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 270
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 270 |
Let me start off by saying that I am a Christian, and I am against homosexual marriage. But please don't let that stop you from taking my post seriously and reading my links. On the topic of "homosexuality being a choice", I beg you to read this article by Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., and Linda Ames Nicolosi. It specifically talks about gay men and how it stems from "gender nonconformity" when they were very young. Yes, it is on a Christian website (Focus on the Family), but it is technical and thorough (IMO). It is long, but hang in there. Article 1This EXCELLENT (and short) article is on the so-called "gay gene": Article 2 As for the topic of gay marriage, I will try to scrape up some time to write a reply on that too.
Chad Purser
2002 Lexus IS300
5-speed manual
formerly '98 Silver SVT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,639
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,639 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
My question... how does allowing two people who love each other the federal recognition of being married really alter the "sanctity" of anyone else's?
In a country where nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, I think THAT statistic is what blows the value and "sanctity" of marriage.
If two people love each other and want to marry, let them. Their reproductive organs don't enter into it. If you want to say that marriage is for the sole purpose of having kids? What if either person is sterile? How many thousands of couples simply cannot reproduce? That means they shouldn't be married, right?
Separation of church and state, people... give me concrete, non-religious, non-biblical hard FACT how allowing gays to marry will somehow ruin the institution of marriage.
You have the right to freedom of speech and religion so long as it does NOT infringe upon the rights of others, as guaranteed in the Constitution of this great country... your religion is infringing upon the rights of others if you want to stick with placing an Amendment that will BAN gays from marrying.
And don't give me this "civil union" bull. You're preaching "separate but equal" rights. While you're at it, why don't you force gay people to sit at the back of the bus, drink from different fountains, and be forced out of restaurants and public areas? I mean, why go half way? If you want to eliminate one right, why not remove them all?
verbatim
Hugo AIM:omegazodiac
95 gl & 99 contour svt #1750/2760
my profile pics stuff for sale
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,639
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,639 |
Originally posted by Andy W.:
I really don't care. I think alot of time and money is being wasted on a topic that is rather personal. Who you sleep with and spend your life with is your bussiness not the gov'ts. All same sex couple want is to be able to have access to the same benefits legally as all other married couples. They aren't asking the gov't to require churches to recognize them only the legal system.
Why shouldn't they all get f'ed in a divorce just like straight people? Let them share finances, let them share legal right to health insurance and medical decisions.
I'm sure most same sex couples are better parents than a good portion of straight couples. And in the end, being a good parent is all that matters.
-Andy
verbatim. give them the same rights or take it away from everyone. i havent seen anything about banning interracial marriages. the kkk neo nazi racist on every talk show seem to "quote" the same bible that the religious right "quote". they both somehow find passages condemning same sex relations or interracial relations.
open question: why do YOU really care. what are you afraid of. no one is forcing YOU to marry anyone. live your own life and let others do the same thing.
Hugo AIM:omegazodiac
95 gl & 99 contour svt #1750/2760
my profile pics stuff for sale
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,489 |
i care because i see it as an injustice, i'm just trying to support what is right. if all the people who supported gay marriages went on and lived their own lives, then gay marriage wouldnt have as much of the support that it does now. look at that governor in cali.
1998 T-Red CSVT 3.0L
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,639
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,639 |
dan, you cant make a decision because of what "could" happen. that was that tom cruise movie. i dont know what i'll do 10 years from now. should i not drive ever cuz i can potentially kill someone in an accident. should my license be revoked cuz i'll "likely" speed. what happens to straight married couples who never have kids. they arent contributing to society, supposedly. do we revoke their marriage rights after 5 years if they dont make a kid. or do we give them 10 years. if they have no intention of having kids ever, do we prevent them from getting married.
Hugo AIM:omegazodiac
95 gl & 99 contour svt #1750/2760
my profile pics stuff for sale
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,166
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 2,166 |
Originally posted by freakshow:
I'd say I lean somewhat towards allowing gay marriages with some mixed views on the overall issue BUT one thing that sorta annoys me about this issue is people comparing gay rights to racial issues; apples to oranges. A person has no control over what race they are born. Homosexuals (regardless of whatever kind of BS research you wanna toss at me) CHOOSE to be that way...big difference IMO.
Ignorance is bliss...
And what kind of research do you have to prove this view? Or is it just your own personal hunch?
As for this issue, I agree that we have FAR greater issues at stake than this.
In addition, the thought of a constitutional ammendment is really scary. Throughout the history of the US, Civil Rights have always been protected by the courts. The fight for civil rights has begun and ended the same way every time. From womens rights, to race, and now homosexuality. Make there be no mistake, this is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. Additionally, I fully agree that Civil Unions will not work. Seperate is hardly ever equal.
The "Sanctity of Marriage" arguement is crap too. If you're worried about the "Sanctity of Marriage" go talk to Britney Spears and her 54 hour marriage. Are there any married couples out there that truly feel there marriage means less because of that?
Finally, many states already have Gay Marriage bans in affect, and these laws include a clause about not recognizing gay marriage licences from other states. Why do we need to take this out of the hands of individual states? Within this article is a nice interactive map with state-by-state marriage laws.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4477610
- Zack
WANTED: T-Red HEATED Side Mirrors
FOR SALE: 4 14" Alum Alloys and Nearly New Avid H4s Tires w/ Center Caps
2000 T-Red SVT
1995 LX V6 MTX (RIP)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,639
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,639 |
Originally posted by Nate S:
i care because i see it as an injustice, i'm just trying to support what is right. if all the people who supported gay marriages went on and lived their own lives, then gay marriage wouldnt have as much of the support that it does now. look at that governor in cali.
so because of that we should sweep it under the rug. if blacks in this country never fought back, would it be ok to still keep them as slaves. as long as they keep their mouth shut and the rest of the population (whites) dont object, then why all the fuss, right?
i have plenty of gay/lesbian friends. if you knew what they go through you wouldnt think its a choice. why in the hell would anyone choose to be gay knowing what the backlash is and the hate that exists against them, when it would be so much easier to choose to be straight. if being raised by gay parents will make their kids gay or push them in that direction, why didnt my gay friends turn out straight after being raised by straight parents. they pretended to be straight and even tried dating the opposite sex, hating every minute of it. it would be like me trying to date the same sex. there's no way in hell i could do it or pretend. i recall a vivid first day of kindergarten when the 1st grade teacher walked in to talk to my teacher and i thought to myself "whoa she's hot". at the age of five your telling me i was raised and influenced enough already to "decide" to like girls. in pre-k(3-4 years old) i was the only boy that would play house with the girls. i wasnt stupid. i just knew i liked girls and went to go be in their company. at this age your telling me i chose to be straight? use some common sense about this; think about it logically.
why would anyone choose to be gay? if someone came to u and wanted to give u $5 or $5million, who in their right mind would choose $5 when $5million would make your life SO MUCH EASIER. why make your life miserable and harder and face hatred and discrimination by "choosing" the less easy path of homosexuality.
i dont complete believe in the fat gene but there is truth to it (i dont think its as prevalent as many say but i think it exists). one may lose some weight but may never lose the amounts other do. i have friends that workout and juiceup and some of them will NEVER be cutup. they are pretty solid but their bodies (genetics) will never allow them to have the definition and chiseled bodies of models,etc.
Hugo AIM:omegazodiac
95 gl & 99 contour svt #1750/2760
my profile pics stuff for sale
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,489 |
Originally posted by hmouta:
Originally posted by Nate S:
i care because i see it as an injustice, i'm just trying to support what is right. if all the people who supported gay marriages went on and lived their own lives, then gay marriage wouldnt have as much of the support that it does now. look at that governor in cali.
so because of that we should sweep it under the rug. if blacks in this country never fought back, would it be ok to still keep them as slaves. as long as they keep their mouth shut and the rest of the population (whites) dont object, then why all the fuss, right?
i dont quite get what you're saying, but maybe you misunderstood me, since my post was kind of unclear- i am FOR gay marriage 
my post was unclear i guess
1998 T-Red CSVT 3.0L
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:
Originally posted by 96RedSE5Sp:
Obviously if you have ever read through our constitution, you would know that the United States was without a doubt NOT "founded on religion".
I was in the historic district in Philadelphia a few weeks back, where the documents that form the basis of our national government were written...
There's one document that forms the basis of our federal government and its called the Constitution. Although our constitution was drafted by Christians - very religious individuals - it contains no references to Christ, no references to Christianity, no references to God, and the only references it contains that pertain to religion are a prohibition on requiring religious oaths and a prohibiiton on state sponsored religion.
I can't conceive how anyone could read our constitution and come away with the impression that this was intended to be a blueprint for a Christian nation.
He probably meant Declaration of Independence:
Quote:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The reason for Marriage is to create a environment that benefits the state, ie: Male/Female marry and raise children. The laws protect the bond so that childrren are raised as best as possible and the laws protect this family as best as possible. It is in the best interest of the state to have its children protected and raised by this family unit. Now you can quote all sorts of instances where this doesn't work. But overall, it does. Without a religious motive to marry, why should an atheist marry? Why not just have kids? Why is out of wedlock children bearing frowned upon? Because, even though it doesn't happen every single time, the state wants a family to form and support itself and raise the children. Since the only "natural" way for this to happen is for a man and woment to marry and bear children. No other combination works as well so the state encourages this with it's laws. There is no incentive for the state to encourage any other combination. And I don't see any advantage to the state for any other combinbation. Don't quote me an elderly couple who can't have kids, or a women or man who is sterile. If the state could be more intrusive, it would probably ban that too. Since the state shouldn't be more intrusive, we can let those couple of exceptions slide without losing sight of the big picture, Children are best (not the only way, but still best) raised by a Mael/Female setup. Again, don't quote abusive male/female setups as these are against the law and not encouraged by the state.
So rather than what is in it for the the gay couple, explain why or how the state will benefit from gay marraige. Not a single instance, but a big picture. Heterosexual marraige is a benefit because it creates in the vast majority of the cases the best known environment for raising and protecting the next citizens of the state. One parent families are not ideal. Not "Bad", but not ideal, so the state does not encourage it with laws. Gay families are not necessarily "bad", but still not ideal.
For instance, if the tax laws and other laws made single mother families the preferred situation, then we would see even more "unwed" mothers. It is possible, but not as easy, to raise children by oneself, but certainly not the best situation. So our laws and tax structure do not encourage single parenthood. By the same token, unless I missed something, there is nothing to be gained by the state to encourage homosexual unions.
So, not god, not morals. If you had to state the BEST situation for raising children, one has to admit that a LOVING mother and father, raising their own children, is the best combination. So as a state (state meaning the US or one it's states), the only one to encourage with favorable laws is the "standard" combination. It shouldn't necessarily disallow other combinations, as exceptions can be made, but it should only encourage the ideal.
Marriage by definition is a male/female thing. Something else should be called something else. Pick a word, any word. Make a word up.
Some other peeves of mine is the argument that "conventional marriages have a 50% divorce rate so it isn't that sacred." So tell me why you want a part of something with a 50% failure rate?
Another little thing is that most arguments for gay marriage could be used for other combinations. Why not polygamy? Can't 3 people commit to each other? can't 3 people raise children better? Can't 4 people be good parents? Why can't I marry my brother? Are we not good people?
Why can't I marry my dad? He is a good parent and loves me already? By re-defining marriage we actually un-define it.
I don't believe the state should ENCOURAGE anything but the ideal.
Now, it may be in the states best interest to define a domestic partnership. Since issues as inheritance, health care, dependant support are important to the state, I would be in favor of a state law defining a domestic partnership. However, since it purpose is not primarily to encourage raising children in an ideal environment, it is not marraige, but something else, and the laws should be set up to make the best situation for the STATE. I don't know exactly what that would be, but I would be in favor of something like that.
Also, Power of attorney, living wills, wills, can accomplish many of the goals a gay couple needs without the benefit or drawbacks to marriage. Some decent laws could allow a reasonable equivalence to marriage without it actually being marriage.
My name is Richard. I was a Contouraholic.
NOW: '02 Mazda B3000 Dual Sport, Black
BEFORE: '99 Contour SE Sport
Duratec ATX Spruce Green
PIAA 510's, Foglight MOD, K&N Drop-in
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 388
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 388 |
cpurser, I would wonder how these pscyhologists woudl explain animal homosexuality. Especially among chimpanzees (bonobos specifically) there are a high amount of homosexual and bisexual relationships.
Anyway I think the deal should be eiether to get equalize all the benifits that married people have among everyone else, (like Sweden has done) or to start allowing people to do anythign they wnat that is among "consentiual adults" This woudl include polgymy and polygany. The nations seems to be heading down this path anyway. Just look at the recent rulings strking down the sodomy laws. Pretty soon there will be a court case to the supreme court regarding a gay couple that wasn't able to get the same benifits as a married couple. It'll be interesting to see what happens then. It seems that quite a few courts are already siding with gay couples.
'03 Protege 5
MTX
'02 Mazda Protege LX
MTX
former owner of: 96 Contour GL
2.5 ATX
|
|
|
|
|
