Gay marriage

[Snorri1234]

No, it is out of "The West in the World, 2nd Edition, Volumes I and II" by Sherman and Salisbury. It was published by McGraw-Hill. Oh and don't think you can just blow this off. It is an excellent piece of historical literature written by someone who wasn't a Christian. Can you believe it? It's also a highly recommended book by our college education system...

Don't you look like an idiot...

To add upon you misfortunes I'm going to point out that a single or low occurrence of a event does not make an entire group of people or nation guilty of that crime. There will always be criminals or those who brake the law. It would be stupid to characterize a large group of people by a minority.

@ Dancing mustard
Now you're hurting my feelings with all this lying ='('''' Who is more trustworthy, the smart liar or the idiot who speaks the truth?

I'm terribly sorry, but your post seems to be the ramblings of a mad man.

[Napoleon Ier]

No, it is out of "The West in the World, 2nd Edition, Volumes I and II" by Sherman and Salisbury. It was published by McGraw-Hill. Oh and don't think you can just blow this off. It is an excellent piece of historical literature written by someone who wasn't a Christian. Can you believe it? It's also a highly recommended book by our college education system...

Don't you look like an idiot...

To add upon you misfortunes I'm going to point out that a single or low occurrence of a event does not make an entire group of people or nation guilty of that crime. There will always be criminals or those who brake the law. It would be stupid to characterize a large group of people by a minority.

@ Dancing mustard
Now you're hurting my feelings with all this lying ='('''' Who is more trustworthy, the smart liar or the idiot who speaks the truth?

I'm terribly sorry, but your post seems to be the ramblings of a mad man.

Well, I don't know, I seem to remember there are some qualified people who have claimed faggotry ultimately doomed Athens...that said, I'm going to have re-read my non-set text classics a little before arguing that position.

[reminisco]

Well, I don't know, I seem to remember there are some qualified people who have claimed faggotry ultimately doomed Athens...that said, I'm going to have re-read my non-set text classics a little before arguing that position.

was it? or was it the superior technology, resources and generals of the invading Romans? who, when they weren't conquering, went round with downtown president brown, if you catch my meaning.

but on a serious note -- as a history major myself -- we were trained, and rightfully so, to never limit ourselves to only ONE explanation for the machinations of history. there is simply no unilateral cause-effect relationship in historical epochs. so, while you may rightly claim that, in your opinion, it may have been a contributing cause, it cannot be isolated as the only cause.

plus, there are likely as many sources to counter your claim as to support it, FYI.

[Snorri1234]

Well, I don't know, I seem to remember there are some qualified people who have claimed faggotry ultimately doomed Athens...that said, I'm going to have re-read my non-set text classics a little before arguing that position.

was it? or was it the superior technology, resources and generals of the invading Romans? who, when they weren't conquering, went round with downtown president brown, if you catch my meaning.

but on a serious note -- as a history major myself -- we were trained, and rightfully so, to never limit ourselves to only ONE explanation for the machinations of history. there is simply no unilateral cause-effect relationship in historical epochs. so, while you may rightly claim that, in your opinion, it may have been a contributing cause, it cannot be isolated as the only cause.

I hereby claim that philosophy has been the downfall of the Greek civilization.

[reminisco]

oh, and for the record, i didn't come up with the name Downtown President Brown... and there's no guarantee that George Carlin did either, but this is where i first saw it, and laughed hysterically about it. and now, thanks to google books, i can share it with all of you:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gz4WFe ... n#PPT39,M1

i only looked this up because, after i posted, it struck me that maybe DPB is slang for heroin -- often a brown powder... and now a quick search on urban dictionary has yielded the following hits. maybe it's old 60's slang.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... dent+brown

okay, so i was right about it referring to a sexual act (as well as pot apparently, not smack) -- but Carlin was just being creative with it...

and now, to tie this all back into the topic at hand, i bet dudes that get gay married, go all downtown charlie brown on each other.

[savant]

and now, to tie this all back into the topic at hand, i bet dudes that get gay married, go all downtown charlie brown on each other.

y'know, this says a lot about downtown julie brown.
just another fine example of mtv paving the way (not to be confused, although can be related, with laying bricks) for our youth.

[Nataki Yiro]

I love how those who disagree with you are just "ranting". I haven't accused any of you for being idiots for what you believe, but for how you attempt to force your believe on others...

[got tonkaed]

I love how those who disagree with you are just "ranting". I haven't accused any of you for being idiots for what you believe, but for how you attempt to force your believe on others...

I think the double standard in this notion is that currently the system is forcing a set of beliefs on a group of people, simply by not allowing them to marry because of their sexual preference. When the status quo supports a certain side, you cant just say well the other side is the only one who is forcing their belief on the others. its a bit intellecutally dishonest to make the claim hence.

In fact, this is seemingly an argument on the anti-marriage side that is not only weak, but plays into the other side well. Seemingly people getting married is not something that affects you as you are most likely not the person in the marriage nor is it your child. Theres nothing at all conclusive that would suggest if we started to allow gay marriages that you would be negatively affected.

The reverse however is pretty clear. As long as the status quo continues it does infringe upon those who wish to marry.

[Frigidus]

No, it is out of "The West in the World, 2nd Edition, Volumes I and II" by Sherman and Salisbury. It was published by McGraw-Hill. Oh and don't think you can just blow this off. It is an excellent piece of historical literature written by someone who wasn't a Christian. Can you believe it? It's also a highly recommended book by our college education system...

Don't you look like an idiot...

To add upon you misfortunes I'm going to point out that a single or low occurrence of a event does not make an entire group of people or nation guilty of that crime. There will always be criminals or those who brake the law. It would be stupid to characterize a large group of people by a minority.

@ Dancing mustard
Now you're hurting my feelings with all this lying ='('''' Who is more trustworthy, the smart liar or the idiot who speaks the truth?

I'm terribly sorry, but your post seems to be the ramblings of a mad man.

Well, I don't know, I seem to remember there are some qualified people who have claimed faggotry ultimately doomed Athens...that said, I'm going to have re-read my non-set text classics a little before arguing that position.

While on that note, did you know that Spartans often had gay lovers fight alongside each other? The idea was that they would do everything in their power to protect each other (and not embarass themselves of course).

[bradleybadly]

Actually that's not the case

Actually it is. It's a learned behavior.

it's just that whenever the evidence is brought up you ignore it; because you know full well that if you bury your cowboy-hat donning head in the sand and refuse to examine the proof, then you'll get to holler the same bollocks about 'gays making a choice' the next time this is debated.

I've posted the citations from homosexual organizations who are tired of being told their lifestyle is innate. The reason for this is that if there is a gene making people homosexual then parents will either pay to have it altered, eliminated, or in some cases decide to have an abortion.

The only one hollering bollocks is yourself because you're unable to control your emotions. You have no facts, just a big mouth.

Sorry to burst your ignorance-flavoured bubble there Brad. But it's like that, and that's the way it is.

You have not one shred of proof, just saying it's true because you want to believe so. Thanks for once again proving my point about liberals. When confronted and asked for proof they just start with the insults. This is also why your side will lose in any poll of intelligent people because they see through your hysterics.

To clarify: You're an idiot, and there's plenty of proof that gays are born gay (or predisposed to be gay). Also, you're an idiot... and there's plenty of proof of that too. Now go on, do your little retard dance for me again, tell me how evil liberals are and how all they want to do is laugh at you for having a stupid opinion, just like all the kids used to laugh at you for being a lardass in gym-class. Your stupidity never ceases to amuse me.

What you can't seem to comprehend since you're stuck in a blind rage is that facts matter. I think your post alone would be good evidence of why same sex marriage shouldn't be legalized. The justification for it is only based on people like yourself who get their panties in a bunch when they can't get their way.

Desire is not a justification for changing a law. Neither is your hysterical rant.

[bradleybadly]

Well it wouldn't if you actually looked at the evidence, stopped tring to argue against the facts and reason using a book written 2000 years ago. NEWSFLASH: some morals may have changed since then. Like stances on rape, rights of women, slavery, etc.

NEWSFLASH GENIUS: I'm not a Christian and I definitely don't believe in God. If you had read ANY of my previous posts you would know this. I oppose same sex marriage because it breaks down the family. Strong families produce good societies.

You liberals are so predictable with your talking points. You just automatically assume everyone who is conservative or traditional is a Christian or Bible believer because you've been conditioned towards that. Perhaps that's another learned behavior.

[savant]

Strong families produce good societies.

what's your definition of a "strong family"?

[PLAYER57832]

I took 4 years of college history and aced them all. I even considered majoring in history.

Rape has always been frowned down on, with the exception of in backwards civilizations which were corrupted and shortly there after destroyed. This is not the case for Sexism or Racism.

Sorry, but I, too had a "bit" of College, and you are missing some pretty significant parts.

Specifically, the term rape was almost never applied to peasants. In fact nobles in England had specific right to bed ANY woman they wanted BEFORE her husband. One reason some Irish still decry the English. That wasn't rape.

Masters could always rape not just slaves, but serfs, bondswomen and many others with impunity. A famous Romanian NobleWOMAN (one of the folks upon whom the dracula story was loosely based) got away with torturing and murdering hundreds and was only caught when she went from peasants to the children of nobles... even then, as royalty, she could not be killed.

Even a male peasant who raped a woman often had only to marry her to make everything "right".

IRONICALLY, though you cited Rome as an exception, Rome actually had some laws that, for its day were pretty firmly against rape. Rape WAS illegal, but they assumed that any woman raped within town would be able to cry for help .... and if she did not, must be complicit.


The list goes on, but would be redundant

[PLAYER57832]

Actually that's not the case

Actually it is. It's a learned behavior.

Actually, no one really KNOWS whether homosexuality is learned or genetic or if it has some other biological cause.

The evidence is strong that it is a bit of both. But why confuse you with evidence? ... your minds are made up.

[detlef]

Sorry if this has been stated but I didn't manage to make it through all 58 pages.

For starters, I am happily married to a person of the opposite sex and in no way feel that would be threatened or cheapened by the existence of same-sex marriages.

In the eyes of the government, all unions between two people should be just that, a legal union between two people. That goes for two men, two women, or one of each. The only thing the government should be concerned with is how that union affects healthcare, shared assets, and the like. Basically the legal aspects of that union. The government should not give two shits about marriage. That is something that either churches or those who the people in question care to pledge their love before. If a church doesn't want to recognize gay marriages, so be it. That's their prerogative. I would be happy to stand in witness of two gay friends pledging this devotion to one another as those who stood in witness of the marriage between my wife and I. One that did not happen at a church and which was officiated by a woman who's only qualification (besides being a dear friend of ours) was having sent $20 to the Universal Life Church to become a minister.

Of course, that's not what those who are fighting gay marriages propose. They want the government to recognize some marriages (ie: hetro) but not all (gay ones). That is bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't is a pathetic, hateful f*ck.

[detlef]

I oppose same sex marriage because it breaks down the family. Strong families produce good societies.

If that's really your issue, then why not start with reality shows that marry people off? I mean, what's a bigger threat to the sanctity of marriage? Two guys who've grown to love one another or two strangers that America has voted on to win a bunch of jack and marry one another?

[bradleybadly]

#1 I didn't say anything about genes.
#2 Genes aren't responsible for explaining every developmental situation and result
#3 DM responded to you much more humorously than I did.

Oh please, you just tried to equate gender and skin pigmentation when you tried to refute Nataki. You are trying to link the two together.

I'll post this again:

http://www.queerbychoice.com/gaygenelinks.html

[Neoteny]

#1 I didn't say anything about genes.
#2 Genes aren't responsible for explaining every developmental situation and result
#3 DM responded to you much more humorously than I did.

Oh please, you just tried to equate gender and skin pigmentation when you tried to refute Nataki. You are trying to link the two together.

I'll post this again:

http://www.queerbychoice.com/gaygenelinks.html

You have excellent reading comprehension skills. I say "genes aren't the only factor responsible for phenotypic effects," in other words, of course, and you link me to something about genes. This clearly has no bearing on what I said, because what I am implying is that genes might not necessarily be the cause for homosexuality. Try again when you understand what I'm saying.

[Napoleon Ier]

#1 I didn't say anything about genes.
#2 Genes aren't responsible for explaining every developmental situation and result
#3 DM responded to you much more humorously than I did.

Oh please, you just tried to equate gender and skin pigmentation when you tried to refute Nataki. You are trying to link the two together.

I'll post this again:

http://www.queerbychoice.com/gaygenelinks.html

You have excellent reading comprehension skills. I say "genes aren't the only factor responsible for phenotypic effects," in other words, of course, and you link me to something about genes. This clearly has no bearing on what I said, because what I am implying is that genes might not necessarily be the cause for homosexuality. Try again when you understand what I'm saying.

Yeah but neoteny, in all seriousness, as a biologist, are you making the statement that there is a "gay gene"? Honestly, I've never seen any evidence for it, and seems just as ridiculous as an "incest gene" or a "paedophilia gene" (for the leftist mongoloids, genes aren't discriminate when it comes to issues of consent, so don't post up any of that bullshit again).

[Neoteny]

No. I'm not excluding the possibility of a "gay gene" (terrible term, more likely a gene complex if it's genetic at all), but that is not the only possibility for developmental inconsistencies. An example of this would be someone suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome. Such an individual has no control over his or her physical and mental attributes just as a male or female does not with respect to physical sexual characteristics, or the melanin content of their skin. However, it is not (exactly) genetics that is causing the differences, but rather a teratogen in the form of alcohol that interferes with the normal genetic function. A person has FAS whether they choose to or not. Additionally, this whole discussion excludes any sort of nature vs nurture differences as well.

The whole topic over the last few pages has been far too inexact for my tastes. However, I try not to point it out, as I sound, well, like I do above.

[reminisco]

Sorry if this has been stated but I didn't manage to make it through all 58 pages.

For starters, I am happily married to a person of the opposite sex and in no way feel that would be threatened or cheapened by the existence of same-sex marriages.

In the eyes of the government, all unions between two people should be just that, a legal union between two people. That goes for two men, two women, or one of each. The only thing the government should be concerned with is how that union affects healthcare, shared assets, and the like. Basically the legal aspects of that union. The government should not give two shits about marriage. That is something that either churches or those who the people in question care to pledge their love before. If a church doesn't want to recognize gay marriages, so be it. That's their prerogative. I would be happy to stand in witness of two gay friends pledging this devotion to one another as those who stood in witness of the marriage between my wife and I. One that did not happen at a church and which was officiated by a woman who's only qualification (besides being a dear friend of ours) was having sent $20 to the Universal Life Church to become a minister.

Of course, that's not what those who are fighting gay marriages propose. They want the government to recognize some marriages (ie: hetro) but not all (gay ones). That is bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't is a pathetic, hateful f*ck.

[bradleybadly]

Sorry, wrong. The ACLU is full of folks who truly believe in freedom -- whether they agree with the idea or not.

Sorry, I'm right. The ACLU was founded by people who were communist. The current bunch are just carrying on the tradition, comrade. Can you show me the percentage of times the ACLU has defended traditional view of marriage (one man to one woman) or made statements supporting it compared to how many times they've wanted to change it?

the point is tolerance for free speech is one thing ACTIONS are something else. When you refuse to allow homosexuals to marry, because YOU believe it is wrong -- that is action, not ideas.

And when the ACLU takes the side of homosexual marriage activists in actual court cases, that is action, not ideas. When you refuse to allow the majority of people to keep marriage defined as it is, that is action, not ideas. It seems you don't care that in state after state voters have overwhelmingly decided they want that definition to remain.

You are absolutely free to think homosexuality is wrong, evil, etc. BUT when you wish to push your ideas into actions that the rest of the country, or your state or community must follow, you cross the line of freedom. You are no more justified in saying homosexuals don't have the right to live their lives, work and have families than you would be in saying that an atheist or someone who worships another God hasn't that right.

You are absolutely free to think that homosexuality is natural, good, etc. BUT when you wish to overturn current laws and force the majority of people who have voted against your agenda to accept it, you cross the line of freedom. You are no more justified in saying that opposite marriage is wrong than you would be in saying that a Christian doesn't have the right to believe in a fantasy book based on folklore and legend.

Bottom line -- when people can have different ideas about right and wrong, when they can READ the BIBLE and see different things, it is clear there is a debate. You don't have to like that. You can rail against all the "idiots" in the world who don't see things as "clearly" as you, but you do NOT have the right to insist that the rest of us follow your narrow ideas.

Neither do you have the right to rail against people who are comfortable with the natural way that evolution selected our species to have complimentary sexual organs. You do NOT have the right to insist that the majority of people adopt your extreme agenda. (See, we can play this semantics game all day PLAYER)

When there is a debate, it is the job of the state to ensure that ALL reasonable choices are allowed. This is called freedom. TRUE freedom. The same freedom that protects your right to pass on whatever narrow minded views you wish to your children. The same right that allows you to DISCUSS/argue these issues, the same right that even allows you the right to protest, PEACEFULLY if you feel that is what you need to do to try and convince others.

The problem with your statement is that your definition of reasonable is different than others. You define freedom the way you want. Freedom is not just doing whatever you want. Like I've said, desire and consent are not what laws are overturned on.

YOu claim that homosexuals are asking for "extra" rights.

Nice try, I said that desire is not the legal basis for overturning current law.

Strange, but I am old enough to remember (sadly still hear) that very argument levied for why blacks should not be afforded the same rights as the whites. "THEY won't stop at equality" the argument went " their REAL goal is to take over all us whites". You know what? The truth is there are and were some idiot black folk who did and do think that way ... just like there are some idiot whites who think they have some sort of superior right to dominate others.... And there are some idiot English who think the French are scum, Irish who hate the English, etc, etc, etc. ... (and THOSE individuals even have some partially legitimate reasons -- like the way their great grandparents might have been treated). If we wish to live our lives limited by these folk's hatred, then we have already lost the freedoms we cherish.

I'll say this again - skin pigmentation is not the same as behavior. You're trying to link two separate issues. Genes control your skin color. The basis for overturning discrimination is that no one can control their ethnicity. So you're trying to make people who believe in traditional marriage look like the equivalent of racists. Wrong! There is no gay gene.

Those against homosexual marriage here have yet to really and truly give one concrete way that homosexual unions will HARM the rest of us. You give examples of how it is wrong, of how much you dislike the idea ... and point to some vague idea of how homosexual unions will somehow "demean" and "degrade" families.

OK, studies show that homosexual relationships are more short-lived than heterosexual married couples. Stability in relationships translates into children who have a more stable environment. Homosexual couples show a greater propensity of sexual promiscuity and cheat on their partners more frequently. Once again, not a very stable environment. Homosexual couples have a greater percentage of domestic violence reported against each other than heterosexual married couples. Not to mention that homosexual couples involve themselves in more sadistic and harmful forms of sex. When all of the above are modeled in front of kids, they are seeing firsthand how little marriage really means.

You ignore evidence that refutes your claim.

Let's see how purposefully depriving a child of a father or mother role model helps these kids.

You ignore the FACT that the homosexuality was removed from the realm of mental illnesses a long time ago .. BECAUSE it is not an illness!

Anyone who can read or use google can understand how homosexual activists demanded that it be taken off the books. There was no scientific evidence. Those psychiatrists were threatened and called names, much like what is happening in this thread (not the threatening part just the name calling)

AND you ignore the "inconvenient" portions of the New Testament and choose instead to hold up Leviticus, though, as has been pointed out -- ONLY when it comes to these sexual matters.

I could care less if you believe in a fantasy book about burning bushes and seas being parted with magic wands. But just out of curiosity please show us all the Bible verses that say "Thou shalt have sex with the same gender"

You IGNORE the fact that whether this is or is not approved by the Bible is IRRELEVANT. You know what? BUDDHISM and HINDUISM are certainly not accepted by the Bible! Years ago, SOME folks even used the Bible to justify persecuting Jews! Others decide it is OK to persecute Catholics .. or Protestants. The list goes on and on.

BUT, sinc eyou bring it up, I will address the Bible issue. Do I know if homosexuality is "acceptable" under God? That is the wrong question. These people are not asking you to LIKE their way of life, to adopt it or to teach your children to live that way. They are simply asking that you let THEM lead THEIR lives they way THEY wish. What I DO know is that we are taught to love one another, to treat each other as best we can. What I DO know is that the sword is not a very good conversion technique. What I DO know is that the harm that comes from suppressing and limiting folks from living lifestyles that are not my own is FAR FAR FAR more harmful to US than simply letting them be.

This is an issue for you and your fellow Bible thumpers.

Do I LIKE homosexuality? Honestly, "no". BUT, when I saw people offering anyone EXCEPT a homosexual couple a ride, offering snacks to everyone EXCEPT the homosexuals, when I see children being teased and rejected because their PARENTS are living a "different" lifestyle,... there is nothing at all Christian aboutt those actions. I cannot as a CHRISTIAN stand by and that be the representation of Christ that stands. When Disney offered health care benefits to its same-sex couples, the Southern Baptist church asked folks to boycott Disney and Disney products. A BOYCOTT because a company dared to offer HEALTH COVERAGE. Disney's response was classic "since when did DENYING folks health coverage become a Christian value." I am honest. If someone asks, I DON'T say that I think homosexuality is OK, but I DO say that I am taught to treat EVERY human being, EVERY sinner (we are ALL sinners, after all) with the SAME kindness and love.

I appreciate your honesty, honestly!! We can't separate emotion from this so thanks for sharing your feelings.

You can call me hypocritical if you like. I am certainly no saint.

Fine, you're a hypocrite. But as Snorri pointed out, we all are. I just think same sex marriage is unproductive. We evolved with complimentary sexual organs naturally. If we could produce asexually no problem. Whether people want to admit it or not marriage has a big part in starting families and passing on traditions and our survival as a society.

You quote the Bible, to Leviticus .. Paul said that even the least sin is enough to take us from God. None of us is pure enough to judge other humans. None of us has such a clear and true and perfect line on the truth that we can FORCE others to think as we do. AND that was not what Christ OR his disciples did. Interesting isn't it? The WORST thing that Christ told his disciples to do was to "shake the dust off the feet" of places where not one person followed him. In this case, many of the folks actually DO follow Christ and DO follow the Bible, in their opinion.

Nope, that's something you do. I could care less about Bible verses and the heavens parting with lightening bolts and all that.

Perhaps it is that which REALLY makes you angry ... that they are disputing your view of the Bible. That I am disputing your view?

Which could also be said of you and others in this thread. You become ridiculously angry when people believe in traditional marriage. Perhaps it's also due to the poll results. The more you guys get angry the more votes we get on our side.

[Neoteny]

I think this is the first time I've said this, and not in jest.

TL;DR.

That was impressive.

I'll probably read it later...

[bradleybadly]

Strong families produce good societies.

what's your definition of a "strong family"?

Heterosexual marriage.

It doesn't guarantee a strong family but the odds are more in favor of it than same sex marriage.

[Nataki Yiro]

I think the only sane people in this topic are wearing cowboy hats... *puts on his cowboy hat*

I can promise you homosexuality is not genetic. Anyone who tells that knows nothing about genetics...

lulz at ACLU...

Homosexual marriage has a success rate of much less than 1%
Heterosexual marriage has a success rate of about 50%