gay marriages, UHHHH!! Options

ok, im not opposed to it because:

1. if they're getting married how is that affecting me.
2. When gay ppl "do it", they cant umm..."have it" (i think so newayz), and that'll keep the constantly increasing population of the world down.

thats all i can think of right now, did u know, just like until a couple of months ago i was VERY opposed to gays, it just sickened me, but ive changed my thinking (no i have NOT become gay)

p.s when i say gay i mean lez also

[dollii]

I'm not opposed to it because...
1. I don't care
2. If you don't like the idea, then don't think about it.
3. It's their lives, not ours...

I don't know what religion they would be married under... Jesus was 'accepts everyone for who they are' but some people don't-- and some people are assholes and would rebel against it.

[ambelina]

okay, i think you're assuming that if people are opposed to it, they think it's "gross"

that's belittling the other side of the issue and making them sound unintelligent.

okay, i think you're assuming that if people are opposed to it, they think it's "gross"

that's belittling the other side of the issue and making them sound unintelligent.

so ur against gayness

[ana8]

I don't have anything against it..I think ppl should be able to marry whoever they want as long as they're happy and don't hurt others....

[*eunie03*]

I notice a recurring theme on our forums...

We all know what my vote is.

[jennyyy_xp]

Its not perfectly normal, but im not opposed to it. =/ I have no comment on it though.

[*krnxswat*]

I think this would be more appropriate in the Lounge Forum. So I'll move it.

Anyways, I don't really care.

[tofumonzter]

it really gross.....

[*krnxswat*]

I just noticed, how come it's only gay marriages? How about lesbian marriages?

[LatinaLady]

i think its ok. i basiclly feel that its the same as a woman and man getting married. they want to commit to each other. or at least thats the purpose of getting married. get what i m saying? well anywayz i think its the same thing and no big deal. if two people in love want o be together forever in holy matrimoney they should be able to be together no matter what the sexes are.

[GinaDaQueen]

I just noticed, how come it's only gay marriages? How about lesbian marriages?

Read the second post, buddy. I love yanking your chain (no innuendos intended)

I hate when people say it's gross. It just sounds unintelligent and they contribute nothing to a debate.

I am not against it, not because it's not my business, but because they are human beings, too. If they had a choice, I think they'd choose to be straight because of all the stigma attached to homosexuality. It's not like they said, "Hm, I want to be gay to gross everyone out and make them feel uncomfortable." People think of homosexuals as this "different species."

As for gay marriages, I don't care about that. But, I do think that the option should be available to them. If they want to get married, fine. If not, that's fine also.

[kevinma03]

Im not against it, i had a post in on it in my xanga somewhere... dont remember now.

[*krnxswat*]

Read the second post, buddy. I love yanking your chain (no innuendos intended)

Oh.
Silly me.

[aznhybriddragon]

I am With it, I think it should be allowed anyways, Cause if thats how God made u then they should allow it, cause u cant help it.

[xjjajeengx]

ok... well
you cant change someone and you cant force them to marry what or who they dont want to marry. also, You cant blame them in not wanting to marry a certain gender sometimes... i mean,... what if they went thru crap in their life and just turned gay/lez that way? ne waiss... i dont think we should oppose to it or watever... i noe its weerd... but hey, it's their life. let them live it.

[bluecrystals]

i'm not opposed to gay marriage. if two people were in love with each other and wanted to get married, then i think they should be able too.

gay ppl have their own rights, i think...
mind your own business...if they are gay, then THEY are gay, not YOU

[Dr3aMeR]

I SAY f**k NO...they should not marry...its WRONG

[Dr3aMeR]

i want the US Congress to make a COnstitutional ammendment that makes marriage only be between a male and a female

i have a real respect for bush for wanting this..and i hope it will be passed by when he leaves office...which is going to be another 4 years becuase he is going to be relected again

[bluecrystals]

i don't think gender should matter.

[silver-rain]

I don't oppose gay marriages. It's between the couple and if they love each other and want to get married, it shouldn't matter what gender they are.

[*kryogenix*]

gay marriage is illegal...

i dont get it, cuz like THEM getting married is affecting YOU in anyway, unless they're publicly making out, except i KNOW that even when a guy and girl make out in ublic, and you walk past them then u feel a lil embarrased(totally spelt that wrong)

[hybrid]

I don't see anything wrong with homosexuality (is this right? Scientific term?) I thought the whole idea of marriages was the love one has for the other, right? I mean if they get married, its their choice. I don't see what's wrong about that.

[poisonedxivy]

hrmm ... i guess im against it. its bad enough w. those straight couples that have this strong urge to display their attraction foh each other ... but i think it would be just downright gross if i had to see gay/lez people doin that ... its just wrong. and extremely inappropriate foh lil kids tah see ... >.< ... but i guess it injustice foh the gay couples that can't get married ... violation of their rights ... soo ... ehh ... im against it anywayz .....

[painfultears]

I don't get how some people are against it. What's wrong with a different choice of sexual attraction? Is there something wrong with seeing a guy with a guy? I mean, some people are prefectly fine with a girl with a girl. What's the big difference? If you decide to go one way, it's your choice. You can't chance what you prefer. How does it affect you? Just because you see it? It doesn't matter. It's their own free will and their choice of words/actions.

[*krnxswat*]

I don't get how some people are against it.

Different people. Different opinions. Different perspectives.

[Tal_Dara]

in the bible they talk about this in way, about homosexual marriage and love. I believe its in the book of Levituchus. the bible is against it.

[*eunie03*]

It's also in Romans and 1 Corinthians.

The Bible, however, also condemns women who speak out loud in church (also in Corinthians), and Ephesians glorifies slavery.

Times change.

Also... no one fully knows what the text is implying. Homosexuality back then was a different thing that it is now. It wasn't just a case of men with men, it was more along the lines of promiscuity and rape (ex: Sodom).

The Bible says a lot of things. I don't think you can take things out of context... not with this anyway.

[politicophobia77]

I'm for gay marriages because it is their business who they marry and banning gay marriages isn't going to stop gay relationships. Gay marriages is just a way for them to obtain the same rights heterosexual couples have. I believe there should be a fine line between all religions and state.

[*kryogenix*]

i dont get it, cuz like THEM getting married is affecting YOU in anyway, unless they're publicly making out, except i KNOW that even when a guy and girl make out in ublic, and you walk past them then u feel a lil embarrased(totally spelt that wrong)

think. the purpose of getting married is because you love somebody. maybe have some children with them. that is the goal of us humans, reproduce so your genes live on in future generations and keep the human population growing. can a gay couple make children? NO. Is this healthy for the human race? NO. What would happen if this trend continued... if all of a sudden 10% of the population became homosexual, then 20% the 50%... human race would be on a decline. Scary thought huh?

not to mention that gay marriage is illegal. take a look at this.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/marriage.html

In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage was a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife.  Marriage was viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.  Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house.  The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children.  Today the underlying concept that marriage is a legal contract still remains but due to changes in society the legal obligations are not the same.

however, the states do have a right to regulate this but allowing gay marriages goes against the definition of marriage. imagine, people getting married to animals, blow up dolls!!!

that's why it's wrong.

[Melissa]

i am opposed to gay marriages:

1. i think its wrong
2. its just gross
3. if you wanna live with your gay lover, just live with him/her...why do you hafta get a marriage license? its like the world is now "proclaiming" that they'll accept gay/lesbian practice to be a good thing.

...i've got friends who are gay/lesbian. i'm not saying that i don't like the people...i just don't like the ...concept...i guess

its like people who lie...i hate the sin, but not the people

its just my oppinion

[politicophobia77]

imagine, people getting married to animals, blow up dolls!!!

Though I see your point, we are not talking about people marrying inanimate objects or animals. In gay marriages, there are two people getting married.

[DisneyPrincessKa...]

I don't think it's very natural, but I hate people telling me what I do is stupid, bad, wrong, dumb ect. when it's something I like, believe, and think is fine. So I say, if it's what they want go for it.

[*eunie03*]

think. the purpose of getting married is because you love somebody. maybe have some children with them. that is the goal of us humans, reproduce so your genes live on in future generations and keep the human population growing. can a gay couple make children? NO. Is this healthy for the human race? NO. What would happen if this trend continued... if all of a sudden 10% of the population became homosexual, then 20% the 50%... human race would be on a decline. Scary thought huh?

A gay couple actually can have children with artificial insemenation. Procreation isn't the key purpose of marriage anyway. Actually, it might be for some people, but the KEY factor in marriage is love. Plenty of straight couples decide not to have children. And what about infertile (straight) women? Since she can't have babies, she shouldn't get married? What is that?

[corinn]

i think they have just as much riqhts as straiqht people should have so they should be able to qet married...i mean they are people to riqht? that just want to be happy.

[x3Janex3]

they love each other...so0o...it doesnt really matter

[kevinma03]

think. the purpose of getting married is because you love somebody. maybe have some children with them. that is the goal of us humans, reproduce so your genes live on in future generations and keep the human population growing. can a gay couple make children? NO. Is this healthy for the human race? NO. What would happen if this trend continued... if all of a sudden 10% of the population became homosexual, then 20% the 50%... human race would be on a decline. Scary thought huh?

not to mention that gay marriage is illegal. take a look at this.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/marriage.html



however, the states do have a right to regulate this but allowing gay marriages goes against the definition of marriage. imagine, people getting married to animals, blow up dolls!!!

that's why it's wrong.

Ok sorry but that's a terrible argument. Marriage and reproduction have nothing to do with each other. Gay people dont reproduce naturally anyways so what does it matter if they can get married or not. And homosexuality is not a heritable trait. THeres been no studies that indicate homosexual parents produce homosexual offspring. I personally believe it to be a natural mutation/anomaly in the person's brain. Marriage is a human creation, and shouldn't be attached to nature. animals mate just as well in nature without marriage, which proves marriage is actually pretty superfluous in the greater scheme of things. It's not like if we legalize gay marriage straight people will stop marrying and stop reproducing.

[KandyKid149]

i am opposed to gay marriages:

1. i think its wrong
2. its just gross
3. if you wanna live with your gay lover, just live with him/her...why do you hafta get a marriage license? its like the world is now "proclaiming" that they'll accept gay/lesbian practice to be a good thing.

...i've got friends who are gay/lesbian. i'm not saying that i don't like the people...i just don't like the ...concept...i guess

its like people who lie...i hate the sin, but not the people

its just my oppinion

well..c if heterosexual people live together and them sometimes get married then why cant they right???...

and as for reproduction , some normal people get married and dont have children , i mean even gay people can adopt ....

yeah wellz everyone has their own opinion just that it kinda pises me off when some people cant let some other people be

[darkestdesire]

I wouldn't even care. It's their way of life, and as long as it's no happening to me

[LowesRacer2K3]

Here's a reason to oppose homosexuality. 75% of AIDS patients are gay men. So much money is spent on AIDS research, yet some want the government to condone some of the behavior that plays a major factor in the spread of it.

That's the equivalent of sex education classes in school giving the nod to students to have unprotected sex. There'd be an outcry if that happened.

[kevinma03]

Here's a reason to oppose homosexuality. 75% of AIDS patients are gay men. So much money is spent on AIDS research, yet some want the government to condone some of the behavior that plays a major factor in the spread of it.

So what you're saying is, if you ban gay marriages gay people will stop having sex and the AIDS epidemic is solved? And what about Africa and its current crisis. Is everyone in Africa with AIDS gay men? I believe you are skewing statistics that are not relavent to the argument.

[LowesRacer2K3]

I didn't say gay people would stop having sex. I said the government should not condone that type of behavior. There's a major difference there.
That percentage stated is only of the western world.

[kevinma03]

Do you believe in the 2nd amendment?

[LowesRacer2K3]

I believe in the 2nd ammendment, but it doesn't forbid the government from regulating the sale of arms.

[kevinma03]

So even though firearms kill thousands of people every year you still support it? People that support the 2nd amendment argue that its not guns that kill people, its people that kill people. the same can be applied to homosexuality. Being gay doesn't kill poeple. It's irresponsible unsafe sex that does. Blood transfusions also give people AIDS, should we not condone those?

[LowesRacer2K3]

I didn't say I supported the 2nd ammendment, I said I believed it. It's in plain black and white, how can I deny it? It's the combination of guns and people that kill. An unarmed, man can't shoot somebody, can he? But on the other hand, an armed man in his right man will not shoot somebody. So what do you do? You do you best to make sure those who are most likely to kill stay unarmed. They'll most likely steal or buy a gun off the black market, but at least it wasn't done with the approval of the government.

Here's some statistics: http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/l12/l12chap2.shtml

Both gay sex and unprotected sex is going to happen no matter what the law is. Both cause and spread the hiv virus and other STDs. Let's keep the government seal of approvoal off of it. People can still do it, it won't be illegal.

And as for blood transfusions, because of past mistakes, hospitals do a pretty good job of testing blood these days for problems.

[Alk3]

This is a common target for debate nowadays, especially since they've been banning gay marriage where it used to be legal.. Anyway.. I'm definitely not against it. I don't see the problem. It's just like a man and a woman getting married. They have the same affection and attraction towards each other, so why not?

People just aren't used to the idea of same sex marriage, so I can respect other people's opinions on why they oppose it.

I had this mock-list up on my site about gay marriage, and it had a couple of good points.. they're all sarcastic.. Here are a couple:

Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if Gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

[kevinma03]

Ok i made the assumption that support and believe are more or less synonymous, my fault. So how do you believe in it and not support it at the same time? the right for people to have guns greatly increases the amount of gun related deaths a year, thats proven. Countries like Japan that have anti-gun laws have a miniscule amount compared to America. So are you saying the government is putting their seal of approval on firearm deaths? Unless of course by believing you mean the 2nd amendment should be revoked..

And marriage isn't related to sex either and you can't directly relate homosexuality to AIDS, one isn't directly causal of the other, theres only statistics.

[Dr3aMeR]

SAY NO TO GAY MARRIAGES!!!!

[Co.Oky me]

i can honestly say that i'm really really reallyyyy confused about this whole topic. but i'm still opposed to it. i can't really make a well-rounded judgement when i don't know any homosexual people and i don't know if it's actually for love or just some twisted thought. i...have no idea. >.< as a christian..i DO think it's a sin (wrongdoing) for adopting this concept...but i can't personallyyy say it's downright wrong.

[LowesRacer2K3]

"Believing" is accepting a fact, while "supporting" is taking a role of activism.

Only statistics? Have you ever heard of one of the most used statistics' terms, "correlation"? If AIDS/HIV and homosexual activities aren't correlated, then that would have to be the biggest coincidence in history.

I'm going to end my discussion on this topic with that note. Thanks for the thought provoking discussion. It has been a joy.

[Mireh]

Gay marriages might not be normal, but there are many reasons why they're ok by me. One being that it's not affecting me in anyway. I know this might sound wierd to most of you, but we do need some more diversity in our world.

[jennica]

no offence pero i think its gross...

[noaccounthere]

Being gay and having a gay marriage itself isnt wrong. I dont believe its normal but I would oppose it. However, its what they decide to do from now on after that marriage. They cant have a normal active sex life thats for sure. And as most people gay or not I'm sure everyone USUALLY (keyword usually) wants offspring or children.

Being in a homosexual relationships means not having this and the only way is to adopt or have "test-tube" children. In today's society, homosexual relationships are being more and more accepted but it still had a negative vibe to it, a very big one. How would you feel being a 5 year old kid and asked whose your mom and dad? I dont think it would be easy for anyone at around this age to say my parents are gay or lesbian.

The big thing about gay marriages is ETHICS. Its like why aren't we cloning humans right now? Its because its ethically wrong. Ethics has nothing to do with religion its the way "thing ought to work, people ought to act."

Its okay to engage in this kind of relationship, just as its okay to buy a gun legally. Its what you do with it that matters.

[kevinma03]

"Believing" is accepting a fact, while "supporting" is taking a role of activism.

Only statistics? Have you ever heard of one of the most used statistics' terms, "correlation"? If AIDS/HIV and homosexual activities aren't correlated, then that would have to be the biggest coincidence in history.

I'm going to end my discussion on this topic with that note. Thanks for the thought provoking discussion. It has been a joy.

Ok even if you are ending this discussion im going to respond.

The most used statistics phrase is "correlation does not justify causation". Just because two things are correlated does not mean they direct cause one or the other. Legalizing gay marriage legitimizes the act so it's one more step in making people not feel ashamed.
You can say that being poor and having high crime rates are also correlated. Does that mean we shouldn't have welfare programs that help people?

[*eunie03*]

Ok even if you are ending this discussion im going to respond.

The most used statistics phrase is "correlation does not justify causation". Just because two things are correlated does not mean they direct cause one or the other. Legalizing gay marriage legitimizes the act so it's one more step in making people not feel ashamed.
You can say that being poor and having high crime rates are also correlated. Does that mean we shouldn't have welfare programs that help people?

I gotta hand it to you, kevin. VERY nicely put in everything you've said. I completely agree with everything, and anything I couldn't put into words, you did so perfectly....

...Trying to be formal... professional... GAH I can't do it! *glomp*

[kevinma03]

lol. i say we all be friends

[*kryogenix*]

Ok sorry but that's a terrible argument. Marriage and reproduction have nothing to do with each other.

it does if you are a follower of the christian faith (accounts for over 1/6 of the population). i'm not sure about judaism, islam, hinduism, buddism, but i think they might have a law about sex before marraige

Gay people dont reproduce naturally anyways so what does it matter if they can get married or not.

it does matter considering taxes after getting married

And homosexuality is not a heritable trait. Theres been no studies that indicate homosexual parents produce homosexual offspring

look at what you wrote. if homosexuals can't have children naturally, how are their children supposed to inherit homosexuality? assuming the couple adopts a child, they can teach the child that you should get married to a person of the same sex, and then that child adopts a child and the chain continues...

It's not like if we legalize gay marriage straight people will stop marrying and stop reproducing.

i didn't say they would. i'm saying if a large portion of the population became gay, that would hurt birthrates.

A gay couple actually can have children with artificial insemenation.

don't know much about artificial insemenation, but wouldn't the couple have to be lesbian? plus, i'm sure that procedure costs money, so some couples won't be able to afford it.

[kevinma03]

it does if you are a follower of the christian faith (accounts for over 1/6 of the population). i'm not sure about judaism, islam, hinduism, buddism, but i think they might have a law about sex before marraige

Seperation of church and state. What your religious values are should not dictate what is established in the government

it does matter considering taxes after getting married

So gay people dont deserve tax breaks? What happened to all men are created equal and have inalienable rights?

look at what you wrote. if homosexuals can't have children naturally, how are their children supposed to inherit homosexuality? assuming the couple adopts a child, they can teach the child that you should get married to a person of the same sex, and then that child adopts a child and the chain continues...

Homosexuality isn't taught. Heterosexual parents teach their kids to be heterosexual, boy that works all the time doesn't it.

i didn't say they would. i'm saying if a large portion of the population became gay, that would hurt birthrates.

Once again refer to previous point. gay parents do not necessarily raise gay children, just as straight parents dont always raise straight children.

[*kryogenix*]

Seperation of church and state. What your religious values are should not dictate what is established in the government

it should if enough people support the idea and the senators represent that idea.

So gay people dont deserve tax breaks? What happened to all men are created equal and have inalienable rights?

gay people deserve tax breaks. people who aren't qualified for them don't deserve them.

Homosexuality isn't taught. Heterosexual parents teach their kids to be heterosexual, boy that works all the time doesn't it.

it can be taught. and if the child listens and accepts the idea then they will be homosexual too.

gay parents do not necessarily raise gay children, just as straight parents dont always raise straight children.

Once again reffering to the previous point. It CAN be taught and it could be a danger to the human race if many people follow this.

[*krnxswat*]

So this is the first major 'createBlog' debate, eh?

[dat_da_busit_hai]

geuss so

[kevinma03]

it should if enough people support the idea and the senators represent that idea.

omg no it shouldn't. that's going against everything this nation is founded on. You can't mix religion and government. And 1/6 isn't a majority. I

gay people deserve tax breaks. people who aren't qualified for them don't deserve them.

So you agree they deserve tax breaks. If you remove religious or cultural context away from marriage, that's all it basically is. Tax breaks for couples that are committed to each other.

it can be taught. and if the child listens and accepts the idea then they will be homosexual too.

You are incorrect, current consensus is that homosexuality is biological rather than social. Just because parents teach that homosexuality is ok does not mean the kids will be homosexual. If anything the kids of homosexual parents will be much more open minded to the life styles of other people. I very much doubt homosexual parents are close minded enough to force their kdis into homosexuality, which is more than i can say for heterosexual parents. http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~joordens/cou...er13/sld019.htm

I guess theres no point in quoting your 'end of human race' idea because the above addresses it.

[kevinma03]

So this is the first major 'createBlog' debate, eh?

lol i guess so. i just like debating

[*kryogenix*]

omg no it shouldn't.  that's going against everything this nation is founded on.  You can't mix religion and government.  And 1/6 isn't a majority.

omg. you forgot our nation is founded on judeo-christian philosophy. 1/6th isn't a majority, but if you take a look at the US, christianity is the majority. Taken from lonely planet: Protestant (56%), Roman Catholic (28%), Jewish (2%), Muslim (1%).

So you agree they deserve tax breaks. If you remove religious or cultural context away from marriage, that's all it basically is. Tax breaks for couples that are committed to each other.

i say they can get tax breaks, but not the marriage tax breaks. i'm sure gay people receive rebates. but it's unfair that they get the marriage tax break when what they are doing is outside the definition of marriage.

You are incorrect, current consensus is that homosexuality is biological rather than social. Just because parents teach that homosexuality is ok does not mean the kids will be homosexual. If anything the kids of homosexual parents will be much more open minded to the life styles of other people. I very much doubt homosexual parents are close minded enough to force their kdis into homosexuality, which is more than i can say for heterosexual parents. http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~joordens/cou...er13/sld019.htm

I guess theres no point in quoting your 'end of human race' idea because the above addresses it.

It's a problem when it's being taught as birth control solution

read this as well:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet6.html

[edit]looking at that slide again, the researchers even admit that a firm answer has not yet been established...

debates are fun, even though i tend to lose a lot of them.

[kevinma03]

omg. you forgot our nation is founded on judeo-christian philosophy. 1/6th isn't a majority, but if you take a look at the US, christianity is the majority. Taken from lonely planet: Protestant (56%), Roman Catholic (28%), Jewish (2%), Muslim (1%).

I think we are straying from the topic and are ending up debating the establishment clause. But i would like to point out that both Jefferson and Madison stressed the need for a 'wall of seperation' between church and state

i say they can get tax breaks, but not the marriage tax breaks. i'm sure gay people receive rebates. but it's unfair that they get the marriage tax break when what they are doing is outside the definition of marriage.

The marriage tax breaks were established to encourage responsible spending. The government believed couples that lived together are more likely to spend responsibly than singles. I haven't read any studies taht show homosexuals are more financially irreponsible or that them being together actually creates MORE irresponsible spending. To me marriage is the union of two people who love each other and are committed to each other. What their sex is shouldn't matter. especially when it comes to financial spending.

It's a problem when it's being taught as birth control solution

What happened was unfortunate but i dont think its indicative of homosexuals as a whole.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jun/burr2.htm Please read that
and this http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayscience.html

I'm not saying there is a firm answer but i believe the evidence points towards biology and that given the need for an immediate decision, we should go with biology.

[aakash27]

i'm not opposed to it but it is not normal i think it is kinda wierd or different something that ppls are not used to yet i guess. anyways... since this is the big news in cali. how will arnold handle? lol

[kevinma03]

i'm not opposed to it but it is not normal i think it is kinda wired or different something that ppls are not used to yet i guess. anyways... since this is the big news in cali. how will arnold handle? lol

i think arnold should make a movie about it. make it have explosions and robots. its gonna be great

[aakash27]

i think arnold should make a movie about it. make it have explosions and robots. its gonna be great

yah that would be funny... but at the same time there might be gay coupls in it and that might not suite everyone lol

[kevinma03]

lol. then the government will pass a ban on the movie, or atleast attempt to. and we can argue about it

[*[2]Nekked*]

i want the US Congress to make a COnstitutional ammendment that makes marriage only be between a male and a female

i have a real respect for bush for wanting this..and i hope it will be passed by when he leaves office...which is going to be another 4 years becuase he is going to be relected again

how is it that virtually ANYTHING i read from you is the snottiest and most ignorant piece of poo in these forums?

granted, you're entitled to your own opinion, but that doesnt mean im not gonna argue

first of all "ITS WRONG?"
what about it is wrong? That theyre homo/bisexual? Or because the church says it's against their morals?

I'm strictly atheist, but i thought God was a symbol of peace, unity, love, equality, and all that shiz?

second of all, i think bush is gonna find it hard to get reelected in four years.

And if the congress makes an ammendment that says only heterosexual people can get married, then wouldn't that be not separating the church and state, since people generally get married in a church (et al)?

Tell me, whats the difference between a heterosexual and homosexual marraige/relationship, other than the gender ratio, and the likeliness of having children? (because, after all there are other ways to conceive, than just sex)
Theyre getting married because they love each other, and want to pledge their devotion to each other. What does their sexuality have to do with that?

[*kryogenix*]

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html

This is also worth a read as well. Even if you only take a quick look at it, that would be nice.

And if the congress makes an ammendment that says only heterosexual people can get married, then wouldn't that be not separating the church and state, since people generally get married in a church (et al)?

you can choose to be married only in the state, not church.

I'm strictly atheist, but i thought God was a symbol of peace, unity, love, equality, and all that shiz?

...for those who follow him. Blaspheming the sanctity of marraige is a great way to folow god. (sarcasm just in case you don't detect it)

enjoy the article at the top of my post everyone

[kevinma03]

let he who is without sin cast the first stone? everybody's a sinner, lets all just accept that and keep on truckin

[*kryogenix*]

let he who is without sin cast the first stone? everybody's a sinner, lets all just accept that and keep on truckin

everyone's a sinner, but some of them don't repent for their sins.

[*kryogenix*]

yay i win

[colorsarenice]

im not opposed to gay marriage because i think they should have the same rights as straight people. if they're in love they might as well should get married. i dont see the big deal with it

[xjjajeengx]

It's also in Romans and 1 Corinthians.

The Bible, however, also condemns women who speak out loud in church (also in Corinthians), and Ephesians glorifies slavery.

Times change.

Also... no one fully knows what the text is implying. Homosexuality back then was a different thing that it is now. It wasn't just a case of men with men, it was more along the lines of promiscuity and rape (ex: Sodom).

The Bible says a lot of things. I don't think you can take things out of context... not with this anyway.

erm... for the condemning women who speak out loud in church and stuff, isnt that in the old testament? so like... you can cross those stuff out... right?

ANYWAYS! so many opinions... but like i said before, we shouldnt care. i mean... arent we busy with our own lives anyways? no point in judging what others should do and not do. its just a matter of being nosy or so. i mean, in the bible, it does say that its not right. but i mean... if they want to sin and marry the same sex, then okay watever. their lives... their ways as long as they no God doesnt want it then watevers. im just like

everyone's a sinner, but some of them don't repent for their sins.

W.Or.D! smartz

[*kryogenix*]

im not opposed to gay marriage because i think they should have the same rights as straight people. if they're in love they might as well should get married. i dont see the big deal with it

so you're saying that incest is ok as long as the two people really love each other?

erm... for the condemning women who speak out loud in church and stuff, isnt that in the old testament? so like... you can cross those stuff out... right?

so you are saying we can cross out the ten commandments? the old testament is there for a reason.

ANYWAYS! so many opinions... but like i said before, we shouldnt care. i mean... arent we busy with our own lives anyways? no point in judging what others should do and not do. its just a matter of being nosy or so. i mean, in the bible, it does say that its not right. but i mean... if they want to sin and marry the same sex, then okay watever. their lives... their ways as long as they no God doesnt want it then watevers. im just like

we shouldn't care... that's terrible. apathy is not the solution. if someone murdered a bunch of people, would you care? or would you ignore it because it's none of your business? would you be concerned that these people might be setting bad examples for children?

[*eunie03*]

everyone's a sinner, but some of them don't repent for their sins.

It's easy to say you repent for all your sins when you can pick and choose what your sins are. To gay people, homosexuality is not a sin. Just like you might believe eating pork isn't a sin. Or whether you believe Jesus is your savior or if you're of the Islamic faith. Which brings us aaaall back to the thing that the United States is definitely NOT under one religion, although Christianity might be the vast majority. In America, as stressed before, there is freedom of religion, and following that, separation between Church and State. Rights, straight or not, are NOT based on the Holy Bible. If it did.... I'm moving. As would millions of non-Chrisitan, perverse, sinful, "disgusting" (as put so eloquently) people out there.

But it's not that way, is it?

Overtime

edit: and to xjjajeengx, what kryogenix said is what I would've said (Great minds, eh?)

[*kryogenix*]

It's easy to say you repent for all your sins when you can pick and choose what your sins are. To gay people, homosexuality is not a sin. Just like you might believe eating pork isn't a sin. Or whether you believe Jesus is your savior or if you're of the Islamic faith. Which brings us aaaall back to the thing that the United States is definitely NOT under one religion, although Christianity might be the vast majority. In America, as stressed before, there is freedom of religion, and following that, separation between Church and State. Rights, straight or not, are NOT based on the Holy Bible. If it did.... I'm moving. As would millions of non-Chrisitan, perverse, sinful, "disgusting" (as put so eloquently) people out there.

But it's not that way, is it?

Overtime

edit: and to xjjajeengx, what kryogenix said is what I would've said (Great minds, eh?)

but they can pass laws that prevent moral atrocities as long as they don't violate the constitution

[*eunie03*]

but they can pass laws that prevent moral atrocities as long as they don't violate the constitution

Moral atrocities according to whom?

edit: Right right, according to Christianity. But that second part of what you said: "As they don't violate the constitution". Everyone has rights protected by the constitution. Everyone. Every flaming gay person and straightest straight person. To make a law restricting something as simple as a proclamation of love seems a bit like refusing rights to me. Discrimination, in a word.

[k00alah]

i can care less again.. it's not doing any harm on me so why hate on them.. they chose to be that way and we have to respect their decision.. yeah im a devoted catholic too and morale does play a factor.. but who cares.. that's life people.. i care more about the COLLEGE TUITIONS that are rising every year in cali..

[xxxlilazngrlxxx]

i dont think its perfectly normal, but im not opposed to it. i think a marriage is between a man and a women. but why not a union between two gay/lesbian people..

i think it is unfair that gay/lesbian couples doesnt get the same rights as a married couple, so the government should should grant unions between gay people.

[*kryogenix*]

i can care less again.. it's not doing any harm on me so why hate on them.. they chose to be that way and we have to respect their decision.. yeah im a devoted catholic too and morale does play a factor.. but who cares.. that's life people.. i care more about the COLLEGE TUITIONS that are rising every year in cali..

i think you're confusing morals for morale (maybe a typo?)

[pyoon]

We must remember that the American society was created under the premise of religious outcasts of England and western European countries. Those people came here to set a basic life, away from the ever so changing society of dawning Europe (booze, prostitution, renaissance, et al). They were straight forward conservatives. Homosexuals used to be burned at the stake and/or stoned to death, now they have the ability to maintain a marriage license (San Francisco has started issuing marriage licenses). I know, the world has revolved quite a bit since the colonization ages, but by doing so, time has buried parts of societie's character while exposing "bad" ones to the extreme. By now you should have recongnized that I'm taking the side of the conservatives, those who have a religious background. This has always been a high debated topic, at least to me, and I can go on for days of how homosexual union is not accepted by God. But that's the least of your concern...[?]

Blah...I'm against it.

Now, please excuse us while I light up a fag. *












* A fag in Britain is a cigarette. I don't smoke but I couldn't resist the joke.

[kevinma03]

What's not acceptable to you is acceptable to other people. Society's values are always changing and resisting the change is pretty pointless. How can you define it as "bad"? "Bad" is a very subjective word that changes based on the mercurial nature of society's morals. At one point interracial marriages were considered "bad". At one point allowing woman to have rights was considered "bad". Had Lincoln been a conservative we would still have slaves. Had there been no liberal MLK we would still have racial segregation. Conservatives see the status quo as such an ideal place that should be maintained when in reality it is false. Looking back to the civil rights movement, do you think life was better then? What if the conservatives had won out then, would that be a better world? The laws that the government impliments should reflect the everchanging values of society and should never shy away from making the big leaps that are necessary to insure equality for men and women.

And you say that homosexual union is not acceptable by God. Well fortunately for the rest of us the US government isn't dictated by what God wants.

[Senorita_Babo]

What's not acceptable to you is acceptable to other people. Society's values are always changing and resisting the change is pretty pointless. How can you define it as "bad"? "Bad" is a very subjective word that changes based on the mercurial nature of society's morals. At one point interracial marriages were considered "bad". At one point allowing woman to have rights was considered "bad". Had Lincoln been a conservative we would still have slaves. Had there been no liberal MLK we would still have racial segregation. Conservatives see the status quo as such an ideal place that should be maintained when in reality it is false. Looking back to the civil rights movement, do you think life was better then? What if the conservatives had won out then, would that be a better world? The laws that the government impliments should reflect the everchanging values of society and should never shy away from making the big leaps that are necessary to insure equality for men and women.

And you say that homosexual union is not acceptable by God. Well fortunately for the rest of us the US government isn't dictated by what God wants.

i totally agree with your statement, people/society is always changing... just keep an open mind, it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's about acceptance.

[pyoon]

Hmmmmm...yis. I never said my point of view was not arguable and yes to a degree resisting change is pointless because change in inevitable. Neither did I direct my point of view of homosexuals to politics. However, unlike people without a strong religious background, I would I to maintain with what I believe in. What do I believe in? Undoubtedly my faith in God and what I'm taught. Yes, that's very "spoon fed" of me to do but my faith is my faith. I always thought that people on the political left didn't care so much about personal practices (homosexuality), and probably don't care much about moral prohibitions and ignore traditional religions, whether they do or do not believe in God. Obviously they must be less concerned about hellfire and brimstone and eternal damnation. Instead of justice given by God, judicial decision is more important. I really don't know what this reply is going to prove here, just that I don't really care to hear an agruement disproving my beliefs...?


What happens to us when we die? In God We Trust. Oh, and God should dictate America, it would be a better place to live. Other than that, this post is as good as beating a dead horse.

[IIO__oII]

gay marrage is TOTALLy wrong.. its a SIN!

[kevinma03]

Ok guys, Establishment Clause, it's in the Constitution. Let's all read about it please. Theres a reason why "One nation under God" was deemed unconstitutional.

[k00alah]

i think you're confusing morals for morale (maybe a typo?)

woops.. yeah typo

[pyoon]

Yes. Good for bringing that up, and quite a valid point I might add. But I hope to go to heaven later. PASSIONS FEB. 25th, GO WATCH IT.

[*kryogenix*]

Had Lincoln been a conservative we would still have slaves.

Lincoln was a republican.

[aj637]

i dont see why they make gay marriages such a big deal i mean obviously they both love each otehr so then why is the government trying to protect us by not legalizing gay marriages only in some states. its kinda stupid! i mean in the old days we were allowed to marry our own brother/sister or fleshen blood and i think thats more gross than gay marriages!

[*kryogenix*]

read the previous posts. then you'll understand why.

[lexion]

I'm not opposed.

[kevinma03]

Lincoln was a republican.

ok big misunderstanding there friend. You might not be aware of the great shift during the FDR administration. Before that all the Republicans were LIBERAL, yeah thats right, the GOP was liberal. FDR, being a democrat (which was conservative before teh shift) initiated the New Deal and a whole bunch of government programs. As a result the other Democrats felt the "democractic party" was too liberal and switched to republicans and teh republicans felt they were more at home with the democrats. There ya go my friend, that's why despite Lincoln being a Republican, he was still liberal.

In '28 the dems ran a catholic which really angered the conservative constituents at the time so they began voting repubilcan. as a result the republicans began to make their platforms more conservative
Durin the civil rights movement the shift was completed witht he hardcore voting of all republican in the south against racial equality