gay marriages, UHHHH!! Options

[Trinie]

i'm for gay marriage!!! i'm not gay but i have alot of friends who are. so what if they're gay?? anyone can get married as long as they are happy.

[douchebag]

i'm for gay marriage!!! i'm not gay but i have alot of friends who are. so what if they're gay?? anyone can get married as long as they are happy.

Tell that to the hundreds of millions of married people in this country that aren't going to be happy once homosexuals begin wedding. Why won't they be pleased? The benefits of being married extend to privileges on housing prices, tax breaks, increased retirement benefits, etc. If these benefits are extended to a massive group outside of the heterosexual realm, you'll have a dangerous social dichotomy.

Now, in no way am I saying I believe in this line of thinking (in fact, I abhor it and I stand in firm affirmation of homosexual marriage rights), but you have to take into account the people you're dealing with here. The Republican party is all about the dollar, and if you try and take away that dollar, cut it up, and give it away to a bunch of "anti-Christian queers," you're playing with the hottest kind of fire.

[Trinie]

yeah i understand what you're saying.

[*Uronacid*]

Ugh, I know where I stand on this... as a christian I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I believe that to being a christian is a choice. I see homosexuality as a choice (Don't argue this piont, it can't be proven either way.). If they don't want to make that choice then it's there choice. I can't force them to make it, and if I did force them too then they wouldn't really believe in it.

I believe that they should have the right to be gay and live together. In my own personal deffinition of marriage, I see it as the union of a man and a woman. I don't think it's possible for them to truely get married even if they wanted too. If the law gets passed, so be it.

I will vote no to gay marriage when it is put in my state. When I vote I will be voting because I feel that it is wrong for me to do it. I will be voting for myself. Not for all the people who want to be gay/married. I don't need to stand for them. They can stand forthemselves. I personally see something morally wrong with homesexuality, and I will not encourage it.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

^ Because America is NOT supposed to be a Christian nation. Apparently you've spent so much time debunking the Bible that you've neglected to read the Constitution. Prioritize.

:I actually had an arguement with my mother about that a few weeks ago. She was trying to insist that it is a Christian country just because it was founded by them and the Puritans came over and all of that.



Josh, I think we'd all appreciate it if you just ceased speaking on contraversial topics. Or at least I would. You make my head hurt rather a lot.

It's not exactly right to say that you believe being Christian is a choice when it most definitely IS a choice. You are by no means born with a particular set of beliefs, and as you become better educated, you can certainly change your opinions. The fact that you see homosexuality as a choice is completely irrelevent...besides just naive. If you don't want things debated in the debate forum (or anywhere else for that matter), feel free to not say them.

If they don't want to make that choice then it's there choice.

Is that a sentence? Seriously, say things that make sense.

I can't force them to make it, and if I did force them too then they wouldn't really believe in it.

If you disagree with homosexuality (which is still beyond me), then why would you force anyone else to be gay? Or do you mean to be a Christian? Don't write so f**king ambiguously. I assume you do, but that makes your comment on homosexuality being a choice even more irrelevant still. It's a complete nonsequitor and causes unclear pronoun references that completely destroy your entire meaning (assuming you had one in the first place).

I believe that they should have the right to be gay and live together. In my own personal deffinition of marriage, I see it as the union of a man and a woman. I don't think it's possible for them to truely get married even if they wanted too. If the law gets passed, so be it.

But why do you thing anyone should give a damn about your "deffinition" [sic] of marriage? Something that you made up is far from automatically correct. You're saying nothing. What do you mean they couldn't truly be married if they wanted to? It's a legal matter, so your next sentence contradicts it.

I will vote no to gay marriage when it is put in my state. When I vote I will be voting because I feel that it is wrong for me to do it. I will be voting for myself. Not for all the people who want to be gay/married. I don't need to stand for them. They can stand forthemselves. I personally see something morally wrong with homesexuality, and I will not encourage it.

You really have a handle on this being a selfish prick thing, don't you? You should try standing up for them. They're in a minority, so I would say that is it considerably more difficult for them to "stand up for themselves." Could the slave stand up for themselves? Their freedom wouldn't have affected you either. Would you want to have one of the people who assumed they should just be left alone because you don't believe it's morally correct for them to be free? i didn't think so. Also, who are you to judge what's morally right for someone else?

And personally, I don't think you should be allowed to vote. But oh wait, that's your natural right, isn't it? Yeah...I have a feeling you'd object if someone tried to take that away when it doesn't actually concern them. So really, why would you vote to deny someone else their rights when it doesn't affect you?

[*Uronacid*]

:I actually had an arguement with my mother about that a few weeks ago. She was trying to insist that it is a Christian country just because it was founded by them and the Puritans came over and all of that.
Josh, I think we'd all appreciate it if you just ceased speaking on contraversial topics. Or at least I would. You make my head hurt rather a lot.

You should take some asprin.

It's not exactly right to say that you believe being Christian is a choice when it most definitely IS a choice. You are by no means born with a particular set of beliefs, and as you become better educated, you can certainly change your opinions. The fact that you see homosexuality as a choice is completely irrelevent...besides just naive. If you don't want things debated in the debate forum (or anywhere else for that matter), feel free to not say them.

Look, you can't prove the homosexuals are born gay. I can't prove that they aren't. The truth is that there are alot of great reasons to support both sides, but niether side has any proof.

Is that a sentence? Seriously, say things that make sense.

I should have said, "If homosexuals make the choice to be gay that's their choice."

I appologize for my horrible grammer.

If you disagree with homosexuality (which is still beyond me), then why would you force anyone else to be gay? Or do you mean to be a Christian? Don't write so f**king ambiguously. I assume you do, but that makes your comment on homosexuality being a choice even more irrelevant still. It's a complete nonsequitor and causes unclear pronoun references that completely destroy your entire meaning (assuming you had one in the first place).

I meant christian, and I'm talking to all those people who are arguing their sides based upon their religion. Whether "homosexuality is right or wrong" is entirely based upon the morlas of the individual.

Again, I'm sorry you failed to understand me because my grammer was bad. Next time show me how to write a sentance so I can follow your example.

But why do you thing anyone should give a damn about your "deffinition" [sic] of marriage? Something that you made up is far from automatically correct. You're saying nothing. What do you mean they couldn't truly be married if they wanted to? It's a legal matter, so your next sentence contradicts it.

This is my opinion. I vote based upon it. If it gets passed even though I vote no. At least I voted.

You really have a handle on this being a selfish prick thing, don't you? You should try standing up for them. They're in a minority, so I would say that is it considerably more difficult for them to "stand up for themselves." Could the slave stand up for themselves? Their freedom wouldn't have affected you either. Would you want to have one of the people who assumed they should just be left alone because you don't believe it's morally correct for them to be free? i didn't think so. Also, who are you to judge what's morally right for someone else?

Homo's aren't slaves. Homo's aren't a race. Homo's have thier freedom. I'm voting based upon my set of beliefs, and their is nothing wrong with that.

And personally, I don't think you should be allowed to vote. But oh wait, that's your natural right, isn't it? Yeah...I have a feeling you'd object if someone tried to take that away when it doesn't actually concern them. So really, why would you vote to deny someone else their rights when it doesn't affect you?

If that day comes (the day that you are able to vote on my freedom to vote.), maybe you should vote NO.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

Look, you can't prove the homosexuals are born gay. I can't prove that they aren't. The truth is that there are alot of great reasons to support both sides, but niether side has any proof.

Yes yes yes. While I don't think that's entirely correct, this isn't the first time I've been told that this week. That wasn't really the point of that comment, though.

I meant christian, and I'm talking to all those people who are arguing their sides based upon their religion. Whether "homosexuality is right or wrong" is entirely based upon the morlas of the individual.

But you just said you meant the choice to be gay..? VCOntradicting yourself doesn't really serve as clarification at all.

This is my opinion. I vote based upon it. If it gets passed even though I vote no. At least I voted.

And yet again, you have completely missed my point.

Homo's aren't slaves. Homo's aren't a race. Homo's have thier freedom. I'm voting based upon my set of beliefs, and their is nothing wrong with that.

"Homo's"?? Do you honestly not see the parallel I'm trying to make? The way you would vote would keep them from having a freedom that others have. And there potentially is something wrong with voting according to your beliefs are wrong. And I'm not going to go as far as to say that you necessarily are, but back to that analogy, slave owners were doing what they believed to be right as well. That didn't make them right. Being progressive is a good thing.

If that day comes (the day that you are able to vote on my freedom to vote.), maybe you should vote NO.

I don't appreciate it when people edit their posts as I'm responging.
But anyway, that day wouldn't come and I wouldn't take away your right to vote anyway, because that would be hypocritical. I really cannot figure out why I bothered saying anything at all, because you either misunderstood or skipped over all my points.

[*Uronacid*]

I'll be sure to vote for you. ;]

[*Statues/Shadows*]

Vote for me for what? Sarcasm's ineffective if your subject is unclear.

[AngelinaTaylor]

And personally, I don't think you should be allowed to vote. But oh wait, that's your natural right, isn't it? Yeah...I have a feeling you'd object if someone tried to take that away when it doesn't actually concern them. So really, why would you vote to deny someone else their rights when it doesn't affect you?

[*I Shot JFK*]

Homo's aren't slaves. Homo's aren't a race. Homo's have thier freedom. I'm voting based upon my set of beliefs, and their is nothing wrong with that.

urhm, could i just interject here and say that this whole debate exists because they DONT have the same freedoms? Because that seems like something which ought to be glaringly obvious to everyone here...

So you believe there is nothing morally wrong with voting to deny someone their rights, when either outcome has no negative effect on you, solely because you dont want them to have that right? interesting...

[twinkles6801]

I am in a lezbian relationship, but i was for gay/lez marriages before then, i think everyone should be able to do what they wish as far as that goes. If they cant marry, its not keeping them from being in their relationship, just simply keeping them from getting married, and even then they will have a ceremony of binding their union, so it dont make sence. Plus, i think if u tell someone they cant do something they want to do it more.

[sadolakced acid]

like almost all issues, this comes down to god, and the founding father's intent. The argument seems to turn there, at least. I'll try to shed some light.

The founding fathers certainly weren't satanists. They believes in god, whether as deists or through other forms. Some may seem, by todays standards, to be agnostic, but you cannot deny that they recognized the importance of religion.

Many founding fathers were Christians. Many people in support of a "faith founding" often tout this fact. But they forget that religion is noticeably absent from the constitution.

Is it possible that these intelligent men would simply forget to include such a cornerstone of their society? Is it possible that the founding fathers would think it were unnecessary outline the involvement of religion in the new government?

What is much more likely- so much so that it can be, for all intents and purposes, be taken as truth, is that the founding fathers knew the great error of including religion in government. Sure, they were religious men. But they knew that this country was not to be founded on religion, that basis that topples governments and sparks civil wars.

They recognized the dangers of politicizing religion. These dangers are very evident today in Iraq, where the Sunnis and Shiites battle. What if religion had played a bigger role in government. Would protestant groups and catholic groups battle for the presidency?

America was founded not on religious values, but on the value of religious tolerance. This is not a Christian nation. But you may choose to, within its borders, be as Christian as you wish.

Now, in context with gay marriage, it makes sense that the catholic church should not preform gay marriages. But to ban gay marriages in the United States- solely on a religious basis? this is not the freedom that makes us America.

If we ban gay marriage on a religious basis, then we shall have Saddam's Iraq, Iran, and the Taliban as our contemporaries. Religious intolerance is not the American way. And to resort to it is to give up the core of what it means to be American.

[Comptine]

^you bring up good points but the fact reminds, america is a religion driven country. all our presidents, save kennedy (catholic), were christians. voters are siding more and more with candidates that openly express their faith.

which is funny, considering, marriage is a license given out by the government. no gay couple absolutely needs a priest there to get married.

it's funny how our country is famous and idolized for its freedom but many of its laws are blantantly biased and/or prejudice.

what has gay couples ever done to offend america so much?

[*Statues/Shadows*]

How hard is it to comprehend that Catholics ARE Christians??
What you mean to say is that the rest of them were Protestants.


Anyway, this is hilarious: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp
Protect your kid from becoming homosexual? Come on.

[Comptine]

How hard is it to comprehend that Catholics ARE Christians??
What you mean to say is that the rest of them were Protestants.
Anyway, this is hilarious: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp
Protect your kid from becoming homosexual? Come on.

actually, the difference is quite clear. although catholic and christians follow the same savior, they are two different sects that had a history of turmoil. catholics were shunned when they first came to america. he is the ONLY catholic ever to be president. the only reason why he won was because he was the "lesser or two evils". nixon came off incompetent and weathered in the first presidental televised debate.

catholics follow the pope. christians are suspicious of the pope's power over the catholics.

i did not mean to say catholics and christians are completely different. i just included (besides from kennedy) because i want to show how christian are country is.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

Um, dear... http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...;hl=catholicism

Did I not spell things out clearly enough in my previous post? Why did you just completely ignore my one, very simple point?

I am perfectly well aware of the history of Christianisty. Hence, the link I just gave you. But regardless of this turmoil that you're completely oversimplifying, CATHOLICS ARE STILL CHRISTIAN. The people you're refering to as "Christians" are, specifically, Protestants. It's untrue to say "Christians are suspicious of the pope's power over the Catholics," because Catholics are Christians too. And considering that's the only point I really made in my last post, and it was an actual fact, I don't know why you're still trying to suggest otherwise.

Also, by the way, you might want to double check you history on "Catholics were shunned when they first came to America," because once again you're oversimplifying to the extent that what you're saying isn't actually true.

[Comptine]

in principle, it doesn't really matter if it's a catholic and/or christian president. both have shown opposition to homosexuality and gay marriages.

don't you demean me by saying that you "didn't spell things out clearly enough" or say i ignored your post. i took what you said, the one line of "how hard is it to comprehend that catholics are christians?". that is why i replied. i suppose it is hard for me to comprehend because i believe that there is enough difference between catholicism and christianity to make a distinction. yes, christians or in your terms, protestants are highly suspicious of catholics because of the pope's power. protestants represent the christians in our country.

one of jfk's most famous speeches addresses the issue of whether or not he would make executive decisions based on what the church and/or pope wants. "christians" christians (protestants) do not agree with the fact that catholics place so much power in the pope.

you made a point in your first post with no evidence to refute my agreement. just "how hard is it to comprehend that catholics are christians?". jfk was a landmark in our political and religious history. his catholicism was a huge issue. if catholicism and christianity are the same thing, why was his election in jeopardy because of his faith?

irish and german immigrants in early america, especially around the 1900s because of immigrant booms, were hated because a)they drank b) they were catholic. they found it hard to hold offical positions because of their faith (they did eventuall assmilate). i had to study turn of the century prejudice last year. i know this. i might just said it in one sentence but it is true. true, christians were persecuted by catholics. early catholic schools were rallied against. christians were attacked or the practice was forbiddened. catholic children faced the demeaning of their religion in public schools which led to the opening of catholic schools.

there. a more detailed view of the turmoil between catholics and christianity/protestants.

For a more informed and knowledgable view on the subject, go HERE.

i'm sorry if this is extremely long and off the debate. however, i felt insulted that you posted such a condescending post directed towards me. i might not be religious but i would not make such claims without some support in my argument. i believe there is significant amount of difference between catholicism and true/run of the mill/usual christianity (protestants if you want) to separate one from the other.

the both believe in same savior. same god. they come from the same place, catholicism a derivative. but how they carry out their belief, sets them apart.


btw... you were right. by christians, i mean protestants. still, as a whole, i believe that the derivative is different enough from the parent.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

No, it doesn't in this debate. It matters that you're wrong and opposing my corrections for no apparent reason.

Demeaning you wasn't exactly my intention, but it can be, because you're still totally and completely missing my point. You're taking this so far out of proportion that you're still not grasping that literally all I was trying to say was that Catholics are Christians. Because they are. And that when you speak of "Christians" versus Catholics, what you really mean is "Protestants," because otherwise what you say means absolutely nothing.

jfk was a landmark in our political and religious history. his catholicism was a huge issue. if catholicism and christianity are the same thing, why was his election in jeopardy because of his faith?

Because. he. was. not. Protestant.
I'm not trying to suggest that Protestants and Catholics are the same, but yes, Christian is the term that incorporates them both.

irish and german immigrants in early america, especially around the 1900s because of immigrant booms, were hated because a)they drank b) they were catholic.

Yes, but that was far from the first time Catholics came to America. Maryland was founded as a refuge for Catholics.

the both believe in same savior. same god. they come from the same place, catholicism a derivative. but how they carry out their belief, sets them apart.

Catholicism is the initial way Christianisty was practiced. Protestants broke off from the Catholic church because of the many issues within it, and formed a different branch of Christians.


Very simple, but I promise it's accurate. What you should take from it is that Catholics and Protestants are both Chrstians, and while their beliefs differ, that does not make Catholicism and Chrsitianity two entirely different entities.

[Comptine]

i acknowleged that it was my mistake to use christians in place of protestants. i didn't realize until later when i was comparing the catholic schools to the others.

however, can you agree that the derivative is quite different from the parent?

i believe that i jumped the gun a bit because i felt personally attacked.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

I'm a bit lost on what you mean on some of that, but yeah sure. And sorry about the attack. I'm kind of (okay, quite) bitchy when I debate, which is part of the reason why I don't do it formally.

[Comptine]

i think i used christians based on the face of christianity of america, which is protestant. nowadays, protestant is not used as much as christians in general (in title).

i had the same argument with my boyfriend.

tell you the truth, i was itching for a good debate since the forum has been a little dry recently.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

It's understandable, it's just one of those misconceptions I have a tendency to jump on. And yeah, they've been ridiculously dry. Not just lately, for quite a while. I really miss the old days...but anyway, I'm just rocrastinating, because I've got a paper due tomorrow that I desperately need to finish, but am getting nowhere on, so I was too.

[Comptine]

i like how in online life people make nice in the span of ten posts.

we are nice now riite? haha.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

Yes, definitely :D
If only reality were so simple, haha.