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)

[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