Gay Marriage

[Cloud Strife]

Gay Marriage: Should it be allowed, or shouldn't it?
I'm way too close to the situation to call it (my mom's gay) so I'm going to hold my opinions for now.
Post your opinion and if you want, say why.
AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, please be civil. This is an intelligent discussion about this issue, not a thread for gay bashing, "stupid fags burn in hell," and all that crap. I'll not stand for it.
Anyway, get to it!

[Moose]

Yea, another touchy subject. Here is one I have an opinion on. OK, here is my view:

It depends on what you view as marriage. Religiously, I don't think the churches should be forced to marry people they don't want to. That is their decision not to marry homosexuals, just like it's the homosexuals decision to be homosexual. I view religions as clubs sort of. Just like some golf clubs don't have to let other people in, churchs shouldn't have to either.

I do believe, however, that gay couples should be given all the financial beniefits that a married couple have. The government does not have the right to say that gays can't have this, but straight people can. That is discrimination. If you can say gays are better than straights in the eyes of the law, what's to keep you from saying whites are better than blacks in the eyes of the law, or Christians are better than Jews.

Another thing, I believe, is that the homosexuals should not be saying they've been through the same as black people. That is just ignorant. Homosexuals have it hard, but not that hard.

[Clintykins]

Another thing, I believe, is that the homosexuals should not be saying they've been through the same as black people. That is just ignorant. Homosexuals have it hard, but not that hard.

Umm, sure homosexuals have not been enslaved or tortured like africans, but they've been brutally abused psychologically which should not be considered any less than physical harm. Many gays and lesbians are brought up thinking they should be ashamed of themselves or find themselves abominations. Nobody can be happy if they have the constant thought of unworthiness, much like slaves back in the 1800's. So, you can't possibly say that gays haven't faced anything in comparison to blacks.

I don't think gays have had it as bad physically as blacks, but emotional damage can be even more horrifying.

On the topic of gay marriage, the religion aspect is something that irks me, but many heterosexual agnostic and atheist couples get married all the time. In a country that is supposedly free, I don't think we should run our ceremonies so religiously and ban gay marriage simply because it is two men or two women instead of a man and a woman. And I think gay couples should be able to get all of the same benefits that straight couples receive. I mean, I hear stories all the time about how one lover can't go see the other one on their dying bed in the hospital because they are not married. It's so depressing to realize how absolutely heinous and treacherous America really is.

[Cloud Strife]

Very well put, though I do disagree with Churches being clubs, lmao. As a Christian, I believe it's the calling of all Christians to reach out to everyone, be they gay, straight, black, white, young, old, whatev. Everyone has to be included.

Concerning what you said about gays going through the same as the blacks, I don't think they're referring to slavery. What they're referring to is segregation and the sufferage of the African race. While both situations are different, the principal is the same: it's the struggle of one particular group of humanity to attain the same rights and respect given to another group of humanity.
And you are correct; marriage does afford many benefits and rights to the two, including health care decisions, property rights, and financial options.
Now, the question still posed is: are a man and a man, or a woman and a woman qualifed to be defined as a couple?
A few questions that stem from this are:
Can a gay couple raise a family?
What is the defenition of a family?
and How does this defenition affect other "familial units," including foster families, adopted children, blended families, and single parent families?

When you say that gays can't be a family because they can't have kids, what does that mean for sterile individuals?
Wow, I'm getting too deep, lol.

[Mat Growcott]

I don't disagree, i don't agree. If they get married, it's just another group of people to get divourced.

Incidentally i don't think Homosexuals went through the same problems as blacks. In many circles, for century's, homosexuality has been a large part of life. (Including the christian church...) Take a look at the history of the old english university's, the private schools. Frowning on homosexuals is quite a modern thing i think (Not to say its ever been fully accepted) but i think the equal rights marches sorta made more people aware of it and that's when the problem started more commonly, because it came into the public eye.

[Cloud Strife]

If they get married, it's just another group of people to get divourced.

It's sad, isn't it... here in the states the message from all the conservatives is that marriage should be kept "sacred" between a man and a woman, when 50% of THEM don't even keep it sacred. They need to hear what they themselves are saying.
It's so hypocritical it's pathetic.

[Mat Growcott]

I'm happy for anyone to marry anyone or anything tbh. I just think it's pointless a lot of the time. People suffer from the hollywood romance syndrome thingy, and when thats worn off they feel bored and trapped and try to get out.

[Moose]

OK, when gay people protest, they are given all the right in the world to protest. They are able to parade on streets, and protest in front of washington DC without any police resistance.

When black people tried to peacefully protest, they were thrown in jail, beaten, were attacked by dogs, and were sprayed with powerful fire hoses.

Not the same. They can say that they are being oppressed emotionally, but comparing it to all the problems black people have gone through since they came to america, even through segregation, is wrong. I'm basing this off of what one gay man said during an interview, that gays are going through the exact same thing blacks went through, which ,sorry to be crude, is a load of bullcrap. I understand their feelings were hurt because they were told that being gay is wrong, but first off, they can't really fight that in a court of law, second they aren't being physically abused, and no matter what anyone says, I believe physical abuse is worse than any other abuse.

Don't get me wrong, I think gays should have equal rights, but I believe that comparing their struggle to the struggle of segregation for blacks is wrong.

[Jiffy]

They can say that they are being oppressed emotionally

What group of people isn't being "emotionally oppressed" these days?

[Moose]

What group of people isn't being "emotionally oppressed" these days?

Good question. I think the answer is normal sized, straight, white, christian men, at least in everyone elses eyes.

[Matt Cruea]

While I personally believe that gay marriage should be allowed in all states, I'm also a proponent of the democratic process and state's rights. So it should be up to the state and their voters.

[Mat Growcott]

normal sized, straight, white, christian men

Even they get persicuted in most places in the world :D.

[Clintykins]

OK, when gay people protest, they are given all the right in the world to protest. They are able to parade on streets, and protest in front of washington DC without any police resistance.

When black people tried to peacefully protest, they were thrown in jail, beaten, were attacked by dogs, and were sprayed with powerful fire hoses.

Not the same. They can say that they are being oppressed emotionally, but comparing it to all the problems black people have gone through since they came to america, even through segregation, is wrong. I'm basing this off of what one gay man said during an interview, that gays are going through the exact same thing blacks went through, which ,sorry to be crude, is a load of bullcrap. I understand their feelings were hurt because they were told that being gay is wrong, but first off, they can't really fight that in a court of law, second they aren't being physically abused, and no matter what anyone says, I believe physical abuse is worse than any other abuse.

Don't get me wrong, I think gays should have equal rights, but I believe that comparing their struggle to the struggle of segregation for blacks is wrong.

You're looking at different dates, though. Blacks could protest all they want now, just like gays can. But back in the day, gays couldn't protest one bit. Remember stone wall? Gays were massacred and treated the same as blacks during that period of time. It's just, gays were able to camoflauge their "disease to society" while blacks weren't. But gays and blacks are equally able to protest nowadays without being beaten.

I agree that the gay man who said gays go through the same ordeals as blacks was wrong. However, if you look at the various periods of time, things have changed. Blacks have become integrated into society (although not perfectly -- it could definitely be better), whereas America has moved on to homosexuals to persecute. This day and age, gays have it worse than blacks. There's no arguing that.

African-american couples are not gawked at on the street or denied the right to marry. It's now time for gays to fight for equal rights just as blacks did.

[Taryn]

second they aren't being physically abused, and no matter what anyone says, I believe physical abuse is worse than any other abuse.

Not that I don't agree that the prejudice and discrimination homosexuals face today is not the same as the hardships that have been fought by the black community over the years, but it's not true that homosexuals don't face any physical abuse. Ever heard of Matthew Shepherd? He's certainly not the only homosexual to be the victim of a hate crime. Physical violence almost always goes hand-in-hand with intolerance.

I don't think there's any legal justification for the government refusing to allow same-sex legal marriages. The only reasoning for not allowing them is religious, and religion is NOT what governs this country. There is no reason why two people of the same sex should not be given the same marital benefits as two people of the opposite sex. It's not always about what the people want (although I'm pretty sure that latest polls have shown more support for gay marriage than against it). Lots of people wanted slavery back in the day. That didn't make it right.

If anybody knows real legitamate reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed (that aren't religious), I would like to hear them, in all honesty. I simply haven't seen any legal way the government could bar it.

[Mat Growcott]

If anybody knows real legitamate reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed (that aren't religious), I would like to hear them, in all honesty. I simply haven't seen any legal way the government could bar it.

To play devil advocate. The divource rates will go up. It'll look bad against the government. The government loses votes from people against homosexuality, from extreme religious sectors and from anyone wanting the divource rate to drop. Most gay people aren't going to has this affect their vote at an election, because i doubt many governments would put it in their portfolio. It's not really THAT important, so it won't really affect things that end.

Meh, that's if politics is exactly the same as over here :P. Which it probaly is.

[Cloud Strife]

Meh, that's if politics is exactly the same as over here :P. Which it probaly is.
Sept for the whole monarchy thing, lmao, yeah, it is. ;-)

I'm seeing some good discussion on the issue, even some stuff I wasn't expecting (comparison of gays' struggle for rights to the blacks). I'm also glad it's stayed civil.

I've heard it put quite eloquently before: "Allowing the government to amend the constitution to signify that marriage is only between a man and a woman is to permantly emblazen bigotry into one of the most sacred documents in American society and, more importantly, the minds of the general American public." I agree with that statement. There is too much bigotry in this country already, be it sexism, racism, or bigotry against gays and lesbians. We don't need a statement that, for the more ignorant members of our society, will justify bigotry.

[Mat Growcott]

Bigotry will never stop. It is human nature to not understand things. Not understanding things makes us fear those things, and the natural human reaction to fearing something is to make it seem less of a big deal, less scary. Only way to do this is to make fun of it.

Even if people start pretending to be nice to eachother, is that what we really think? Whats better, freedom of speech or the knowledge that we don't really know what anyone thinks of us. At least with "You queer little poofter" you know where you stand with someone. I'd prefer to be hated out and out then secretly hated.

This is, of course where things get complicated. You can have freedom of speech as long as you only say things that don't offend other people in any way. Freedom of speech is an illusion now, do we really want it watered down even more?

If the laws were equal, would the 'risk' of insulting a gay guy, hurting him, disappear and then would we all live in peace and harmony? Probaly...after a while. If there were no laws, futhermore, would all crime disappear?

I guess thats going into law more than the topic at hand, so i'll stop before i digress futher.

And i think we have to all admit, 90% of both our populations are bigots and are extremely stupid. Sure, america gets all the bad rap about being stupid. But we're just as stupid here, on the whole. My friend can't name 5 shakespeare plays. When it comes down to it until we're all a little more enlightened the hate will continue :D.

But i guess it's geting better every day anyhew...

[Cloud Strife]

Bigotry can be stopped... it just has to happen one person at a time.
But you're right. People will never admit that they're wrong, at least not on such a grand scale.

However, just because there will always be bigotry doesn't make it right.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying America's the only stupid country... I mean, Bush and Blair are quite cozy together, aren't they? I don't know much about the politics over in the Isles, but I know that Britain, as a government, and Blair as it's figurehead have been behind Bush and all of his stupid decisions. Meh.

[Queen Anime 99]

First, I would like to get this off of my chest.

Moose: That is their decision not to marry homosexuals, just like it's the homosexuals decision to be homosexual.

I am not gay myself, but I have gay friends and they believe that they have always been gay. A few of them who have homophobic parents wish that they weren't gay, but there is nothing that they can do. I'm pretty sure they would "choose" to be straight just for their parents to love them again. I mean, do you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? No. I don't either and so I don't think gay people would actively "choose" to be attracted to the same sex. Especially in our society.

Black vs. Gay persecution: Anyways, I'll just say that I am a Black female and I will have to say that Gay people did and still have it far worse than black people (Technically, this is hard to do anyways as there are Black gay people ^_^). Before you say anything, please let me explain:

Yes, Black people were enslaved and beaten down physically, emotionally, and mentally. Even after slavery, Black people were still beaten down physically, mentally, and emotionally into the late 1960's.

But now, there is far less hatred and discrimination against African Americans.

And here's the thing: You couldn't even be out AT ALL (You being murdered for being gay would be looked at as a good thing). It's STILL hard for gay people to come out of the closet today! There is still hatred, violence, and discrimination against GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender) people. And here's the kicker: If you are GLBT and African American, you are not only ostracized by most of society, but there is a HIGH chance you will be ostracized from the African American community! (Christianity, "you are not a REAL black man/woman" thought process, etc.) GLBT people have not only taken a hit from society, but even from their own cultures/communities! ^_^ And it's still happening today!

As you all may have guessed, I am all for gay marriages. In my opinion, I think that it is okay for you to be for gay marriage or even neutral, but NOT against gay marriage. I mean, think about it: Gay marriage will give gay couples the same rights as straight couples and it has NO effect on you if you are straight. Why would someone be against something that can greatly benefit others and have no negative effects on themselves? Some people think that gay people want to get gay marriage just to piss of Christians. But all they want is equal rights, not the small amount of rights that "civil unions" give them. And if you can't think of any other reason to support gay marriage, at least think of the children of gay couples. They are affected, too.

[Margo]

Moose, I don't think homosexual people choose to be homosexual. You can't really help the way you feel or who you're attracted to, can you?

I think gay marriage should be allowed. You should be able to choose who you want to marry regardless their sex. You're choosing who you want to spend the rest of your life with, aren't you?

Sorry if I'm just sounding stupid o__o

[Cloud Strife]

(Christianity, "you are not a REAL black man/woman" thought process, etc.)

For the record, I'd like to say that not all Christians are against homosexuality, just the fundamentalists that have access to the media. ;-)
There are plenty of churches that welcome GLBT individuals and couples. I've also been introduced to a few homosexual pastors by my mom.
Suffice it to say, the face of Christianity that is presented to the world does not necessarily define all of us Christians... just the conservative ones. :???:

"God is not a Republican... or a Democrat."

Also... I wonder why the person that voted for the constitutional ban on gay marriage didn't post in the thread?.... hmm...

[Queen Anime 99]

Yeah. I know that all Christians aren't the psychotic ones that are often on t.v. *cough*patbuchanan*cough* I was talking about Black Christianity, which can sometimes be very homophobic (tying into the homophobia in the Black community).

[Cloud Strife]

Ah, gotcha.

[Cloud Strife]

Yeah... I just noticed that I totally used the wrong "there" word in the poll... it should be "their" in option 3... Good Lord, I'm a moron, roflol.

[secondsabre]

First of all, let me just say that I am *so* friggin' impressed with the mature and adult tone that this discussion is being held on. This is why I love artists and actors. They just seem to be smarter. <.<

Second of all, let me just say, I'm totally biased in this one. That's right. BIASED! If you can't figure out why... read my signiture a little bit closer.

Now... gay marriage. For starters, I'm gay. Also, I'm Canadian. For those of you in the States and rest of the world, let me fill you in on what's happening here in the laws:

Two years ago, before Prime Minister Jean Chretien retired, he tackled a whole bunch of unpopular issues, basically setting stuff right before he left. And he could make the decisions that needed to be done without worrying about political backlash, 'cause hell, he's retiring. He doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected, right? He put it to the Supreme Court, who ruled that by 2007, *all* Canadian provinces and territories had to institute some form of gay marriage. BC, where I live, was the first to jump on. A few other provinces followed pretty quickly, and now there's only one that doesn't (Alberta, our version of Texas) due to a weird loophole in the law that only applies to them.

FYI, Chretian's party was the Liberal's, the middle-left-wingers. We had a federal election a few months back, and the Conservatives won, our uber-right-wing. They're trying to repeal the gay marriage law/ruling. We're not sure how far along they'll get... but it's become a pretty hot topic.

MY OPINION! I think that gay marriage should be legal anywhere and everywhere... however, only because of the societal benefits attached to it (tax breaks, property, medical, etc). I don't think that *marriage* should have all those benefits, since it really started out as a religeous instituation designed to increase the population of the church. The government adopted it, again, to try to make the population increase, and to sweeten the deal, they gave benefits. Now, however, what with divorce rates so high, and the amount of single/unmarried parents out there, it's kind of a moot point.

I'm for gay marriage, 'cause it would even out the board. However, from a purley human standpoint, I'm against marriage, period. Or at least how we do it now.

I have to agree with what many people have been saying about the 'decision' to be homosexual. Not a choice. Desire is desire, and it's been in history since the beginning of time. Forbidden desire? C'mon. *Everything* Shakespeare ever wrote was forbidden love (the big homo). Whether or not they choose to *accept* it, let along act on it... that *is* a choice.

Some people are totally happy just staying in the closet their whole life. Some stay in until their kids leave home and their wife dies, in which case, they've done their duty, and then they venture out into the new world. Some go nuts 5, 10, 25, 40 years into marriage. Some stay single their whole lives 'cause they can't lie to themselves *that* much. And some, like me, burst out of the closet with all their dry-cleaning when they're 10 years old. It's a matter of how they want to live their life.

Discrimination... coming from my own perspective. I can't compare us to blacks... I'm not black, I don't know many black people. *shrugs* So I go to ignorance on this one. Personally, I prefer to compare it to being Jewish. For starters, both groups were persecuted by the Nazi's. Packed up in camps and killed, and this is why the gay community has adopted the pink triangle as it's symbol. That's what the Nazi's gave us. Yes, more Jews died. Because they *do* have a physical characteristic, and homo's don't. But, like being Jewish, you can hide being gay. No-one can pick you out on the street if you don't want them to. Also, gays were accepted in society for a long time, just like Jews... until a certain group decided not to like them (the Catholic Church, in both cases). And then they were ostracized and pissed on by the rest of humanity.

Being gay also has a lot of internal discrimination that most minorities don't. The stereotypes hate the closet cases, the professionals hate the club kids, the dykes and fags don't care much for each other, and *everyone* hates the bisexuals and transgenders. It's a situation quite unlike any other in history, from what I've seen.

In any case... that's my... I'd say that's at *least* a buck fifty (canadian) in opinions. If y'all are interested, check out this site: A Complete Alternative Sexuality Timeline (http://www.backdrop.net/bdsm-history/timeline.html) . It's a really thorough look at alternative sexuality through history, and kinda what happens where. Pretty interesting to see what was happening before the discrimination started, and what happened during it.

And, I'm done.

[Matt Alan]

Bring on the gay marriages! More weddings = more wedding cake for Matt!

[McCorvic Sucks]

Well, of course I'm pro-gay marraige! You should know me by now :)

But, I don't think the issue will ever go away until we make marraige nothing to do with the government at all. Zip.

Two adults should go and get a "civil union" or make up a new name "unitititficaion" or something. And this government document would provide the same legal status as a marriage does today. Now no one can bitch about "marriage is between a man and a woman" or whatever. Fine, you say it is. But the government does do marraige anymore.

Than, the two lovebirds can go and have any religious or secular ceremony they want and it'll be awesome.

[Cloud Strife]

You really hit the nail on the head right there... "Marriage" is a religious thing. I should know, I'm religious. *Gasp* For the government to put into the constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman is a crossing of the boundaries of church and state and is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Wow, I should be on the supreme court.

[McCorvic Sucks]

You really hit the nail on the head right there... "Marriage" is a religious thing. I should know, I'm religious. *Gasp* For the government to put into the constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman is a crossing of the boundaries of church and state and is therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Wow, I should be on the supreme court.

Which means marriage as it is now is unconstitutional. Yea. So, either we have to allow gay marriage or make marriage not an issue for anyone at all.

[Cloud Strife]

Lmao, I suppose you're right at that.
Ah well.

[Moose]

I couldn't find one person to quote, so I'll just say this in general to all who disagreed with what I said about gay people not choosing it. They can choose to "Display" their sexuality. For years, many gay people hid their homosexuality, due to discrimination. I realize that being gay is a whole biological deal, but still, they can hide it, it is possible. Just like people who want to be rapists hide their inner rapist, or murderers who hide their inner hate. I'm not comparing gays to rapists or anything, but everyone has something to hide, some demons in their closet.

I'll choose myself for example. Let's just say I am (not really) a sexist, and I believe that women are scum. I wouldn't be able to go around and displaying it, I would never get a job and would probably sent to sensitivity training 100 times. There are alot of sexist out there, they just hide it. They can't get rid of their inner hate, but they just don't display it. See what I'm getting at?

What I'm also saying is the church should have a choice whether to marry them under a religion or not. If they just want the beneifits of marriage, like wills, tax exemption, etc, then they should be able to. See, it comes to church rights, and country rights. Are country says everyone is equal under the law, and they should be, but some churches think that not everyone is equal, and that is their decision. Just like no one should be able to take rights away from blacks, gays or anyone else, no one should be able to take the rights away from the church.

[Cloud Strife]

When you put it like that, you make it sound like being gay is a bad thing. How you said it's an "inner demon" makes it sound as though they have something to hide is generally accepted as a-social behavior, like murder, rape, and all of that (which you said).
However, homosexuality isn't bad. It's not a demon.
You're right, however, about it being hidden (the metaphor was just a little off, lol).
Consider what the Canadian dude said: Jews and gays were equally persecuted in the holocaust, it's just that gays could hide it. While the persecution the homosexual community suffers from isn't quite on par what the Jews suffered in WWII Germany, the principal is the same. Some gays choose to hide the fact that they are gay to avoid persecution.

Though to be fair, some gays do view their homosexuality as an inner demon, at least those who are raised in Christian homes where they are taught that being gay is a sin.
My mom and I have talked about this at length, lol.

[Moose]

Inner demons aren't always wrong things, just things most people are afraid to admit. If you were gay, and you just realized it, wouldn't you be a little afraid or nervous to reveal it? I would. As alot of people say, society looks down on gays, I don't I have some gay friends, so it could be considered an inner demon by some people. Here is another example that probably fits it better. Racism. Alot of people were born with it instilled in their head, it is easily hidden, and looked down on by society. That could be considered an inner demon, even though someones personal views should not be considered bad.

[Zangya]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/SilverSheikah/bush.gif

I totally support gay marriges. My auntie is a lesbian and and she is thinking of marrying her fiance' Linda.

Personally, I think that saying men shouldn't like men, and women shouldn't like women because God created Adam and EVE not Adam and STEVE, is like saying black and asian people shouldn't have freedom.

Okay, so there's no "Adam and Steve" in the bible. They're isn't a black OR asian person in the bible either. (I'm not trying to bring racial comments up. It's an example.) Are black and asian folk breaking the rules by living on earth and being happy? I don't think so.

I just think that people need to stop hating, and start understanding.

Forgive me if I'm sounding stupid. D:

[Cloud Strife]

Forgive me if I'm sounding stupid. D:

Anything about not hating can't be stupid. ;-)

[Moose]

Anything about not hating can't be stupid. ;-)
How about "We shouldn't hate rapists and murderers, they are good people on the inside, and should not be punised" HA! I DISPROVED YOU!

Me: 1
You: -130198249832614089736017892509736159723051 (I dare anyone to right out that number)

[Margo]

How about "We shouldn't hate rapists and murderers, they are good people on the inside, and should not be punised" HA! I DISPROVED YOU!

Me: 1
You: -130198249832614089736017892509736159723051 (I dare anyone to right out that number)
Moose o__o That's not cool =O You don't have to hate anything even if it IS bad >_>

[Moose]

I'm not a hippie, I hate many things, like hippies in fact.
OK here is a better one that is stupid:

"We should not hate clouds because they fart sparkly rainbow shinies"
Is that better? Anyways, it was supposed to be a joke.
Me: 2
Everyone else: -1.342

[Cloud Strife]

How about "We shouldn't hate rapists and murderers, they are good people on the inside, and should not be punised" HA! I DISPROVED YOU!

Me: 1
You: -130198249832614089736017892509736159723051 (I dare anyone to right out that number)

Negative one-hundred thirty duodecillion one-hundred ninety-eight undecillion two-hundred forty-nine decillion eight-hundred thirty-two nonillion six-hundred fourteen octillion eighty-nine septillion seven-hundred thirty-six sextillion seventeen quintillion eight-hundred ninety-two quadrillion five-hundred nine trillion seven-hundred thirty-six billion one-hundred fifty-nine million seven-hundred twenty-three thousand fifty one.

Eat it. ;-)

[McCorvic Sucks]

I'm not a hippie, I hate many things, like hippies in fact.
OK here is a better one that is stupid:

"We should not hate clouds because they fart sparkly rainbow shinies"
Is that better? Anyways, it was supposed to be a joke.
Me: 2
Everyone else: -1.342

Stop posting please.

[Cloud Strife]

Stop posting please.

Lol, let the man joke if he wants to. :-)

[Zangya]

I thought this was about Gay Marriage.

[Moose]

Yea, I was trying to lighten things up, but it was turned down, so yea, I'll stop uselessely posting.

[Cloud Strife]

I thought this was about Gay Marriage.

You're right, it is... but sometimes the mood just needs to be lightened a little bit, like, mid-discussion, ya know? Though it's probably about time to get back to topic, lol.

Also, I'm seeing a lot of discussion for gay marriage, but none against. We've got 2 votes against it... where are you guys? This thread is for everyone's opinion. Don't be afraid to speak your mind just because in this particular discussion you might happen to be in the minority. :-)

[Moose]

OK, here is a topic to get things started up again,
Should Gay Marriage Be State Decided or Country Decided?
For those who aren't in the US, this is a mostly US based discussion (at least to me)

I think making it a state decision, like letting the states decide by themselves, and for themselves, would be wrong. That would force people to migrate to or from certain states. If a decision is made, it should be forced on the entire country, not just half the states. If the states made the decisions seperately, then it would be too easy to change it. I would like to see a constitution, so it would be hard to change, and everyone would have to agree on it. At the very least we need a supreme court case.

Any other ideas?

[Cloud Strife]

Since marriage laws differ from state to state, it wouldn't be concidered unconstitutional or anything... and as far as people migrating from state to state, that really wouldn't make much difference. I mean, the only people that would would be gay people, and even then only those that really want to get married. Not all of the gay community wants to (my mom for example).

However, seeing as how the majority of states seem to voting against gay marriage, it looks like the only way to get it done would be at a federal level... which would never happen with the current G.O.P.
*sigh*

[Tony]

The thing about marriage is that it's all about community standard. Love, relationships, cohabitation... that stuff is all about interpersonal relationships, and my opinion, nor the opinion of anyone else should affect what happens between two consenting adults. However, marriage is about society's recognition of your relationship. The law provides certain legal protections for married couples, so it's up to law, and by extension, society, to develop the criteria for the relationships that will be recognized by law. Basically, if there are enough people who will refuse to recognize a same sex union, then same sex unions will not be recognized and protected by law. In order to change things, people need to find ways to convince those who disagree with them.


... it should be forced on the entire country...
No, no, no, no, no, no. That would undermine the federal system. Forcing your ideas on the other side is just as egregious an offense as the other side forcing its ideas on you. The system is fine. Convince people, and you'll get what you want. Being all too ready to change the system because you aren't getting what you want can lead to many dangerous things, and at the worst, totalitarianism.

[Nikki Wright]

Oh, god. Why is it, when I ignore a certain section for a bit, it is inevitable that one thread is bound to go insane?

-- This section is for serious, mature discussions. Moose, if you can't be serious - go to the fun section.
-- Abeachy, do not double post, and please use the "Edit" feature.

If you guys are going to have a conversation with each other, ending with things like "Ah, okay!" or "No, you're stupid! Me: 3295uq32094823qrqwefjm fMOM!! You: 0" and you're speaking to just one person, and it's not even on topic take it to PM, AIM or another private means.

Don't reply to what I have to say, unless it's via PM, and just continue on with the thread.

[Moose]

Well, Tony, I believe in a unified country. I guess saying "forced" was a bit harsh, but yes, when a new article to the Constitution is made, it must be obeyed by the entire country. If we let the states have the entire power, then we will have a divided nation, and possibly have another Civil War. Yes, it's highly doubtful, but so is the US becoming a totalitarian government. That is why the Articles of Confederation failed, because the US was not united. That's why it is called the "United States of America", not the "United on some issues, but not others, states of America".

Like I said in earlier posts, religious marriage should be a decision by the church, and should not be interfered with, but as far as taxing issues goes, if a decision is made that will affect this, then it should be made throughout a unifed America, not just between states. This is all tax wise of course.

What must be brought into mind is that for a constitution to be ratified, than 2/3 of the states must agree. This keeps it from becoming totalitarian like you said Tony. However, the 1/3 of the states that may not agree should not be able to say "We don't want gays to get the same tax rights as straights", that is when the executive power comes in and forces them to accept. Do you catch my drift with this?

That's the way it is with alot of other touchy subjects, like drug use (except drinking and smoking), and, from a long time back, segregation. Although not amendments, they affect the whole country, and no state can change them or disobey them.

In short, the states need to work things out among themselves and decide whether gay marriage should be considered marriage under the law or not. If they decide not to, then so be it, if they decide to consider it marriage, so be it, as long as the country is unified under one decision.

[Chinomi]

Moose, ur an idiot :D!!! IMO :D!!!

[GravitasLost]

I support gay marriage 100%.. In fact I feel that the government has no right to make any distinction between men and women at all in terms of making laws.
So, if men can be topless in public, women should be allowed to be topless too!! :)

[Tony]

You can't force the outcome of the vote. That absolutely smacks of totalitarianism. You want to control the outcome. You're essentially saying, "Do whatever you like, as long as you do what I want you to do." Recognition of marriage has always been the purview of the states, and there's really no reason for that to change. Different states have different laws. The states are united under a federal government, but the states themselves have a certain degree of autonomy. That's why they're recognized as separate states. If you want the states to essentially be forced to enact a law, attach a huge federal block grant to it. The point of ratifying a constitutional amendment is not to force states to do things, but to codify widespread changes in thinking and philosophy.

[Mat Growcott]

Dammit...you got to sleep for 6 or 7 hours and 4 pages are added to the thread >_>. Meh.


a black OR asian person

I just realised i didn#t take enough of this quote for it to be fully understood. Someone said that there wasn't a black or asian person in the bible. Everybody in the bible was asian (It all took place in the middle east...).

As for hiding a persons homosexuality (Someone brought it up before aswell >_>) this is perfectly fallible and happened loads back in the 50's and 60's (britain, i can't speak for america) when homosexualality was still illegal. People wouldn't deny it to themselves but to society. but they would meet up in places and secretly.

They even have their own language to avoid being caught! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polari)

Gay cruising in britain ===> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_cruising_in_the_United_Kingdom

Now, before i continue, i wanna just say that i am in no way saying that gay people should hide who they are. But unlike black people they COULD hide it. It's perfectly possible to hide what they are from the general public and therefore avoid the agro.

Now i'm done :D.

[Tom]

I don't think 'marriage' should be recognized by the government as the primary form of union or state institution.

All couples (hetero and homo, alike) should get civil unions, under the state, which, grant the same rights and benefits that today's marriages do.

'Marriage', itself, should be reserved for religious ceremonies and purposes. The church can recognize a marriage all or any way it wants--but, the government should start recognizing civil unions for all couples as the standard union institution.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole 'marriage' concept is severely outdated, anyway. Modern couples work on different dynamics than those of their ancestors. While, modern couples still use union as a significant element of their relationships--how and what brought them to that union, what such union means to them and how their society views union--all differ drastically from the lives of ancient people.

The gay marriage issue isn't about people accepting that gays should be able to get married. In the end, it has NOTHING to do with marriage.

The sad thing is, our country and its western traditions come from Christianity--a 2,000 year old religion that recognizes 'marriage' (in this case, a union between man and woman) in its canon. This is why 'marriages' between men and women today are, sadly, by default, the primary recognized state institution of union.

Today, we have different ways of measuring and defining the significance of our relationships. The real issue is that gay couples aren't receiving the same rights and privileges that straight, married couples do. Gay people couldn't give a shit about whether or not they can "get married." What they truly want is to have their relationships recognized as equal to those of heterosexual couples.

So, I say, ditch 'marriage' as a state institution. Recognize civil unions for EVERYBODY. Reserve 'marriage' for religious ceremonies/traditions/purposes.

[Tom]

unlike black people they COULD hide it. It's perfectly possible to hide what they are from the general public and therefore avoid the agro.

So, you're saying gays shouldn't hide, but.. they can? Mixed signals, there.

And why should a gay person NEED to hide? Or want to?

[Mat Growcott]

So, you're saying gays shouldn't hide, but.. they can? Mixed signals, there.

There are no mixed signals there. Just simple grammar :O.

They shouldn't hide. In an ideal world a gay person should say "Lolzors, i'm gay" and be happy with themselves and happy in the knowledge that other people accept them also.

Can. If they want to, in this world, they CAN hide it, should they want to. This is nothing to do with my opinion, it is a simple fact. A gay person can hide their sexuality as much as i can hide whether i like someone or not, a simple fact.


And why should a gay person NEED to hide? Or want to?

To hide from discrimination? You have to be a realist in these matters. You can't say "All gays should come out" because a minority of these gays will have the crap beaten out of them, or worse. As i said in my first post, i'm all for homosexuality, you are who you are. But it is obvious why somebody would hide their sexuality from society, and i'm surprised you even had to ask tbh.

[Tom]

They shouldn't hide. In an ideal world a gay person should say "Lolzors, i'm gay" and be happy with themselves and happy in the knowledge that other people accept them also.

Can. If they want to, in this world, they CAN hide it, should they want to. This is nothing to do with my opinion, it is a simple fact. A gay person can hide their sexuality as much as i can hide whether i like someone or not, a simple fact.

But WHY did you state that fact?


But unlike black people they COULD hide it.

That statement has no relevance to the greater conversation and just throwing it out like that makes it offensive.


To hide from discrimination? You have to be a realist in these matters. You can't say "All gays should come out" because a minority of these gays will have the crap beaten out of them, or worse.

More of a reason to come out. You shouldn't hide from discrimination. You should face it. Fight it. Live your fucking life. That's what my 'realist' tells me. People have the right to be out and not "have the crap beaten out of them" just for being gay. But, hiding from that shit makes the problem WORSE. It tells the bigots that they CAN control us and make us go away.


As i said in my first post, i'm all for homosexuality, you are who you are. But it is obvious why somebody would hide their sexuality from society, and i'm surprised you even had to ask tbh.

Don't you fucking turn my words around on me. You knew damn well what I meant and if you didn't, then, you should, now, if you've read this far. And if you still don't, then fuck you, you, fucking, chachi prick.

It _IS_ obvious, why somebody would want to hide their sexuality from society. But that's not what I said. I said: "And why should a gay person NEED to hide? Or want to?"

Should. SHOULD. Why SHOULD a gay person need to hide? They shouldn't. There will always freak, dire situations, of course, when hiding would be ideal--but--going to the grocery store? Going to school? Work? The park? The bar? No. No. No. No. No.

If people don't come out, bigots won't KNOW WHO THEY'RE HATING. We come out, show everyone we're normal, everyone calms the fuck down, eventually. We haven't reached that ideal stage, yet, but, we should at least start trying, or, at least, think about trying.

[Mat Growcott]

But WHY did you state that fact?

Because someone brought it up as i slept and i couldn't really answer it then :D.


That statement has no relevance to the greater conversation and just throwing it out like that makes it offensive.

Once again, that statement is refering back to earlier in the conversation where black people and gay people were...compared is the wrong word, but i can't think of anything better to say. It wasn't just thrown out.


More of a reason to come out. You shouldn't hide from discrimination. You should face it. Fight it. Live your fucking life. That's what my 'realist' tells me. People have the right to be out and not "have the crap beaten out of them" just for being gay. But, hiding from that shit makes the problem WORSE. It tells the bigots that they CAN control us and make us go away.

You're right of course. But life, alas, is not that simple. And lets face it, if the bigots don't know your gay, it's not like they're getting a kick out of it, because they can't take the mick, they can't directly offend or worse. In the end i can see why hiding ones sexuality would be a good thing. Especially if, like how i mentioned earlier, you could still practise it amongst other homosexuals, but not let it get out in public.

Before i'm accused of anything here, i'm not saying that's the right thing. I'm simply saying i can see the up side of it.


Don't you fucking turn my words around on me. You knew damn well what I meant and if you didn't, then, you should, now, if you've read this far. And if you still don't, then fuck you, you, fucking, chachi prick.

w00. Colorful.


It _IS_ obvious, why somebody would want to hide their sexuality from society. But that's not what I said. I said: "And why should a gay person NEED to hide? Or want to?"

The answer doesn't change that much either way. A gay person shouldn't NEED to hide, and yet they do. Why? To avoid discrimination. That's why you hear of 50 year old men who leave there wife and kids to go off with some guy they met. Because they were scared to come out as a youth.

In an ideal world people wouldn't need to hide. But in the world in which we live in some people feel they need to hide their sexuality. It doesn't matter whether you think they need to or not. I doubt they give a crap about anybodies opinions.

E.G: Maybe they have incredibly devout parents? Maybe they're 13 :O. Maybe they NEED to hide it because if they don't their parents will make their life a living hell. I've heard of that one as well.


If people don't come out, bigots won't KNOW WHO THEY'RE HATING. We come out, show everyone we're normal, everyone calms the fuck down, eventually. We haven't reached that ideal stage, yet, but, we should at least start trying, or, at least, think about trying.

People don't calm the fuck down though. Maybe those close to you do. Maybe even those people who you see occasionally and you're not paticuarly fond of. But on the whole, a bigot is a bigot, with or without time. And while i agree, gay people are in the grand scheme of things normal people with emotions and memories and intelligence, and all that other crap, homophobics don't think they are normal, otherwise it wouldn't be a problem.

[Eternal_Cosmos]

Love is Love No Matter What Anyone else thinks.Gay Marriage Should NOT Be Banned.there's no Reason for it.Why The hell should the Government Get a Say In Who A Person Chooses To Marry? Are We Forcing Them To Pair up with Their Sex? No.So Leave Business To Who it belongs to.

My Cousin Is Gay And im just happy Fine With it and Im Proud to Say That im Bi Myself..So If I Choose to get hitched to another woman OR A Man..It's My Business not Mr.Bush or anyone elses.Remember people LOVE IS LOVE NO MATTER WHO IT'S WITH!

[Tony]

Admin Tony:
First off, Tom, stop it. It's a debate. Stop going personal.

E_C, please read the thread before you reply.

Regular Tony:

I see all this talk about what should be and what ought to be. Well, it's a great exercise, but it doesn't really get us anywhere. Yeah, I shouldn't have to lock my door. I shouldn't have to run a firewall on my computer. I shouldn't have to worry about putting my money in a safe and then turning on the alarm. However, I do all these things. Mainly, because some people would take what does not belong to them. We have to try to keep this debate in the realm of reality, or else we risk having an intellectual circlejerk where everybody ends up all happy and there are bunnies everywhere and candy falls from the skies. There are bastards out there. Control what the world knows about you in order to get what you want out of it. At work, (I guess here I have to explain that I manage a restaurant in the heart of the gay district of the Gayest City on Earth™, San Francisco.) I don't wear my sexuality on my sleeve. I don't lie about it if asked, but I don't need to make sure that everyone knows that I'm straight. If someone assumes that I'm gay, most of the time, I just let the assumption ride. To correct somebody would bring unnecessary conflict to the situation, and honestly, most of the time, it's not needed. Sometimes, it's just better to remain inconspicuous. It's not a utopian idea, but it's pretty damned practical.


Gay people couldn't give a shit about whether or not they can "get married."
Actually, that's what a big part of the debate was about. There were a lot of people calling for domestic partnerships and civil unions that had the same legal status as marriage, but simply didn't have the name. To many people, that smacked of "separate but equal." The reasoning was that if straight people could get married, gay people should be able to get the exact same thing – that they shouldn't have to go through a different process because of differing sexuality.

Let's try to get this topic back on track to the whole marriage thing.

[Moose]

You can't force the outcome of the vote. That absolutely smacks of totalitarianism. You want to control the outcome. You're essentially saying, "Do whatever you like, as long as you do what I want you to do." Different states have different laws.
I never said that they should decide the outcome, but they need to control how that decision is distributed. Totalitarian would be the president saying "Gay marriage is marriage, and should be considered as such" but when the states VOTE on it, then it is in no way, shape, or form, totalitarian.


Recognition of marriage has always been the purview of the states, and there's really no reason for that to change.
Until that decision starts affecting things such as wills, tax exemption, etc. If it did not involve those things then there would be no reason to change it, but when the brother of a gay man is more entitled to the inheritance of his brother than his lover is, in the absense of a will, then something has to change.
The option of slavery used to be state opinion, and no one saw reason to change that, but then after all the trouble it caused, an amendment was made. That's how it works, when an issue divides America on a legal basis, then it an amendment is made. Always the way it has been.

Well, I think the big issue is that the government, state or country, should not discriminate on sexuality.

OK, on to the next

All couples (hetero and homo, alike) should get civil unions, under the state, which, grant the same rights and benefits that today's marriages do.
Finally, that's what I've been saying the whole time. Nice to see someone clear that up for me a little more



Gay people couldn't give a shit about whether or not they can "get married."

I don't think so. It's the whole idea of discrimination in the government. Gay people would not and can not allow that.


The reasoning was that if straight people could get married, gay people should be able to get the exact same thing – that they shouldn't have to go through a different process because of differing sexuality.
Religious marriage should not be changed. Religion is seperate from state. Gay couples MUST be allowed to have same legal beneifits as straight couples, but forcing a religion to change it's views is definitely totalitarian. No doubt about it. Our government is not supposed to be able to mess with religion. Religions have been discriminating for many years, and honestely, no one should change that, because making a religion change is like forcing gay people to be straight.

[Tony]

... but when the states VOTE on it, then it is in no way, shape, or form, totalitarian.
Right, but what makes you think they're going to vote to ratify a constitutional amendment to recognize same-sex marriage? Getting two thirds of both houses of Congress to propose such an amendment is infeasible given today's political climate. Getting three fourths of the states to ratify such an amendment would simply be impossible.


... but when the brother of a gay man is more entitled to the inheritance of his brother than his lover is, in the absense of a will, then something has to change.

Actually, many domestic partnership laws include inheritance rights for surviving partners, and California even goes far enough to include community property rights upon termination of the partnership. If they never registered, well, it's just a boyfriend or girlfriend, and the law doesn't recognize that.


That's how it works, when an issue divides America on a legal basis, then it an amendment is made. Always the way it has been.
Right. That's why we have a constitutional amendment dealing with abortion. Constitutional amendments aren't intended to make decisions about hotly debated issues, they're intended to codify sweeping shifts in our legal climate. The Constitution is supposed to be incredibly difficult to modify. That's why it takes a supermajority of both houses of Congress to even propose an amendment. You aren't going to get a supermajority on any divisive issue.


Religious marriage should not be changed. Religion is seperate from state. Gay couples MUST be allowed to have same legal beneifits as straight couples, but forcing a religion to change it's views is definitely totalitarian.

I wasn't talking about religion at all. I was talking about the legal institution of marriage.

[Zangya]

There are no mixed signals there. Just simple grammar :O.

They shouldn't hide. In an ideal world a gay person should say "Lolzors, i'm gay" and be happy with themselves and happy in the knowledge that other people accept them also.

Can. If they want to, in this world, they CAN hide it, should they want to. This is nothing to do with my opinion, it is a simple fact. A gay person can hide their sexuality as much as i can hide whether i like someone or not, a simple fact.



To hide from discrimination? You have to be a realist in these matters. You can't say "All gays should come out" because a minority of these gays will have the crap beaten out of them, or worse. As i said in my first post, i'm all for homosexuality, you are who you are. But it is obvious why somebody would hide their sexuality from society, and i'm surprised you even had to ask tbh.

Actually, most Gay people are proud of who they are and don't find the need to hide their homosexuality.

[Mat Growcott]

Actually, most Gay people are proud of who they are and don't find the need to hide their homosexuality.

I find that hard to believe, especially on a global scale. Plus theres no way to prove it. Maybe most gay people who have come out are proud of who they are, and good luck to them. But on the other side of that there'll be a lot of people who aren't proud, or are scared to come out and therefore we'll never know if 'most' gay people are proud of who they are.

[Zangya]

Okay, well, SOME gay people.

I have alot of homosexual friends in highschool who don't really care what people think about them. And I also saw a couple walking and holding hands in Ikea. So I didn't think that all gay people hide their homosexuality.

[Windy*]

Okay, well, SOME gay people.

I have alot of homosexual friends in highschool who don't really care what people think about them. And I also saw a couple walking and holding hands in IKEA. :p

It also depends greatly on where you live.

At my high school, there was not one openly gay person known on campus. If you did happen to be gay, you denied it to hell and back. Here, you won't see people of the same gender holding hands or even walking too close to each other because they fear the potentially massive amount of discrimination they'll receive.

In a lot of places in America, it's not socially acceptable for gays to be allowed to be proud of who they are.

[Moose]

Yea, and at my school, we don't have a lot of openly gay people, but no one ever beats up the gay kids. We have probably 16 gay kids in total, but this is coming from a school that has 7 black kids and 1003 white kids, so it's to be expected that the diversity is somewhat absent. The gay kids who express themselves are not made fun of, unless they are assholes or idiotic or something. Most gay kids are highly excepted and friends with alot of straight guys. In fact, if someone tried to beat up a gay kid, the assailent would get their ass kicked.

[Mat Growcott]

A gay kid got sent to hospital for being beaten up at my school :O...

What was the school's reaction to this?

"Whoa! We can't tell who did it!"

*Bunch of people go after school and such to actually say who it was*

"WHOA! It's took long after the thingy occured!"

so...yeah. My school rawks (Cept it's not my school anymore. I left last week :D)

[yukie]

Well, at my high school I don't think there are any homosexuals. It's not very common in my community. Although it is legal and considered as an "acceptable" thing here, lots of people still think it's strange and may look down on gays if there were any.

Or a lot of people don't care, really. Selfish little brats that only care about themselves xD

[Cloud Strife]

Alright, time for me to get back into it, lol.

I'll tell you guys a little about my growing up (don't worry, it's topic relevant ;-))

My parents got divorced when I was 9 because my mom is a lesbian.
Obviously, I didn't really understand it at the time... but I soon learned. A few years down the road, my mom was living with another woman, who had 2 sons (both of whom I consider my step brothers, now)... I hated my mom for a few years, not because she was gay (well, maybe a little) but because of what she had done to our family.
She'd tell me when anti-gay violence happened, I suppose in order to kinda turn me on to the whole gay equality thing, but I was just a little kid...
I wonder if President Bush or stupid guys like Fred Phelps (www.godhatesfags.com (http://www.godhatesfags.com)) know what it's like to be sitting in your mom's living room watching TV in the middle of the night, wondering if someone was going to bust down the door and hurt you or your mom because she was a lesbian? I was scared for my mom, scared for myself, scared simply because people are afraid of what they don't understand, and some are ignorant enough to act out violently against it.
It makes me so sick, so enraged (because I can't do a damn thing about it), that it hurts.
For all you members of the gay community here on the VAA... I may not be one of you (lol, I love women way too much ;-)), but I have a lot of respect for you. Maybe not a lot of people think of it this way, but I believe that GLBTs are some of the bravest people in the world... because they have the courage to be who they are, no matter what others think. That takes guts.
I believe that gays deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, and that includes the benefits given to two people when they legally marry.

Homosexuality- one issue where racist white guys and black guys can mutually agree to be bigots... *sigh*

[Kevin Gillis]

I have quite a few things to say.... Being Bi and living in Canada I have no fear of being beaten up... Well That's kinda a lie... If I go to the bar and start hittin' on a guy, well I'm askin' for it. Anyways... why must some of you use the word homosexual? Do you think we would be offended if you use the word gay? I never used the word homosexual because it makes it sound worse than it actually is.

Another thing I must clear up... Most do not choose to be gay, we are born it. We may not know until later on in the years when it matures in us. I say most, because I know someone who had been abused and he thinks its why he's gay.

Anyways to the point, should gay marriages be legal? I think so, but can I do anything about it? Hell no... In Ontario, I've seen tv broadcasts of gay pride parades... Men and women dressing up in S&M clothing marching down the streets paints a bad picture for all gay people around the world. Also, I should say this too... I do not focus on gay pride, I focus on self-pride... I am proud to be who I am and what I do... being gay is only a small part of me... Actually, I remember writing a very long report for high school between the differences of gay pride and gay people... I'll see if I can find it.

[Windy*]

why must some of you use the word homosexual? Do you think we would be offended if you use the word gay? I never used the word homosexual because it makes it sound worse than it actually is.

That's America's fear of not being politically correct enough for ya. Kind of like how it's deemed more appropriate to say "African American" rather than "black" these days.

[Mat Growcott]

why must some of you use the word homosexual? Do you think we would be offended if you use the word gay? I never used the word homosexual because it makes it sound worse than it actually is.

Because it's called homosexuality, not gayness? I don't see the point in euphamising, when anybody. It's the difference between saying he's going for a pee and he's going to the little boy's room (Not quite. Saying pee is still euphamising, but hardly these days...).

[No-oneSpecial]

If a gay couple wants to marry under the eyes of a creed that says it is not allowed, then it is blasphemy. No, I am not religious nor am I against gays, but the fact is that if you marry against the rules of the religion you practice, then it's unfair. There is of course, the problem with the religion (christianity being the case) probably allowing gay marriages, until somebody re-wrote the rules to say otherwise. That, is the unjust side of things. Otherwise, it's logical what you have to abide by if you want to have happiness. You can't shunt off being gay so you can worship god, and you can't shunt off worshipping god just so you can be gay. It's about what you and your partner want, and the fact that nobody respects that is the reason why we have laws against this. It sucks, but hey, we're doomed anyway.

[Tom]

why must some of you use the word homosexual? Do you think we would be offended if you use the word gay? I never used the word homosexual because it makes it sound worse than it actually is.

I pretty much sleep with whomever I please (boys or girls). I just call myself "queer." I refer to other non-heterosexual people as "queer", too--unless I'm engaged in a discussion specifically concerning gay men or women. In these cases, depending on my mood and the context in which I am using the descriptor, I will use "gay" and "homosexual" interchangeably.

Personally, I don't think either of the terms make "it sound worse than it actually is"--I don't generally think of queer people or their issues as "bad", therefore, I would never use "worse than it actually is", because, it sort of assumes that they are. That kind of wording, to me, would make the situation sound worse. 2) You shouldn't be afraid of the term "homosexual". It is the more academic choice and sometimes, other people prefer it because of that, but, that shouldn't deter you from using it in discussions with such people, because, it's beneficial to both parties if you speak the same language as your opposing debater.

...like I said, I like "queer". lol


In Ontario, I've seen tv broadcasts of gay pride parades... Men and women dressing up in S&M clothing marching down the streets paints a bad picture for all gay people around the world.

I think it paints a rather 'liberated' picture of gay people. I, personally, do not attend Pride events, simply because I'm never interested enough. But, if a friend wants me to go with them, one year, I'll have no problem going. Anyway, the whole "celebrating gayness" thing is, just, not my cup of tea. But, I am still grateful that these events happen, even though I don't actively go to them!

It is important that queer people are seen and heard by the public. Whether the public enjoys these events vary from person to person, but, even though many don't enjoy them, the point is that they are AWARE of queers and their issues.

There is a balance amongst queer people.... For every ordinary, unassuming, seemingly hetero, opposite-the-stereotype gay person--who shows other people that queers can actually be well adjusted, socially capable, good people, that blend in, just like them--there is a polar opposite, very stereotypical, in your face, here-queer-get-used-to-it, circuit party going twink bottom bitch boi leather daddy gloryhole gaga gay guy--reminding people that queers are here, incase they had forgotten, because all of the normal gays blended in too well.

If you aren't going to express your sexual side, then who will? If nobody does, people will think gays just went away and don't matter. So, if you won't do it, the pansy-ass fairy fags are going to have to.


Also, I should say this too... I do not focus on gay pride, I focus on self-pride... I am proud to be who I am and what I do... being gay is only a small part of me... Actually, I remember writing a very long report for high school between the differences of gay pride and gay people... I'll see if I can find it.

I like the "self-pride vs gay pride" insight, you have. However, part of self pride is pride in what makes you, you--including being gay, bi, or, whatever. You don't have to express it... but, the important thing to know is we should accept others for who they are--even if they're grossing people out in public.

Because, sometimes, gay people just gotta r3pR3Znt!

[Gabi Star]

I think both homosexual and heterosexual joining done through the state should be called Civil Union. I don't think the word marriage should be tacked on for gay OR straight couples.

I understand that the majority of people in this world consider marriage to be a divine right and that homosexuality is not a part of righteousness. We cannot force religious institutions to allow gay marriage to be called marriage if it is against their belief.

Instead, all marriage rights should be transfered over to Civil Union rights and the term "Marriage" should only be tacked on by the certification from a religions institution. Thus, everyone will have a civil union, and people of the same faith can have a civil union in matramony.

This not only solves the gay union problem, but also interreligious couples. For instance, I'm a secularist. I don't want to be wed in a church or temple or mosque. I want to be wed under a court house. If my partner and I had the same faith, then at that religious institution could we be certified as wed under holy matramony.

And then the significance of the term marriage will only be recognized by the religious community.

Problem solved! Weee!

[Windy*]

As excellent a solution as that sounds, Posed, unfortunately... it'll never happen, and we all know it. :( At least not in our lives, likely. Unless people really are becoming less conservative and more inclined to that kind of thinking, and the place I live in has just shielded me from that fact - but it still doesn't seem so.

I really wholeheartedly agree, though - civil unions would solve problems. Rather than making marriage the standard, let everyone join with whom they want through CU, and those who want a religious ceremony attached can do so themselves without any relation to the legal system. :) But, as has been proven, it can take a fucking long time for old traditions to die, espeically those based on - yep - religion! Err, Christianity. Excuse me.

We can dream, though!

[Gabi Star]

Yeah, it's a tough reality, unfortunately, although I truly think my idea would work! XD

I've always thought myself a realist, not a dreamer... but this is one of those topics that solutions dont come as easily as we thought.

[Tom]

I've been a proponent of throwing out the 'marriage' term and officializing 'civil unions' or something equivalent, as the standard institution for partnering, for a while, now.

My father is very difficult. He's very old world, old fashioned, old aged and stubborn. He loves me, but, he has issues. He is particularly uncomfortable with my partner, Michael--while, the rest of my family, adores him.

A concern of Michael's is if I end up in the hospital for some horrible reason. It is almost a guarantee that he might have a difficult time having his wishes fulfilled on my care and treatment--let alone just trying to be with me in the room.

In a case like this, I believe Michael should have the final say in my treatment--he is my best friend, my soul mate and the one person who has taken care of me in the past when I was sick--he's the only person that truly knows me.

It's such a sad situation to imagine, but, it's an important concern. Without legal rights as my partner, Michael has no final say in my advocacy. That's wrong! Just because our relationship is of a gay nature doesn't mean it isn't as important as a straight relationship.

Anyway, just adding more thoughts....

[Cloud Strife]

It's such a sad situation to imagine, but, it's an important concern. Without legal rights as my partner, Michael has no final say in my advocacy. That's wrong! Just because our relationship is of a gay nature doesn't mean it isn't as important as a straight relationship.

That's it exactly!
I've tried to get people to understand this using that same example, but people are just so damn thickheaded that they refuse to empathize with the situation. I try and tell them how my mom's partner has M.S. and how watching her slowly fall apart tears my mom up inside and, "how is that not the same kind love or the same kind of pain a heterosexual feels?" but they still don't get it! GAH! lol.

*sigh*

[Zangya]

My parents accept my auntie, but my mom doesn't except her soul mate. And it kind of makes me sad to know that my mom is bias.

[Queen Anime 99]

Um, getting married is a government thing (I don't know how to explain this, sorry). It can't be a religious thing because of our law of separation of religion and state. Not to mention the fact that other religions besides Christianity have marriage and not all people who get married are Christians... And also, being a Christian has to do with believing in and following the teachings of Christ. While some say it's impossible, being gay does not mean that you can't be a Christian (By the way, I believe that people are born gay, meaning that they are not making a choice to be gay). Also, I know what you are saying, but even if you don't respect something, it doesn't mean that there should be laws against it (i.e. old interracial marriage laws). Our society won't be doomed if we just educate and try to open the minds of people.


If a gay couple wants to marry under the eyes of a creed that says it is not allowed, then it is blasphemy. No, I am not religious nor am I against gays, but the fact is that if you marry against the rules of the religion you practice, then it's unfair. There is of course, the problem with the religion (christianity being the case) probably allowing gay marriages, until somebody re-wrote the rules to say otherwise. That, is the unjust side of things. Otherwise, it's logical what you have to abide by if you want to have happiness. You can't shunt off being gay so you can worship god, and you can't shunt off worshipping god just so you can be gay. It's about what you and your partner want, and the fact that nobody respects that is the reason why we have laws against this. It sucks, but hey, we're doomed anyway.

[Jiffy]

While some say it's impossible, being gay does not mean that you can't be a Christian

Sure its possible to be gay and Christian. However, the Bible teaches against homosexuality, so you would either be a Christian that doesn't belive in every part of the Bible, or you just don't actually read the Bible enough to realize this.

[Cloud Strife]

Sure its possible to be gay and Christian. However, the Bible teaches against homosexuality, so you would either be a Christian that doesn't belive in every part of the Bible, or you just don't actually read the Bible enough to realize this.

Being that I'm going to school to be a youth pastor and my mom's gay, I've given this a lot of thought and research to boot...
If you study the Bible, it's rather unclear about today's "homosexuality."
In reality, the term "homosexual" didn't even appear in the bible till the 1800s. *Lecture mode* If we take a look at gays in this day and age, we see (for the most part) stable (job, emotionally, whatev), committed (relationship) individuals (just like straight peeps). Obviously, you've got gay people that are totally just looking for sex, but hey, we've also got straight people that are like that, so what's the big deal? Anyways.
Biblically, homosexuality is only mentioned in the context of lust or sexual promiscuity. It never mentions emotion or relationships. So what it's talking about (in my opinion) is homoeroticism- i.e. you get off by having sex with members of the same sex.
So how can one, from a Christian standpoint, call down someone for a "biblical" reason when what they are being called out for is as clear as mud in the bible?
People need to stop letting themselves be force fed opinions and start making their own.
"Gayness is a sin!" "Being gay is bad!" "God hates them thar homo-sekshals!"

Gah. People are morons.

[Jiffy]

People need to stop letting themselves be force fed opinions and start making their own.
"Gayness is a sin!" "Being gay is bad!" "God hates them thar homo-sekshals!"

Gah. People are morons.

That actually is an opinion, just fyi.

And I never said anything about being gay is a sing and what not, in case you were insinuating that I did.

[kt_rocks]

Just because other people find it uncomfortable doesn't mean that they should be stripped of their rights.

It makes me really sad that some people can be cruel like that. Gender really isn't a big thing to me.

[Tom]

That actually is an opinion, just fyi.

And I never said anything about being gay is a sing and what not, in case you were insinuating that I did.

An opinion, yes, but, not based on facts--and the facts say that gay people are perfectly normal human beings, too, and they should have the same rights as other people. My opinion is that fanatical Christians are dangerous and intrusive--but that doesn't mean I'm going to try to deny them their rights and make their lives a living hell.

[Jiffy]

An opinion, yes, but, not based on facts--and the facts say that gay people are perfectly normal human beings, too,

That’s not the question at hand. Of course they are normal human beings, only an idiot would argue otherwise. Also, they should have the same rights as everyone else, I think.

The question was is homosexuality morally correct? Two people might have a pretty heated discussion about this. Both people opinions would be valid in their own eyes, who’s to say which is correct?

[Clintykins]

That’s not the question at hand. Of course they are normal human beings, only an idiot would argue otherwise. Also, they should have the same rights as everyone else, I think.

The question was is homosexuality morally correct? Two people might have a pretty heated discussion about this. Both people opinions would be valid in their own eyes, who’s to say which is correct?

It only depends on a person's perception of morality. The "correct" opinion would be that of open-mindness and dictating of love, because face it, nobody should hate anybody else for whatever reason. A lot of Christians are taught to hate homosexuals, which in itself is taking away from God's preachings of love and good will toward men.

[Jiffy]

A lot of Christians are taught to hate homosexuals,
Yes, which is sad and frankly ignorant. People who like the lady in this (http://voiceactingalliance.com/board/showthread.php?t=12549) thread.

She should actually READ the Bible before she runs around telling people what it "says."

[Windy*]

Yes, which is sad and frankly ignorant. People who like the lady in this (http://voiceactingalliance.com/board/showthread.php?t=12549) thread.

She should actually READ the Bible before she runs around telling people what it "says."

People will always twist and interpret things for their personal gain. :) That woman should not be spoken of, ever, outside that thread. (Somewhat kidding, Jiff.)



I'm actually really, really surprised 7 people answered the poll with the fourth option... huh.

[Haushinka]

I think that even if it does not become legalized in all states, all states should be required to allow the same benefits that a legal spouse would be allowed...otherwise it can be really hard for two people in some financial situations if they are denied the same rights based on their gender.

[edit] I am a Christian and I do not hate homosexuals...as others said I think it is sad that some believe it is right to hate them even though the Bible commands that we love others.

[Clintykins]

I'm actually really, really surprised 7 people answered the poll with the fourth option... huh.

I do, too. But notice how none of them are brave enough to come forward and admit it? :p

[Zangya]

I'm actually really, really surprised 7 people answered the poll with the fourth option... huh.

Yeah. I was just about to post that.

Whoever made that choice needs to explain why they made it.

Anyways, Haushinka is right. The bible says we should love others...I don't see why (some) Christians dislike homosexuals. I mean...saying "Love others as you love yourself." would really be a useless phrase now, if you ask me.

[Tom]

That’s not the question at hand.

Yes it is. And I'll tell you why, right after I quote this:


Of course they are normal human beings, only an idiot would argue otherwise.

I used the term "human beings" to illustrate that because they are human, just like straight people, they are entitled to the same rights. I was not saying that gay people are "human beings" to clarify an assmuption that they aren't. No such assumption was made--therefore, I used the term in context to the topic of this thread: Human rights.

So, basically, you completely misunderstood what I was saying.


Also, they should have the same rights as everyone else, I think.

Agreed.


The question was is homosexuality morally correct?

What question? Technically, it's "Should gay people be allowed to get married?".


Two people might have a pretty heated discussion about this. Both people opinions would be valid in their own eyes, who’s to say which is correct?

If someone said "dinosaur eggs taste like chicken parmesan and that's where Italian grandmothers got inspired to make the dish"--would you say they were probably correct? No.

So, what makes this different? Not much. You've got one person arguing their opinion, which is based on science and facts, with another person who's opinion is based on myth, conjecture, guesswork--and to make matters worse, they are USING their opinion, which is not based on facts, against other people with the intention of harming them, condemning them, harrassing them and stripping them of their rights.

Ask yourself, why do you agree that gay people should have equal rights?

[Kei]

Casually smart! see! :D

Gay marriages? Yay
mean religious meanies? nay!

[Jiffy]

I used the term "human beings" to illustrate that because they are human, just like straight people, they are entitled to the same rights. I was not saying that gay people are "human beings" to clarify an assmuption that they aren't. No such assumption was made--therefore, I used the term in context to the topic of this thread: Human rights.

So, basically, you completely misunderstood what I was saying.

No I did understand what you said, which is why I said that they deserve equal rights.




What question? Technically, it's "Should gay people be allowed to get married?".
Well your right, but its basically the same thing. Some people would say no, because it isn't morally correct. So the question could be "Is it morally correct for gay people to get married."



If someone said "dinosaur eggs taste like chicken parmesan and that's where Italian grandmothers got inspired to make the dish"--would you say they were probably correct? No.

So, what makes this different? Not much. You've got one person arguing their opinion, which is based on science and facts, with another person who's opinion is based on myth, conjecture, guesswork--and to make matters worse, they are USING their opinion, which is not based on facts, against other people with the intention of harming them, condemning them, harrassing them and stripping them of their rights.

What science? What facts?

Both people's opinions are based soley on what they think, so again, what makes one person's opinion more valid than another in this case? I can't see and science involved on any side of the matter. Please correct me if I'm wrong.



Ask yourself, why do you agree that gay people should have equal rights?
As I was trying to say, because they are no different from anyone else.

[Tom]

No I did understand what you said, which is why I said that they deserve equal rights.

Apparently, you didn't. Re-read your original reply to me. You obviously thought I was using "human beings" as clarification of an assumption that gay people aren't. If you didn't, then you wouldn't have said:


Of course they are normal human beings, only an idiot would argue otherwise.

You can't even agree with yourself?


Well your right, but its basically the same thing. Some people would say no, because it isn't morally correct. So the question could be "Is it morally correct for gay people to get married."

If you thought it was the same thing, then why did you challenge the question I was addressing? Are you just arguing to argue? Because this is getting loopy.



What science? What facts?

Gay people are regular human beings. They are genetically the same as everyone else. Modern science, psychology, medicine, etc., all agree that homosexuality is not a disease or affliction. It, based on REAL EVIDENCE, means that gay people are NORMAL and operate on NATURAL, personally and societally influenced instincts.


Both people's opinions are based soley on what they think, so again, what makes one person's opinion more valid than another in this case?

The validity of the opinions rest with the evidence that inspired the opinion. If one opinion is based on facts and the other is based on conjecture dictating to abandon all science and facts--that makes one opinion valid and the other, not.

The only other validity to explore is the existence of the opinions themselves--which, they do exist, therefore, we don't need to talk about "well that's just what they think." This isn't about people being able to think what they want to think. This is about thinking what people are thinking and USING those thoughts to undermine the lives of other people.


I can't see and science involved on any side of the matter. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If you're still asking yourself this question, re-read this post. If you STILL don't understand, make a list of reasons WHY you're not wrong and THEN reply to me with statements and questionings of my points based on what you think of. Because, I have been doing a whole lot of explaining and all you've been doing is laying there like a lazy bottom, occasionally grunting out the same questions, over and over and over, again.

[Nikki Wright]

In the introduction to the constitution [which everyone in the US school system was educated on AT LEAST twice within their scholastic career, and had at least one major test on], it says:

"All men are created equal," as well as, "Are granted three basic rights: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

...Okay. So by barring gay marriage, you're saying that gay men and women are not equal to straight men and women, which would be unconstitutional. Additionally, barring their basic right to happiness by choosing to get married, is unconstutional. Thirdly, barring their liberty to live the lives that they were born into -- whether you believe it is "morally correct" or not -- is unconstitutional.

Just my two cents. :luv

[Windy*]

...Okay. So by barring gay marriage, you're saying that gay men and women are not equal to straight men and women, which would be unconstitutional. Additionally, barring their basic right to happiness by choosing to get married, is unconstutional. Thirdly, barring their liberty to live the lives that they were born into -- whether you believe it is "morally correct" or not -- is unconstitutional.

Just my two cents. :luv

The administration likes to do unconstitutional things. :D And some people do believe gay men/women aren't equal to them NORMAL people, so they don't really care. But as for the right to happiness deal, well, that could be bent in all the wrong ways, too. By saying doing something illegal makes you happy doesn't mean you have the right to do it... perhaps another reason why they'd like to ban this whole deal; so that right can't be brought into play. Something like that, who knows what people are thinking. I don't. 8)


Wow, 8 people now. I'm frightened.

[Jiffy]

Apparently, you didn't. Re-read your original reply to me. You obviously thought I was using "human beings" as clarification of an assumption that gay people aren't.


Fine. Fine, fine, fine, fine. Your right, if you must hear it. Who would have known that you knew what I was thinking and I didn't? Even though it has very little to do with what we are talking about. Notice I said TALKING, not ARGUING, which is what you are trying to make it into.




If you thought it was the same thing, then why did you challenge the question I was addressing? Are you just arguing to argue? Because this is getting loopy.
No, I wasn't even trying to argue. Does: "Well your right, but its basically the same thing. Some people would say no, because it isn't morally correct. So the question could be "'Is it morally correct for gay people to get married.'" Sound like arguing to you? I was trying to get you to realize that indirectly, the conversation is whether or not gay marrige is morally correct.






Gay people are regular human beings. They are genetically the same as everyone else. Modern science, psychology, medicine, etc., all agree that homosexuality is not a disease or affliction. It, based on REAL EVIDENCE, means that gay people are NORMAL and operate on NATURAL, personally and societally influenced instincts.
Who is saying that that it is a disease or an affliction? Of corse it is real evidence that it isn't. I'm asking wether it is morally correct, and science can't answer that question. I can't even answer that question, and I never once said that it wasn't morally correct. I was simply stimulating conversation, rather than going with the flow and saying the exact same thing as everyone else.




The validity of the opinions rest with the evidence that inspired the opinion. If one opinion is based on facts and the other is based on conjecture dictating to abandon all science and facts--that makes one opinion valid and the other, not.
How is someone who questions the morality of homosexuality abandoning all science and facts if there is absolutely no way to prove it through science one way or the other? Don't drag science into something about morals. If science proves that homosexuality is morally correct, then what is even the point of this thread? There would be no question about it, it would be fact.




If you're still asking yourself this question, re-read this post. If you STILL don't understand, make a list of reasons WHY you're not wrong and THEN reply to me with statements and questionings of my points based on what you think of.
There is no reason to even bother doing this, because you haven't presented anything that I even need to bother countering. You say that it is factual, scientific, ect. I say that something to do with morals can't be proved through science, so it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And besides, how can I be wrong when I never went one way or the other? As I said earlier, I was simply replying to the requests asking for the other side of the argument without stating my opinion one way or the other. In fact, I have said on more than one ocasion that they do deserve the same rights as everyone else. They can do whatever they want as long as its legal.



And please stop making it seem like I'm a bad person. I really don't appreciate it. Especially since I have agreed with you on the point of the thread. Homosexuals are the same as everyone else and should be able to do whatever they want within the boundaries of the law.

EDIT:
In the introduction to the constitution [which everyone in the US school system was educated on AT LEAST twice within their scholastic career, and had at least one major test on], it says:

"All men are created equal," as well as, "Are granted three basic rights: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

...Okay. So by barring gay marriage, you're saying that gay men and women are not equal to straight men and women, which would be unconstitutional. Additionally, barring their basic right to happiness by choosing to get married, is unconstutional. Thirdly, barring their liberty to live the lives that they were born into -- whether you believe it is "morally correct" or not -- is unconstitutional.


And please stop making it seem like I'm a bad person. I really don't appreciate it. Especially since I have agreed with you on the point of the thread. Homosexuals are the same as everyone else and should be able to do whatever they want within the boundaries of the law.

[Tom]

Argghhhhh! Listen, word on the street is you're "trying to be nice." However, your replies to me do not reflect this. I post something, you completely misinterpret and challenge it, I reply giving you reasons to back up my claims, you completely misinterpret THAT and challenge me again--and, now, I'm supposed to give you a whole new slew of reasons to back up my latest reply, so you can misunderstand that and start the cycle all over again.

I'm not going to do that. I WILL say this, however:

This is the debating forum. This thread was created for people to make arguments of each other's input. I'm not flaming you or berating you (I've been quite civil), but I AM challenging you, because YOU are challenging ME.

And don't talk to me about "but, I agreed with you!", because, I have agreed with you as WELL and I have stated that. It doesn't mean I have to agree with EVERYTHING you say. If you address me with arguments on this public space, you can expect a public rebuttal.

Just, don't bait me with challenges and defend yourself by saying you agreed with me. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Anyway, I suspect that you probably ARE trying to be nice. So, I'm just going to end this entire conversation. On a later topic, sprung from the nature of this thread, unrelated to our recent dialogue, I shall await future exchanges with you.

As for this.... this is my last reply regarding the matter.

Adios!

[Queen Anime 99]

Sure its possible to be gay and Christian. However, the Bible teaches against homosexuality, so you would either be a Christian that doesn't belive in every part of the Bible, or you just don't actually read the Bible enough to realize this.
Um, again I would like to say that being a Christian means that a person believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Yes, in the Leviticus section, it says that a man should not lie with another man or whatever, but that's not what JESUS said. Not to mention the ongoing argument that David and Jonathan were lovers. And again, all Christians take what they want from the Bible. Some of my straight Christian friends do not agree with everything in the Bible, but that doesn't mean that they are less Christians.

[Queen Anime 99]

That’s not the question at hand. Of course they are normal human beings, only an idiot would argue otherwise. Also, they should have the same rights as everyone else, I think.

The question was is homosexuality morally correct? Two people might have a pretty heated discussion about this. Both people opinions would be valid in their own eyes, who’s to say which is correct?
Okay. Here's the thing. Morality is a VERY tricky subject. Morality actually depends on the society's values. If a society thinks that homosexuality is moral, then it is moral (to them). If a society thinks that homosexuality is immoral, then it is immoral (to them). Personally, I believe that a thing is moral if it does not hurt anyone mentally/physically/emotionally. Since homosexuality does none of those, I consider it moral. And another thing, you could actually argue whether ANYTHING is moral or immoral. Hell, you could say the medical community is immoral because it can bring people back from the dead. ^_^ Ahh, morality. A deep, deep concept.

[Jiffy]

As for this.... this is my last reply regarding the matter.

Adios!

Me too. I wasn't actually trying to be nice, I just wasn't trying to be mean.

Sorry if I misunderstood some of what you said, no hard feelings on my side.

Also, you were right about this being a forum for arguments, it was silly of me to suggest otherwise.

[Kagome]

GAY PEOPLE ROCK MY SOCKS! XD
I'm Bi tho LMAO
But yeah if u wanna get married to the same sex is their desicion! its how they want to spend their life. but people are just scared that it will ruin the population of the human species LOl but yeah
GAYS ROCK!

[Gabi Star]

GAY PEOPLE ROCK MY SOCKS! XD
I'm Bi tho LMAO
GAYS ROCK!

(quiver) People who say that every time they meet a homosexual scare the shit out of me.

[Tom]

Sock It To Me!

[Gabi Star]

R-E-S-P-E-C-T! Find out what it means to me! Sock it to me. Sock it to me. Sock it to me. Sock it to me.

[Tomoe]

When I used to work at Johnny Rockets...we had to sing that. Then I quit.

[Mat Growcott]

but people are just scared that it will ruin the population of the human species LOl

That is the funniest way of saying something so serious EVAH!

[Lady Plantagenet]

People are born Gay. They do not choose it. You can not make someone who is a Homosexual into a Heterosexual and vise versa. If people started to actually read any history beside the Bible (which is not exactly the best factual source of history). America was founded by people who did not want to be told how to live their lives, therefore, trying to keep Gay people from getting married is against our Constitution. It invalidates everything this country stands for and what it means to be free.


The fact that people would even care about this and actually vote people into office because of this issue only makes me realize that Judge Judy was right, "Touch every third person and you will find an idiot".

The world is not going to end if Gays get married. The world is not going to be better if they do not. Gay people are not going to Hell. It is all nonsense.

[Mat Growcott]

Gay people are not going to Hell. It is all nonsense.

Prove it. Prove everybody isn't. You can't...but meh...I'm making myself out to be incredibly religious on these boards. I just don't like people dismissing stuff like this when there is no evidence for or against it...

Anyhew, yeah...i like the rest of the stuff you said. Except for one thing. Keeping gay people from getting married is against the constitution thing.

Now, i don't mean to bad mouth america, but lets face it, it's never been the land of the free or any of that crap. It's never been the country where 'All men are born equal'. If anything, that is the nonsense.

As i said, i'm not trying to badmouth your country. But let's face it, there are worse hardships in the states (and the world over) then the fact that gay people can't get married. I brought this up to a bisexual friend the other week who was argueing for gay marriage and she simply said 'Start small'...and then blocked me.

In africa children are dieing every day. From starvation and worse. All that it would take to start the walk down that long road to better times would be for the world to cancel african countries debts.

I'm not going to say that people don't protest about this. Hell, what was Live 8 about last year? But i've heard more about gay marriage then i have about debt over the last year.

This is just an example, btw. I dunno, it just seems petty to me.

(If this doens't make sense, then i'm sorry. It's late and my head hurts :D)

[Tom]

Prove it. Prove everybody isn't. You can't...but meh...I'm making myself out to be incredibly religious on these boards. I just don't like people dismissing stuff like this when there is no evidence for or against it...

Anyhew, yeah...i like the rest of the stuff you said. Except for one thing. Keeping gay people from getting married is against the constitution thing.

Now, i don't mean to bad mouth america, but lets face it, it's never been the land of the free or any of that crap. It's never been the country where 'All men are born equal'. If anything, that is the nonsense.

As i said, i'm not trying to badmouth your country. But let's face it, there are worse hardships in the states (and the world over) then the fact that gay people can't get married. I brought this up to a bisexual friend the other week who was argueing for gay marriage and she simply said 'Start small'...and then blocked me.

In africa children are dieing every day. From starvation and worse. All that it would take to start the walk down that long road to better times would be for the world to cancel african countries debts.

I'm not going to say that people don't protest about this. Hell, what was Live 8 about last year? But i've heard more about gay marriage then i have about debt over the last year.

This is just an example, btw. I dunno, it just seems petty to me.

(If this doens't make sense, then i'm sorry. It's late and my head hurts :D)

Gay marriage issues are not petty. That is an incredibly foul thing to say.

Just because there are other issues to consider, doesn't mean gay marriage should be any less important. Shame on you for being so horribly discriminative. Human rights are HUMAN RIGHTS!

And, by the way, science and all perceived reality and reasoning say that when we die, our brain and body stop functioning, we lose all physical consciousness and we break down, rot and get eaten by insects or scavengers.

Just because someone says "gay people are going to hell" doesn't mean it HAS to be considered as proof that realistic theory may be wrong because "there's no way to prove it either way."

Uh, yes, there is a way. Do you know how many people DIE every day? How many people have died since long before us? How many of them were transported to an inferno of torment and sulfur after they died? I'm pretty sure the answer is NONE.

You try to play devil's advocate SO hard, but you never actually make a valid or substantial point or argument. You offend people by BERATING their opinions, while, simultaneously defending 'opinions' as a concept. Then, when people disagree with you, you play defensive and wounded and argue some more.

Make up your mind. State your opinion, back it up and stand by it. All of this jumping from one point to another between often conflicting and misinformed theories and ideologies, is just confusing and gives everyone a headache.

[Batgirl]

I agree with the "Human Rights are Human Rights."

If you were made to feel like a second class citizen, I'm sure you would care just a little less about dying people in Africa. Not to say that no one should care about starving children etc, but its human nature to care about what strikes closest to their own lives.

Its not wrong or immoral or anything, just human. We all want to be happy.

And as much as I really REALLY hate this country right now, as well as a lot of the people running it, America WAS built on the idea that everyone is equal and that we all have the "god-given" right to be happy. No it hasn't always been perfect, but goddammit we (as a country) try. Its not easy to make a truely equal society, people are always going to hate one another for stupid STUPID reasons, there will always be the fortunate and the unfortunate, etc. But overall, throughout the ENTIRE history of the US (and not just the past 10-20-whatever years) we haven't completely failed at this mission, and I'd LIKE to think that we've always tried to achieve the ideal that all people are created equal.

I gave money to the Human Rights Campaign once because they are lobbying to tell Bush and everyone to fuck off on making an amendment to the constitution about Gay Marriage. However they sold my name address and phone number to telemarketers and solicitors so now I don't give them money anymore. ><

I mean wtf, just because I agree that Gays and Lesbians should be able to marry doesn't mean I'm interested in Gay Liftestyle Magazines. ><

/end mini-rant


Long Story short, the whole thing is really simple:

This is really a matter of separation of Church and State than anything. What logical reasoning does the Government have to prevent same sex marriages OTHER than "God says its wrong."

"It will destroy the American Family Unit", is the only one I've heard, and then by that reasoning, they also have to abolish Divorce. And what about Polygamy? Everyone knows we have polygamists in our country, thats supposed to be un-christian, and no one bothers them. The whole argument is just silly.

The government should allow same sex marriage, and Churches can have the right to refuse to perform services if it is against their belief system. (Some churches don't marry couples who come from different faiths, and thats perfectly legal).

Now the Churches don't piss off god, and the Government stays the hell away from the slippery slope of enforcing the Christian Beliefs on the entire country. Problem Solved.

Vote Laura for President. <3

[Mat Growcott]

w00...i got up for something else, but i can't sleep so it's all good :D.


Gay marriage issues are not petty. That is an incredibly foul thing to say.

Just because there are other issues to consider, doesn't mean gay marriage should be any less important. Shame on you for being so horribly discriminative. Human rights are HUMAN RIGHTS!

How is two people getting married as important as people dieing? I meant petty in comparison and i'll stick by that. I'm sure i wouldn't be the only one to say that i'd happily trade the opportunity for gay marriage (and straight marriage for that matter) if it meant that there were no unfair deaths in the world. That is to say people with not enough food, shelter, medical supplies, war injuries and the like.


And, by the way, science and all perceived reality and reasoning say that when we die, our brain and body stop functioning, we lose all physical consciousness and we break down, rot and get eaten by insects or scavengers.

Just because someone says "gay people are going to hell" doesn't mean it HAS to be considered as proof that realistic theory may be wrong because "there's no way to prove it either way."

Uh, yes, there is a way. Do you know how many people DIE every day? How many people have died since long before us? How many of them were transported to an inferno of torment and sulfur after they died? I'm pretty sure the answer is NONE.

You have just proved me wrong sir! By asking how many people have been transported to an inferno of torment and sulpher after they died, and then saying the answer is none. Obviously you've been talking to all those people who have died (Even though you say earlier that our brain and body break down) and they've OBVIOUSLY told you there is no hell...

Because that really is the only way to truly prove the matter one way or another.

That was incredibly smart-arsed. But meh. You can't prove there is no hell like described in the bible until you die. And then you won't be in a talking mood. So why bother?


You try to play devil's advocate SO hard, but you never actually make a valid or substantial point or argument. You offend people by BERATING their opinions, while, simultaneously defending 'opinions' as a concept. Then, when people disagree with you, you play defensive and wounded and argue some more.

Meh, if this is how i come accross, this is how i come across. I won't lose any sleep over it. I believe that i have made a valid point or two, if you can't see them i'm not going to try prove anything again. I don't FEEL wounded :O. And i figured since this was...like...the discussion part of the board the point was to argue one's case...


If you were made to feel like a second class citizen, I'm sure you would care just a little less about dying people in Africa. Not to say that no one should care about starving children etc, but its human nature to care about what strikes closest to their own lives

I'm made to feel like a second class citizen everyday, but i feel that's besides the point since I used the african's as an example because i feel it is one of the big problems with todays world. It would be so simple to help them out and yet most governments just ignore the problem. And i understand it is human nature for people to care about what strikes closest to them. However, i think that with so much suffering in the world, does it matter in the long run whether to gays get to marry or not?

I'm sure they feel cheated on a personal level. But in the grand scheme of things will anybody really give a damn? I feel very sorry for them, but there's more serious things at risk. (And before anyone quotes this and says 'Omg...homophobic'. No not at all, just trying to be realistic)

I agree, a human right IS a human right. I've never disputed the fact that gay people, like straight people, should have a right to marry.

[Sacura]

here is my opinion,
I am good friends with a lot of gay and bisexual people, and I think it should be alowed for them to get married just because it's their choice, if two people love each other and care for each other, why shouldn't they get married
its the same for any kind of marriage, you chose to marry that other person because you care for them
I may sound naive while saying this, but I started off school in an all caucasian students, then I attended my first american school in 5th grade and I saw my first african american person and my first asian person. and since this elementary school had almost no racism issues (except for german like me, they didn't like us to much ^^0) and my friends treated them like normal peopl (which they are, I just had never seen anyone of a different color before so I was kinda like "um...ok?") but because other people accepted them then I felt is was right for me to do that as well. It wasn't that I was going with the flow, kinda was though, it was just that I didn't know what I should react like. I saw acceptance so I accepted
I think that if a person can just accept anothers differences (like sexuality) then its not that hard for us to accept the person as a person. Since that is what we all are, people, individuals that should be accepted and treated as such
^^0 I'm sorry if that didn't help at all, it just felt like something I should say

[Doki-Chan]

I'm not going to try to get into any debates with anyone because I am not skilled at it. However, I would just like to share my thoughts. My opinion here is not Directed to any individual in Particular. Anway, I think Same sex merriges should be allowed. Its okay for those people who disagree with Same sex relationships and merrigas to think that way. But ultametly, if two people you know get gay married, how does that effect your life in any way shape or form? Its just two people who wanna get married. I'm not going to get into too much Religous or political aspects, but I personaly think its stupid for people to use passeges from the Bible as an excuse to descriminate against those of Homosexuality. I've never read the Bible personaly, but what I've heard from a few people is that it doesn't Directly or clearly bring up the subject. If thats true then thats even more of a reason to question those who use the Bible and their religon as an excuse to discriminate.

[Kitty]

Neh. Like Doki said, I don't want to get into any debates about this, but here is my opinion on the matter.

Gay marriage should be allowed. Why? Because we don't have the right as a country to take away their right to do so. We shouldn't rule over them, and force them to only marry as a male and female couple. I think that the President is only following his own opinions on this issue, not the important thing. Every person deserves to live free and do as they please (As long as it's not killing or such. x.x )

We, as a nation, should not take away the human right from the gay community to marry. I think that if they want to get married, then they should as hell do so.

Christians are taught to cherish other people like Jesus did. So those churches who claim to be doing the work of Christ when they are making an uproar over how it's "immoral" and "against God" gay marriage is are full of it. =D

I didn't mean to offend anyone at all. I was just stating my opinion on this issue. <3

[Batgirl]

I'm made to feel like a second class citizen everyday, but i feel that's besides the point since I used the african's as an example because i feel it is one of the big problems with todays world. It would be so simple to help them out and yet most governments just ignore the problem. And i understand it is human nature for people to care about what strikes closest to them. However, i think that with so much suffering in the world, does it matter in the long run whether to gays get to marry or not?

I'm sure they feel cheated on a personal level. But in the grand scheme of things will anybody really give a damn? I feel very sorry for them, but there's more serious things at risk. (And before anyone quotes this and says 'Omg...homophobic'. No not at all, just trying to be realistic)

I agree, a human right IS a human right. I've never disputed the fact that gay people, like straight people, should have a right to marry.

I don't know about you very well, so I'd like to say I'm sorry you're made to feel like a second class citizen every day. Its a shitty feeling.

There is more to this though than just "Gay people can't get married". This, like I said in my earlier posts, is more an issue of seperation of church and state more than anything else. Some of the first European settlers to arrive in america were escaping religious persecution, and since then seperation of church and state has always been a big deal when it comes to the beliefs of the American public and the american consitution.

If the American Government can go and change the Rules of the entire nation because the Christian Bible says it ought to, whats to stop them there? Like I said, its a very slippery slope.

That effects all of us living in America, not just the Gay and Lesbian communities.

I remember this very good quote, but I can't remember where it was from, but it went "Sir, when you were sworn into office you placed your hand on the bible and swore to uphold the constitution, you did NOT place your hand on the constitution and swear to uphold the bible."

I'm trying to keep this as more of a political debate, and less of a philosophical/theological one by going into if its actually OK in the eyes of "god" for homosexuals to marry, but I will say, according to the Christian Religion, God is supposed to be the one that makes judgement. Period. Hence that whole "Judge not lest ye be judged," quote. Yes, as a christian you are supposed to try and show them the "error" of their ways etc, but you aren't supposed to pass judgement.

So, wouldn't legally preventing them from marrying in the eyes of the state be a form of passing judgement? Who are we mortals to assume we know what is right and wrong in the eyes of god?

Just something to think about there. Not really going to defend it to the death or anything.

[Lady Plantagenet]

Prove it. Prove everybody isn't. You can't...but meh...I'm making myself out to be incredibly religious on these boards. I just don't like people dismissing stuff like this when there is no evidence for or against it...

Anyhew, yeah...i like the rest of the stuff you said. Except for one thing. Keeping gay people from getting married is against the constitution thing.

Now, i don't mean to bad mouth america, but lets face it, it's never been the land of the free or any of that crap. It's never been the country where 'All men are born equal'. If anything, that is the nonsense.

As i said, i'm not trying to badmouth your country. But let's face it, there are worse hardships in the states (and the world over) then the fact that gay people can't get married. I brought this up to a bisexual friend the other week who was argueing for gay marriage and she simply said 'Start small'...and then blocked me.

In africa children are dieing every day. From starvation and worse. All that it would take to start the walk down that long road to better times would be for the world to cancel african countries debts.

I'm not going to say that people don't protest about this. Hell, what was Live 8 about last year? But i've heard more about gay marriage then i have about debt over the last year.

This is just an example, btw. I dunno, it just seems petty to me.

(If this doens't make sense, then i'm sorry. It's late and my head hurts :D)


Why is it nonsense?

If there is truely a God and this God believes that anyone who is Gay, Goth, or is different should be burned in Hell. Then it is a God not worth praying too.

Unless you have actually lived In America, then you truly do not understand.
America is not prefect and it has it problems. No country is perfect. However, if you have actually lived here, you understand that compared to some other countries out there we are free.

Little history lesson...

During the 1500s and 1600s England was torn up. It started when King Henry VIII wanted to marry Anne Boylen. England which had been Catholic for centuries was changed to protestant. Many Catholic people were killed. The times changed and Queen Mary (Henry VIII's daughter) wanted the country to be Catholic again, so anyone protestant was killed. Queen Elizabeth, who came after, understood that letting people believe what they want is the right thing to do (Great Lady). Then, years later Cromwell came along and had King Charles I killed. Well, to make a long story short England was a mess for a time there.

So, people in England decided this was too much. They did not want to be ruled over or told what to believe in. The people decided lets go to this strange land and make new lives for ourselves, without being told what to believe in. Which is the reason, in America, why we have a little thing called, "Separation of church and state". Sadly, some people here can not seem to understand the meaning of that.

Jump to some years later and crazy old King George III decided America should belong to England. Well, the people here in America decided, "Over our dead bodies!" "We do not want to be ruled over by a King or told what to do." So, here comes the revolutionary war. America created the Declaration of Independence, beat crazy old George and been free ever since.

We have no monarchy, no dictators, as bad as George Bush is in two years there will be someone new in office. The President only stays in power for eight years, and we get to vote. We can change who is in power without the fear of civil war. We can talk bad about our rulers and not be killed. We can believe and say what we want and so on. These things seem petty and your country has them too but that is an important freedom.

Think about those poor people who live in North Korea.

[Tomoe]

Let's play STEREOTYPES!!!

Amerika is great. UK people don't brush their teeth.

[Queen Anime 99]

w00...i got up for something else, but i can't sleep so it's all good :D.



How is two people getting married as important as people dieing? I meant petty in comparison and i'll stick by that. I'm sure i wouldn't be the only one to say that i'd happily trade the opportunity for gay marriage (and straight marriage for that matter) if it meant that there were no unfair deaths in the world. That is to say people with not enough food, shelter, medical supplies, war injuries and the like.



You have just proved me wrong sir! By asking how many people have been transported to an inferno of torment and sulpher after they died, and then saying the answer is none. Obviously you've been talking to all those people who have died (Even though you say earlier that our brain and body break down) and they've OBVIOUSLY told you there is no hell...

Because that really is the only way to truly prove the matter one way or another.

That was incredibly smart-arsed. But meh. You can't prove there is no hell like described in the bible until you die. And then you won't be in a talking mood. So why bother?



Meh, if this is how i come accross, this is how i come across. I won't lose any sleep over it. I believe that i have made a valid point or two, if you can't see them i'm not going to try prove anything again. I don't FEEL wounded :O. And i figured since this was...like...the discussion part of the board the point was to argue one's case...



I'm made to feel like a second class citizen everyday, but i feel that's besides the point since I used the african's as an example because i feel it is one of the big problems with todays world. It would be so simple to help them out and yet most governments just ignore the problem. And i understand it is human nature for people to care about what strikes closest to them. However, i think that with so much suffering in the world, does it matter in the long run whether to gays get to marry or not?

I'm sure they feel cheated on a personal level. But in the grand scheme of things will anybody really give a damn? I feel very sorry for them, but there's more serious things at risk. (And before anyone quotes this and says 'Omg...homophobic'. No not at all, just trying to be realistic)

I agree, a human right IS a human right. I've never disputed the fact that gay people, like straight people, should have a right to marry.
Um, blackdagger, we're talking about gay marriage. I agree that we should support/help starving people and I plan to join at least one volunteer club at my college later this year. But, why must you always bring up another topic or always look at something from a negative point of view (I mean, it's good to be realistic sometimes, but dang, man) Just when I'm reading people's responses, you come in with "well, life sucks and people will always hate people for all eternity." What the hell?I agree that gay marriage (or any marriage) is petty compared to the lives of starving children, but everyone knows that! Why must you always bring up stuff like that?

You also did the same thing when someone said that gay people won't go to hell you. You were like "Prove it." Why did you have to even comment on that? She/he was trying to make a point, but it looks like you just ignored everything and focused on that one thing which has NOTHING to do with gay marriage by the way. You're like "There's no evidence for or against it." Yes, I guess we could argue for eternity as to whether the Easter Bunny is real or not, but that has nothing to do with the topic on hand.

Please stop trying to bring up stuff that has nothing to do with the conversation, okay?

[Shika Megumi]

Here's my opinion:

I think if two people really love each other, no offense but it's kind of uncommon to me these days, then they should marry whoever they wish to. Even if they are two of the same gender. I'm just ashamed of all the stereotypes, calling people gay, lesbians, fags, homo's, etc. I think that's stupid. All those people that think they're so perfect, I bet that they're not. Other people shouldn't interfere with the love lives of others, unless it's encouragement and other positive stuff.

Unless it's an arranged marriage (do people still do that nowadays?) where two people of the same gender are forced to live together forever and ever (O.o) I would say for all the people in love with others that are the same sex: go for it. Just because the government has one opinion (actually probably more...) doesn't mean that everyone's up for it. That's just one biased opinion. Unless they're just keeping that law up for all the drunk people who want to get married on a whim.....

I don't really see any problem with that, but I'm just a real lax and simple minded person. (No, not really, but anyways...) People may disagree with me, but this is just my opinion.

[Kagome]

GAY PEOPLE ROCK MY SOX!! XD

Anyway Ehem....

My boyfriend is scared I'm going to cheat on him with a chick LOL
Since we're over here talking about marriage and stuff....plus he's the first person I EVER WENT OUT WITH....so yeah I understand why he thinks theres a possible chance I would be with a chick...BUT I WOULDNT
PROMISE!
Anyway! WHY NOT!? GAYS ROCK!

WE ARE ALL HUMAN PEOPLE!!!!
And thats why I am proud to be BI! Hells yeah! XD
~Kagome

[Queen Anime 99]

GAY PEOPLE ROCK MY SOX!! XD

Anyway Ehem....

My boyfriend is scared I'm going to cheat on him with a chick LOL
Since we're over here talking about marriage and stuff....plus he's the first person I EVER WENT OUT WITH....so yeah I understand why he thinks theres a possible chance I would be with a chick...BUT I WOULDNT
PROMISE!
Anyway! WHY NOT!? GAYS ROCK!

WE ARE ALL HUMAN PEOPLE!!!!
And thats why I am proud to be BI! Hells yeah! XD
~Kagome
Hey, Kagome. I'm not trying to judge/diss your boyfriend or anything, but your boyfriend should not think that you are going to cheat on him with a girl just because you are bisexual. There are so many stereotypes about bi people and one of them is that they sleep around a lot. That is, of course, not true for most bi people. Your boyfriend should be able to trust that you wouldn't cheat on him with anyone, male or female.

[Tom]

Hey, Kagome. I'm not trying to judge/diss your boyfriend or anything, but your boyfriend should not think that you are going to cheat on him with a girl just because you are bisexual. There are so many stereotypes about bi people and one of them is that they sleep around a lot. That is, of course, not true for most bi people. Your boyfriend should be able to trust that you wouldn't cheat on him with anyone, male or female.

What she said.

[Windy*]

Hey, Kagome. I'm not trying to judge/diss your boyfriend or anything, but your boyfriend should not think that you are going to cheat on him with a girl just because you are bisexual. There are so many stereotypes about bi people and one of them is that they sleep around a lot. That is, of course, not true for most bi people. Your boyfriend should be able to trust that you wouldn't cheat on him with anyone, male or female.

Agreed, though last time I checked, high school boys aren't the most mature or intelligent beings in the world... :]

[Kagome]

ha ha ha yeah...but he means well he does trust me ^_^

Thanks for your opinion guys

[Cloud Strife]

Why is it nonsense?

If there is truely a God and this God believes that anyone who is Gay, Goth, or is different should be burned in Hell. Then it is a God not worth praying too.

Umm, God doesn't believe that. I don't know who you've been talking to, but.... yeah, that's way wrong. Any Christian who says that God hates anyone is an idiot. Because God doesn't hate anybody.


Unless you have actually lived In America, then you truly do not understand.
America is not prefect and it has it problems. No country is perfect. However, if you have actually lived here, you understand that compared to some other countries out there we are free.


Yeah, free to be self-centered, materialistic, instant-gratification, ignorant, and arogant bastards.
I live in America and the country as a whole sickens me. People here couldn't care less about what goes on outside of the States.

[Queen Anime 99]

ha ha ha yeah...but he means well he does trust me ^_^

Thanks for your opinion guys
Oh...okay! ^_^

[Sacura]

Yeah, free to be self-centered, materialistic, instant-gratification, ignorant, and arogant bastards.
I live in America and the country as a whole sickens me. People here couldn't care less about what goes on outside of the States.

that isn't true, even if some people are like that not everyone is, there is some good in everyone no matter how bad they may seem
I can understand why you would think that, there are a lot of people who seem not to care, but maybe thats because they don't know how to
*reads her post* wow I sound like someone giving a Nobel Peace Prize speech ^^0

[Cloud Strife]

that isn't true, even if some people are like that not everyone is, there is some good in everyone no matter how bad they may seem
I can understand why you would think that, there are a lot of people who seem not to care, but maybe thats because they don't know how to
*reads her post* wow I sound like someone giving a Nobel Peace Prize speech ^^0
I understand that not everyone's like that, but I'm going off of the general vibe that Americans (as the people of a nation) give off. Look at marketing. It's all about "You need more/better stuff" and "You need that stuff right now."
"No money down! No interest for 6 months!"
The American dream is to get a job that pays you a lot of money so that you can drive an expensive car, live in a big house that house two stories and vaulted ceilings, own a 50 inch wide screen plasma tv with surround sound, have your groceries bagged in paper (lol, it seems like it's a status thing), have a big lawn that has an automatic sprinkler system, and for what? So that everyone else knows how fat your wallet is?
It's totally absurd and I detest it. Everyone just wants more money.

On-topic blurb: Gays should be able to get married. ^_^

[Batgirl]

Umm, God doesn't believe that. I don't know who you've been talking to, but.... yeah, that's way wrong. Any Christian who says that God hates anyone is an idiot. Because God doesn't hate anybody.



Yeah, free to be self-centered, materialistic, instant-gratification, ignorant, and arogant bastards.
I live in America and the country as a whole sickens me. People here couldn't care less about what goes on outside of the States.

How do you know what God is like? I don't know anyone that actually knows the true nature of God, including myself. What Lady was saying was that IF God was a bastard like that, He wouldn't be worth praying to.

I agree. I don't want anything to do with a God that isn't loving and accepting of everyone, and I mean everyone.

Christians who believe God hates certain types of people are necessarily idiots, but they are ignorant. Most likely they either believe whatever their religious superior tells them, or what they were raised to believe about God than actually searching out their OWN beliefs. Thats ignorance.


I'm not saying America is great. I mean, hell I thought I'd be the LAST person on the planet to be in a thread and DEFENDING America. At the fourth of July I didn't even stand up during the National Anthem. But here is the thing.

Capitalism Sucks. People are greedy. People Fuck each other over.

But thats not JUST Americans. Thats people. Communism would be the ideal government for the WHOLE WORLD: IF people weren't corrupt assholes. People can't be trusted to play fair. Thats not just in America, I will bet all I have on that.

I agree that American society tends to be more self-centered than some other countries. We don't have as much as focus on world news as we do on our own business. But it is IGNORANT to say that all Americans only care about themselves. My entire family for one, watches World News very often. We even watch the BBC news, to get other countries perspectives on what is going on.

I'm surprised that someone angry at people for making gross generaliztions would, well, make a gross generalization like that.

As for the American Dream. Yeah that goes back into the history of our country, unfortunately. But there seem to be an awful lot of people that would like to live that dream. Otherwise why would we have such a problem with immigration? When you have nothing, the prospect of being able to go from nothing to having things is tempting. ... Of course I think the whole thing is a crock and unless you get lucky somewhere along the line, you aren't going to break out of your class structure. But besides the point.

On-Topic Blurb: I think Gays should be able to Marry too!

[Sacura]

I have to agree with batgirl, america was sort of built on those things.
As a German-American I do watch the news a lot with my parents, and my dad was in the military during the war in Iraq. Our comuntiy did a drive for clothes and blankets and food during the events in New Orleans. I still think, even though they are swayed and corrupted by material needs, that America is good. I don't think any country as a whole, even on a general view, could be considered bad. But I'm not saying its perfect, the world still has a long way to go before that. Un-judged love for an example ^^ everyone should be able to marry no matter their sexual preference

[Cloud Strife]

I agree that American society tends to be more self-centered than some other countries. We don't have as much as focus on world news as we do on our own business. But it is IGNORANT to say that all Americans only care about themselves. My entire family for one, watches World News very often. We even watch the BBC news, to get other countries perspectives on what is going on.

In my previous post I did throw out a sentence saying that I know not everyone is like that, I was just saying. Ask anyone that doesn't live in the US and that's what they'll say.

[Lady Plantagenet]

As Batgirl has said, America is not perfect. And, we have been given a bad name because of bad president and his poor adminstration. However, no country is perfect, there is not such thing as a perfect culture. There never will be. And, you are expressing a freedom right there. You live in America and you are allowed to hate it. To see my point, why not move to North Korea sometime.

I actually was raised a Catholic and went to priavte school my whole life. So, that is who I was talking too.

As for Gay marriage, my point was never that God hates gays. As a matter of fact, if there is a supreme being it probably does not care one way or the other. However, there are some Christians who do hate gays and they believe that God hates them too.

[Gabi Star]

Capitalism Sucks. People are greedy. People Fuck each other over.


I guarentee that you and everyone you know only survives day to day because of the wonders of capitalism. To not believe that people should make profit off of hard work is greedy.

[Taryn]

I guarentee that you and everyone you know only survives day to day because of the wonders of capitalism. To not believe that people should make profit off of hard work is greedy.

I have to agree here. It's easy to throw out capitalism because of the examples we often seem of people taking advantage of the system, but so many people have used it effectively to better their own situations and the situations of their family. Perhaps I'm a bit biased because my own grandfather came out of poverty to run a successful business and retire very comfortably, but I know that's not the only example around.

Also, on the subject of America, the great thing about this country is that we ARE free. No country is perfect. No society is perfect. But if you go and really study the laws of world governments, we still remain, by far, the freest people in the world. And that, at least, is something worth celebrating and cultivating.

[tygerchickchibi]

@_@ I read through this whole thread...ah...my eyes. ;____;

Anyway, it seems like when it comes to government standards, the only thing that hits gays hard is the fight for marriage rights. Getting a job doesn't seem so hard unless it's something like a volunteer for boy scouts and everyone's like," OMG, WE DON'T WANT THAT PERSON TEACHING.." and blah blah blah........


I have gay friends, coworkers, and I'm a Christian. Maybe not completely hardcore, but I definitely do not believe that these extremists can even have the audacity to say "God Hates" whoever. I mean, seriously, it's just based on people's views, and religion also plays a big part in political issues. I think it's just getting worse. No one really knows what will happen...

The world may be set to end in 2012 too. xD Wait for it, people!

Now that I read everything, I forgot the point I was trying to make, but I'm sure you guys get it.

EDIT - I noticed that few individuals voted against gay marriage, but hasn't even put a reason why.

[Batgirl]

I guarentee that you and everyone you know only survives day to day because of the wonders of capitalism. To not believe that people should make profit off of hard work is greedy.


Just to clarify what I was saying, No form of government is going to work. Because people suck.

Now personally I'm a fan of Communism cause I'm a nice person and If I had lots of money and people had no money, or I had lots of food and others had no food, I would want to share. That would be assuming that EVERYONE was trying they are their hardest, not that there are people NOT working hard. That is the "ideal" of communism. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Now Capitalism could also work and keep mostly everyone happy, IF people weren't assholes. But people are. So its not going to work. (it DOES however, work better than communism, when it comes to assholes fucking everything up.)

So long Story short:

Capitalism > Communism in practice.

Communism > Capitalism in theory/ideology

Assholes suck.


Thats all I'm going to say on that matter for the rest of this thread. If someone wants to start up a capitalsim vs communism thread, they are more than free to.

(Oh: PS. Everyone and everyone I know does not benefit from Capitalism seeing as America is slowly separating into the Rich and the Poor and No Middle Class and My family is being forced into the Poverty category because my dad runs a small business, and my mom wanted to spend time with her family so only became a part time teacher. My mom is very sick and can't afford any insurance because Capitalism says its okay to deny sick people treatment if they don't have money. So no, it really doesn't benefit EVERYONE I know. But like I said above, it is better in practice than communism, we've seen what a disaster that is)

[Gabi Star]

(Pops knuckles) Ooookay... time for an infamous Gabi-Break-Down.


Just to clarify what I was saying, No form of government is going to work. Because people suck.

Oh yes, because Anarchy is the most stable way to organize a nation.



Now personally I'm a fan of Communism cause I'm a nice person and If I had lots of money and people had no money, or I had lots of food and others had no food, I would want to share.

Well, that is very kind of you. But you do realize that once you share all of this money and all of this food, you will become lower class, lower income, and then have nothing to give? How do you plan to share? Charity? Give me a break. If you're SO kind and SO generous, why not start a business and open jobs to the lower class citizens you desperately want to help? Oh, no, because that would be productive.


That would be assuming that EVERYONE was trying they are their hardest, not that there are people NOT working hard. That is the "ideal" of communism. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Human Law is simple. It follows the same principals of Natural Law, which is 'The easiest road to the best benifit will be the road taken'. It's not because people don't want to work hard, but think about it this way- Why would any professional, we'll use construction workers as an example, work harder than their fellow employees only to make the same income? Why would one work overtime to make no profit? It wouldn't happen. Oh, unless you, so generous and giving, were the epitome of the working class.



Now Capitalism could also work and keep mostly everyone happy, IF people weren't assholes. But people are. So its not going to work. (it DOES however, work better than communism, when it comes to assholes fucking everything up.)

Capitalism allows EVERYONE a chance to succeed. The key is education. If everyone worked to become educated, then it would be much more difficult for "assholes" (the people you call assholes may be people who are just trying to make a comfortable living for themselves) to screw the lower class over. Don't you think its much better for everyone to have a shot at an education, have a very good fraction of them make it, and a low percentage on welfare (whereas in communism, the entire population would be on a shitty fixed income).



So long Story short:

Capitalism > Communism in practice.

Communism > Capitalism in theory/ideology

Assholes suck.

How about this:

Anarchy > Communism

Communism > Capitalism

Capitalism = Prosperity.




Thats all I'm going to say on that matter for the rest of this thread. If someone wants to start up a capitalsim vs communism thread, they are more than free to.

You should do it.



(Oh: PS. Everyone and everyone I know does not benefit from Capitalism seeing as America is slowly separating into the Rich and the Poor and No Middle Class and My family is being forced into the Poverty category because my dad runs a small business, and my mom wanted to spend time with her family so only became a part time teacher.

In a communism, your father would not have been allowed to open a small company unless he was granted permission by the government that his services would benifit the nation. Now, what is it your father does?


My mom is very sick and can't afford any insurance because Capitalism says its okay to deny sick people treatment if they don't have money.

Perhaps she cannot afford it now because she didn't invest in insurance when she was advised to: You're supposed to invest at age 22, when medical claims you as no longer dependant. As SOON as you start a family, you need to insure. As SOON as you have children, you need to set up funds. Not doing so is selfish and foolish.


So no, it really doesn't benefit EVERYONE I know. But like I said above, it is better in practice than communism, we've seen what a disaster that is)

Its not a disaster. Your family just choose not to use it to their advantage. I'm sorry, but there is no reason capitalism would just screw someone over. It's a big world out there- an economic theory doesn't have the time to stop, fuck you in the ass and call it a day.

[Batgirl]

(


Its not a disaster. Your family just choose not to use it to their advantage. I'm sorry, but there is no reason capitalism would just screw someone over. It's a big world out there- an economic theory doesn't have the time to stop, fuck you in the ass and call it a day.


1) Stop taking this thread off topic. If you want to debate on Capitalism vs Communism start your own thread.

2) I said Communism was a disaster pay attetion.

I'm not responding to the rest of that post because I absolutely refuse in taking this topic farther off track than it all ready has. No where in your post did you even mention gay marriage.


Recently the Daily Show had a little blip on a Family that moved to "The Gayest Neighborhood of the The Gayest City on earth" and pretty much wanted everyone in the entire neighborhood to tone it down. This included not being so flamboyant with events like the Pride Parade.

Thoughts?

[McCorvic Sucks]

Recently the Daily Show had a little blip on a Family that moved to "The Gayest Neighborhood of the The Gayest City on earth" and pretty much wanted everyone in the entire neighborhood to tone it down. This included not being so flamboyant with events like the Pride Parade.

Thoughts?

Yea, I saw that. What an idiot/tool. He was probably a capitalist too. :)

[Gabi Star]

1) Stop taking this thread off topic. If you want to debate on Capitalism vs Communism start your own thread.

2) I said Communism was a disaster pay attetion.

I'm not responding to the rest of that post because I absolutely refuse in taking this topic farther off track than it all ready has. No where in your post did you even mention gay marriage.

I'm sorry, but this is the pot calling the kettle black.

But because you requested it, here:
http://voiceactingalliance.com/board/showthread.php?t=14870

And to prevent me from offending you by going off topic again, then here. Gay Marriage. Yay! Now it's relivant!

[Batgirl]

I'm sorry, but this is the pot calling the kettle black.

But because you requested it, here:
http://voiceactingalliance.com/board/showthread.php?t=14870

And to prevent me from offending you by going off topic again, then here. Gay Marriage. Yay! Now it's relivant!

No need to be a bitch.

[Gabi Star]

No need to be a bitch.

Please don't take this board off topic.

A note to other people:
Anyone wondering why those who voted against gay marriage haven't spoken up yet? XD

[Moose]

Anyone wondering why those who voted against gay marriage haven't spoken up yet? XD
Because if they did, they would be flamed unmercifully, and would create a vast amount of enemies. I really don't care if they think that way, because that's their choice. When someone has a somewhat abnormal opinion, no one will let them live it down until they say they are sorry for not conforming to the majority opinion. If I were them, I wouldn't post here either. I've seen it many times before, not just here, but many other forums too.

[Gabi Star]

Because if they did, they would be flamed unmercifully, and would create a vast amount of enemies. I really don't care if they think that way, because that's their choice. When someone has a somewhat abnormal opinion, no one will let them live it down until they say they are sorry for not conforming to the majority opinion. If I were them, I wouldn't post here either. I've seen it many times before, not just here, but many other forums too.

Trust me, I understand. I was dumb enough to post some of my opinions here just to attempt a "Devils Advocate" role. I got reamed!

[Batgirl]

Because if they did, they would be flamed unmercifully, and would create a vast amount of enemies. I really don't care if they think that way, because that's their choice. When someone has a somewhat abnormal opinion, no one will let them live it down until they say they are sorry for not conforming to the majority opinion. If I were them, I wouldn't post here either. I've seen it many times before, not just here, but many other forums too.

People shouldn't have to be afraid of being flamed in a debate thread. Its the people that take things too personally that you gotta watch out for though.

Personally, I'd LIKE to hear someone intelligently defend banning gay marriage in the constitution. The only views I've heard thus far is "OMG THE BIBLE SAYS ITS BAD", somewhere, someone has to have a more intelligent argument against it.


New York Times had an article in which they were posting the rather humorous reasoning some states have banned gay marriage.

New York, for example, banned gay marriage because same sex couples have more stable relationships than hetero couples, and that it is impossible for them to have children without planning in advance. Because of their stability, they don't NEED to get married.

Personally, I think its funny, but some people ACTUALLY believe that.

[Cheshire]

As far as I'm concerned, love is love, plain and simple, and if two people want to get married, they should be able to, regardless of gender or anything else. *shrug*

[Justin Parr]

Personally, I'd LIKE to hear someone intelligently defend banning gay marriage in the constitution. The only views I've heard thus far is "OMG THE BIBLE SAYS ITS BAD", somewhere, someone has to have a more intelligent argument against it.

Nobody else has said anything against allowing gay marriage?? Yikes... Pressure...

As you may have guessed, I disagree with homosexuality. At the same time, I am in no way homophobic. I have several friends who are gay, and I don't treat them any differently than straight people. So don't flame me calling me a homophobe.

Back to the topic of banning gay marriage, I agree with it. Gay marriage goes against what I believe to be one of the main purposes of marriage: Reproduction. Gay marriage could also mess with the upbringing of children. For example, a child is adopted by two gay men and grows up without a mother figure. This could have a negative effect on how the child turns out.

If anyone is offended by this, or I just sound plain stupid, forgive me. It is 4 in the morning and I need some sleep. Btw Batgirl, I hope this was at least a LITTLE more intelligent than "OMG THE BIBLE SAYS ITS BAD!"

[Amby Leigh]

If a women can’t have children, she’s can still get married, can’t she? Same thing goes for a man. If he’s shooting blanks, he can still get married. They can’t reproduce offspring in the relationship, but they’re still aloud to marry. So, if reproduction is what marriage is all about, I guess that means that infertile men and women must have to be banned from married as well?

And answer me this… what is better. A child living with two men that care for and love it? Or child living with in a home where there mother and father beat them? Don’t take that as me saying that that gay couples automatically don’t beat their kids, anyone could, but just because a kid grows up with two moms or two dads doesn’t mean that kid is gonna messed up in the head. That kid that has the abusive parents is the one that’s gonna be messed up. Show me the PROOF that a kid with gay parents means they are gonna be messed up.

Yes marriage is about reproduction, but that's not ALL it's about. It's also about love, commitment, family.

[Batgirl]

First Off Justin, I want to give you major props for posting your opinions in an intelligent way in a thread that has been pretty much entirely of the opposite opinion. I also believe you when you say you aren't a homophobe.


Now I guess it starts by how we are defining marriage. In the context of this debate, I define "marriage" as the federal/state recognition of the joining of two people into a family unity, and the granting of certain benefits upon them as such. (As opposed to Marriage being the Christian Ceremony).

I fully believe that the Church (as an entity) has the right to be against gay marriage, to say its against their doctrine, and even, if they wish, to believe to be "evil". (I know this isn't what you were saying) They also shouldn't be FORCED to perform gay marriages if they don't desire to.

The State on the other hand, has to be impartial when it comes to the religious factors in it.

You said that the government should ban gay marriages for 2 reasons. 1) Gay couples can't reproduce (together), and 2) It could have a harmful upbringing for a child.

In Christian Doctrine, you are only supposed to have sex with the intent of reproducing. However, it is not the sole reason for marriage (from what I remember, I've studied a LOT of religions @_@). If the state were to get involved with Marriage being a reason to reproduce only, what about couples who choose not to have children? Or, as Amby said, couples that are infertile (one way or another). They are still allowed to love one another, and express that love by joining for life. And they have the right to have that joining recognized by the government.

Your second reason is that there could be problems with bringing up a child. Well, I know ex-convicts get married. Thats certainly as much of as "risk factor" as being a homosexual when it comes to giving a child a proper upbringing. But they are still allowed to marry. Or men with history of abusing their wives/children. They're allowed to get married again, in fact, I believe in some states they are allowed to have children again, and keep them. What about poor people? Surely they can't provide as good an upbringing as a wealthier family, should they be prevented from marrying as well? The problem is that its a slippery slope.

You say that the child will grow up without a mother figure, (or father figure if its two women), but thats not necessarily true, just because a person isn't the correct gender, doesn't mean they can't, necessarily, fill the role of that gender. I believe a gay man could easily fill the "mother role" in a family unit, or that a lesbian female could fill a "father role". Its more dependant upon personality and the role they play in raising a child than it is upon actual gender. And, single men and women are allowed to adopt children. They obviously can only fulfill one role or the other (though many try to fill both), should they no longer be allowed to be parents?

It would be raising the child in an awkward social climate, that is true. The child wouldn't have a "normal" family like many of the kids at school. But in some places its still very much looked down upon to be of mixed races. Should the marriage of inter-racial couples also be banned?


Obviously, its all a really tricky area. None of this that I've said is really black and white. The problem is, once you start going down that road, what is to prevent you from going farther? Once the government starts banning marriage for one group of people, many of the same arguments can be used on other groups of people. Which is why I believe the government needs to allow it and not get involved in a predominantly religious issue.

[Queen Anime 99]

Nobody else has said anything against allowing gay marriage?? Yikes... Pressure...

As you may have guessed, I disagree with homosexuality. At the same time, I am in no way homophobic. I have several friends who are gay, and I don't treat them any differently than straight people. So don't flame me calling me a homophobe.

Back to the topic of banning gay marriage, I agree with it. Gay marriage goes against what I believe to be one of the main purposes of marriage: Reproduction. Gay marriage could also mess with the upbringing of children. For example, a child is adopted by two gay men and grows up without a mother figure. This could have a negative effect on how the child turns out.

If anyone is offended by this, or I just sound plain stupid, forgive me. It is 4 in the morning and I need some sleep. Btw Batgirl, I hope this was at least a LITTLE more intelligent than "OMG THE BIBLE SAYS ITS BAD!"
Okay, I'm not trying to start anything with you, but how can you disagree with homosexuality? I have gay friends too, and all of them have told me that they've just always been that way. I believe that homosexuality may be a genetic thing. How could you be against something that can't be controlled? It's like saying you are against people born without legs.

About the marriage thing: Not all couples who get married have sex or have children. Some people are even sterile. The reason gay people want to get married is because they want to have rights. They want to be able to visit their lover when their lover is sick in the hospital. They want to be able to have their lover's things after they die. You would want the same thing for yourself, wouldn't you? So why would you want to deny another person of those rights? (Sorry if I sound harsh. I just wanna make you think about gay marriage from another point of view)

Also, I don't know what children have to do with gay marriage, but your comments about gay parents and their children scared the crap out of me. Most of the children of gay parents, like "regular" parents, do not experience any "negative effects". There are many gay couples who end up having bright, open-minded children. And I should know as one of my best friends has two dads and she rocks so hard. ^_^ And, you could also say that children of single parents could be negatively effected, too @_@ (A father/mother figure can be easily arranged: Opposite sex friend(s) of parents, coach, pastor, etc.). You might want to read a little more about gay parents and their families. Oh yeah, and your argument was way better than the standard "the bible said it's wrong" argument. ^_^

[caejones]

Okay, I'm not trying to start anything with you, but how can you disagree with homosexuality? I have gay friends too, and all of them have told me that
they've just always been that way. I believe that homosexuality may be a genetic thing. How could you be against something that can't be controlled? It's
like saying you are against people born without legs.

If genes are meant to compose humans in ways that fulfill natural needs and goals, then a genetic explanation for homosexuality would be a defect. Though I don't believe anyone who says that they're born gay. That makes little sense to me.
That said. I have nothing against gay marriage. Love is love no matter who it's between. The morality of what goes on inside that love could be questioned, but the basic concept of romantic involvement between people of the same gender isn't going to hurt anyone. There's no threat, and the only argument I've heard against gay marriage is that it is apparently wrong. You know, what _does_ the Bible say about this? Perhaps I should read more from Paul?
I'm not gay, I'm not atheist, and I'm not against gay marriage. *Decides to start a checklist of personal views*

[Batgirl]

Okay, I'm not trying to start anything with you, but how can you disagree with homosexuality? I have gay friends too, and all of them have told me that they've just always been that way. I believe that homosexuality may be a genetic thing. How could you be against something that can't be controlled? It's like saying you are against people born without legs.


While I'm not against homosexuality, it is entirely possible to be "against" something that is genetic. You can be "against" the fact that people who are homosexual, instead of trying to "fight" it, or live their life as they "Should", instead embrace it and "choose" to live life on their own terms (as opposed to, for example, gods, or society's).

There are reasons to believe that being overweight has many genetic factors, but people still make the lives of overweight people in our country living hell (they don't think to take into account what said fat person's lifestyle may actually be like). So its sort of a less-severe parallel of rationale there.

So, while it might not make sense to you personally (or to me), there is a rationale behind it.

[Autumn]

I did a persuasive speech against the discrimination of homosexuality, and my teacher had me touch in this area quite a bit.

There have been some very good points made here, I think, on both sides of the argument.

However, I'm all for gay marriage. What I don't understand is... why are people so afraid of letting it happen? I mean, despite the whole, "God doesn't like it" thing. But in the books of Judea in the Bible, where it was proclaimed that being gay is a sin it also claimed several other things as sins that people in our society overlook or don't acknowledge anymore.

But anyway, back to my original train of thought... why are people so afraid of letting this happen? I mean, it's not part of their lives. Do they go up to other people, straight people, and tell them what they can and cannot do in their sex/marital lives? "YOU ARE FORBIDDEN TO TRY THAT POSITION BECAUSE IT IS AN ABOMINATION." Or, "YOU CAN'T MARRY HER BECAUSE SHE'S CATHOLIC AND YOU'RE PROTESTANT."

Or is it just the whole, people repulsed by seeing the couple together in public? Because they're gonna do that anyway. It doesn't matter if they get married or not, you're still going to see it out in public.

The other day my Grandma was talking about this lesbian woman she used to know, and how horrible she was. She was totally trashing gay/lesbian relationships, when in reality, it wasn't that the girl was a lesbian, she was bad because she screwed up her life by sleeping with married women and jumping from woman to woman. How is this different than if you're a woman sleeping with a married man? Or jumping from man to man and sleeping with them?

Earlier in the thread, Akerin mentioned something about how it would be nice to have the benefits of a married couple. Yes, it would be very, very horrible if my lover was dying and I couldn't even see them. Don't you think you'd be sad? I mean... homosexuals are just like heterosexuals when it comes to the emotional part of the relationship. The only thing different is the body parts.

Also, Amby Leigh said it would be nice to have some actual GOOD AND REASONABLE excuses for banning gay marriage. And I'm going to have to second this, because it's just not right that they can come up with these... unintelligent, horrible excuses and people can just go along with it.

I'm sorry if this is really... scattered around. But it's hard for me to organize my thoughts sometimes. I'm done, though. =D

EDIT:


Okay, I'm not trying to start anything with you, but how can you disagree with homosexuality? I have gay friends too, and all of them have told me that they've just always been that way. I believe that homosexuality may be a genetic thing. How could you be against something that can't be controlled? It's like saying you are against people born without legs.

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html

[Clintykins]

I don't understand how anyone can say they have lots of gay friends, yet is against gay marriage. Wouldn't you want your friends to have the same benefits and feelings of acceptance as you receive? There are many heterosexual couples who get married with no desire to ever have children. And just look at the divorce rates. Sure, marriage as a whole is religious, but in a country that is supposedly free, it seems we're driven by our belief systems. I know countless people who are not religious yet still marry. Why should they be given the opportunity and I not?

Obviously, since there are so many people against gay marriage, the solution is to create legal unions that give the same benefits for marriage to homosexual couples, but under a different label. I mean, if Christians are going to be so nit-picky and selfish, just slap a new name on it and let us have it, God damnit!

And Autumn, you rock. <3

[Tony]

IWhy should they be given the opportunity and I not?]

It's not because you're gay. I'm straight, and I can't marry a man either. :-P

[Batgirl]

Obviously, since there are so many people against gay marriage, the solution is to create legal unions that give the same benefits for marriage to homosexual couples, but under a different label. I mean, if Christians are going to be so nit-picky and selfish, just slap a new name on it and let us have it, God damnit!


I agree, like I've said before, if the church doesn't want to perform marriage ceremonies thats fine. But homosexual couples should have the same rights as hetero couples hands down.

Heres the thing I really don't get, which autumn touched on.

Okay, why is it like, the holy war over gay marriage? What about pedophiles? Murderers? Prostitutes? Eating red meat on friday? Why is it that being against Gay marriage is the only way to "prove" your a good christian?

Okay, if you really are super christian, and you REALLY believe the homosexuals are going to hell. Why is it your place, as a god fearing christian to prevent these couples from being married? Is God going to blame you personally if homosexuals are permitted to marry in america?

And if it IS your place to do that, if you WILL be punished for "allowing" it to happen, well you're sorta screwed then aren't you? Because that means you need to stop everyone in the world from having oral and anal sex. Don't forget beastiality, that still happens. And murder? yeah why isn't there some ultimate war against murderers???? wouldn't you be a better christian if you brought peace to a country than prevented a large amount of people from getting married?

That is probably THE biggest part of the christian-anti-gay-marriage defence I just don't get. ><

[Moose]

And if it IS your place to do that, if you WILL be punished for "allowing" it to happen, well you're sorta screwed then aren't you? Because that means you need to stop everyone in the world from having oral and anal sex. Don't forget beastiality, that still happens. And murder? yeah why isn't there some ultimate war against murderers???? wouldn't you be a better christian if you brought peace to a country than prevented a large amount of people from getting married?
Well, for oral and anal sex, you can't really make sex illegal because it's hard to determine whether or not someone had sex unless someone confessed or something. The only thing the church could really do is refuse to marry non-virgins or something, and I have no idea how they'd do that. For all the other stuff you mentioned, it's already illegal, and doesn't really need christian support. Gay marriage, however, is something the christian church has major influence over, and something that isn't illegal yet. That's why they are putting all of their support against gay marriage. They could put their support behind the other stuff, but it would really be wasted because they don't really have any say in it.

(Batgirl, I'm not disagreeing with you really, I'm just expressing what most Christians believe)

Actually, if you've ever watched christian television, they rarely talk about gay marriage, in fact, the only time I've ever heard it mentioned negatively was with Bill Keller (and he's just a douche). They usually talk more about terrorism, the war in iraq and how it's good/bad, marijuana every once in a while, how god created earth, and abortion. I don't think they are really against gays, they just don't want gays to be married under a christian church. Yet, there are the idiots who take it too far and say "BEING GAY IS WRONG RABBLE RABBLE!". In fact, I think I remember seeing a nun who said that those saying gays will burn in hell are sinners for trying to judge someone and do Gods work. I've watched at least 24 hours of christian television this month, so I would know my share of christian television.

Yea, I'm not against Gay Marriage, but that's why I believe Christians are mostly against gay marriage. Wow I'm tired, so sorry if that didn't make too much sense :-D

[Queen Anime 99]

If genes are meant to compose humans in ways that fulfill natural needs and goals, then a genetic explanation for homosexuality would be a defect. Though I don't believe anyone who says that they're born gay. That makes little sense to me.
That said. I have nothing against gay marriage. Love is love no matter who it's between. The morality of what goes on inside that love could be questioned, but the basic concept of romantic involvement between people of the same gender isn't going to hurt anyone. There's no threat, and the only argument I've heard against gay marriage is that it is apparently wrong. You know, what _does_ the Bible say about this? Perhaps I should read more from Paul?
I'm not gay, I'm not atheist, and I'm not against gay marriage. *Decides to start a checklist of personal views*
Hello. Thanks for replying to my message. Um, I do not understand why you wouldn't believe that anyone is born gay. How would that not make any sense. Please explain. I have gay friends and they have all told me that they have always been that way. Many have completely different backgrounds and personalities which means that I don't think them being gay has anything to do with "nurture." I mean, my friends can't help who they are attracted to. It's natural to them and that is why I believe that it is a natural and genetic thing. But, it is good that you are so open-minded. ^_^

[Queen Anime 99]

While I'm not against homosexuality, it is entirely possible to be "against" something that is genetic. You can be "against" the fact that people who are homosexual, instead of trying to "fight" it, or live their life as they "Should", instead embrace it and "choose" to live life on their own terms (as opposed to, for example, gods, or society's).

There are reasons to believe that being overweight has many genetic factors, but people still make the lives of overweight people in our country living hell (they don't think to take into account what said fat person's lifestyle may actually be like). So its sort of a less-severe parallel of rationale there.

So, while it might not make sense to you personally (or to me), there is a rationale behind it.
Thank you for replying to my message. I understand where you are coming from. Yes, I believe that it is possible to be against something that is genetic. However, I think it's kind of...sad. ^_^

[Batgirl]

I don't think they are really against gays, they just don't want gays to be married under a christian church.



But if that were actually the case, then they wouldn't need any Government intervention. Defining marriage in the constitution as a union between a man and a woman, doesn't affect the way the church is run now. If the government were to define (on a Federal level) Marriage to be between two human beings (regardless of gender), it STILL wouldn't REQUIRE churches to perform gay ceremonies.

For example, right now a Catholic Church can refuse to marry two people if one is a Catholic and one is Protestant, as it is against their beliefs. (and some Churches DO choose to refuse them), BUT two people of different faiths CAN be married by the government (say City Hall) and recieve the same legal benefits and right as heterosexual couples. In my belief, it should be the same for homosexuals. The Church shouldn't be forced to do anything against their beliefs, but that doesn't mean the government needs to force their beliefs upon the entire country either. >>

Which is why I still don't understand the anti-gay-christian standpoint.

[Autumn]

Can gays get married in Vegas? =D

[Batgirl]

Marriage isn't a government thing... It's like Band-Aid vs Bandages, or Xacto knife vs Box cutter... not all bandages are band-aids... not all box cutters are xacto knives, and so on.

Marriage is a, specifically, religious ritual. I think the reason people are all in a tiffy, is because in a sense, the government would indeed be intruding on the church by changing a religious definition.


Then why don't they define a "Christian Marriage" as between a man and a woman (though why the Church needs the government to define THEIR tenants in the constitution is beyond me, we don't have "honor thy mother and thy father" in there. ><) and offer a non-religiously-affiliated-alternative for the homosexuals?

Then the only real problem with having the "Christian Marriage" amendment would be that no christian churches would be allowed to perform homosexual ceremonies weather they wanted to or not.

[HyperFaerie]

I dunno if it's been said in here yet or not but:

Gay people should be allowed to marry. Let them be as miserable as the rest of the married population <3 :luv

[Tony]

Marriage is a, specifically, religious ritual. I think the reason people are all in a tiffy, is because in a sense, the government would indeed be intruding on the church by changing a religious definition.

This debate has nothing to do with the religious component of marriage, it has to do with the civil component of marriage. Religions are free to marry whomever and whatever they want, but since marriage is also a legal process, one must get married in a civil capacity as well as a religious one.

[Taryn]

Then the only real problem with having the "Christian Marriage" amendment would be that no christian churches would be allowed to perform homosexual ceremonies weather they wanted to or not.

Uh...I think the REAL problem would be the fact that that would be a blatant violation of the separation of church and state.

[caejones]

I think the separation of Church and state bit is the point she's trying to get across? I can't say much else than to agree with most of what Batgirl has said.



As for why I don't think someone can be "born gay", it doesn't seem natural. If we're going to argue that sex is naturally supposed to be pleasant because it encourages reproduction, then wouldn't it make sense that naturally everyone would be turned toward the opposite sex, since otherwise would discourage reproduction? So by this logic, if someone is "born gay", then their design would contradict itself, wouldn't it?

But the human personality is basically a chaotic system (Ok, maybe that isn't the right term), with too many influences to truly narrow down, so I'm not going to argue against the possibility that people from different backgrounds can have something in their personality early on that leads to them being gay (but to say that they're always that way is weird; are we saying that they were attracted to men in gradeschool? I find that highly disturbing...).

[Tom]

As for why I don't think someone can be "born gay", it doesn't seem natural. If we're going to argue that sex is naturally supposed to be pleasant because it encourages reproduction, then wouldn't it make sense that naturally everyone would be turned toward the opposite sex, since otherwise would discourage reproduction? So by this logic, if someone is "born gay", then their design would contradict itself, wouldn't it?

People reproduce because people like having sex. People like having sex because it feels good so they will keep having it and keep make more babies. That is sexual dynamics. Sexual PREFERENCE is something completely different. Sexual preference is not a biological result--it is a personal attribute; varying from person to person. Just because penises are resproductively meant to go into vaginas doesn't mean that a person will automatically prefer this type of sexual activity.

In today's time of advanced human awareness, people have sex because they LIKE sex--having sex to make babies is now optional.


(but to say that they're always that way is weird; are we saying that they were attracted to men in gradeschool? I find that highly disturbing...).

Why is it weird? Because YOU'RE not like that? Perhaps it's because you choose not to look at things objectively.

If little girls and little boys can be attracted to each other in grade school, then why can't a boy share the same attraction for another boy? What is so disturbing about that? That's the way they ARE.

Is it disturbing because the phenomenon itself speaks against everything you hope is true? If you were objective enough to understand both sides of the picture, it probably wouldn't bother you at ALL.

[Icypopcorn]

About the born gay thing-- I personally think being gay is something that develops, not a genetic thing. Just like you can't be born skitzo (sp?), or any other mental disorder (BEFORE YOU FLAME ME, I'M NOT SAYING THAT BEING GAY IS A MENTAL DISORDER. But it IS something mental) There might be some genetic in it, but I think something like that is something that develops, IMO.

As for the actual topic, I just say, hey, why not gay marriage. Honestly, no matter how mean and cruel this sounds, I really could care less, because it has nothing to do with me. But at the same time I think it's sort of unfair to gay people that they don't get the same rights to the one they love as people who love ones of the opposite gender. 'love' and 'sexual attraction' are often mixed up. Now, okay, it isn't natural (the sexual attraction bit). But if that's what some people want to do, let them. It's not their fault they're gay, whether they like it or not. It's not like you wake up one morning and decide, 'Hey, I think I'll be gay!' just like, previously mentioned, you don't just go 'Hey, today, I'll be bipolar!' I would absolutely hate to not be able to be married to and spend my life with the one I do love because of a law.
It's not like the world's underpopulated or anything. /: And seriously, if gay marriage is banned, that'll just prove all the more that America's a freaking Christain country.

[Clintykins]

I think the separation of Church and state bit is the point she's trying to get across? I can't say much else than to agree with most of what Batgirl has said.



As for why I don't think someone can be "born gay", it doesn't seem natural. If we're going to argue that sex is naturally supposed to be pleasant because it encourages reproduction, then wouldn't it make sense that naturally everyone would be turned toward the opposite sex, since otherwise would discourage reproduction? So by this logic, if someone is "born gay", then their design would contradict itself, wouldn't it?

But the human personality is basically a chaotic system (Ok, maybe that isn't the right term), with too many influences to truly narrow down, so I'm not going to argue against the possibility that people from different backgrounds can have something in their personality early on that leads to them being gay (but to say that they're always that way is weird; are we saying that they were attracted to men in gradeschool? I find that highly disturbing...).

I actually had crushes on boys since I was in first grade, thank you. And "natural" is a word that can be depicted in various ways. I mean, oral sex is not natural, but I'm positive you would be pushing your significant other to go down on you one day. But, OMFG, it doesn't make babies! I believe "natural" is a word that could only be compared to "normal." Intelligent people know that there is no such thing as "normal," and as such, there should be no "natural." Is it natural to find babies sexually attractive? Is it natural for a boy to want to play with Barbie dolls? Is it natural for someone to eat McDonalds twenty seven times a week? I mean, natural is a perspective word. So, you can't have babies from gay sex. What about all the straight couples that don't want to have any children. Ever.

I believe, like Tom said, sexual preference is just that. Preference. My preferring to date men is like my favorite color being purple. Or my favorite junk food being pretzels. Is it biological? Probably. You can choose to hide your homosexuality all you want and try to sleep with the opposite sex, but why would you want to live a life where you will never be happy?

[Tony]

I believe "natural" is a word that could only be compared to "normal." Intelligent people know that there is no such thing as "normal," and as such, there should be no "natural."

Actually, normal is what is most common, while natural is what occurs without external influence. Therefore, you are naturally gay, but being gay is not normal.

[Queen Anime 99]

Quote by Caejones

I think the separation of Church and state bit is the point she's trying to get across? I can't say much else than to agree with most of what Batgirl has said.

As for why I don't think someone can be "born gay", it doesn't seem natural. If we're going to argue that sex is naturally supposed to be pleasant because it encourages reproduction, then wouldn't it make sense that naturally everyone would be turned toward the opposite sex, since otherwise would discourage reproduction? So by this logic, if someone is "born gay", then their design would contradict itself, wouldn't it?

But the human personality is basically a chaotic system (Ok, maybe that isn't the right term), with too many influences to truly narrow down, so I'm not going to argue against the possibility that people from different backgrounds can have something in their personality early on that leads to them being gay (but to say that they're always that way is weird; are we saying that they were attracted to men in gradeschool? I find that highly disturbing...).

Hey, caejones. Thanks for replying. Um, who has argued that the reason sex is pleasant is because of reproduction? That's not why sex is pleasant! It's because of friggin' hormones, and nerves, and friction and stuff.

Also, I do not believe that we are only here to reproduce. I mean not only does everyone NOT want to reproduce (I do not want children, for example), but everyone CAN'T reproduce. Some people do not even want to have sex! The reason I believe that people are born gay is the same reason I believe that I was born straight: It's just an attraction thing! I can't explain why I'm attracted to men, I just am! It seems very similar to gay people. They are just attracted to the same sex. It's natural to them.

Also, most toddlers aren't sexually attracted to anyone. Most of my gay friends have said that they felt they were attracted to the same sex between the ages of 9 to 12. That was kind of a silly comment, dude.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote by IcyPopcorn

About the born gay thing-- I personally think being gay is something that develops, not a genetic thing. Just like you can't be born skitzo (sp?), or any other mental disorder (BEFORE YOU FLAME ME, I'M NOT SAYING THAT BEING GAY IS A MENTAL DISORDER. But it IS something mental) There might be some genetic in it, but I think something like that is something that develops, IMO.

As for the actual topic, I just say, hey, why not gay marriage. Honestly, no matter how mean and cruel this sounds, I really could care less, because it has nothing to do with me. But at the same time I think it's sort of unfair to gay people that they don't get the same rights to the one they love as people who love ones of the opposite gender. 'love' and 'sexual attraction' are often mixed up. Now, okay, it isn't natural (the sexual attraction bit). But if that's what some people want to do, let them. It's not their fault they're gay, whether they like it or not. It's not like you wake up one morning and decide, 'Hey, I think I'll be gay!' just like, previously mentioned, you don't just go 'Hey, today, I'll be bipolar!' I would absolutely hate to not be able to be married to and spend my life with the one I do love because of a law.
It's not like the world's underpopulated or anything. /: And seriously, if gay marriage is banned, that'll just prove all the more that America's a freaking Christain country.


Hey, Icy. I'm majoring in psychology (I only took beginner's so far ^_^;), but schizophrenia is sort of a genetic thing. Some people have a higher chance of later becoming schizophrenic if close family members were or are schizophrenic. I think I read somewhere that it can be like a dormant gene and that it could be triggered by a bad childhood, stress, trauma, etc. I still don't know how you could "develop" homosexuality...^_^;

And about homosexuality being natural: It's actually quite natural for straight people to occasionally be attracted to the same sex. There are also a lot of animal species/groups who engage in homosexual acts. I remember reading about this one ram (?) group (I'm sorry, my animal vocabulary is very low ^_^) which it was normal for the males to have sex with one another. The male rams who didn't want to have sex were shunned away and we forced to hang out with the female rams. ^_^ Icy, it's very very hard to say what is natural or not. What may be natural or normal to one person, may not be natural or normal to someone else. And looking at this from a deeper point of view: In some (human) societies, they are/were actually accepting of homosexual or transgender people (some societies even see/saw gay, trans, or intersexed [people with ambiguous genitalia] people as communicators between the Gods or special beings, etc.) and in some societies, homosexual behavior is even encouraged. I could go on and on, but you know what I'm talking about. ^_^

[Icypopcorn]

Hey, Icy. I'm majoring in psychology (I only took beginner's so far ^_^;), but schizophrenia is sort of a genetic thing. Some people have a higher chance of later becoming schizophrenic if close family members were or are schizophrenic. I think I read somewhere that it can be like a dormant gene and that it could be triggered by a bad childhood, stress, trauma, etc. I still don't know how you could "develop" homosexuality...^_^;

And about homosexuality being natural: It's actually quite natural for straight people to occasionally be attracted to the same sex. There are also a lot of animal species/groups who engage in homosexual acts. I remember reading about this one ram (?) group (I'm sorry, my animal vocabulary is very low ^_^) which it was normal for the males to have sex with one another. The male rams who didn't want to have sex were shunned away and we forced to hang out with the female rams. ^_^ Icy, it's very very hard to say what is natural or not. What may be natural or normal to one person, may not be natural or normal to someone else. And looking at this from a deeper point of view: In some (human) societies, they are/were actually accepting of homosexual or transgender people (some societies even see/saw gay, trans, or intersexed [people with ambiguous genitalia] people as communicators between the Gods or special beings, etc.) and in some societies, homosexual behavior is even encouraged. I could go on and on, but you know what I'm talking about. ^_^

Ah, I'm planning to take psychology my senior year and do some of it in college, but then again, I'm barely a freshmen, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. But the people with 'schizo' in their blood still aren't schizo when they're born, and that's what I meant. (Technically, you can't be born gay anyways, because until puberty kicks in you're not really attracted to anybody)
About the whole developing gayness thing, I do not claim to be an expert on homosexuality or homosexuals. I know quite a few bi/les/gay people, and although psychology fascinates me, I never really asked them about it. I mean, WTF, it's not something to ask about. But I know a girl, my best friend actually, who used to be sexually attracted to guys and now is to girls. She could be bi, but she says she isn't really attracted to guys now, and before she wasn't attracted to girls. So the only thing I could think was, well, her sexual preference changed. Dunno, really.

I meant natural as in to us, it's not natural. To us, our society, it's natural for a boy and girl to be together. I'd like to rephrase that and say 'normal', but it's normal to see two girls together or two boys together nowadays, so I can't really say that. BTW, don't relate to other societies. The whole point of this debate is our own and if it's accepted here. ;D Which I do
I do know what you're talking about. And actually, nature gave guys dicks and girls vaginas for a reason, because they were naturally made to go together. /:

[Queen Anime 99]

Ah, I'm planning to take psychology my senior year and do some of it in college, but then again, I'm barely a freshmen, so I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. But the people with 'schizo' in their blood still aren't schizo when they're born, and that's what I meant. (Technically, you can't be born gay anyways, because until puberty kicks in you're not really attracted to anybody)
About the whole developing gayness thing, I do not claim to be an expert on homosexuality or homosexuals. I know quite a few bi/les/gay people, and although psychology fascinates me, I never really asked them about it. I mean, WTF, it's not something to ask about. But I know a girl, my best friend actually, who used to be sexually attracted to guys and now is to girls. She could be bi, but she says she isn't really attracted to guys now, and before she wasn't attracted to girls. So the only thing I could think was, well, her sexual preference changed. Dunno, really.

I meant natural as in to us, it's not natural. To us, our society, it's natural for a boy and girl to be together. I'd like to rephrase that and say 'normal', but it's normal to see two girls together or two boys together nowadays, so I can't really say that. BTW, don't relate to other societies. The whole point of this debate is our own and if it's accepted here. ;D Which I do
I do know what you're talking about. And actually, nature gave guys dicks and girls vaginas for a reason, because they were naturally made to go together. /:
You're taking psychology? That's awesome! Even if you don't major in it, it still helps you with anything you go into. Um, about that "can't be born gay" explanation...that didn't make any sense to me (No offense!). If you're saying that you can't be born gay, that means that you can't be born straight or bisexual either. Which would mean that heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality all "develop" during puberty. Huh? Which means that you "developed" straightness..?. xb I don't know, but I think your sexual orientation is kind of there in the beginning, but then really "opens" during puberty. I dunno, I'm not researching homosexuality; I just go off of some of the stuff I read and my friend's responses (I didn't really ask them anything, they just talk to me. ^_^ You could google and read about the experiences of gay teens...?) However, I agree that some people's (like your friend's possibly) sexual orientation can change throughout life. She could be bi, gay, or straight and just currently attracted to women. But I believe that some people just stay steadfastly attracted to the same sex, the opposite sex, or both. Like you and me. Yeah, I probably shouldn't go into other societies as we are talking about gay marriage in America. ^_^ Um, that dick/vagina comment was kind of...odd. @_@ You could technically bring in other body parts that can fit together, but let's not go into that...^_^;

[Autumn]

Really, I thought I answered this whole, "How gays become" thing a few pages ago.

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice

And just in case we are too lazy to click the link, I shall quote it,

"No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. "

This is not a fifteen year old girl talking, it's teams of experts.

Before jumping into debate, do the research.

Also, for the issues (this has nothing to do with the above, but it's a handy link.):

www.thetaskforce.org

[Tomoe]

Well, aside from being completely atomically incorrect with 1/2 of the genitals you mentioned...

The way I see it, is everyone has varying degrees of sexuality. Some people find themselves attracted to, in different degrees, to people of the same gender.

Why worry about identifying your sexuality? Going with the FLOW man. Give and take whenever you want, and get married to whoever you want.

eta: sorry, but the task force isn't exactly fair and balanced when it comes to this <3

[Queen Anime 99]

Really, I thought I answered this whole, "How gays become" thing a few pages ago.

http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice

And just in case we are too lazy to click the link, I shall quote it,

"No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. "

This is not a fifteen year old girl talking, it's teams of experts.

Before jumping into debate, do the research.

Also, for the issues (this has nothing to do with the above, but it's a handy link.):

www.thetaskforce.org
Um, are you talking to me, Icypopcorn, or both of us?

[Matt Cruea]

Shut up! SHUT UP!

[Queen Anime 99]

Shut up! SHUT UP!
I love you.

[Matt Cruea]

I love you.

I love it when you perpetuate opposite stereotypes!

[Queen Anime 99]

I love it when you perpetuate opposite stereotypes!
WTF are you talking about?

[Dylan Collins]

Shut up! SHUT UP!


To quote Matt Alan, which believe me, it pains me to do.

"Rule Number Three of AVA Club states: When thou hast a stupid opinion...let it go.
Its difficult to keep stupid opinions to yourself, but be more diplomatic when presenting your opinion. No one will take you seriously if you respond with, "Yeah? Well FUCK YOU!!!111!!!! IM RIGHT N UR WROnG!!!", if you have a difference of opinion, express it, but have some consideration for others."

[Matt Cruea]

To quote Matt Alan, which believe me, it pains me to do.

"Rule Number Three of AVA Club states: When thou hast a stupid opinion...let it go.
Its difficult to keep stupid opinions to yourself, but be more diplomatic when presenting your opinion. No one will take you seriously if you respond with, "Yeah? Well FUCK YOU!!!111!!!! IM RIGHT N UR WROnG!!!", if you have a difference of opinion, express it, but have some consideration for others."

Here comes the much ballyhooed Dylan Collins into the scene. What, did Queen Anime 99 ALSO maybe, kind of, possibly show you some female attention? Internet's fun, ain't it?

What I mean, Queen Anime 99, is that you're basically thrusting your opinion of gay marriage over this person's opinion, which is what happened in the Atheism thread betwixt you and I. The reverse stereotype comes from you thrusting the leftist view upon a righty.

[Clintykins]

DYLAN COLLINS, YOU'RE BANNED FOR GOING OFF TOPIC.

*bukkake on donkey cong*

[Dylan Collins]

I dunno who queen anime is. Is she hot?
I was looking for female attention from you, matt!

Ok, I'm leaving the thread now, as I have nothing to add to this.

[caejones]

Wow, the time it took to post created two new pages... let's see what I can do...





People reproduce because people like having sex. People like having sex because it feels good so they will keep having it and keep make more babies. That
is sexual dynamics. Sexual PREFERENCE is something completely different. Sexual preference is not a biological result--it is a personal attribute; varying
from person to person. Just because penises are resproductively meant to go into vaginas doesn't mean that a person will automatically prefer this type
of sexual activity.

That's basically what I was trying to say, I just took a different means of getting there.


Why is it weird? Because YOU'RE not like that? Perhaps it's because you choose not to look at things objectively.
If little girls and little boys can be attracted to each other in grade school, then why can't a boy share the same attraction for another boy? What is
so disturbing about that? That's the way they ARE.
Is it disturbing because the phenomenon itself speaks against everything you hope is true? If you were objective enough to understand both sides of the
picture, it probably wouldn't bother you at ALL.

Is it disturbing because the phenomenon itself speaks against everything you hope is true?
No. But let's go on before I try to explain (Because I'm bad at explaining as it is. ^^).
you were objective enough to understand both sides of the
picture, it probably wouldn't bother you at ALL.
Know you this: understanding both sides of the picture is always my goal. I am all for true understanding, and taht doesn't come out of narrow mindedness. (Though in this context I don't see "objective" as being synonimous with "open-minded").
It's disturbing because if a preference is to be called a sexual preference, then it would make sense that the individuals would be sexually capable--anything before that would be based on social and personal ideas. The point I'm trying to make isn't very solid, I guess; basically, the distinction is in what is called gay, as opposed to a person's personality, although they are certainly connected, I think saying that one was always gay is a bit of a stretch.
(Everything you hope is true? Hmm. What do I hope is true... hard to tell for me, so I don't see why it should be any easier for anyone else to figure out what I "hope is true".)


I actually had crushes on boys since I was in first grade, thank you.
That isn't the point I was trying to make. Crushes and sexual atraction are different, at least as I see it.


And "natural" is a word that can be depicted in various ways. I mean, oral sex is
not natural, but I'm positive you would be pushing your significant other to go down on you one day. But, OMFG, it doesn't make babies!
And I believe my sexual preference is "Get it the hell away from me". Sex is meant to make babies. Humans have developed more since that function was installed, so that's not why people do it anymore. Am I going to flame anyone for not trying to reproduce? Heck no! Would I flame someone for rape? Yes! I think my posts are leaving people with a bad impression of where I stand, which means my communication skills are lacking. Sorry.


I believe "natural"
is a word that could only be compared to "normal." Intelligent people know that there is no such thing as "normal," and as such, there should be no "natural."
As previously stated, natural is what happens without human or societal assistance. There is no normal. Even when I was an arrogant moron who fancied myself smarter than the rest of the world (which I most certainly am not), I knew that normal is a stupid concept.


Is it natural to find babies sexually attractive? Is it natural for a boy to want to play with Barbie dolls? Is it natural for someone to eat McDonalds
twenty seven times a week?
None of those are natural; they are results of the human experience. Good, bad, or otherwise, that's what they are.


I mean, natural is a perspective word. So, you can't have babies from gay sex. What about all the straight couples that don't
want to have any children. Ever.
You seem to be missreading my use of "the natural function of sex is reproduction". Ever heard of mind over matter? Tom is much better at describing the human condition; perhaps I should leave it to him.



I believe, like Tom said, sexual preference is just that. Preference. My preferring to date men is like my favorite color being purple. Or my favorite junk
food being pretzels. Is it biological? Probably. You can choose to hide your homosexuality all you want and try to sleep with the opposite sex, but why
would you want to live a life where you will never be happy?
Oh, I agree with everything here, although I don't think it is biological. That's all I'm trying to say, really. Sorry if I came across as homophobic or something, yeesh. I'm not.


Hey, caejones. Thanks for replying. Um, who has argued that the reason sex is pleasant is because of reproduction? That's not why sex is pleasant! It's
because of friggin' hormones, and nerves, and friction and stuff.
And why are those things in place as they are? Why not randomly connected to a knee or something? I'm not saying that people only have sex to reproduce. I'm saying that's why it is designed to be pleasant.



Also, I do not believe that we are only here to reproduce. I mean not only does everyone NOT want to reproduce (I do not want children, for example), but
everyone CAN'T reproduce. Some people do not even want to have sex!
In eighth grade, we had one of those STD presentations. I immediately doubted the validity of the presentation because of the opening statement: "Your body has one purpose. Do you know what that purpose is? Your body's only purpose is to reproduce.". Wow, then for me, who is one of those people who doesn't want to have sex, life is meaningless isn't it? (A few figures later and I'm convinced that presentation was nothing more than a terror tactic). Like I said, there's this concept called mind over matter, which is that heightened human awareness thing? Hence the fact that everyone isn't out trying to reproduce.



The reason I believe that people are born gay is the same reason I believe that I was
born straight: It's just an attraction thing! I can't explain why I'm attracted to men, I just am! It seems very similar to gay people. They are just attracted
to the same sex. It's natural to them.
I hope that's not the only argument for the "born gay" position. Oh, I completely understand where you're coming from; it's just not a solid argument so much as reason to look for one. (O.O, sorry if this part came across wrong. This is why I'm not a teacher.)


Also, most toddlers aren't sexually attracted to anyone. Most of my gay friends have said that they felt they were attracted to the same sex between the
ages of 9 to 12. That was kind of a silly comment, dude.
That is exactly the point I was trying to make. :P. Clearly I suck at making points.


"No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual
experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be
voluntarily changed. "

I'll buy that, although I will also point out that pannels of experts aren't necessarily unbias, no matter how many degrees they have.
This argument makes sense, but doesn't support homosexuality as being biological. It does support the idea that the influences that result in sexual preferences come about early on. Basically, this quote does no thing to what I or anyone else is saying (unless I missed a post where people said it was a complete choice that someone makes one random day...).

[Matt Cruea]

I am thankfully not a supporter of Dylan Collinization.

I am a supporter of morons not being in the debat forum, Queen Anime 99. I know she didn't even post yet, but I'm just pre-empting her.

[caejones]

I'm not sure who you were refferring to, Matt, but I'm definitely not a righty... not by any stretch of the imagination.

[Chinomi]

Main Entry: retarded

Part of Speech: adjective

Definition: limited

Synonyms: backward, birdbrained, defective, dim, dim-witted, dopey, dull, dumbbell, dumbo, dumdum, dummy, exceptional, feeble-minded, gorked, half-witted, held back, imbecile, lamebrained, mentally defective, moronic, numbskull, opaque, pinhead, retardo, sappy, simple, simple-minded, slow, slow-witted, stupid, subnormal, touched, underachieving, weak, yo-yo

[Matt Cruea]

I'm not sure who you were refferring to, Matt, but I'm definitely not a righty... not by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not even paying attention to you. You're boring.

[Queen Anime 99]

I have no idea what you are trying to say in your first sentence (Are you trying to hint at something sexual or what?). I think it's past your bedtime. Here's what I did: I stated my opinions and actual facts about homosexuality and gay marriage, which I had the right to do. And I did it in a positive, non-insulting matter. Unlike you. And the atheism thread is completely different from this thread. Unfortunately, you had no idea what atheism meant (There are no "opinions." Atheism has an actual, readable, understandable definiton), but you decided to act like you actually knew what it meant. That is why everyone (not just me, smarty pants) agreed that you were wrong. I don't know what you mean by saying that I am thrusting my opinions on righty. How am I thrusting my opinions and who is "righty"? What are you talking about..ever?

[Tomoe]

OMG there are virgins EVERYWHERE in this post. I think that's why they don't want the gays to get married.

[Matt Cruea]

Words.

You're still boring me. Now it's not okay to bring up past arguments, but it was elsewhere?

Your memories of the arguments are hazy at best, anyway. You sat alone in your circle of justice while I led a charge of righteous anti-atheism tanks towards your blown-out hovel, cannon's blazing!

You suck in this forum, Queen Anime 99.

[Nikki Wright]

Mature discussion, boys and girls or I shall be locking this thread! :luv

[caejones]

Awwe, Matt, that hurt. :P.

I'm going to say. The atheism history has no place here. Take your argument to PM? O crap... that sounded like I have authority... which I don't ... I suck at getting involved in fights when I am nothing but a lowly bystander...
The reason I speak of this fight though is because. It ruins debates. Which is annoying.

[Matt Cruea]

You ruined the debate, anyway. You're boring. Thanks for locking, Nikki!