Gay marriage

[got tonkaed]

1000 post...we should let same sex marriages occur.

[Neoteny]

1000 post...we should let same sex marriages occur.

First post of the new thread millennium. Huzzah homosexual marriage. That seals it.

[bbqpenguin]

there is only ever one argument against gay marriage: it's that the Bible says it's not right. of course, using this logic, we should stone prostitutes, women should not be allowed to teach, and noone is allowed to eat lobster.

regardless , in a country where church and state are seperate, what the Bible says and does not say should have nothing to do with our laws. in which case, the prohibition of gay marriage is nothing more than the government telling us what to do, inhibiting our natural rights and OUTLAWING LOVE. i'm not gay and honestly i can't imagine it but no one, ESPECIALLY the government should never, ever, EVER be able to tell you who you can fall in love with and who you can't.

[bradleybadly]

there is only ever one argument against gay marriage: it's that the Bible says it's not right. of course, using this logic, we should stone prostitutes, women should not be allowed to teach, and noone is allowed to eat lobster.

Not true because I've tried to make my views on this known without appealing to classical religious fruitcake arguments. However, what I usually get is a perverted view of law which degrades into people here justifying incest, prostitution, polygamy, or some other nonsense. I've said it many times - you don't change laws based on consent or desire. That's what proponents of same sex marriage are trying to base their arguments on.

Just for the record, if same sex marriage were the same as what civil rights activists did, then they wouldn't be so arrogant. We don't celebrate Malcolm X's birthday but do celebrate MLK's. He was articulate and compassionate, which is really lacking from the same sex marriage people here on CC. Hell, if you guys would stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot and actually listen to our arguments you might actually get more people on your side. Truly tolerant people try to respect and understand people who disagree with their position. That's just a reality. The more you scream "think more about it" the more condescending you guys come off as and just makes people more stubborn from accepting your position.

I listed specific fucking quotes from homosexuals themselves denying that they're born that way. Did Neotony read it, NO! He changed the rules of the discussion and moved it away from genetics. Tonka told me there was so much evidence that my stuff was silly but provided NO quotations.

I gotta be honest enough to admit that part of the problem I have with same sex marriage are the people who support it and they way they demand that they're right and everyone else is wrong.

Here's another thing. I support a woman's right to have an abortion. It's probably one of the things that liberals here would agree with me on. If homosexuality is genetic and they're born that way, then would you support a woman choosing to abort her child if she knew it was going to be gay? It's her choice! Now I don't believe that homosexuals are born that way. There's been nothing conclusive to back up that claim. But obviously since you guys on the left do then that's a dilemma for you.

[Iliad]

there is only ever one argument against gay marriage: it's that the Bible says it's not right. of course, using this logic, we should stone prostitutes, women should not be allowed to teach, and noone is allowed to eat lobster.

Not true because I've tried to make my views on this known without appealing to classical religious fruitcake arguments. However, what I usually get is a perverted view of law which degrades into people here justifying incest, prostitution, polygamy, or some other nonsense. I've said it many times - you don't change laws based on consent or desire. That's what proponents of same sex marriage are trying to base their arguments on.

Just for the record, if same sex marriage were the same as what civil rights activists did, then they wouldn't be so arrogant. We don't celebrate Malcolm X's birthday but do celebrate MLK's. He was articulate and compassionate, which is really lacking from the same sex marriage people here on CC. Hell, if you guys would stop calling everyone who disagrees with you a bigot and actually listen to our arguments you might actually get more people on your side. Truly tolerant people try to respect and understand people who disagree with their position. That's just a reality. The more you scream "think more about it" the more condescending you guys come off as and just makes people more stubborn from accepting your position.

I listed specific fucking quotes from homosexuals themselves denying that they're born that way. Did Neotony read it, NO! He changed the rules of the discussion and moved it away from genetics. Tonka told me there was so much evidence that my stuff was silly but provided NO quotations.

I gotta be honest enough to admit that part of the problem I have with same sex marriage are the people who support it and they way they demand that they're right and everyone else is wrong.

Here's another thing. I support a woman's right to have an abortion. It's probably one of the things that liberals here would agree with me on. If homosexuality is genetic and they're born that way, then would you support a woman choosing to abort her child if she knew it was going to be gay? It's her choice! Now I don't believe that homosexuals are born that way. There's been nothing conclusive to back up that claim. But obviously since you guys on the left do then that's a dilemma for you.

in that scenario it means the woman is shallow, but sure if she wants to do that, that's her choice

And bradley: yes you do change laws based on consent or desire. Times have changed and homosexuality is quite accepted

[bradleybadly]

in that scenario it means the woman is shallow, but sure if she wants to do that, that's her choice

good, at least you're consistent in that case

And bradley: yes you do change laws based on consent or desire. Times have changed and homosexuality is quite accepted

Great news! All the people who consensually bought and sold drugs with each other will be glad to know that you've overturned their sentences. Let's also allow people to consensually drink each other's blood. Consensual public fighting, let's do it! They're only harming themselves. Once again, you don't just change and overturn laws based on consent. You're wrong on this and if you were right, then society would plunge into chaos. It just doesn't stop with homosexuals getting married.

[got tonkaed]

Bradley...what is it like to live your life in fear of things that are quite possibly never going to have any kind of impact on you?

[spurgistan]

Shit, this forum just ate a very nice long post I made. It was very eloquent, and I am not rewriting it because I have work to do and I don't want this forum to make me angry again. Carry on.

[Neoteny]

Shit, this forum just ate a very nice long post I made. It was very eloquent, and I am not rewriting it because I have work to do and I don't want this forum to make me angry again. Carry on.

Sad day. I hate when that happens.

[PLAYER57832]

there is only ever one argument against gay marriage: it's that the Bible says it's not right. of course, using this logic, we should stone prostitutes, women should not be allowed to teach, and noone is allowed to eat lobster.

Not true because I've tried to make my views on this known without appealing to classical religious fruitcake arguments. However, what I usually get is a perverted view of law which degrades into people here justifying incest, prostitution, polygamy, or some other nonsense. I've said it many times - you don't change laws based on consent or desire. That's what proponents of same sex marriage are trying to base their arguments on.

And you conveniently ignore those with more reasonable, middle of the road points, as you conveniently ignore the many, many homosexuals that do NOT match anything close to those picture. That last one actually looked a lot like a Mardis Gras picture -- you know, the big celebration down in those liberal bastions of coastal Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas?

The REAL truth is that you are almost certainly in aquaintance of, working with, neighbors to or otherwise associated with homosexuals without your even realizing. THAT is how "treatening" these individuals are. And the only real "logic" you have put forward to claim they should not be married are thes stereotypical ideas about how harmful "they" will be.

You want to know how I came to feel so strongly about this issue, it has nothing to with being gay or even really liking homosexuality.

You see, I am a woman who used to work in a "non traditional" field. I chose biology because I thought studying wildlife would be more fun than nursing or being a secretary. I grew up on a farm, so I was used to hard work. Where I grew up, most of us farm kids had to help out, prom queens and the rest. Picking up "scat" and digging around for roots didn't seem dirty compared with mucking out stalls and hauling equipment wasn't as hard as hefting hay bales. But, for some reason when I moved from helping my family freely (along with my mom and most of the women in my community ... and a lot of farming communities) to wanting to get paid as much as my male coworkers, I was somehow "not feminine". Strangely, this opinion often arose directly AFTER I had been asked out. After all, what other reason could I have for not wanting to go out with a co-worker. There MUST be something "wrong".

It got so bad I almost ended up losing a job ... because enough idiots believed that any woman who did not mind getting dirty, who might be a bit stronger than average (and smaller, in my case, but never mind that) .. well just HAD to be homosexual. And there is really no way to PROVE you are not. Have a boyfriend? Well you are "bi" or "faking"/trying to "pass".

Ask around, anyone over 40 who worked as I in non traditional fields and you will get similar stories. I was by no means alone.

So, you see, THAT is what is wrong with all these bigoted ideas. THAT is why truth is so important. and THAT is why it is important to ALL of us that folks be allowed to be whomever they are, openly. THAT is why your bigoted ideas DO harm the rest of us.

The REAL truth is that you probably either live next to, work with or are otherwise aquainted with at least one or two homosexuals ... and you don't even know it. Chances are that the one or two you think ARE, are not.

I am a happily married, fully heterosexual female who stays home with her kids, Christian, in a pretty small, pretty conservative town. You accuse me of having a "gay agenda". My REAL agenda? To make world for my son that is just a little less hateful. To make a world in which people can be who they are as long as no one else is hurt.

Folks USED to think that homosexuality DID hurt others... that homosexuals were predators out to get little boys and girls .. that you became homosexual because your parents didn't give you enough of the "right" kind of attention -- mothers who coddled their boys too much made them "sissies". BUT we now know better. Knowing better means we have to DO better.

The reasons why homosexual unions should be recognized by the state are the same as the reasons for recognizing a heterosexual union. The reasons against?
Dislike or hatred of homosexuality. (with one exception -- that being the idea that the state shouldn't recognize any union). You say desire is no reason for a law. Maybe not, but hatred should NEVER be a basis for reasonable laws. When they are, those laws need to be removed as WRONG.

[Neoteny]

Huh. That was a terribly interesting, and particularly depressing story. I'm sorry you have had to deal with that kind of behavior. It's really rather sickening.

[Nobunaga]

... Gay marriage? Who cares? So long as the deal doesn't involve any related "programs" that will steal my money through taxes, live and let live, I say.

...

[bbqpenguin]

... Gay marriage? Who cares? So long as the deal doesn't involve any related "programs" that will steal my money through taxes, live and let live, I say.

...

that's essentially how i feel, though maybe a little over simplified. if two men or women want to get married, why the hell should you be anything other than happy for them, or at least indifferent? even if you don't support the marriage, why should you even care? it's not your body, soul, or life, so it's really not your business. as long as you're not infringing on the rights of others, you should be able to do WHATEVER YOU WANT. and i hardly think a lifelong commitment to love and compassion counts as infringing on someone else's rights.




and yes, the government should keep it's greedy hands off my money. go Fair Tax!!!

[bradleybadly]

Bradley...what is it like to live your life in fear of things that are quite possibly never going to have any kind of impact on you?

What's it like trying to assign motives to people you've never met?

[bradleybadly]

And you conveniently ignore those with more reasonable, middle of the road points, as you conveniently ignore the many, many homosexuals that do NOT match anything close to those picture. That last one actually looked a lot like a Mardis Gras picture -- you know, the big celebration down in those liberal bastions of coastal Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas?

You're one to talk. You don't even agree with your own holy book so why do even pretend to be a Christian? Still waiting for those Bible verses proclaiming the gospel of homosexuality, by the way.

The REAL truth is that you are almost certainly in aquaintance of, working with, neighbors to or otherwise associated with homosexuals without your even realizing. THAT is how "treatening" these individuals are. And the only real "logic" you have put forward to claim they should not be married are thes stereotypical ideas about how harmful "they" will be.

Nope, totally missed the boat again I'm afraid. They're harming the institution of marriage, which is a natural institution. Your side needs more than consent and desire to justify overturning a law. One of the tricks you guys use is trying to say that people who are against homosexuals getting married hate them. I don't agree with the Bible but I don't hate people who follow it. I just hate people like yourself who try to judge me for standing up for traditions.

The reasons why homosexual unions should be recognized by the state are the same as the reasons for recognizing a heterosexual union. The reasons against? Dislike or hatred of homosexuality. (with one exception -- that being the idea that the state shouldn't recognize any union). You say desire is no reason for a law. Maybe not, but hatred should NEVER be a basis for reasonable laws. When they are, those laws need to be removed as WRONG.

I can't believe you're a Christian. Christians obviously believe in God, but you claim to actually be God as you exhibit the power of omniscience in assigning motivations towards us. You've really gone off the deep end if you think you can judge me or anyone. Better go pray for me, I guess .........just don't stop to talk to the burning bushes.

[bbqpenguin]

Nope, totally missed the boat again I'm afraid. They're harming the institution of marriage, which is a natural institution. Your side needs more than consent and desire to justify overturning a law. One of the tricks you guys use is trying to say that people who are against homosexuals getting married hate them. I don't agree with the Bible but I don't hate people who follow it. I just hate people like yourself who try to judge me for standing up for traditions.

ok sense when is marriage a natural institution? really, this is an honest question i'm actually curious. i always thought of it more as a cultural thing... mating, sure that's natural... but marriage? do we have "instincts" to want to marry? sure, we have love, which i guess is natural, but if you base it solely on love then why not allow same-sex marriages? they can have every bit as much love as a hetero marriage. does nature "want" us to marry...? it's interesting that most cultures, at least today, have marriage in some form or another, but what about those who have/had no concept of marriage? are they more or less natural than other cultures? seriously, bradley, i'd like some answers and i really don't mean this in a condescending way i don't want this to turn into a flame war.

[MeDeFe]

And you conveniently ignore those with more reasonable, middle of the road points, as you conveniently ignore the many, many homosexuals that do NOT match anything close to those picture. That last one actually looked a lot like a Mardis Gras picture -- you know, the big celebration down in those liberal bastions of coastal Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas?

You're one to talk. You don't even agree with your own holy book so why do even pretend to be a Christian? Still waiting for those Bible verses proclaiming the gospel of homosexuality, by the way.

BOOYAH! Busted! Another Fake Christian is exposed by bradleybadly, long live he! With his amazing powers he can determine who is a christian and who is not, stay tuned for the unveiling of the fake Muslims. All you believers are screwed, you don't behave they way bradley knows you should and he will tell you off for it. Praise bradleybadly! The newest Messiah!

Disclaimer: This post is entirely condescending and not meant to be taken seriously, just as I cannot take anyone seriously who tries to tell others what religion they have or don't have.

[Dapper Tom]

Great news! All the people who consensually bought and sold drugs with each other will be glad to know that you've overturned their sentences. Let's also allow people to consensually drink each other's blood. Consensual public fighting, let's do it! They're only harming themselves. Once again, you don't just change and overturn laws based on consent. You're wrong on this and if you were right, then society would plunge into chaos. It just doesn't stop with homosexuals getting married.

Yeah...

The point you're missing (deliberately or otherwise) is that nobody here is arguing for all consensual activity to be legalised. Legislating is a complex business, and laws can't just be enacted or repealed based on a single criteria. There are other considerations which need to be taken into account when making/breaking laws, and your analysis of what pro-gay-marriage people are actually advocating is overly simplistic.

Your 'public fighting', 'blood drinking', and 'drug dealing' examples are all things that could be harmful to the individuals involved or to society at large, and as such are undesirable to permit. The former for example would cause a great deal of public disorder, fear to bystanders, and potentially property damage to objects in the vincinity of the activity; furthermore the injuries inevitably sustained during such conduct would be a burden on other members of society who would have to shoulder the cost (through tax or insurance premiums, depending on the jurisdiction) for treating the injured. As such simple 'consent is given so its ok' arguments aren't quite sufficient for justifying the permission of consensual public fighting. If you're still not convinced, then consider why sports like boxing are permitted, whereas consensual bareknuckle carpark brawls aren't.

Now on the other hand, homosexual marriage (for men or women) isn't harmful to society in general (feel free to point out how it might be, but please for the love of God don't give me that Devlinite 'Eroding Society' crap), it causes no disorder, no harm to others bodies or property, and doesn't cost society anything to run. Therefore, when consented to by both parties involved, there's no reason to prohibit it.

In a nutshell: when an activity is not harmful to society or its participants, then it ought to be permitted. It's not mere consent that needs to be looked at, but consent and considerations of public harm and costs.

So no Bradley, society would not plunge into chaos if homosexual marriage were permitted.
Let me write this in bold text so that you'll notice it: Nobody here is advocating the (clearly bizarre) general legislative provisions that you attempt to claim they are.
We're well aware that law-making is a complex business, and that consent alone is not enough to justify permitting an activity. What we're saying is that we have yet to see any cogently argued reasons that permitting homosexual marriage would be a bad thing, and that as things stand allowing people to marry only people of the opposite sex is a weird and arbitrary rule that discriminates against a fairly large societal group.

[Nobunaga]

... Polygamy should also be legal. To deny one the right to marry multiple partners in many instances infringes on religious freedom. And who is hurt by it, so long as all involved are consensual?

...

[Dapper Tom]

Can't say I really disagree with you... but I suspect that's an issue best saved for another rainy day.

[PLAYER57832]

And you conveniently ignore those with more reasonable, middle of the road points, as you conveniently ignore the many, many homosexuals that do NOT match anything close to those picture. That last one actually looked a lot like a Mardis Gras picture -- you know, the big celebration down in those liberal bastions of coastal Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas?

You're one to talk. You don't even agree with your own holy book so why do even pretend to be a Christian? Still waiting for those Bible verses proclaiming the gospel of homosexuality, by the way.

1. I never said the Bible "proclaims homosexuality". I said that is irrelevant to whether homosexual adults should have their already existing bonds recognized by the state.

2. There are some rather relevant NEW Testament verses regarding "though shalt not judge", etc. ... but that only matters to those who are Christian.

The REAL truth is that you are almost certainly in aquaintance of, working with, neighbors to or otherwise associated with homosexuals without your even realizing. THAT is how "treatening" these individuals are. And the only real "logic" you have put forward to claim they should not be married are thes stereotypical ideas about how harmful "they" will be.

Nope, totally missed the boat again I'm afraid. They're harming the institution of marriage, which is a natural institution. Your side needs more than consent and desire to justify overturning a law. One of the tricks you guys use is trying to say that people who are against homosexuals getting married hate them. I don't agree with the Bible but I don't hate people who follow it. I just hate people like yourself who try to judge me for standing up for traditions.

You have YET to explain how it is "harming marriage" except to put up ridiculous photos, stereotypes that apply to only a very small portion of the population you claim are represented therein ... in short, you are the one "missing the boat" ... but you do so intentionally.

The reasons why homosexual unions should be recognized by the state are the same as the reasons for recognizing a heterosexual union. The reasons against? Dislike or hatred of homosexuality. (with one exception -- that being the idea that the state shouldn't recognize any union). You say desire is no reason for a law. Maybe not, but hatred should NEVER be a basis for reasonable laws. When they are, those laws need to be removed as WRONG.

I can't believe you're a Christian. Christians obviously believe in God, but you claim to actually be God as you exhibit the power of omniscience in assigning motivations towards us. You've really gone off the deep end if you think you can judge me or anyone. Better go pray for me, I guess .........just don't stop to talk to the burning bushes.

Deep end? try reading your post again. It doesn't reflect anything I have said. You resort to virulance and accusations because you have no real justification for your position... and THAT is the truth!

[Nataki Yiro]

I don't think he is a bad Christian for liking homosexuality Bradley... >_>

I don't know... I'm tied up with that and how much he argues...

[MeDeFe]

I don't think he is a bad Christian for liking homosexuality Bradley... >_>

I don't know... I'm tied up with that and how much he argues...

erm, "she"

[Neoteny]

... Polygamy should also be legal. To deny one the right to marry multiple partners in many instances infringes on religious freedom. And who is hurt by it, so long as all involved are consensual?

...

Oddly enough, I think it's mostly religious people who have major issues with polygamy.

[Frigidus]

... Polygamy should also be legal. To deny one the right to marry multiple partners in many instances infringes on religious freedom. And who is hurt by it, so long as all involved are consensual?

...

Oddly enough, I think it's mostly religious people who have major issues with polygamy.

Yup, I don't care. Maybe it's because I'm an athiest, but having sex with multiple people and being married to multiple people make very little difference to me. One is legal and one isn't. This surprises me, as the government is allowed to limit actions people take, but not intervene in anything religious. So if they, for instance, banned homosexual sex, I'd see them as being extremely bigoted, but at least they wouldn't be overstepping their boundaries, For some reason most people disagree with this stance.