Gay marriages [Archive] - Outpost Nine Forums

Mr.Babalo

08-15-2005, 10:10 AM

I had this discussion with a group (2 girls 3 guys not including me, im neutral) at my uni's library, and it turns out the females are PRO-gay marriage and believe that somehow homosexuality is in-born. Although they do admit that the stereotypical "fruity, colourful, gay guy" persona is learnt.

Meanwhile the guys are against gay marriages, saying "we mapped out the human genome and there is no "gay" gene and so far, science hasn't proven that homosexuality is something you're born with. In fact if you were to get 10 gay men and have them marry 10 women to bear 2 sons each, all the son's choice in sexuality will be the same ratio as that of the general population, basically all 20 of them will be straight and maybe 1 will be gay. There is no correlation between the sex preference of the male fathers and the sex preference of the male children.

Erica (One of the females) argues that they have scientifically proven gays are homosexual at birth. And it has something to do with the hypothalimus? (i never checked this out)

Another guy said it was against the bible and therefore it is an entity inspired by the devil.

One of the guys in particular is well on his way to becoming a psychologist and he explained in the context of Jungian(i can't really remember what he said word for word, and psychology isn't my field, so if there is something wrong with what i typed, feel free to correct me) that male-on-male was just a fetish. Adding that fetishs are more prominent in men than in women, and the issue with fetishs is that it can be created at a young age, consciously or subconsciously. He also added that he had a few gay friends and in all cases (even though they are gay) they said they are attracted to female body parts (ie: breasts) and concluded that biologically they are still attracted to the sexual dimorphism of females, although their mentality was warped in a way so that their consciousness believes it likes males.

Be honest, are you for gay marriage or against?

Saitou Hajime

08-15-2005, 10:13 AM

I'm for it. If two people love eachother, no matter what both of their genders are, let them get married. Who are we to decide what they can't do? People will use the bible as an argument, but the bible is not followed by every person, and free nations should not be bound to it as a law book.

Praetorian

08-15-2005, 10:15 AM

For. Live and let live. It doesn't harm me or others in any way except maybe being "offended", but truth is people in general are too easily offended by trivial things. Why should I care? As long as they are happy.

I do however understand that some priests may refuse to marrying homosexuals, and believe they are fully in their right to refuse them in a calm and friendly manner, the priest in question could however recommend a few other churches/priests that do support gay marriage.

Myrsilus

08-15-2005, 10:22 AM

I see no problem with being gay and I see no problem with gays getting married. I'm not even offended by it one bit. I agree that priests refusing to marry gays should at least have the decency to recommend someone who could do the marriage. We all live on the same planet... too much time is wasted antagonizing perfectly good people when there are other matters to attend to.

Benaire

08-15-2005, 10:29 AM

ya live and let live

MFDub

08-15-2005, 10:44 AM

Saitou Hajime

08-15-2005, 10:47 AM

I'm a Catholic, but when people start Bible thumping I ask them if they should follow "laws" set in the Old Testament, such as a rape victim marrying the rapist. I get no response half the time. :rolleyes:

Myrsilus

08-15-2005, 10:53 AM

Yeah you both bring up something interesting with the religious guidelines. I'm a Catholic, too... although many probably wouldn't like for me to be one since my mother and I question everything.

It's usually the most uneducated people that have such hatred towards gays. I'm not trying to be rude, but I feel this is true. Them and many religious people unable to make exceptions for their own fellow man because priests tell them gays are not natural.

It makes me sad.

Saitou Hajime

08-15-2005, 10:56 AM

Praetorian

08-15-2005, 11:00 AM

I tend to find that it's the older church goers, and the average high school students that are the most against it (and most ignorant). Older people find it goes against what's natural, and high schoolers are just so used to using "gay " as an insult for everything, that actually being homosexual is bad. But of course, lesbians are fine with them, cause it's "hot". Sure, it's nice to look at for a lot of guys, myself included, but if you're going to hate one the gay guys, hate on the lesbian women as well. Don't spread your ignorance to just one half of them.

I have to agree. I talked to my collegues, and they were totally against homosexuals because it's nasty and they even said they deserved to die. They had nothing against lesbians though. After I gave my opinion on it and their retarded and ignorant opinion, they all agreed I must surely be gay! Because obviously, how else could a 17 year old support homosexuals?

How else? By being educated and intelligent, you twits. Pooka, if you read this, this is where my "irrational" loathing towards my more ignorant peers comes from. Do you think I even want to be thought of as friendly and outgoing by these people?

And this is the Netherlands we're talking about folks; Generally thought of as the most liberal and tolerant countries of the world.

Myrsilus

08-15-2005, 11:02 AM

Yeah the older folks have a hard time adjusting to the times, especially in that area. It's the high schoolers you described that piss me off. I hate when people use gay to describe anything that is bad.

Very good point, btw. The hypocrisy with hating gays but liking lesbians is rather idiotic. I like lesbians... yeah a lot of guys do. But accepting gay people does not mean one has to like watching them in the act. x.x

Another thing is people are usually too insecure about their own sexuality to feel comfortable around gay people. This is where the outbursts of rage come in. Oh this all makes my head hurt.

Saitou Hajime

08-15-2005, 11:03 AM

Modern schools are festering hell holes of ignorance. That includes the majority of the students, the majority of the teachers, and the majority of the damn text books (for me, at least). I'm sorry, but how does using a book about racism from the 1960s help us with situations today? Honestly, it talked about other races like they were in a zoo, but we were supposed "treat them nicely". How about just ignoring their race and treating them like people? Speaking of racism, that still runs rampant, along with homophobia.

In short: School sucks.

MFDub

08-15-2005, 11:04 AM

I have to agree. I talked to my collegues, and they were totally against homosexuals because it's nasty and they even said they deserved to die. They had nothing against lesbians though. After I gave my opinion on it and their retarded and ignorant opinion, they all agreed I must surely be gay! Because obviously, how else could a 17 year old support homosexuals?

How else? By being educated and intelligent, you twits. Pooka, if you read this, this is where my "irrational" loathing towards my more ignorant peers comes from.

That does bug me. A lot. One of my closest friends' is gay (and I mean FLAMING!). Now I have a girlfriend, people know I'm straight. Yet, somehow or the other, I get strange looks just for horsing around with him the same way I do with all my friends. At least he feels comfortable in our circle of friends.

Comfortable enough to get drunk and tell us about how he made out with some random guy during Spring Fling...

Information I did not need to hear...

:p

MFDub

08-15-2005, 11:06 AM

Myrsilus

08-15-2005, 11:14 AM

That's funny. Trying to teach kids not to be racist by identifying them one by one and then saying, "Be nice to these guys". I'm nice to all races and people of different sexuality because they are people. Not because they are colored differently or because they like their own gender. Please...

I really wish people would just grow up and wake up to this century. This damn millenium.

Azrael

08-15-2005, 11:41 AM

It's not that I'm for it per se...I just don't care.

What business is it of mine if Anna marries Steve or if Anna marries Sally or if Steve marries Adam. It doesn't affect my life in any way whatsoever. So why should I care? If they want to, fine.

I will say this though - there are probably a ton of gay couples who cannot get married but would make a good couple...and there are a ton of straight people getting married who should have never met.

D-pad

08-15-2005, 12:01 PM

I just had a drem last night...............I made out with my best friend.............disturbing..................... :confused: :eek: :confused:

ChronoSphere

08-15-2005, 02:56 PM

I am in Az's boat. If two pole-smokers want to get married, more power to them. Doesn't affect me one bit, and I say do whatever it is that makes you happy.

Plus I look at marriage like a contract, you're accepting certain legal obligations and benefits. Its retarded that I can only share my health insurance with someone that I'm married to, what happens to folks in special situations like and older working sibling taking care of a younger one becasue the 'rents are dead or incapacitated and the younger one is older than 18? As long as I pay the friggen premiums, what does it matter who the coverage is extended to?

Let them get married and be done with it.

MeneerDijk

08-15-2005, 03:03 PM

I say let 'em marry. I have no bussiness deciding what other people should do. And i'm appaled by the number of people talking about people with a different lifestyle negatively. Or calling them denigrating names (like polesmoker). It's just the short-sightedness we don't need when your trying to have equality

ruaidhri

08-15-2005, 03:03 PM

Gay marriage. Why not. We get hung up on words. Some claim that marriage is a religious sacrament. Others claim it’s a legal status. I say it’s commitment. If two people are committed to each other, I say they are married.

Next November I’ll have been married for 34 years. Yes, I was married in a church, Catholic to be exact. We did the ceremony for my wife’s parents. We didn’t intend to have children but we later did. When married, we were both already agnostics but were baptized and confirmed Catholics. I even researched ancient Irish prayers and wrote our own marriage ceremony. Other than weddings and funerals we haven’t attended a church of any denomination since our wedding. When we did have children we didn’t introduce them to God. Yet, according to the Catholic Church and the government, we’re married.

What I believe is significant is that my wife and I are committed to each other. I love my wife more today than I did when we first married. Why? Because I know her better now and I like what I have. I know she feels the same way about me. We both love each other and our sons and they us.

Some might say our marriage was a sham because we didn’t fulfill our obligation to God and the Catholic Church. We didn’t even raise our children as Christians what less Catholics. Does that void our marriage? We’re still together after almost 34 years. Today, how many people can make that claim?

Let’s forget about words. If two people are committed to each other than I say they’re already married. I see no reason to prevent them from enjoying the legal benefits and obligations of that marriage.

What shocks me is not the idea of gay marriage but rather how lightly supposedly good, heterosexual Christians honor commitment, which I believe was the original purpose of marriage.

Fallen Angel

08-15-2005, 04:08 PM

I'm for it. I don't even understand how people can be against it, actually... that's a right we all should had, after all!

General_Admission

08-15-2005, 04:45 PM

I think all gays should be dragged out to the street and shot...w/ dildos.

Why? Because I don't like it & I get to decide how other people live their lives. That's right. I own your souls for free bitches & then get a mail-in rebate!

Also, see this book?...yeah, It's the shit. I like to follow it & I think everyone else should too b/c...I mean...it's witten about Jesus & God by people who speak for them for heavens sake!

sorry, I just wanted to break this 'we all agree, warm and fuzzy' roll. I really could care less.

D-pad

08-15-2005, 04:49 PM

Anders

08-15-2005, 05:04 PM

Ignoring the whole first amendment (congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof...) I believe that banning same sex marriages has a lot to do with money. Couples who get married in the United States get a number of nice perks. First off, they can claim eachother on their insurance. That means that the insurance company has to cover two people instead of just one. Married couples also qualify for tax breaks from the government. (they pay less in taxes)

Insurance companies make a lot of money. That is no secret. It's also no secret that the wealthy companies and the individuals who own them want to keep their money and make more of it. So following that logic, they will contribuite lots of money to any candidate or party that would make laws to help them keep and make more money. To be quite honest, I think the religious conflict regarding same sex marriages is just being used to make the negative side of the gay marriage issue more popular with the general public.

Trump

08-15-2005, 05:05 PM

Spy

08-15-2005, 05:08 PM

Could careless who marries who as long as it doesn't become the majority, at which point I think then it's time for me to move from America as while I do not violate the laws of this country I'm very much against gay people as it's a waste of one's natural abilities.

I'll have to further explain this later as I have shit to do.

hapacheese

08-15-2005, 05:19 PM

Meanwhile the guys are against gay marriages, saying "we mapped out the human genome and there is no "gay" gene and so far, <clip>"

Unfortunately, while we may have "mapped out" the human genome (meaning, we've found all the separate genes), we still don't know what a lot of them do, nor do we know exactly how genetic information can be influence by environmental factors (diets, hormones, etc). Identical twins have the exact same genetic code, yet come out looking slightly different and oftentimes even have different personality traits.

And something doesn't even have to be genetic in order for it to be biological. Like I mentioned earlier, the influence of hormones and/or other environmental factors during prenancy and during the infant stages of childhood can drastically affect a person. We do not know at what point homosexuality is "activated," so to speak.

If it were a completely learned behavior, then why do other animals also display homosexuality? Monkeys, giraffes, and other animals (particularly mammals) have fairly regular occurances of homosexuality. Unless they are learning it via some sort of animal society that we are unaware of, all signs point to biological factors.

One of the guys in particular is well on his way to becoming a psychologist and he explained in the context of Jungian <clip>

Jung/Freud have their own issues to deal with. Anyone that says women have penis envy (Freud) or that we all have memories born of a collective conscious (Jung) doesn't quite have a grip on things. While the examples you gave show gay men who are still biologically attracted to females, I have gay friends who are as "grossed out" by the female body as a hetero male is by other male body parts. Explanations for the whole should not be based around a small and selective group.

And besides, some people simply do not care about what biological sex the other person is. For these people, it is simply about the emotional bond between two people.

However, all this is peripheral and immaterial to whether or not two individuals should be allowed to get married. Does the law prohibit a man and a woman from being married because he has a foot fetish, and is in love with her feet? Does the law prevent a dominatrix from marrying one of her "slaves"?

The only arguments given against gay marraige are either strawman arguments, or religious arguments, neither of which should hold up in a court of law.

The US used to not allow interracial marriages to be recognized, and the same arguments were being used then. There is no reason other than bigotry to disallow gay marriage.

Just my two cents =\

Shamu

08-15-2005, 05:42 PM

Having grown up in a VERY liberal area (my neighbors next door to me when I was growing up were a lesbian couple) I see nothing wrong with it. Life is too short, if you love someone, be with them and if it means getting married will make you both happy, then you should be able to marry whomever you dang well please! On a side note relating to this, I also think gay couples should be able to adopt children too. I used to be a preschool teacher and some of the best parents I've seen were gay couples. I've seen some of them go through more trauma trying to adopt just because they were gay.

aLLuRe

08-15-2005, 06:09 PM

i'm a bisexual female but i believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

hapacheese

08-15-2005, 06:12 PM

Why is that?

And are you referring to the religious ceremony? Or the legally recognized bond?

aLLuRe

08-15-2005, 07:25 PM

Bobbybirdtree

08-15-2005, 07:46 PM

If they wanna do it I say they should be able to. How can America be so open to so many things and then not allow gay marriage? Politics and Religion are supposed to be separate.

Loc

08-15-2005, 07:51 PM

I'm not fussed either way, as people have said, it doesn't affect me.
Marriage isn't really a religious thing anymore, or isn't seen as one by many people anyway, it's just the next stage of a relationship.

scan2001

08-15-2005, 08:07 PM

I don't see the problem. I mean it doesn't effect me. I live in Canada and it legal here. Who cares. I have other problems to deal with.

KKF

08-15-2005, 08:42 PM

I think gay couples should be realized as a couple to get certain rights - like hospital visitation rights. Gay couples should not be allowed to "marry" because it's between a man and a woman. They're starting a family. For a gay couple to adopt kids, that could cause confusion when the kid is growing up. I think being gay is mostly just a lust and fetish.

Not to pick on you or anything. But I'll just state a couple of things. Being gay is not a fetish. Their are study's that show that certain animals have gay tendencies. (Ie. only mate with males.) In these studies it was shown that the hypothalimus was enlarged in these specific males. If you understand natural selection and what the major drive is for animals. You would see that this very action by said animals is against nature it self. They should for no reason act like this, since their one goal in life is to have children to pass on their genes. To add to this, think about how society today and past treats homosexuals. And then tell me its a fetish and lust. I can strongly say that all of my gay friends will tell you that it isn't either of those.

Now on to your next point that states, that marriage is for a man and a woman. My question for you is how would it effect you if two homosexuals got married? What negative effect would it have on your life? Also not all religions believe that being homosexual is a bad thing, ie gay religions that are run by gay individuals. So, following that train of thought they can be married by a church.

The family comment you made. How many gay couples that have adopted do you know? I know several, I do live in Texas gay central Austin after all, and I can tell you from first hand experience these kids are not confused and none are gay. So your thought process on how these kids would grow up confused is pretty much false. Its not like kids really care about these things and usually people who are opened minded won't care what their friends parents are. (Who would want to be friends with someone that looked down on someone because of the sexual preference of their parents? I wouldn't.) Further more I do not see how being adopted by a gay couple would be a bad thing, would you rather the child is stuck in foster care for the rest of his life draining the resources of the system even further than it already is?

People who have the same thought process as you really need to take a step back and see how this would really effect them versus how it effects homosexuals. They are not treated as equals and by every right they should be. What right do you have to look down on someone else?

Iekleane

08-15-2005, 08:43 PM

THe only problem I would ever have the homosexuals would be if they activly tried to force homosexuality on others, but I have yet to see that happen. Plus I have never seen a gay man be offended when you say somethings gay, I've even had one say it after I told him I wasn't into the whole man-love thing.

KKF

08-15-2005, 08:45 PM

Marraige was initially a very religious concept and people get offended when people apply that to gays. I think governments should just create another type of union so that under laws they are given the same treatment without attaching the word marraige. I think that would solve a majority of the problems out there.

Segregation is bad ok? The government should stay out of afairs that do not deal with them. Not to start another debate, but I am hispanic straight male, and notice that the people most against this, vocally atleast, are white straight males. Why are they so afraid of gays?

Iekleane

08-15-2005, 08:46 PM

Because the ones that are so vocally afraid of it beleive that if they allow it some gay man will rape them.

hapacheese

08-15-2005, 08:56 PM

I think gay couples should be realized as a couple to get certain rights - like hospital visitation rights.

But why not all the same rights as a married couple?

Gay couples should not be allowed to "marry" because it's between a man and a woman. They're starting a family. For a gay couple to adopt kids, that could cause confusion when the kid is growing up.

We have no such restrictions on hetero couples. Why only on gay couples? We do not require people to have kids when they marry. Is it also not confusing for kids of certain ethnicities to be raised by different ethnic parents? Or, isn't it just as confusing for children to go through a divorce, to have two sets of parents?

I think being gay is mostly just a lust and fetish.

Again, whether or not this is true, we do not dictate whether hetero couples need to get married out of building a family, or if it is simply out of lust, stupidity, financial security, whatever.

aLLuRe

08-15-2005, 09:08 PM

csrjjsmp

08-15-2005, 09:34 PM

Unlike most straight guys, I support homosexuality in men but not in women because it means less competition and more girls for me, while having hot lesbians is just such a waste.

KKF

08-15-2005, 09:36 PM

ok first- KKf if u didnt notice, i did say before that i am bisexual sooo how am i looking down on someone for being gay. that doesnt make sense. and hapacheese u said would it be confusing for a kid to grow up in different households with diff ethnicities.. since this is the GAY marriage section i was stating my opinion about GAY MARRIAGe. but if u would like to know - i think a lot of ppl do marry for stupid reasons like lust, financial security, etc. honostly i really dont care if same sex marries i was just telling ppl that i believe it should be between a man and a woman. i feel when u marry someone it should be out of love and what ur doing is starting a family. like with animals, instinct is to reproduce, and obviously you can't do that with the same sex. if two gay ppl were to marry than it wouldnt affect me at all- i never said it would. its just that the tradition was always man and woman. i also agree with the quote that kkf took from trump.

Doesn't matter if your bi-sexual or not you think its a action of lust and fetish. You think its a choice. And what is preplexing to me is that even though you are "bi-sexual" lets say you fell in love with a woman you wouldn't marry her because of your belief that marriage is between man and a woman. You are looking down at them for their choice to marry another person of the same sex.

Further more, so someone that can not reproduce biologically, lets say they have no sperm count. Shouldn't be married? Because they can't have a family? Your point about adoption being confusing was nullified by the things I stated earlier and what hapacheese just stated. So they CAN start a family. Also marriage is not about starting a family, its about starting a new journey with someone you love together. All your points are not very well founded on logic.

Also tradition can be wrong and very bad. It use to be the traditional role of woman to stay in the house and cook and clean. To be the seen but not heard. Would you like to follow that tradition as well now? Or do you only choose the traditions that suit you to follow?

Listen im not trying to bad mouth you. Im just trying to show you the other side of the argument and how un-reasonable your argument is.

KKF

08-15-2005, 09:38 PM

Unlike most straight guys, I support homosexuality in men but not in women because it means less competition and more girls for me, while having hot lesbians is just such a waste.

My favorite thing to say to my homophobic friends is, "Why the hell do I care if their are tons of gay men and just me. That means more woman for me! Pluss I love watching lesbos go at it, and I might get lucky and they will want a piece of meat for the night to join in. ;)"

Ayame

08-15-2005, 09:43 PM

I've don't have a problem with gay marriages, and if I had, I don't have anything to do with what people do with their lives. For some reason (in USA specifically) people seems to think they have the right to rule over another human.

hapacheese

08-15-2005, 10:00 PM

and hapacheese u said would it be confusing for a kid to grow up in different households with diff ethnicities.. since this is the GAY marriage section i was stating my opinion about GAY MARRIAGe.

True, but you cannot look at gay marriage in isolation. The primary question when dealing with marriage rights is equality. I bring up these issues because you say gays should not marriage due to potential family issues. I merely countered with a point that, according to your logic, would pose as an argument for other forms of marriage. If the example given cannot hold up in all instances that *are* legal, then it cannot apply to *just* gays. Doing so is discrimination, unfortunately.

Kaziel

08-15-2005, 10:23 PM

The truth is revealed! (http://www.shortpacked.com/d/20050722.html)

Okay, in all seriousness, I agree with most, that I don't care. It doesn't affect me. Only way it might affect me is if (one of) my children (when I get around to having it/them) is homosexual, and at that point, my feelings will specifically apply to my child/ren, and I would support any decision they make in that area. It's their right to do as they see fit with their life.

csrjjsmp

08-15-2005, 10:44 PM

Further more, so someone that can not reproduce biologically, lets say they have no sperm count. Shouldn't be married? Because they can't have a family? Your point about adoption being confusing was nullified by the things I stated earlier and what hapacheese just stated. So they CAN start a family. Also marriage is not about starting a family, its about starting a new journey with someone you love together. All your points are not very well founded on logic.

Also tradition can be wrong and very bad. It use to be the traditional role of woman to stay in the house and cook and clean. To be the seen but not heard. Would you like to follow that tradition as well now? Or do you only choose the traditions that suit you to follow?

Listen im not trying to bad mouth you. Im just trying to show you the other side of the argument and how un-reasonable your argument is.

Why do you think those would be unreasonable?

KKF

08-15-2005, 10:46 PM

Easy she is pushing her beliefs on others. That is un-reasonable. Not to mention most of her arguments are pretty short sighted, for example the point that you get married to have a family.

Iekleane

08-15-2005, 10:46 PM

Because it goes agaimst the womens rights movement for starters.

hapacheese

08-15-2005, 10:47 PM

Mr.Babalo

08-15-2005, 10:52 PM

For. Marriage is about love, right? Do they love each other? Yes? Then what's the freakin' problem?

Note, I'm a Christian and I can say that. Which is why I get annoyed when people point out the Bible. IF you're following the Christian religion then, techinically (and there are obviously exceptions up the wazoo to this statement) you should be following the "laws" laid down in the New Testament. Except for the Ten Commandments. Those stay true.

I have yet to see a passage in the New Testament that speaks out against homosexuality.

lol i have nothing against gays. Although i do read the bible.

im sorry to tell you, but revelations in the new testament clearly states (not an exact qoute): "whore mongers, gays, liars, dogs...blah blah... will not go to heaven" you can look it up in bible.com. But the new testoment and the old testoment never contradict eachother. In addition revelations isnt the only book in the new testament to state that homosexuality is wrong

I'm a Catholic, but when people start Bible thumping I ask them if they should follow "laws" set in the Old Testament, such as a rape victim marrying the rapist. I get no response half the time. :rolleyes:

Your getting confused with the laws of moses, laws which were literally like, stone a whore to death and sacrafice a sheep for cleansing of sin. These laws were abolished by jesus when he was nailed to the cross(if you read you've read the new testament you would have known). The reason why they were so harsh was because back then people used to commit beastiality, murders and all sorts of hardcore sins.

Marblehead

08-15-2005, 10:58 PM

I just had a drem last night...............I made out with my best friend.............disturbing..................... :confused: :eek: :confused:

You know all the gay guys I've asked have told me they pretty much knew they were gay when they were about D_pad's age.

Iekleane

08-15-2005, 11:00 PM

Go ahead D_pad hunt for the golden sausage of love and hide it in your most private of holes.

ChronoSphere

08-15-2005, 11:13 PM

The reason why they were so harsh was because back then people used to commit beastiality, murders and all sorts of hardcore sins.

And these things arn't done now? LoL.

csrjjsmp

08-16-2005, 12:11 AM

Easy she is pushing her beliefs on others. That is un-reasonable. Not to mention most of her arguments are pretty short sighted, for example the point that you get married to have a family.
If you believe that the world would be a better place if people behaved in a certain way, how is it unreasonable to try and get people to behave in that way?

Why wouldn't you say that people get married to have families? That's true most of the time, you can say there are exceptions, but there are exceptions to "people marry because they love each other" or anything else you could say too. As far as generalizations go, it's not a bad one.

Iekleane

08-16-2005, 12:14 AM

You get married for other reasons to make a family. I don't care if a woman I marry can or can't have kids, I would marry her to show her that I'm willing to commit myself to her.

hapacheese

08-16-2005, 12:17 AM

Well, can't the married couple by themselves be considered a family? Do you have to have kids in order to be considered a family?

In that case, a gay couple could become family via the act of marriage, despite the biological inability to have children.

D-pad

08-16-2005, 12:18 AM

You know all the gay guys I've asked have told me they pretty much knew they were gay when they were about D_pad's age.

Well I've decided I'm bisexual...........

Myrsilus

08-16-2005, 12:21 AM

Interesting how so many views have been presented.

If a priest won't marry a gay couple, that is his own belief. I may not agree with his reasons, but I certaintly won't try to enlighten him. If a gay couple can get married somehow, then they should go for it. Marriage is more than legal documents and money and reproduction... at least to some people. It's also about love.

And let's not forget... a family can be composed of two, but if the partners can't reproduce, adoption is always available. Now this is another touchy subject as many would say gay couples should not be parents as to not leave some sort of "harmful" impression on the child's mind. I've heard of many children of gay parents and they seem just fine to me. Hell, the vast majority don't even become gay.

Just my opinion.

Marblehead

08-16-2005, 12:22 AM

Well I've decided I'm bisexual...........

Congratulation, do you want a cookie? :rolleyes:

Iekleane

08-16-2005, 12:31 AM

Not to mention that there have been polls proving tha homosexual couples have a higher chance of raising their child without all the emotional issues faced from straight couples.

But it was also a few years ago that I read that so I can't really give much info for it but you can probably find something on google.

hapacheese

08-16-2005, 12:43 AM

Iekleane: Unfortunately, there haven't been any polls that scientifically studies one way or the other =\ There have been polls that have suggested certain outcomes, but I've seen results go both ways (no pun intended).

Regardless, there is likely little psychological effect that having gay parents woud be inflicted upon a child that, say, divorce wouldn't do 10x worse. That being said, the child of gay parents is likely to be a lot more open-minded about the world, due to exposure to alternative lifestyles and a greater acceptance of people for who they are, rather than their sexual orientation.

Seigified

08-16-2005, 01:15 AM

To me, especially in this day and age, marraige is nothing more than a tax advantage. Which is the way the government should be looking at it in the first place despite what the bible thumping campaign supporters demand. Government isn't supposed to involve religious references in regards making decisions such as these. The only place religions has say in regards to this issue is whether or not they will allow the ceremonies to be held in their church. Where it is then within their jurisdiction to start citing dictations.

While we've sort of stumbled on marraige in general, I find it funny how they make things nowadays. You get these "girlfriend/boyfriend/life partners" of 7-10 years with three children proudly announce they don't believe in "marraige", due to some anti-religious or childhood scarring reasons. Yet the majority of these people fail to see what marraige plainly is despite the "institution's" illustrious background throughout history.

KKF

08-16-2005, 04:32 AM

Actually, KKF, she is not really pushing her views onto others. The thread asked for opinions, and she gave it, just like the rest of us.

However, I was simply asking for consistency. If you apply certain rules and expectations to one group of people, in the name of equality, it has to apply to everyone.

Of course she isn't but if her opinion was law, which she has the right to vote for. And this becomes law then her opinion is pushing her beliefs of what a marriage should be on others.

Thats the train of thought I was going with. Pluss her arguments were not very "reasonable."

KKF

08-16-2005, 04:36 AM

If you believe that the world would be a better place if people behaved in a certain way, how is it unreasonable to try and get people to behave in that way?

Why wouldn't you say that people get married to have families? That's true most of the time, you can say there are exceptions, but there are exceptions to "people marry because they love each other" or anything else you could say too. As far as generalizations go, it's not a bad one.

It is un-reasonable because who are you to judge others on how they live their life. Why should it matter to you if it doesn't harm anyone in the way they live their lives?

Actually yes it is a generalization. And its a bad one because you can't use a generalization to prove a point about why someone shouldn't be allowed to do something. Thats like me saying all hispanics are illegals in Texas. Hence they should all be thrown back to Mexico. Get my drift?

csrjjsmp

08-16-2005, 07:32 AM

It is un-reasonable because who are you to judge others on how they live their life. Why should it matter to you if it doesn't harm anyone in the way they live their lives?

Actually yes it is a generalization. And its a bad one because you can't use a generalization to prove a point about why someone shouldn't be allowed to do something. Thats like me saying all hispanics are illegals in Texas. Hence they should all be thrown back to Mexico. Get my drift?
Why can't you judge others? Don't you believe in the rightness of your own views? If you choose to not force your views on others, but criticise others for doing so, that's highly hypocritical. By your own standards, who are you to say that their behavior is wrong or unreasonable?
It matters when people sincerely believe that everyone would be better off living a certain way. Even if no harm is done, if things could be better, why not work to change them? If everyone is just satisfied with "good enough, no harm is being done," then progress will never happen.

You might not want to deport them all, but that generalization is sufficient to impose stricter checks. Police would question whether a Mexican in Texas were there legally, but they wouldn't do the same if the person in question was white. However, I didn't say that "this generalization proves a point about doing something," I was merely observing that the statement "people get married to have families" is fairly accurate, and probably more so than the various alternative reasons suggested.

Alphonse v.2

08-16-2005, 07:58 AM

It's not that I'm for it per se...I just don't care.

What business is it of mine if Anna marries Steve or if Anna marries Sally or if Steve marries Adam. It doesn't affect my life in any way whatsoever. So why should I care? If they want to, fine.

But what if Anna marries steve but then Steve cheats on her with Sally which is married to Adam only so that Steve can get closer to Adam?

I don't know why, but that just popped into my head.

Also, let gay people get married, let them be as misserable as everyone else . =P

Is the stone a whore to death and clense sin by killing a sheep true? Because I can see a lot of use in that :D

BluZytrix

08-16-2005, 08:47 AM

This topic always seems to bring out the best in people. I for one have in interesting first-hand story about a gay male. A cousin of mine happens to be gay. The intersting part in this is that his brother is gay. Birthed by the same father, these two share a mother that has produced children from another man in which both children have grown up to be not gay. The father of the two gay children is himslef gay. Also, one child was raised with the gay father and the other w/o a gay father, but a straight one. This tends to support the genetic aspect. But, perhaps a less accepted view that I believe is part of life is that the occurence of homosexuality may be brought about by sins of people in the past. Say your grandfather raped his daughter and got away with it. This can reak havoc on the generations that come after him until his sins are forgiven. Call it karama or a curse if you will. Even though this sounds quite religious, for me, its plausable. Also, it is unargueably true that people are a culmination of their experiences. There is no doubt in my mind that children may be pursuaded to the homosexual side by any homosexual influences in their lives. This same concept applies to areas like alcoholism and abusive people too. If one grows up in an abusive home, they are more likely to accept that behavior as normal and incorporate that into their own being. This not to say that one may not raise a heterosexual child given that they themselves are homosexuals, but that there always exists the balance between nature versus nurture. I myself, would not marry a homosexual couple but would permit this action to take place given the freedom that I have choosen to partake in, united with those that live here. On an interesting note, there are some philosophers that believe that we each have a part of us that is homosexual. How is it that I can appreciate the rotundous, buttyliciousness of a women if I know not of the opposite side? For me, the grass is radioactively greener where the woman are standing and that's where I'll be.

秋夢

kensei

08-16-2005, 03:10 PM

I think (and I use that term loosely seeing it's 8:00 in the morning and I've yet to get sleep) the fundemental injustice in the restriction of same-sex marriage is that it implies that memebers of the homo/bisexual community are beneath heterosexuals in that they are denied basic freedoms given to any other minority. I may speak more on this topic after I've gotten some much needed sleep ~_~

Y.T.

08-16-2005, 03:47 PM

Call it karama or a curse if you will. Even though this sounds quite religious, for me, its plausable

Stop trolling.. or I'll curse you and your family to the N-th degree!
And I am going to make homosexual influences crawl out of toilets in
your home! Your own toothbrush will turn gay.. and your loo will suddenly
develop rainbow stains.

There is no doubt in my mind that children may be pursuaded to the Christian fundamentalist side by any Christian fundamentalist influences in their lives.

BTW, This forum has some bad javascript/php. It 'thinks' that the Quote above,
is my whole message, so it tries to tell me, that I should insert a message here.

ManiacLove

08-16-2005, 04:04 PM

csrjjsmp

08-16-2005, 05:47 PM

I however never want kids, ever, and I hope to think that when my boyfriend and I marry we are each others family.

Most people who say that when they're young eventually change their minds.

Iekleane

08-16-2005, 05:52 PM

and what of those that don't, you say most but there are still people out there that mean it.

Jay

08-16-2005, 05:53 PM

Why do I always stumble upon these threads when they're 4 or 5 pages old?

I'm for gay marriage. Who are we to say who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry? Legally marriage is a privilege, but it's really a RIGHT. A right to marry who you want, where you want, when you want, how you want.

Iekleane

08-16-2005, 05:54 PM

For life, liberty, and the abilty to touch someone besides yourself at night!

KKF

08-16-2005, 06:20 PM

Why can't you judge others? Don't you believe in the rightness of your own views? If you choose to not force your views on others, but criticise others for doing so, that's highly hypocritical. By your own standards, who are you to say that their behavior is wrong or unreasonable?

I can judge others all I want. Its when I push my judgement on them that I cross the line. I still don't think you are seeing the difference here between what she said and what Im saying. And I most certainly don't see the rightness of my own views. I know that I will not always be right and that I am fallible like any other human being. Hence for all that matters I could be wrong about gay marriages. The difference is that if I act on it I impede on their rights as humans to live their lives as they want. Think if the situation was reservesed. Homosexuals are the norm and hetrosexuals are minority. The homosexuals say you shouldn't be allowed to marry, its not normal for two people of the opposite sex to get married. Would you like that? I sure as hell wouldn't. Also I was saying her argument is unreasonable because in my point of view it is. And I can back it up with sound reasoning.

It matters when people sincerely believe that everyone would be better off living a certain way. Even if no harm is done, if things could be better, why not work to change them? If everyone is just satisfied with "good enough, no harm is being done," then progress will never happen.

Their IS harm being done. And its to the homosexuals, the way things could be better is if we give them EQUAL rights not put them in a sub catagory. Yes progess will never happen, because people like you want to make people with different lifestyles not equal. Progress is moving foward not backwards. Jesus look at how blacks were treated in our country. People sincerely believed that blacks should be segregated from whites. No, "harm" was done by this. Yet blacks were not equal because of this. (People can still claim their is a lot of racism abound and that they are still not treated as equal. But thats another thread.) Don't you see it? We progressed by legally making them equal and no longer having segregation.

You might not want to deport them all, but that generalization is sufficient to impose stricter checks. Police would question whether a Mexican in Texas were there legally, but they wouldn't do the same if the person in question was white. However, I didn't say that "this generalization proves a point about doing something," I was merely observing that the statement "people get married to have families" is fairly accurate, and probably more so than the various alternative reasons suggested.

Ever hear of innocent till proven guilty? But thats beside the point, lets just say that I have had to deal with that attitude about being here legally because of my race. Your assumption doesn't take into account the divorce rate in this country. I forgot the exact numbers but its above 50%. If people are so worried about starting a family when they get married they wouldn't be divorcing as such a fast rate. People get married for a lot of reasons but to start pumping out kids is not that high on the list.

KKF

08-16-2005, 06:22 PM

Most people who say that when they're young eventually change their minds.

Didn't want to mention this before. But my older brother and his wife will not be having kids. And he is far from young. My cos and her husband will not be having kids and they are in their late 40's by now. Not everyone needs to have kids to feel fufilled in life. And her point stands, she is still a family with her future husband if its just them two.

csrjjsmp

08-16-2005, 06:53 PM

KKF:
Ok, good for them. That's why I said most, not all. Just because you know a couple that is different, doesn't make what I said wrong.

So you're not sure that you're right. I'm sure that I'm right. So we're going to do things my way. OK?

Reversing it is stupid and doesn't apply here at all. If the majority of people were homosexual the population would have dwindled into nothingness a long time ago. But yes, it would suck, because they would still be wrong and I would still be right.

Whether you think legalizing gay marriage is progress or not depends on whether you're okay with it to begin with. You might think it's fine, but then again, you're not sure you're right. Same with segregation. To some people it is progress, to some it isn't. But that's not the issue here. What I was trying to get across is that "no harm would be done" is not a sufficient reason to do anything. Laws should be created to better society, maintain peace and order, and increase prosperity, not because "no harm would be done if it were passed."

Yes, innocent until proven guilty means that they don't deport him until after they check his papers.

What does the divorce rate have to do with anything? If anything, it proves my point, because couples are more likely to stay together if they have children.

Jay:
What makes you say that marriage is a right?

ManiacLove

08-16-2005, 06:59 PM

Most people who say that when they're young eventually change their minds.

No, I really, really mean it. I like my body the way it is. Plus, I am selfish and taking care of a child is a financial & emotional burden I want nothing to do with.
I don't want to be in charge of, or responsible for anyone else's life.

hapacheese

08-16-2005, 07:02 PM

csrjjsmp: Progress is not a matter of what the individual thinks is right or wrong. It is about advancing the rights of the people as a whole, and not leaving others behind simply due to differences. Whether or not you think homosexuality is right, homosexuals should be offered the same benefits as anyone else. *THAT* is progress. In addition, harm *is* being done with the way things are right now, and to do something about it would be to resolve that conflict, so the point of "no harm would be done" is really moot.

As for not divorcing because of children: that's just a load of BS. An unhealthy relationship and disfunctional family is likely to cause more psychological trauma on a child than a divorce.

ManiacLove

08-16-2005, 07:05 PM

As for not divorcing because of children: that's just a load of BS. An unhealthy relationship and disfunctional family is likely to cause more psychological trauma on a child than a divorce.

I agree. I hate to quote Dr Phil, but I believe he's said "A child would rather come from a broken home, then live in one." And I have witnessed this second hand. A close friend of mine's boyfriend's father has been cheating on his mother for 6 years. (That's obviously not a fling.) And they're staying together for "the children". (Who are pretty much grown.) They fight all the time it's taking it's toll on their kids pretty bad.

hapacheese

08-16-2005, 07:11 PM

I, too, come from a "broken home." My mom stayed with my dad for years for "our" sake, but frankly, I would rather have had them simply end the marriage and move on when I was younger.

csrjjsmp

08-16-2005, 07:48 PM

Iekleane

08-16-2005, 08:30 PM

hapacheese

08-16-2005, 08:32 PM

Hahaha... Hyperbole much? Replace "murderers" with "Jell-o Pudding Pops."

Just because you say it, doesn't mean it makes sense.

Murder is a crime inflicted upon others. Homosexuality is neither a crime, nor is it inflicted upon those who do not wish to participate. Murder is a crime that takes away the rights of others, homosexuality does not. Make sure the two examples are comparable before making the connection.

TygressVirgo

08-16-2005, 08:47 PM

Let's make this quick,

I agree completely with what Hapacheese and KKF are saying and those that agree with them. Here are some points that I want to make.

If you knew and were great and wonderfully close to a person, but didn't know that they were homosexual? Would your opinion of them change when you found out that they were homosexual? This happened to me, one of my closests aunts was homosexual. When I found out, it did not change my opinion of her one bit. A person's sexuality makes little difference to the person that they truly are.

Also, homoseuxality is pretty normal in the animal world. So how is that not a natural occurance? It's not like a human made them do it. Not only that, but homosexuality has been rampant throughtout a history. It is only now that it is not accepted and hated to a ridiculous degree.

Lastly, if your gonna use the bible for a reason as to why homosexual marriages shouldn't occur think about this; who wrote the parts about homosexuality? Are the directly accredited to Jesus, or to a man named Paul? Of course this brings with it questions as to the truth of our intrepretaions of the bible, but that is another forum and/or another thread. If Jesus tells us that above all, except love of god, that we should love our neighboors as ourselves, than how does allowing homosexuals to marry violate that second greatest commandment?

- Ty,

p.s.- I'm Catholic, and I do my best to except everyone because that is what it is all about.

KKF

08-16-2005, 09:13 PM

KKF:
Ok, good for them. That's why I said most, not all. Just because you know a couple that is different, doesn't make what I said wrong.

It makes what you said a generilization.

So you're not sure that you're right. I'm sure that I'm right. So we're going to do things my way. OK?

You are a fool then. I admit I "could" be wrong because I know that their is a possiblity of me being wrong. I freely admit that Im not 100% certain that Im right. But I can say I'm 99% certain Im right. Not that hard to see that I am human and hence I can make mistakes. Unlike you who believes you are 100% right. And that only shows how foolish you are.

Reversing it is stupid and doesn't apply here at all. If the majority of people were homosexual the population would have dwindled into nothingness a long time ago. But yes, it would suck, because they would still be wrong and I would still be right.

Really? Ever hear of testtube babies? Ever hear of woman carring kids for gay males? Ever hear of gay meals donating sperm to lesbian couples? Irragardless you totally missed the point of what I said. And showing your lack of age, maturaity and insight once again.

Whether you think legalizing gay marriage is progress or not depends on whether you're okay with it to begin with. You might think it's fine, but then again, you're not sure you're right. Same with segregation. To some people it is progress, to some it isn't. But that's not the issue here. What I was trying to get across is that "no harm would be done" is not a sufficient reason to do anything. Laws should be created to better society, maintain peace and order, and increase prosperity, not because "no harm would be done if it were passed."

You still don't get it do you? Im not foolish enough to say I'm always 100% right about what I believe in. Show me different and I can adapt to the situation and change my mind about a subject. You can't, since you believe 100% that you are correct. Only a fool would think that and you are portraying yourself as one very well. Again you totally missed my point on what I wrote. Segregation was thought too, "better society, maintain peace and order, and increase prosperity," guess what it didn't. Just as passing a law that is unconstitutional that discrimantes people because of their own sexual preference won't. Laws should keep out of peoples personal affairs and personal freedoms. This goes both ways, I don't think the laws should force preachers to marry gay individuals. But I also think that the laws shouldn't prevent preachers who are willing to marry gay individuals. Get it?

Yes, innocent until proven guilty means that they don't deport him until after they check his papers.

What about harrassment because he is hispanic and of dark skin color? Sorry but again you missed my point. People are pulled over because of their skin color. (Has happened to me with some of my black friends several times.) And that is wrong.

What does the divorce rate have to do with anything? If anything, it proves my point, because couples are more likely to stay together if they have children.

Wow! How can you be so blind to what you are stating. The divorce rate shows that the "scantity" of marriage is a joke. People get married for tons of reasons and then get divorced for more. Staying together because of children is a bad thing. One of my ex-girlfriends parents stayed together because of the kids. Guess what once the youngest graduated highschool they divorced. And growing up that family was very dysfunctional so it was the wrong thing to do.

Roxie

08-16-2005, 09:16 PM

Jung/Freud have their own issues to deal with. Anyone that says women have penis envy (Freud) Freud was a out of his mind. Seriously.
I'm envious of my father's penis? What about boys being envious of their mothers breasts? What about that one, HUH?!

His ideas are so full of androcentrism it's not even funny.

I think gay couples should be realized as a couple to get certain rights - like hospital visitation rights. Gay couples should not be allowed to "marry" because it's between a man and a woman. They're starting a family. For a gay couple to adopt kids, that could cause confusion when the kid is growing up. I think being gay is mostly just a lust and fetish.
You must be young.

Marriage /= Children.

What about couples who can't biologically have children? What about gay men/women who already DO have children?

You do realize that most ppl would be quicker to call your bi-sexuality a fetish than a homosexuals?

Iekleane

08-16-2005, 09:19 PM

For starters you say your a Presbyterean Knight, try reading up on some other things Nietsche(sp?) has some good sayings about religion, plus Christianity may be a majority religion it is not the only one just because the bible says its wrong does not mean other religions do aswell why not allow them to share their views on the process.

Y.T.

08-16-2005, 09:24 PM

t is only now that it is not accepted and hated to a ridiculous degree.

You know, they used to burn sodomites in medieval times.. in Europe.
I believe it was not that rare.

Besides, if the medical technology goes on improving and
improving, male pregnancy is theoretically possible...
So, the whole thing would be kind of ... ridiculous then.
Of course, the CC would be greatly offended, because,
it's against the natural order..

I think being gay is mostly just a lust and fetish.

Somehow, I think having your asshole rammed by someone else
is not my idea of fun. I like it to be tight... besides, when
one considers what is further upstream.. although a bit
of .. well. It's too ridiculous. The only people who have
trouble with homosexuals are those wacky rednecks, and some Moslem fundamentalists. Catholic Church is full of gay people.. and to be frank, rednecks are pretty boring and uninteresting.

Besides, most homophobes are actually self-hating gays, are they
not? I mean, who gives a shit ...

Iekleane

08-16-2005, 09:26 PM

Europe isn't the only country out there. Just because Europe didn't support it doesn't mean other countries didn't support it.

(sorry brain isn't working too well today.)

KKF

08-16-2005, 10:15 PM

When the Greek rulled the known world, they had very open homosexual relationships. I think Japan was very open at some point. But overall homosexuals have not been treated kindly through out the years.

TygressVirgo

08-16-2005, 10:20 PM

Zakalwe,

I'm sorry but i'm kinda missing your point right now. I've been staring at a computer screen for too long and it's messing with my think tank.

Kaziel

08-16-2005, 10:22 PM

Replace "homosexuals" with "murderers" and say that again? It is very much a matter of whether you think it is right or wrong.

I didn't say it was right, I said it was what happened.Nope. Even murders are treated more fairly than homosexuals, b/c they are given the same rights as anyone else who commits a crime. That of the Miranda rights, and the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. A homosexual, on the other hand, does not get the same rights as anyone else who wants to marry.

csrjjsmp

08-16-2005, 10:36 PM

Iekleane:
My custom title is from the mistranslated Star Wars Episode 3 thing where the Jedi council is reinterpreted as the "Presbyterian Church." I had no idea it was going to make people think I was at all religious.

Making any law is not going to change who people are, but it will change how they can and cannot legally behave. Nobody said anything about passing any laws against homosexuality. In fact, the Supreme Court one or two years ago overturned a previous ruling and declared that laws against sodomy were unconstitutional.
If you think something I said doesn't make sense, ask and I can clarify what I meant.

Hapacheese and Iekleane:
Since you seem to have misunderstood me, what I was trying to say was that
Progress is not a matter of what the individual thinks is right or wrong. It is about advancing the rights of the people as a whole, and not leaving others behind simply due to differences. Whether or not you think murder is right, murderers should be offered the same benefits as anyone else. *THAT* is progress.
is obviously unacceptable.
I made an analogy comparing two different things, I did not say they were the same. The point I was trying to make is that it is indeed ok to treat people differently because of what they have done and that we do that all the time. If you want equal treatment for gays, base your argument on the idea that gays deserve to be treated the same despite their differences, not that everyone deserves to be treated the same despite their difference, because that's simply not true.

Kaziel:
What I meant was not that murderers are treated differently from other criminals because of the severity of their crime, but that they are deprived of certain rights and liberties because many people do not approve of them.

KKF:
Ok, it is a generalization, and I presented it as such. You admit that it's not wrong, so why even say that?

Believing you're right only makes you foolish if you're wrong. And of course, there's no point in assuming you're wrong if you believe you're...and so on. This can keep going in circles forever. To say that someone is wrong because he believes he is right makes no sense.

Your point was that it was "unfair" to the gays, because if I were in a similar situation, I would feel discriminated against. However, you can't simply reverse the roles like that because it creates a nonsensical situation. As I recall, in the wild, homosexual animals do not reproduce, but their relatives do, and so they pass on the genes. Obviously this would not work if homosexuality were practiced by the majority instead of the minority. So essentially I'm saying, yeah, it's unfair, and in this case it's okay to be unfair.

Law by its nature can't keep out of people's personal affairs. The government, if it so chooses, can draft members of the general population who normally would not choose to serve. The idea of government is that people sacrifice some of their personal freedoms for the common good. To demand that law keep out of private issues? Is domestic violence or child neglect a "personal issue?" Probably. But people have decided that it's enough of a problem that government should step in and do something.

I see nothing wrong with being pulled over and being searched/asked for papers. If it were arrest, harassment, or interrogation, that would be discrimination. If all they do is check you, that's fine. Racial profiling, or whatever you want to call it, probably deserves a seperate thread if you want to discuss that.

I never said anything about the "sanctity" of marriage, and I never said that parents who can't get along are right to stay together for the sake of their children. I said that more often than not, they do, and even if you feel they made the wrong choice, they usually do it because to them, family is important to their marriage.

TygressVirgo:
Shall I assume your comments are directed toward me because nobody else is taking the "con" side?
I somewhat agree with your first point. I have had 3 teachers and several acquantainces that I found out to be homosexual after I knew them. Since I live in the San Francisco Bay area, it is probably safe to assume that there are more people I know that are homosexual that I never found out about. It doesn't change who they are. Two of those teachers were crappy and one was good, and since two of them were teaching math, sexual orientation had exactly zero effect on my interaction with them. If one of my close male friends were gay, I don't imagine it would change anything. If I can be physically close with a straight female friend without it being sexual, I don't see why it would be any different with a gay guy.

Yes, homosexuality has occurred through history and in animals as has polygamy, murder, rape, cannibalism, and many other negative behaviors. That in itself is not enough to make it right.
I don't agree that homosexuality is only now being scorned. To the contrary, I think a lot of gays are being much more open now than they were in the past several decades.

As far as I know, the bible condemns homosexuality in the same Mosaic code in which it allows slavery, condemns children to death for cursing at their parents, and proibiting harvesting the corners of a field. I do agree that people who base their disapproval of homosexuality on the Bible are being overly rigid and literal in their interpretations.

TygressVirgo

08-16-2005, 10:50 PM

TygressVirgo:
Shall I assume your comments are directed toward me because nobody else is taking the "con" side?
I somewhat agree with your first point. I have had 3 teachers and several acquantainces that I found out to be homosexual after I knew them. Since I live in the San Francisco Bay area, it is probably safe to assume that there are more people I know that are homosexual that I never found out about. It doesn't change who they are. Two of those teachers were crappy and one was good, and since two of them were teaching math, sexual orientation had exactly zero effect on my interaction with them. If one of my close male friends were gay, I don't imagine it would change anything. If I can be physically close with a straight female friend without it being sexual, I don't see why it would be any different with a gay guy.

I'm Glad to hear that it wouldn't change anything. That was my point.

Yes, homosexuality has occurred through history and in animals as has polygamy, murder, rape, cannibalism, and many other negative behaviors. That in itself is not enough to make it right.
I don't agree that homosexuality is only now being scorned. To the contrary, I think a lot of gays are being much more open now than they were in the past several decades.

That is in response to those who do not think that it is a natural occuring feeling. About my history comment, I meant that to be written in another way. So please disregard it.

As far as I know, the bible condemns homosexuality in the same Mosaic code in which it allows slavery, condemns children to death for cursing at their parents, and proibiting harvesting the corners of a field. I do agree that people who base their disapproval of homosexuality on the Bible are being overly rigid and literal in their interpretations.

Yes, those statements fall under the Mosaic code. However, when Christ came those laws became secondary to the commandments given to us by Christ in the new testament. Only the ten commandments have the same status. (I wish I had a better way of explaining it.) Look at post #6 for another explanation.

- Ty

p.s. - my post wasn't directed at you, but towards anyone who is against homosexual marriage.

hapacheese

08-16-2005, 10:59 PM

csrjjsmp: I understand your point, but the comparison is still not applicable. When speaking of advancing the rights of a people, one generally assumes you are talking of the average citizen, not those who have committed crimes. Being different != being a criminal. That is the flaw in your argument, really =\

MajorProblem

08-16-2005, 11:28 PM

Last year I found out my best childhood friend was bi, and later I casually mentioned it to a person at my school (my friend had moved to *drumroll* Austin) and he said that all gays should die. To my face. I would have punched him had it not been in class and had his friend not been my friend. I think that we should allow homosexual civil unions, but not force religions to sanction it. What's the problem then? Whoever said before that it's all just bigotry is completely right. By the way, I'm in high school and the majority of us think gay marriage is ok.

KKF

08-16-2005, 11:37 PM

KKF:
Ok, it is a generalization, and I presented it as such. You admit that it's not wrong, so why even say that?

Simple, when you generalize you leave out people who are not the norm. In this case homosexuals.

Believing you're right only makes you foolish if you're wrong. And of course, there's no point in assuming you're wrong if you believe you're...and so on. This can keep going in circles forever. To say that someone is wrong because he believes he is right makes no sense.

Wrong, you are foolish because you can't accept the possiblity that you could be wrong. I KNOW I am not always right. And I can accept that but you seem to be on the road that no matter what you are right. And that is foolish. Why bother having a converstation with someone who believes they are always right? Further more if you can conceed that you could be wrong about the gay issue, we might progress into a real discussion.

Your point was that it was "unfair" to the gays, because if I were in a similar situation, I would feel discriminated against. However, you can't simply reverse the roles like that because it creates a nonsensical situation. As I recall, in the wild, homosexual animals do not reproduce, but their relatives do, and so they pass on the genes. Obviously this would not work if homosexuality were practiced by the majority instead of the minority. So essentially I'm saying, yeah, it's unfair, and in this case it's okay to be unfair.

Why can't I put you in the role of being discriminated against? The point of the role switch is for you to see how it feels from the others point of view. Why they are fighting for the rights you have. Yet even though the homosexual animals do not reproduce they are still their generations later. Meaning that this isn't always a choice for a individual. So why are you inhibiting someones rights because of the way he/she was born?

Law by its nature can't keep out of people's personal affairs. The government, if it so chooses, can draft members of the general population who normally would not choose to serve. The idea of government is that people sacrifice some of their personal freedoms for the common good. To demand that law keep out of private issues? Is domestic violence or child neglect a "personal issue?" Probably. But people have decided that it's enough of a problem that government should step in and do something.

Not really the government can't use call up on the draft. Their are checks and balances for that. And they can not draft everyone. But thats beside the point. You stated, "Is domestic violence or child neglect a "personal issue?" Probably." and I strongly disagree with that. Since the people involved do NOT willing participate in these activities. They are done against their will. Homosexual activties and marriage is par-taken through free will and harms NO one. Also the fact that our constituation states, Seperation between state and church. This little cookie falls in that catogory.

I see nothing wrong with being pulled over and being searched/asked for papers. If it were arrest, harassment, or interrogation, that would be discrimination. If all they do is check you, that's fine. Racial profiling, or whatever you want to call it, probably deserves a seperate thread if you want to discuss that.

It IS harassment! When you do nothing wrong and get pulled over all the time then come back to me that you think its fine.

I never said anything about the "sanctity" of marriage, and I never said that parents who can't get along are right to stay together for the sake of their children. I said that more often than not, they do, and even if you feel they made the wrong choice, they usually do it because to them, family is important to their marriage.

Exactly to THEIR marriage not ALL marriages. Not everyone choose to live the same life style as them. And hence who are you to regulate how people live when it does not effect you negatively? Or anyone else for that matter. Marriage isn't something that is used to have kids and that is my point. People get married for lots of reasons are you suddenly only going to let those who want families to get married?

Also why are you really against gay marriages? How do they effect you negatively? What damage does it do to you if two gay individuals get married?

setrict

08-16-2005, 11:52 PM

I grew up in a very conservative neighborhood with someone who was gay. We rode the same bus on the way to school for about 10 years, and I watched him grow up. From that experience alone I'm pretty sure 'gay' is a disposition you're born with, though I'm not sure what difference that makes.

Being natural doesn't necessarily make it right in my opinion. We have the ability to suppress our base instincts in order to live in a society. What about the love between a young (underage) girl, and an older man? From a biologic standpoint if the girl is capable of mating then it is perfectly natural procreation. There are homosexual acts by wildlife and you want to use those as a supporting argument? There are also animals who eat their young frequently too, and that certainly isn't going to be accepted any time soon for us humans. Just because it's 'natural' doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean it should be accepted with open arms.

I don't support gay marriage.

I do not want to see homosexuals discriminated against, but at the same time I don't hold their unions of the same worth to society as man/woman unions. Gay couples typically do not have children, depriving humanity of genetic diversity (I also think it's a shame more successful people don't have kids for the same reason). I personally believe they cannot be as effective as traditional male/female parents, though there are definately going to be exceptions. Exceptions should not make the rule.

I do support giving most legal marriage rights under civil union (power of attorney, spousal incrimination rights, NOT tax breaks) reserving the term 'marriage' for the traditional sense. Marriage legal persk should be a reward for pursing and commiting to an optimal family unit. There is absolutely no need to redefine a tradition to make sure homosexual couple are given the legal rights they need.

There should be nothing in the law to prevent a gay couple from leading a happy and productive life, but the law should not reinforce deviant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deviant) behavior by rewarding it.

hapacheese

08-17-2005, 12:07 AM

(Don't take these as personal attacks... I'm just offering counterpoints to your arguments.)

Being natural doesn't necessarily make it right in my opinion. We have the ability to suppress our base instincts in order to live in a society. What about the love between a young (underage) girl, and an older man? From a biologic standpoint if the girl is capable of mating then it is perfectly natural procreation. There are homosexual acts by wildlife and you want to use those as a supporting argument? There are also animals who eat their young frequently too, and that certainly isn't going to be accepted any time soon for us humans. Just because it's 'natural' doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean it should be accepted with open arms.

The argument in that it happens in nature was simply to counter the arguments that it's a learned behavior, rather than something that is innate to certain animal groups.

However, the example given about the young girl and older man does not quite fit. In the case of two homosexual men or women, they are consenting adults in the eyes of the law. The young girl (depending on how young) does not have the legal right to consent. Even so, if her parents give permission, it is possible for her to get married. In the case of homosexuals, it is never permissible, in the eyes of the law.

I do not want to see homosexuals discriminated against, but at the same time I don't hold their unions of the same worth to society as man/woman unions. Gay couples typically do not have children, depriving humanity of genetic diversity (I also think it's a shame more successful people don't have kids for the same reason). I personally believe they cannot be as effective as traditional male/female parents, though there are definately going to be exceptions. Exceptions should not make the rule.

What is your conclusion that gay parents do not make as good parents as heterosexual ones? Laws such as these cannot be made based upon personal opinions centering around biases. And preventing gay marriage from happening is not going to affect procreation in society one way or another. Unless they are closet gays, they are simply going to continue to be with their partner, not procreating. How does preventing gay marriage improve that situation?

In addition, how does the "value" of any given marriage factor into whether or not it should be legal? Using the same argument could be used in, say, making it illegal for Japanese Americans to vote. It could be argued that Japanese American votes do not have as much "value" as the average Caucasian American vote because they do not represent the average citizen, or that there simply aren't enough of them to make a large difference.

It's not about value, it's about equality.

I do support giving most legal marriage rights under civil union (power of attorney, spousal incrimination rights, NOT tax breaks) reserving the term 'marriage' for the traditional sense. Marriage legal persk should be a reward for pursing and commiting to an optimal family unit. There is absolutely no need to redefine a tradition to make sure homosexual couple are given the legal rights they need.

I'm not entirely sure I understand this. What rights should be given to gays and what rights should not? And the current issue is that the lawbooks make no differentiation between the legal union and the religious one. What happens when an aethiest gets married? Should that person not get certain perks?

Or how about someone who is infertile? Should they not receive certain perks because they cannot produce an optimal family unit? And what standard is this "optimal" standard based upon?

Tradition has no bearing (well, it shouldn't, but that obviously doesn't prevent judges from thinking so) in law. It was "tradition" in America to own slaves, but that was overcome. It was "tradition" in America to disallow interracial marriages, but, again, that was overcome. And how far back should we count "tradition"? How many years does something need to be considered the norm before it becomes tradition? How does one break it?

In order for something to stand a proper legal judgement, it needs to be quantifiable, otherwise it goes too far into the gray area.

There should be nothing in the law to prevent a gay couple from leading a happy and productive life, but the law should not reinforce deviant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deviant) behavior by rewarding it.

The question isn't about leading a happy life or about rewarding certain types of behavior... but about equality. It is a right that is granted to the average citizen, but not given to others based upon purely arbitrary arguments.

I'm not sure where this quote came from, but someone once said, "A democracy's success should not be based upon how it treats the majority, but how it treats its dissenters." Or something.

Roxie

08-17-2005, 12:09 AM

I don't support gay marriage.

I do not want to see homosexuals discriminated against, but at the same time I don't hold their unions of the same worth to society as man/woman unions. Gay couples typically do not have children, depriving humanity of genetic diversity (I also think it's a shame more successful people don't have kids for the same reason). I personally believe they cannot be as effective as traditional male/female parents, though there are definately going to be exceptions. Exceptions should not make the rule.
So you do want to see homosexuals discriminated aganist b/c basically, you don't see their relationship as equal to a heterosexual relationship b/c they don't have children?

To think of them as not as worthy = discrimination.

They're not drepriving anyone of anything. Do you know how many children are waiting to be adopted?

What about people who do not want children? What about people who cannot have children? Are their unions not as worthy? What about those who choose to adopt a few of the thousands of children in govn't care, but do not have their own. Are they not worthy?

Being natural doesn't necessarily make it right in my opinion. We have the ability to suppress our base instincts in order to live in a society. What about the love between a young (underage) girl, and an older man? From a biologic standpoint if the girl is capable of mating then it is perfectly natural procreation. There are homosexual acts by wildlife and you want to use those as a supporting argument?

First of all, there's a huge hole in your arguement here.
1. We're talking about adults of age making a consenting choice to be married.

2. love between a young (underage) girl, and an older man involves one person who is not an adult and undoubtly explotation of some sort and/or abuse of position/power.
I do support giving most legal marriage rights under civil union (power of attorney, spousal incrimination rights, NOT tax breaks) reserving the term 'marriage' for the traditional sense. Marriage legal persk should be a reward for pursing and commiting to an optimal family unit. There is absolutely no need to redefine a tradition to make sure homosexual couple are given the legal rights they need.
Yes there is. Many gay couples have or want children. Why are their rights denied?
Many heterosexual couples do not want or cannot have children. According to you shouldn't they have those rights revoked?

There should be nothing in the law to prevent a gay couple from leading a happy and productive life, but the law should not reinforce deviant (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deviant) behavior by rewarding it.
Anyone who differs from the norm should be punished?
And you still think you aren't discreminating?

koku

08-17-2005, 12:14 AM

meeh why is htis even an issue anymore. people are people let them do what they want.

InsertWapNameHere

08-17-2005, 01:20 AM

Simple questions to ask yourself:

1a) Is what a group doing affecting your own, or someone else's quality of life?
1b) Would giving them what they want start affecting your own, or someone else's quality of life?
2) Is denying them what they want affecting their quality of life?
3) In the long run, would giving them what they want help society or hurt it?

KKF

08-17-2005, 01:52 AM

Well said hapacheese and roxie. :)

KKF

08-17-2005, 01:52 AM

setrict

08-17-2005, 02:05 AM

Just to clear up.

So you do want to see homosexuals discriminated aganist b/c basically, you don't see their relationship as equal to a heterosexual relationship b/c they don't have children?

To think of them as not as worthy = discrimination.

It is not discrimination. The decision to be a gay couple is a choice. Not doing so is also a choice. Society holds people accountable for their choices all the time. If you want the word dicrimination to have such a broad connotation, than I discriminated against a tuna sandwich earlier.

I think that traditional marriage between a man and a women that have offspring should be rewarded by the government with much needed tax breaks because it helps society as a whole 'produce' the next generation.

In all other respects save the term 'marriage' I think homosexual couples and heterosexual couples should have the exact same rights.

First of all, there's a huge hole in your arguement here.
1. We're talking about adults of age making a consenting choice to be married.

2. love between a young (underage) girl, and an older man involves one person who is not an adult and undoubtly explotation of some sort and/or abuse of position/power.

Not necessarily. Those two are points are accepted and actually defined by society, and rightfully so. Consider point (1). Adults of age. Who defines age? Society. Do they have reasons, of course they do - just like I explained my reasons. Are they discriminating against people for doing so? Is it wrong for society to set bounds on behavior? Point (2). Exploitation. Absolutely, and that's why it's so wrong. Am I not being exploited by my Tax dollars going toward rewarding people for doing something I disagree with?

Anyone who differs from the norm should be punished?
And you still think you aren't discreminating?

What exactly do you think civilization is based on? There are things that I believe should not be discriminated against, most notably those things that are not choices. Things like race, handicap, the actions of your parents/grandparents, where you were born, how you were raised ,etc. Society is defined by what the people think, and yes, in the grey reality we have people are discriminated against everyday. Are fast food workers discriminated against because they don't earn the same pay as a lawyer? Society values some things more than it values others, is that also discrimination?

The sole question in my mind is should deviant behavior be encouraged/rewarded with tax breaks. To that I say absolutely not. Society rewards activity it wants to encourage.

In answer to other questions. No, infertile couples should not get tax breaks just for being a couple, unless they adopt. Gay couples adopting is fine with me given the need, it has to be better than a state institution.

The question isn't about leading a happy life or about rewarding certain types of behavior... but about equality. It is a right that is granted to the average citizen, but not given to others based upon purely arbitrary arguments.

Incorrect. Pursuing a gay lifestlye is a behavior choice, and has nothing to do with equality. Equality of results is a fairy tale, what we should be insuring is Equality of opportunity. A poor example (I mean no offense): Take two students, twins one lazy male and one hard-working female. Same parents, same family income, same school, etc. They should have equality of opportunity, and be free from discrimination of gender or race. Does this mean they should have equality of results? The girl goes on to gradute at the top of her class, while the lazy guy only manages an average grade level. Will scholarships providers also be considered discriminating when they reward based on behavior, and give money to the girl for college? Determining a students value based on grades is also 'a purely arbitrary' judgement that society provides, is it not discrimination too?

kensei

08-17-2005, 02:25 AM

setrict

08-17-2005, 02:36 AM

Homosexuality is a choice, hm? So your belief is that homosexuals should be able to obtain equal rights under the law if and only if they can marry someone of the opposite gender, even though said individual would be in a gender class that lends no physical attraction to previously mentioned individual? Furthermore, your belief causes an unfulfilled sex life for said individual.

I never said that, in fact my first post indicated the opposite. I said a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. Homosexual urges are no different than heterosexual urges morally speaking - it's the actions that count. Just because I desire to do something doesn't mean it's the best choice, or that I should expect others to support it.

We aren't talking about denying anyone sex, or love, or anything else except some additional rights married people have that unmarried people do not. It's not like we're forcing anyone to live an unfulfilled and empty life! Heck why should married people get any rights anyway, it's the goverment discriminating against us single people.

hapacheese

08-17-2005, 03:01 AM

Setrict: When applying logic to one group, you *have* to apply the same logic to the others, otherwise it is not equality. Heterosexual marriage is as much a lifestyle choice as is homosexual marriage. Two people do *not* have to get married in order to enjoy a loving relationship and start a family, correct?

So, explain to me why it is that heterosexuals enjoy the benefits of marriage and homosexuals cannot?

And I never said that it was about equality of results. It is about equality of opportunity as provided by the law (there is no legal basis for having equal financial opportunities, however, there is a legal precedent for discrimination based on sexual orientation). Heterosexual people are given the (legally sanctioned) opportunity to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Homosexuals are not.

Oh, and the role of a democratic/republic government (since we're not really a democracy) is not to simply "promote" certain behavior, but to protect the rights of its citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

As for the age of consent thing, yes, the limit is arbitrary. However, it is *equal* to all people. Assuming that a person does not die before the age of 18, *everyone* has the opportunity to gain full rights as an adult. Gays do not. If there are going to be arbitrary standards placed upon a group of people, it must be equal across all groups.

The issue with the arguments you use is that they could *all* be used against religion. I am personally not religious, but various members of my family are and I have nothing personal against it. But, let's see your arguments:

- Lifestyle choice: Check
- Use of non-believers' tax dollars to do things not supported by me: Check
- Churches get tax breaks: Check

Why should I support freedom of religion, then? Because I want the ability to be able to *not* worship as I see fit, even if it means everyone else can.

KKF

08-17-2005, 03:37 AM

It is not discrimination. The decision to be a gay couple is a choice. Not doing so is also a choice. Society holds people accountable for their choices all the time. If you want the word dicrimination to have such a broad connotation, than I discriminated against a tuna sandwich earlier.

So you can choose to be attracted to males then? Why not give it a shot. I'd really like to hear from you once you like taking it up the ass. You know since its a choice you should be able to like that. :rolleyes: On a serious note it IS discimination. Discrimination is the treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit. So guess what YOU are discriminating against gays. And a tuna sandwich is not a individual.

I think that traditional marriage between a man and a women that have offspring should be rewarded by the government with much needed tax breaks because it helps society as a whole 'produce' the next generation.

Sigh, quick question what is a "traditional" marriage in your eyes. On top of that ever hear of the saying, seperation of state and church? Further more if a gay couple adopt why shouldn't they get tax cuts? They are raising said future generation.

In all other respects save the term 'marriage' I think homosexual couples and heterosexual couples should have the exact same rights.

Ah yes, so its ok to discriminate agaist them just a little! Brilliant!

Not necessarily. Those two are points are accepted and actually defined by society, and rightfully so. Consider point (1). Adults of age. Who defines age? Society. Do they have reasons, of course they do - just like I explained my reasons. Are they discriminating against people for doing so? Is it wrong for society to set bounds on behavior? Point (2). Exploitation. Absolutely, and that's why it's so wrong. Am I not being exploited by my Tax dollars going toward rewarding people for doing something I disagree with?

I wrote a page on how you are wrong. But in the end just deleted because I know you won't agree and are going to argue stupid little details. It stands that two adults have the right to make choices for themselves and that the constitution states that seperation of state and church. I strongly believe in this. And hence I believe they have no legal ground to ban gay marriage. About your tax dollars "rewarding" people that you disagree with. I disagree with a lot of what our tax dollars go for but helping a gay couple raise a child is not something I see as a waste of my money.

What exactly do you think civilization is based on? There are things that I believe should not be discriminated against, most notably those things that are not choices. Things like race, handicap, the actions of your parents/grandparents, where you were born, how you were raised ,etc. Society is defined by what the people think, and yes, in the grey reality we have people are discriminated against everyday. Are fast food workers discriminated against because they don't earn the same pay as a lawyer? Society values some things more than it values others, is that also discrimination?

First off its its a choice why are you not getting humped in the butt by some gay dude? On top of that why are their homosexual animals? It goes against the very grain of nature for them to be homosexual. Further more you state you don't think we should discriminate against how you were raised. Well if its a choice then you were raised to be gay. Hence you agree you shouldn't discriminate someone for being gay. Your argument about pay difference is not valid. Since they provided difference services with different values attached to them. Its how a free market works after all.

The sole question in my mind is should deviant behavior be encouraged/rewarded with tax breaks. To that I say absolutely not. Society rewards activity it wants to encourage.

Being someone that differs from the norm is nothing wrong. In fact a lot of our greatest individuals that have changed history are "deviant" by your mindset. Because the norm was to have slaves. The norm was to have segregation. Need I go on? Society in general is not always correct. Society also changes over time and you are in the times of the past. Since homosexuality is becoming more accepted. Once society accepts it as a norm your point will be null and void.

In answer to other questions. No, infertile couples should not get tax breaks just for being a couple, unless they adopt. Gay couples adopting is fine with me given the need, it has to be better than a state institution.

Yet even if gay couples adopt they shouldn't still get tax breaks because that encourages "deviant" behavior? Wow, great thought process.

Incorrect. Pursuing a gay lifestlye is a behavior choice, and has nothing to do with equality. Equality of results is a fairy tale, what we should be insuring is Equality of opportunity. A poor example (I mean no offense): Take two students, twins one lazy male and one hard-working female. Same parents, same family income, same school, etc. They should have equality of opportunity, and be free from discrimination of gender or race. Does this mean they should have equality of results? The girl goes on to gradute at the top of her class, while the lazy guy only manages an average grade level. Will scholarships providers also be considered discriminating when they reward based on behavior, and give money to the girl for college? Determining a students value based on grades is also 'a purely arbitrary' judgement that society provides, is it not discrimination too?

Ok you go and become gay for a while then. Since its a lifestyle choice after all. Should be easy for you to become gay for lets say 6 months. Get yourself a boyfriend and have some fun why don't you. You know since its a lifestyle choice. The thing is you are NOT giving homosexuals equal opportunities that you give hetrosexual couples. Ie tax breaks for them while hetro's get them.

setrict

08-17-2005, 03:39 AM

hapacheese,

Good points.

So, explain to me why it is that heterosexuals enjoy the benefits of marriage and homosexuals cannot?
The same reason single people can't, because they aren't promoting what society accepts as a normal family unit.

Heterosexual people are given the (legally sanctioned) opportunity to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Homosexuals are not.

Two people of the same gender cannot marry in a legally sanctioned manor. Two heterosexual life mates (Jay! sBob!) cannot legally marry and receive marriage benefits. Homosexual and Heterosexual people are 'discriminated' against equally. The only difference between the two is preference.

I prefer not wearing pants. I tell people this, and to my knowlege they do not discriminate against me for this terrible tidbit of information. Mc Donald's has a policy required shoes, shirt, and most likely pants though it's not actually on the sign (loophole?). If I choose to go pant-free to McDonalds, and they refuse me service, are they discriminating against me because I prefer not wearing pants, or because I'm NOT wearing any pants? The answer is they aren't discriminating at all, they treat all people regardless of their preference the same. No pants, no happy meal.

And yes, I'm mainly playing devils advocate because the thread is leaning too far one way ;)

- Lifestyle choice: Check
- Use of non-believers' tax dollars to do things not supported by me: Check
- Churches get tax breaks: Check

Lifestyle choice. Definately, but not goverment sanctioned.
Use of non-believers tax dollars. Yeah, probably... though I'm not too clear on your point here. The goverment shouldn't be funding em.
Tax breaks. No more than any non-profit organization. Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. There isn't a 'church' tax break to my knowledge.

KKF

08-17-2005, 03:39 AM

KKF

08-17-2005, 03:41 AM

Lifestyle choice. Definately, but not goverment sanctioned.
Use of non-believers tax dollars. Yeah, probably... though I'm not too clear on your point here. The goverment shouldn't be funding em.
Tax breaks. No more than any non-profit organization. Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. There isn't a 'church' tax break to my knowledge.

Yes it is goverment sanctioned. They pay NO taxes. Hence the government funds them.

setrict

08-17-2005, 03:54 AM

KKF:

You're right, we probably wouldn't agree.

And a tuna sandwich is not a individual.

Maybe, still not convinced on this point....

I won't bother replying to most of your points, since you're completely missing mine :) Let me ask you this one question:

Do you think it is right that married couples get additional right other people or groups do not?

Your answer to this question could invalidate your entire argument, so think carefully.

Sigh, quick question what is a "traditional" marriage in your eyes. On top of that ever hear of the saying, seperation of state and church?

Umm.. unless I'm mistaken about the word traditional, that would be a union between a man and a women. All through history that's pretty much what marriage has meant, that's why it's called traditional. Not saying that it is RIGHT because it's traditional, many traditions are down right silly - but it doesn't keep them from being traditional. Speration of church and state are irrelevant here, other than most churches don't santion gay marriage and represent opposition to the idea. No more evil than gay people supporting gay marriage, its people expressing their beliefs - nothing wrong with that on either side. The question is the state, and the extra rights given married couples. Has nothing to do directly with religion.

Last post for the night, hope I didn't offend too much.

Roxie

08-17-2005, 04:09 AM

Umm.. unless I'm mistaken about the word traditional, that would be a union between a man and a women. All through history that's pretty much what marriage has meant, that's why it's called traditional. Not saying that it is RIGHT because it's traditional, many traditions are down right silly - but it doesn't keep them from being traditional.

Last post for the night, hope I didn't offend too much.
marriages consisting of two people from different races isn't considered traditional either. Hell, even dating between races is considered taboo. So what about them?

So just b/c these things aren't traditional, even though you admit they may not be right, you're just going to go along with them, just because?

setrict

08-17-2005, 04:32 AM

So just b/c these things aren't traditional, even though you admit they may not be right, you're just going to go along with them, just because?

Hardly. As I stated before I have logical reasons for supporting the tradition. While you may not agree with them, I think it's pretty clear I'm not going along with it 'just because'. I'm not sure why we are debating the meaning of traditional here, it is a label to indicate how society has viewed marriages in the recent past and has no bearing on whether or not that's the way marriage should be viewed. It's just a fact.

As for marriage and race, that to me is an entirely different topic. Race is something that just is. You can't wake up one morning and decide hey, I'm going to be Black. It didn't work for Vanilla Ice, and it won't work for you. I have no explanation for Eminem. You may be born with homosexual tendancies, but you choose a gay lifestyle. From birth, I've had a predisposition against work, but that just isn't a lifestyle choice the world seems to want to accept yet either.

Roxie

08-17-2005, 04:36 AM

You may be born with homosexual tendancies, but you choose a gay lifestyle.
This makes no sense whatsoever.

Just as you can't wake up and decide to be black, you don't wake up and decide to be gay. What is a "gay lifestyle" anyway? Wouldn't being alive and gay make anything you do a "gay lifestyle"?

When did you choose your heterosexual lifestyle?

Dae_Dae

08-17-2005, 04:53 AM

i'm bi and I'm proud. :) tehe. I think gay marriage should be allowed. The world isn't going to end if two guys or girls get married. So let us be! :D

setrict

08-17-2005, 05:11 AM

Shrapier

08-17-2005, 05:54 AM

i'm for gay marriages. its probably because i live and grew up in SF but it doesn't seem like a very big issue to me. if people want to live a 'gay lifestyle' as some of you have put it, does it really affect the greater part of society? if those few thousand couples in America get married will it really bring the world to an end?

also if you are born gay, is it really that easy to choose not to live the 'gay lifestyle?' its like saying well naturally you have to breathe but you can also choose not to. its not very easy to go against your basic instincts if you are in fact born gay.

as for the traditional family unit, it is still possible to have children in a sense. many gay couples choose to adopt a child. this benefits society greatly and imo helps to balance out the 'damage' of not having a diverse gene pool.

csrjjsmp

08-17-2005, 06:33 AM

KKF

08-17-2005, 07:44 AM

I won't bother replying to most of your points, since you're completely missing mine :) Let me ask you this one question: Funny you have yet to admit that being gay is not a choice. If it was a choice you could act gay at will. Till you answer that then I'll answer your question.

Do you think it is right that married couples get additional right other people or groups do not?

Your answer to this question could invalidate your entire argument, so think carefully.

Please don't try to patronize me or anyone else for that matter. :rolleyes: And of course you're still wrong the answer couldn't invalidate my entire argument. Since it still wouldn't matters since homosexuals are being discriminated either way.

Umm.. unless I'm mistaken about the word traditional, that would be a union between a man and a women. All through history that's pretty much what marriage has meant, that's why it's called traditional. Not saying that it is RIGHT because it's traditional, many traditions are down right silly - but it doesn't keep them from being traditional. Speration of church and state are irrelevant here, other than most churches don't santion gay marriage and represent opposition to the idea. No more evil than gay people supporting gay marriage, its people expressing their beliefs - nothing wrong with that on either side. The question is the state, and the extra rights given married couples. Has nothing to do directly with religion.
Last post for the night, hope I didn't offend too much.

Actually it does have a lot to do with religion. And for you to say it has nothing to do with it shows your lack of knowledge in this issue. Without the religions opposing gay marriages this would be a non-issue. Since they are it is a issue. What other reasons would their be to argue about this? Think very carefully how you answer, it could destroy your entire argument. :rolleyes:

KKF

08-17-2005, 07:58 AM

Setrict:
I wouldn't say that being gay is a choice. If you chose to be gay for a month, you'd probably have a hard time of it and probably wouldn't be able to. I will take a huge leap and assume it would be similarly difficult for a gay person to "choose" to be straight. There are other behaviors, such as alcoholism, where genetic factors make it easier for a certain person to become addicted, or when a person's metabolism predisposes him to be obese because of the way it processes and stores food. The person doesn't choose to be a drunkard or a glutton, and might in theory be able to control himself, but in reality few do and so they are blamed for their "choices" while they really don't have as much control over it as you might think.

With that said, I don't agree that it's wrong to punish someone for something they can't help. For example, the classic "retarded people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce" argument. Just because something doesn't feel fair doesn't make it wrong if that decision is better for society as a whole.

Interracial marriage is non-traditional, but it is okay because it benefits the population as a whole. Interracial breeding minimizes the risk of harmful recessives surfacing, and also allows for mixing of the gene pool, creating more diversity than there would be if people were segregated by race. However, as I said before, in order to be "progress," something must be shown to be beneficial. That's why I would consider legalization of interracial marriage progress but not legalization of homosexual marriage.

A lot of people have also said "how does it hurt you if they marry?" To judge issues like this based on whether you yourself will benefit or come to harm is awfully selfish. In reality, average straight person opposed to gay marriage probably won't be hurt. But average straight person supporting gay marriage probably won't be hurt if gay's arent allowed to marry. They support it because they think it's right that they be allowed to do so, and because they feel it would be better if society did things their way. It is not hard to see opponents of gay marriage in the same way. Sure, they won't be hurt. That doesn't mean they should want to see it legalized.

I don't get it? How does not getting married affect the out come of society betterment as a whole. Think about it, will these homosexuals individuals suddenly get married to hetro's and have kids? No, of course not. Nothing would change to better society at all. Instead you'll have a discriminated group of individuals that people will continue to be treated wrongly because of how they were born. And you say that is for the betterment of society?! I see this as being a whole lot worse for society. Discrimination is never a good thing overall. Once you start to discriminate you start creating hate between groups. That is NOT better for society.

As for your point that I won't be hurt, since im straight and for gay marriages, is wrong. I have plenty of gay friends and since they are my friends I would be hurt by the discrimination they face. Or the fact that they can't adopt kids and so forth. I do not support gay marriages for myself its for them that I do. And for the betterment of society to accept people for who they are. The difference is how many of the people who are against gay marriages actually have good gay friends? How many of them can honestly say they have several gay friends? I'd be pretty sure that not many can say that they do. For that matter do you have any good gay friends? Not someone you know is gay, im talking about someone you call reguarly and hang out with.

KKF

08-17-2005, 08:01 AM

" What is a "gay lifestyle" anyway? Wouldn't being alive and gay make anything you do a "gay lifestyle"?"

Well that is a damn good point, you got me there :eek:

By gay lifestyle I mean practicing homosexual. It is definately possible to be gay, and not practice a homosexual lifestyle (ie sexual/romantic partners). It is also possible to be heterosexual and not practice a heterosexual lifestyle.

I'm separating desire from action. You may have a desire to consume alcohol. Wanting a drink and taking a drink are very different, and are viewed by society and law differently. I'm all for 'gay' rights. I'm against a homosexual lifestyle. It doesn't mean I don't like gay people, it means I value the traditional family unit over other alternatives if at all possible. I value it because I believe it is the best for the children, for thhe family, and for society as a whole. That is my belief, though I would welcome any scientific studies to the contrary.

So that means you can stop being aroused by women then right? It is a choice to be aroused by them when you see one after all. You know you can choose to be disgusted by them or not. Also start being aroused by men. Come on if you are so sure of what you say lets see you become aroused by a man. And not by a woman. Once you have done that for a year then talk about choice.

Second of all how is discrimination of a group better for society as a whole?

Y.T.

08-17-2005, 02:54 PM

There should be nothing in the law to prevent a gay couple from leading a happy and productive life, but the law should not reinforce deviant behavior by rewarding it.

In Slovakia, if you are a religious nutjob, you are the deviant person.
Czech Republic.. the same thing. It's actually not a reward if you have
the same rights as another person.. besides..

I agree that not having children is a bit strange.. but if we
do allow biotechnology to improve, having children would no
longer be only a domain of women. So, then, the problem
would kind of disappear...

setrict

08-17-2005, 04:29 PM

csrjjsmp

I agree with almost everything you said, with the exception of whether or not a person can choose. Choices are always possible, but may not always be easy. For example, I know I have an addictive/gluttonous personality. I know that if I buy a fifth of rum, I'll probably drink it all. Moderation does not come easy. I try very hard not to put myself in situations where my nature could get the best of me. I don't gamble, I don't go to auctions, I'm very careful about quantity and setting bounds for consumption. Most of us DO have control over our choices, difficult as they may be.

"Funny you have yet to admit that being gay is not a choice. If it was a choice you could act gay at will. Till you answer that then I'll answer your question."

This was the very first paragraph of my first post in this topic! Of course I can 'act' gay at will, but I can't become gay at will and more than a gay person can change their disposition. You still aren't able to differentiate between desire and action.

Please don't try to patronize me or anyone else for that matter. And of course you're still wrong the answer couldn't invalidate my entire argument. Since it still wouldn't matters since homosexuals are being discriminated either way.

Nice dodge.

Actually it does have a lot to do with religion. And for you to say it has nothing to do with it shows your lack of knowledge in this issue. Without the religions opposing gay marriages this would be a non-issue. Since they are it is a issue. What other reasons would their be to argue about this? Think very carefully how you answer, it could destroy your entire argument.

Of course many of the opponents to gay marriage are religious, but not always. The fact is that people oppose the idea, their reasons may be religious, pragmantic, or even on a whim. It still comes down to personal belief. I'm betting that the majority of gay people support gay marriage. Without their vocal opposition this would be a non-issue. /sarcasm off.

I don't get it? How does not getting married affect the out come of society betterment as a whole. Think about it, will these homosexuals individuals suddenly get married to hetro's and have kids? No, of course not. Nothing would change to better society at all. Instead you'll have a discriminated group of individuals that people will continue to be treated wrongly because of how they were born.

I still don't get this argument. It's not like I'm trying to restrict gay people from forming couples, adopting children, or living the lifestyle they choose. I am trying to keep the goverment from encouraging it. You'd think I was kicking puppies or something. The fact is that the additional rights given under legally sanctioned marriage are minor impedences to a gay relationship. I've even stated that with the exception of tax incentives and the term marriage, these rights should also go to gay couples. What more do you want? Oh, of course... you want approval for a lifestyle choice. Lets be honest, that's what this argument is about. Ask yourself if you'd drop the issue if the goverment stopped sanctioning all marriage, and left everyone equal with civil union rights. Would gay marriage supporters be content without redefining the traditional term of marriage? I doubt it, because the true prize is not marriage rights, it's lifestyle approval.

For that matter do you have any good gay friends? Not someone you know is gay, im talking about someone you call reguarly and hang out with.

One of my best friends is probably in the closet, but I really have no idea for sure. If he did come out, he'd still be one of my best friends, though we'd have words if he started grabbing my ass. In answer to your question though, none of my current friends are openly gay.

And for the betterment of society to accept people for who they are.

I'm all for accepting people, and making sure they are treated with the same rights and respect as others. I do not have to agree with someone to accept them. I accept gay people openly. I do not accept the idea of gay marriage. I'm rejecting an idea/philosophy/way of life, not a person. A gay man has the same rights as I do, and so he should.

Mushu

08-17-2005, 05:20 PM

setric

One of my best friends is probably in the closet, but I really have no idea for sure. If he did come out, he'd still be one of my best friends, > though we'd have words if he started grabbing my ass <. In answer to your question though, none of my current friends are openly gay. hahaha, there dies your argument mate, your nothing but a homophobe, just 'come out' and admit it instead of hiding behind all those dumb arguments as its not right or natural.

Btw the fuck makes you think he or other gay people want your sorry-ignorant ass, get down from your high horse

I'm all for accepting people, and making sure they are treated with the same rights and respect as others. I do not have to agree with someone to accept them. I accept gay people openly. I do not accept the idea of gay marriage. I'm rejecting an idea/philosophy/way of life, not a person. A gay man has the same rights as I do, and so he should. how can you say that btw, your saying that a gay man has the same rights as you do, yet you are denying him the right of marriage which means you DO NOT accept gay people and you are NOT A OPEN MINDED person. It’s like a white person saying 'I like black people, I wouldn’t want them fucking my daughter' (hehe, I sometime crack myself up :D )

hapacheese

08-17-2005, 06:59 PM

And yes, I'm mainly playing devils advocate because the thread is leaning too far one way ;)

Of course. I enjoy a good debate :D

The same reason single people can't, because they aren't promoting what society accepts as a normal family unit.

Not necessarily true. Single people have the option of forming a union with someone in line with their own natural sexual preference. Forming of an "accepted family unit" is peripheral to the fact. A heterosexual couple can adopt a child - which is, in form, the "normal family unit" you speak of - but does not support the need of expanding the population, as the couple is simply raising a child that had already been born.

The presence of a mother/father vs. two fathers/two mothers being more advantageous cannot be used either, as there has been no satisfactory scientific research into the matter, one way or the other. In addition, single parents who are contrary to the "normal family unit" receive government aid in the form of tax breaks and whatnot, despite the fact.

Two people of the same gender cannot marry in a legally sanctioned manor. Two heterosexual life mates (Jay! sBob!) cannot legally marry and receive marriage benefits. Homosexual and Heterosexual people are 'discriminated' against equally. The only difference between the two is preference.

But, it could be (scientifically) argued that homosexuality is *not* a preference, but it is simply the only choice for them. That is like saying heterosexuality is a choice. Do you simply "choose" to love a woman? Or do you have a natural tendency to love women?

Thankfully, your preference of not wearing pants is not biologically determined. The act of wearing pants is a societal constraint, and really, you could wear a dress, shorts, or underwear if you wished. The rules of McDonald's do not apply, either, since it is a private institution, and not the government.

Lifestyle choice. Definately, but not goverment sanctioned.
Use of non-believers tax dollars. Yeah, probably... though I'm not too clear on your point here. The goverment shouldn't be funding em.
Tax breaks. No more than any non-profit organization. Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc. There isn't a 'church' tax break to my knowledge.

It is government sanctioned in so much that religions have additional tax benefits over non-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations still have to pay property tax, and any other non-revenue-related taxes. Churches do not.

As for non-believer tax dollars... someone's gotta pay for the lack of taxes the religious groups don't pay. In addition, the school voucher system allows for people to bring tax dollars to religious schools. There are many other examples :)

setrict

08-17-2005, 08:19 PM

Btw the fuck makes you think he or other gay people want your sorry-ignorant ass, get down from your high horse

Dear god! Some people cannot take a joke. :rolleyes: That comment was made to try and lighten the paragraph, I didn't mean for anyone to take it seriously! Besides, they really do want my ass /shake. <--- that was another poor attempt at a joke for the humor impaired (or by the humor impaired depending on your point of view).

I don't want to debate with hapacheese anymore, his arguments are starting to make sense to me :confused: I'll just say again that the desire to do something does necessarily not make it acceptable. Marriage is an action, prompted by desire. I'm not aruging that gay people shouldn't feel the way they feel, though I think it would be easier on society and on them if they didn't. I think a lot of you are confusing the right to have desire with the right to act on it. In the case of gay coupling the impact on society is minimal, and should be accepted. I do not feel that it is an optimum coupling, so it should not be encouraged or given the stamp of approval. Encouragement by society should used to promote ideas or actions that offer the optimum return to society.

Anything else at this point will just be re-re-reiteration, so I'm done. I'll conceed that many of you have some very good points that I identify and in some cases agree with, but it's still not enough to persuade me.

hapacheese

08-17-2005, 08:42 PM

I claim these lands in the name of the Left!!!!1! :D

/plants flag

"What is it lieutenant Sebastian?"
"It's just the Rebels, sir... they're here."
"My God, man! Do they want tea?"
"No, I think they're after something a bit more than that, sir. I don't know what it is, but they've brought a flag."
"Damn, that's dash cunning of them."

/Eddie Izzard

kensei

08-17-2005, 08:49 PM

Dear god! Some people cannot take a joke. :rolleyes: That comment was made to try and lighten the paragraph, I didn't mean for anyone to take it seriously! Besides, they really do want my ass /shake. <--- that was another poor attempt at a joke for the humor impaired (or by the humor impaired depending on your point of view).

I don't want to debate with hapacheese anymore, his arguments are starting to make sense to me :confused: I'll just say again that the desire to do something does necessarily not make it acceptable. Marriage is an action, prompted by desire. I'm not aruging that gay people shouldn't feel the way they feel, though I think it would be easier on society and on them if they didn't. I think a lot of you are confusing the right to have desire with the right to act on it. In the case of gay coupling the impact on society is minimal, and should be accepted. I do not feel that it is an optimum coupling, so it should not be encouraged or given the stamp of approval. Encouragement by society should used to promote ideas or actions that offer the optimum return to society.

Anything else at this point will just be re-re-reiteration, so I'm done. I'll conceed that many of you have some very good points that I identify and in some cases agree with, but it's still not enough to persuade me.
One last thing: Have you ever heard of a gay couple on welfare?

setrict

08-17-2005, 09:35 PM

Have you ever heard of a gay couple on welfare?

Hmm... no, but then I don't know any families currently on welfare. I would guess that by representative population there are more openly successful gay people than straight, and conversely there are fewer gay couples on welfare than straight couples adjusted by population.

I think the reason for this should be obvious. It takes a tremendous amount of courage, and effort to make a stand for something they believe in, especially when in a minority status. If there is a disparity in the relative income or poverty levels it's probably because the openly gay population is not representative of the entire gay polulation.

The willingness to go against the grain for what they believe in shows ambition, confidence, and a strength of character. The same qualities that help make successful leaders in the real world. Despite my view on gay marriage I have a tremendous amount of respect for openly gay people; not because they are gay, but because it takes a hell of a lot of courage to be yourself sometimes.

If being gay becomes accepted at the same level and being straight at some point in the future, I'd expect the representative levels to come back to around the same.

csrjjsmp

08-17-2005, 11:10 PM

KKF
Being against homosexuality is not at all tied to religion. After all, remember all those Catholic priests molesting little boys?
I'm an atheist and I don't support gay marriage.

What you say agrees with me, you say it's for the sake of your gay friends, so in other words, you think people would be better off if gays were allowed to marry. However, if you're straight, then it doesn't affect you directly. So you can't discredit people who oppose gay marriage in such a way, because they are affected indirectly as well.
Near SF, there are enough openly gay/bisexual people that it's hard to not know any unless you're actively avoiding them or you're a natural recluse.

setrict:
I wasn't clear on what you meant by a "choice." You're right, it is possible, just difficult.

For those who say "then go fuck another man," that's different. I don't believe either setrict or myself said that gay sodomy should be illegal, only gay marriage. Sex occurs in private, marriage is a legal contract.

Mushu:
A homosexual does have the right to marry someone else of the opposite gender, just as a hetero does, and are equal in the eyes of the law in all other ways, are they not?

kensei:
There are a lot of poor homosexuals up here in Oakland/Berkeley.

KKF

08-18-2005, 12:32 AM

KKF
Being against homosexuality is not at all tied to religion. After all, remember all those Catholic priests molesting little boys?
I'm an atheist and I don't support gay marriage.

Which in the eyes of god is "wrong". The religious right plays a HUGE role in this. You can't deny that fact. Also since you are a atheist why are you against gay marriages? It just doesn't add up.

What you say agrees with me, you say it's for the sake of your gay friends, so in other words, you think people would be better off if gays were allowed to marry. However, if you're straight, then it doesn't affect you directly. So you can't discredit people who oppose gay marriage in such a way, because they are affected indirectly as well.
Near SF, there are enough openly gay/bisexual people that it's hard to not know any unless you're actively avoiding them or you're a natural recluse.

Thats not true. Since I do have close friends that are gay and one I concider part of my family it effects me directly and daily. While for someone that has no gay friends it does not effect them daily or for that matter ever if they choose to ignore them. But you still didn't answer my question. How many gay people do you concider good friends of yours? Seriously, how many could you randomly call up and hang out with anytime you choose?

setrict:
I wasn't clear on what you meant by a "choice." You're right, it is possible, just difficult.

For those who say "then go fuck another man," that's different. I don't believe either setrict or myself said that gay sodomy should be illegal, only gay marriage. Sex occurs in private, marriage is a legal contract.

Why though? You agree that being homosexual is not a choice right? Just like I can not suddenly become attracted to men, they can't suddenly be attracted to woman. So the only difference in a straight marriage vs a gay marriage is the fact that they are of the same sex. Nothing else changes beside the biology that is in play. Both couples can still have kids and raise them. The only difference that in male couples can't "have" them. But they can adopt or have a surrogate mother. So again whats the difference? It has no negative social affects.

Mushu:
A homosexual does have the right to marry someone else of the opposite gender, just as a hetero does, and are equal in the eyes of the law in all other ways, are they not?

Yes but they do not have the right to marry the person they love of the same gender. They also are not equal under the law because of this, how is discrimination ever equal?

kensei:
There are a lot of poor homosexuals up here in Oakland/Berkeley.

I think in general what kensei's point was, that homosexuals are better off financially than hetrosexuals. And he is right in stating that. They have tons more money to spend than hetrosexuals. Why do you think advertisers are now starting to target homosexuals in their ads?

kensei

08-18-2005, 02:56 AM

Thanks KKF. I tend to simplify my thoughts when I've had next to no sleep ^^'

Roxie

08-18-2005, 03:22 AM

Being against homosexuality is not at all tied to religion. After all, remember all those Catholic priests molesting little boys?
I'm an atheist and I don't support gay marriage.
You've got to be blind, crippled, and crazy to think that had NOTHING to do with religion. You also imply that the Catholic priests molested these little boys BECAUSE the the priests must've been gay.
Are you fucking kidding me?
I really hope that is not what you meant.

I don't know much about the Catholic Church, but I do know they are not allowed to marry and are expected to abstain from sexual relations.
A homosexual does have the right to marry someone else of the opposite gender, just as a hetero does, and are equal in the eyes of the law in all other ways, are they not?

:confused: But why would they want to?

Annie

08-18-2005, 03:52 AM

One last thing: Have you ever heard of a gay couple on welfare?

Well my gay friend isn't very well off. Not quite on welfare, but he's not rich either. And he's totally fruity.

----

Also, My boyfriend was having an argument in class about this. The one kid said that "Marriage is meant for procreation and homosexuals can't procreate." Well, neither can old people but they're allowed to marry each other.

I'd marry a woman if I were allowed, just so I could say I had a gay marriage, haha. I love gay people. My boyfriend's boss is married to a woman, and my boss's sister is married to a woman.

Annie

08-18-2005, 03:57 AM

I think that traditional marriage between a man and a women that have offspring should be rewarded by the government with much needed tax breaks because it helps society as a whole 'produce' the next generation.

Oh yeah, because we don't have enough idiots reproducing as it is.

Kusoyaro

08-18-2005, 04:40 AM

my friend Kal's younger brother is a "FLAMMMMMMMING faggot" (his words, not mine!), and he's living in cali right now, and is apparantly going out with this superhot model guy, shitisoundsogayrightnow, and they were planning to come up here to get married, but Kal's parents won't really...approve, so that was a barrel of laughs watching Arius (his name, please don't ask, the family is just severely fucked up).
persoanlly, i dont see a proble with it, they help bring the population down, and since my religion says its ok (and i'm technically a priest) i have no problems with it on a religious or moral standpoint. the only thing that might get a bit wierd are the kids. i mean that if they go to school, some other ignorant folks might start harrassing them.
if there was a solution for that, i would be even more who-gives-a-shit then i already am

Y.T.

08-18-2005, 11:22 AM

You also imply that the Catholic priests molested these little boys BECAUSE the the priests must've been gay.

Pederasts don't fall under the 'gay' umbrella?...
The behaviour is homosexual.... besides, the prevalence
of homosexuality among U.S. CC priests is somewhere between
10% to 70%. Some priests claim this. (I already posted on this
in the old fora)

I don't know much about the Catholic Church, but I do know they are not allowed to marry and are expected to abstain from sexual relations.
CC beats even the Bush family when it comes to hypocrisy...

TygressVirgo

08-18-2005, 07:02 PM

SETRICT: I don't want to debate with hapacheese anymore, his arguments are starting to make sense to me.

Best thing I heard in this entire thread.

Zakalwe: CC beats even the Bush family when it comes to hypocrisy...

Very true, I admit this, even if it's disloyal. But it's members are not always this way :)

ManiacLove

08-18-2005, 07:45 PM

Oh yeah, because we don't have enough idiots reproducing as it is.

I feel the same way. There are way too many children in adoption agencies world wide, that people are losing track of them. A personal friend of mine ran away from her foster home and they didn't notice/didn't report it for I think 2 months.

There are tons of people who don't need to EVER be having children (ENTITLEMENT MOOS!) that are poping them out like pez, while tons of gay individuals who would make great parents being denied because of something that won't hurt the kids in anyway.

The onlyw ay I could ever see children raised by gay parents getting hurt would be abuse/hatred from people OUTSIDE the family, because of the sexual orientation of said parents.

I would much rather grow up in a loving gay home, then in a broken straight one. Maybe that's just me.

Soli

08-18-2005, 07:46 PM

Try this site: http://anonymousmanga.fateback.com/soulmates.html

ManiacLove

08-18-2005, 07:49 PM

Try this site: http://anonymousmanga.fateback.com/soulmates.html

That's such a cute WC! Thanks for that. <3 *bookmarks & whatnot*

TygressVirgo

08-18-2005, 07:50 PM

I feel the same way. There are way too many children in adoption agencies world wide, that people are losing track of them. A personal friend of mine ran away from her foster home and they didn't notice/didn't report it for I think 2 months.

There are tons of people who don't need to EVER be having children (ENTITLEMENT MOOS!) that are poping them out like pez, while tons of gay individuals who would make great parents being denied because of something that won't hurt the kids in anyway.

The onlyw ay I could ever see children raised by gay parents getting hurt would be abuse/hatred from people OUTSIDE the family, because of the sexual orientation of said parents.

I would much rather grow up in a loving gay home, then in a broken straight one. Maybe that's just me.

I feel the same way.

Kaziel

08-18-2005, 08:10 PM

Try this site: http://anonymousmanga.fateback.com/soulmates.htmlGreat find. Thanks for sharing. ^^

tekkan

08-18-2005, 08:16 PM

*whew

So I managed to read every single post. Yes. Every single post in this damn thread. Why? Possibily because I am bored at work.

Anyways. The first few pages kind of erked me, because people kept using the word "love" to define marriage and to defend gay marriages..

I don't get it.

Seriously.

Sexual Orientation has nothing to do with love. You can love someone without having sexual relations with them.

Take your parents, siblings, friends, relatives etc. Do you not love them just as much as you would love your current/future "soul mate"?

So when (I forget who..aftering reading 6 pages everything kind of blurs together) said that being gay is a "fetish", they weren't entirely incorrect. Being gay has everything to do with lust. Just as being heterosexual also has everything to do with lust. Sexual Orientation = lust. Period.

But then we have a man made concept of Marriage. And in the most basic terms, Marriage is basically how we combine Love and Lust. If you love someone and you also lust after them. You have what we call marriage.

But of course many times we confuse lust with love or have too much lust and not enough love, and that why we have so many divorces.

Now in terms of Gay marriage. It is not a debate of love. It is a debate of will the government legally recongnize that two people of the same sex are having sex with each other.

If it was just a debate of love, then there would be no debate. You don't need a piece of paper to prove your love. If you do, then obviously its more lust and less love. Because as someone best said it.

When a man asks "Will you Marry Me?" to a woman.

He really means, I want to make it illegal for you to have sex with another man.

:)

hapacheese

08-18-2005, 08:25 PM

tekkan

08-18-2005, 08:40 PM

Actually, I have a lot of friends who are active in gay rights campaigning and whatnot. The thing that gays want the most is simply equality in the eyes of the law.

You're right in that they don't need the government to recognize the seriousness of their relationship, or whatever. They simply want the same protections offered by the law to heterosexual couples. If you were to spend your entire life with a partner, and they were on their deathbed, would you think it was fair for their family to step in and say that you aren't allowed to be there with them? Or, for instance, if you share finances and possessions, would you like your partner's family to step in and lay claim to everything your partner owned?

This goes on to everything: insurance, retirement, taxes, adoption rights, etc.

Well when it comes to finances, you can write a will so that the government does not screw it up. Even if your heterosexual, it is best that you do have a will.

And in terms of legal boundries. Each point must be explored individually. I am no expert so I really can't comment on the law.

But when it comes giving rights to "non-traditional" couples we have to look at why tax benefits are given to the traditional couples.

If the tax benefit was say because they gave birth to a child, then no, non-traditional couples shouldn't get the benefit.

But if it was just say, a break in insurance just because your partner is someone to co-sign the insurance then yes, non-traditional couples should get the benefit.

But then when you open one door, you have to take into consideration how many other doors it will lead to. When do we draw the line? In the future if a man wanted to marry his dog because he "loves" his dog so much, do we allow that? Or don't we? As of right now, any man who "loves" his dog that much is given the same treatment gays were given in the dark ages.

==========

And to go slightly on a tangent, I don't think being gay is gene releated. Why?

Well, because then there would be no gay people or animals if that were true, due to natural selection.

Being gay means you are not sexually attracted to the opposite sex. If you are not sexually attracted to the opposite sex, then you would have no will to preform reproductive activities and your gene would not be passed on.

So naturally, the "gay" gene would have been pushed out of the gene pool a long long time ago, during the primal ages.

hapacheese

08-18-2005, 08:58 PM

Well when it comes to finances, you can write a will so that the government does not screw it up. Even if your heterosexual, it is best that you do have a will.

If you have a will, sure. But unexpected deaths happen all the time. But regardless of that fact, gay couples are still *not* given equal protection under the law, simply due to the fact that they need a will to protect their own interests.

But when it comes giving rights to "non-traditional" couples we have to look at why tax benefits are given to the traditional couples.

If the tax benefit was say because they gave birth to a child, then no, non-traditional couples shouldn't get the benefit.

Can't a non-traditional couple adopt a child? Therefore, shouldn't they be awarded equal treatment under the law?

But then when you open one door, you have to take into consideration how many other doors it will lead to. When do we draw the line? In the future if a man wanted to marry his dog because he "loves" his dog so much, do we allow that? Or don't we? As of right now, any man who "loves" his dog that much is given the same treatment gays were given in the dark ages.

Hence, my earlier statement about consenting adults. A dog/turtle/etc does not have the ability to give consent, nor does the dog understand the bounds of the agreement in which they are entering.

As for the genetic thing, that is only partially true. Given that we do not know how many genes interact, how genetic information is affected by external forces, etc, it is not as simple to say that it would have evolved out of our genetic code. There very well could be certain genetic predispositions that are triggered by hormone levels in the mother's body, the mother's diet during pregnancy, etc.

Even if it *was* genetic, it doesn't necessarily mean that it would have completely been phased out. There are many traits that should have been weeded out by evolution that still exist. Evolution isn't perfect.

tekkan

08-18-2005, 09:23 PM

If you have a will, sure. But unexpected deaths happen all the time. But regardless of that fact, gay couples are still *not* given equal protection under the law, simply due to the fact that they need a will to protect their own interests.

True.

Can't a non-traditional couple adopt a child? Therefore, shouldn't they be awarded equal treatment under the law?

I dunno. Do you get benefits for adopting a child? When I said giving birth to a child I actually meant giving brith. As in bringing new life into the world. Sparsly populated countries such as Canada use such benefits to encourage people to have kids to increase the population.

Hence, my earlier statement about consenting adults. A dog/turtle/etc does not have the ability to give consent, nor does the dog understand the bounds of the agreement in which they are entering.

That would be treading into a whole new realm. Does the law bar mentally challenged people from being allowed to marry?

One can argue the case that the dog can understand the bounds of the agreement. Not that I would. But someone desperate enough could. And many animals have shown distinct displays of intelligence.

As for the genetic thing, that is only partially true. Given that we do not know how many genes interact, how genetic information is affected by external forces, etc, it is not as simple to say that it would have evolved out of our genetic code. There very well could be certain genetic predispositions that are triggered by hormone levels in the mother's body, the mother's diet during pregnancy, etc.

Even if it *was* genetic, it doesn't necessarily mean that it would have completely been phased out. There are many traits that should have been weeded out by evolution that still exist. Evolution isn't perfect.

Just as I was speculating. You are also speculating. It can go either way.

I, myself, am against the whole thing gene thing when it comes down to behaviour. The whole, I'm a murderer because my father was one just makes no sense to me.

Same with this "gay" gene. But I'm not a biologist so I don't really know.

hapacheese

08-18-2005, 09:55 PM

I dunno. Do you get benefits for adopting a child? When I said giving birth to a child I actually meant giving brith. As in bringing new life into the world. Sparsly populated countries such as Canada use such benefits to encourage people to have kids to increase the population.

Yes, in the US, you gain tax benefits for anyone that you can claim as a dependent. In the case of a married couple, they both can claim having dependents when they have a child. A gay couple cannot, simply because only one may adopt the child... the other is not officially considered family. (Not to mention the difficulty in adopting the child when legally considered a single parent.)

That would be treading into a whole new realm. Does the law bar mentally challenged people from being allowed to marry?

One can argue the case that the dog can understand the bounds of the agreement. Not that I would. But someone desperate enough could. And many animals have shown distinct displays of intelligence.

I could be mistaken (anyone know for 100% sure?), but I believe that mentally handicapped people are considered to be dependents of their parents. If they have their parents' consent, then they are legally able to marry.

Just as I was speculating. You are also speculating. It can go either way.

Fair enough :) I was merely providing counterpoint to show that we can't say for certain either way.

I, myself, am against the whole thing gene thing when it comes down to behaviour. The whole, I'm a murderer because my father was one just makes no sense to me.

Same with this "gay" gene. But I'm not a biologist so I don't really know.

However, this is a bit misinformed. In many cases, we have already found genetic links to certain psychological disorders. Bipolar and schizophrenia being just two examples. Particularly with schozophrenia, it can lead to irregular and dangerous behavior, so it is quite possible for someone who is mentally afflicted as such to become a murderer.

tekkan

08-18-2005, 10:02 PM

Yes, in the US, you gain tax benefits for anyone that you can claim as a dependent. In the case of a married couple, they both can claim having dependents when they have a child. A gay couple cannot, simply because only one may adopt the child... the other is not officially considered family. (Not to mention the difficulty in adopting the child when legally considered a single parent.)

I see.

However, this is a bit misinformed. In many cases, we have already found genetic links to certain psychological disorders. Bipolar and schizophrenia being just two examples. Particularly with schozophrenia, it can lead to irregular and dangerous behavior, so it is quite possible for someone who is mentally afflicted as such to become a murderer.

I see. Hmmm...I guess there is a fine line when deciding what is caused by a psychological condition and a conscious decsion.

hapacheese

08-18-2005, 10:07 PM

Sometimes, the line is not so fine. A couple years ago, a friend of mine slit his own throat with a broken Sobe bottle while sitting in a parking lot downtown.

He was never properly diagnosed, but after speaking with his roommate/girlfriend, it was obvious he was suffering from schizophrenia. While he never spoke of it in public, she told me he often claimed that God spoke to him, or that he could hear the neighbors "saying bad things" about him. Listening to the things she said, I am actually surprised he didn't simply go on a rampage =\

It is quite possible that had he done something like that, it would have been a "conscious choice," but it would be a choice based on hallucinations and delusions. In a court of law, he would have been deemed incompetant to stand trial because he would likely not have realized the consequences of his actions (because he truly believed he was speaking with God).

It's a very complicated issue.

...and completely unrelated to gay marriage! :D

Roxie

08-18-2005, 11:38 PM

Pederasts don't fall under the 'gay' umbrella?...
The behaviour is homosexual.... besides, the prevalence
of homosexuality among U.S. CC priests is somewhere between
10% to 70%. Some priests claim this. (I already posted on this
in the old fora)
WOW :eek:

Stop while you're behind. You're giving Slovakia a very bad name right now.
:mad:
NO, it doesn't fall under the 'gay umbrella' as you so eloquently put it.

The behavior is not about "I find the same sex attractive". It's about corruption, having an amazing wealth of power over your totally trusting victim. It's about you'll probably get away with it if you invoke enough fear.
90% of Pedophiles are heterosexual males. This I've learned from many a sociology/women's studies.

Your statistic seems completely unbelievable. Your entire post is so offensive, it's hard to even swallow. You saying that up to 70% of US CC priests are gay? This basically implies that the majority of gay males are joining the CC priesthood SPECIFICALLY to molest little boys. Boys weren't the only ones molested, btw, just the most publiziced specifically b/c the CC strongly disapproves of homosexuals.

hapacheese

08-18-2005, 11:44 PM

Heh... He said 10~70%, which to me implied that he was either a) joking, or b) quoting a scientific study with some serious margin of error issues.

Y.T.

08-18-2005, 11:53 PM

Roxie

08-19-2005, 12:59 AM

Sorry, but you are kind of well... thick.
They join the CC, because, they kind of don't get it,
that they are gay.
Ok. I'm done trying to talk sense with you. It's obvious you're a dumbass.

You obviously know NOTHING about Pedophilia or homosexuals.

It's hard to believe anyone can fix their fingers to type this way..It's just unbelievable.

I'm coming at you with classes I've taken, books I've read, people I know and you make up a absurd 70% and expect ME to research it? Hell no, the burden of proof is apon YOU.

ManiacLove

08-19-2005, 04:44 AM

Ok. I'm done trying to talk sense with you. It's obvious you're a dumbass.

You obviously know NOTHING about Pedophilia or homosexuals.

It's hard to believe anyone can fix their fingers to type this way..It's just unbelievable.

I'm coming at you with classes I've taken, books I've read, people I know and you make up a absurd 70% and expect ME to research it? Hell no, the burden of proof is apon YOU.

Roxie, I love you. I have been studying peophilia for ages (not just watching L&O:SVU!) and you're right. You've made such a great argument I can't even comprehend it. I think it's because you're better with words than I am.
Either way, Bravo.

- Britt

KKF

08-19-2005, 05:02 AM

Sorry, but you are kind of well... thick.
They join the CC, because, they kind of don't get it,
that they are gay. They have never been interested in women,
and probably kind of dismissed every interest in the same sex as
devil's temptation. Read about CC and gays on the web.
Supposedly, seminaries are so hot, that heterosexuals can't
stand them. I mean it. There was a lot of discussion on the
old fora about it. And.. it seems that there are many, many
gays among priests. Also, the CC itself makes no frills about
being gay. What is written in their catechism is: we know that
some people are homosexuals. We know that they can't change.
As long as they don't indulge their appetites, they live
a virtuous life.

The 10-70% are estimates from the priests themselves.
As we all know, the CC is not an open institution.
It's secretive. Do some research. There are lots of
CC priests who are kind of bitter about the issue.

HAHAHAHAHAH, breathe, HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Really they join because they are gay? Thats funny, and its 10-70% that are gay? Wow, amazing stuff there. I usually don't tell a lot about my personal life over the internet. But just for you I will. A man, ie my father, and a woman, ie my mother, met oh about 31 years ago. Both had left the profession of choice that they had taken. And met afterwards. I'll give you one guess at to what that profession was. Guessed yet? Proably not. My dad was a Roman Catholic priest and my mother a roman catholic nun. What a straight priest, no way!

Now lets go on to your claim that they joined because they were unsure about their sexuality. Specifically my father, who according to you had a 10-70% of being gay and proably molested children. First off my dad was very poor growing up in Spain. While working out on the fields with his father a priest came up and asked my father if he wanted to go to school and become a priest. My father said, sure why not anything to stop working. (My dad repeats this story all the time because of the fact that being lazy made him go into the profession that he did. And changed his life forever.) So lets continue on. He then left his home town and moved to a little bit bigger town not to far away. There he roomed with other kids that were now on the same path as him. He also lived with the priest that were his teachers. Fast foward oh 12 years or so. My father has finished his schooling and now is teaching kids under him and being their foster parent. He did that for about 5 years or so till he went to other places to be a priest. In ALL that time he never saw any molestation taking place or any homosexual priest. On top of that my dad is not the kind of person to let something like that untouched. Had he seen any of that, that person would of been told on. Lets not mention that I also grew up going to church and have met several priest not including my fathers old friends. One of his old friends also left the church and got married and has a family. His wife is also a nun. Guess what he never saw any of these actions take place either. And he comes from a similar background as my father. Also my father has told me stories about being tempted by woman. My father was a very good looking man. (Thanks dad for the good genes!) And he was chased after, after all woman want what they can't have. He told me stories of how he and his friends dealt with this. They would go into a room, smoke cigars and play cards all day and night. To get away from the situation. He also told me some priest actually had relations with some of the woman. He was tempted by one woman that he sort of fell for. But in the end he didn't do it.

Anyways my point being is that where ever you are getting your numbers and facts are way off. Maybe instead of believing everything on the internet you might wanna do some actual research into the situation. The Catholic Church is VERY anti-gay. They believe that if they don't change they WILL go to hell. Man no offense but seriously you have your facts wrong.

Mr.Babalo

08-19-2005, 06:42 AM

lol whooaaaa this thread is still going, sorry i haven't kept up. Just gonna POP in now, cus thats the kind of guy i am. You see me in a blue moon and then im gone; kinda like the wind or one of az's dates.

jk

anyways, this 70-10% homosexual catholic priest stuff is mumbo-JUMBO. Not sure if any of you read the old/new testaments but both are strongly against Gays and everyone knows how much fervor most catholic priest are. 70% sounds like you pulled that out your ass and pedophilia is something that happens alot less than a 1% of priest population.

Y.T.

08-19-2005, 06:45 AM

Annoying MSN Person

08-19-2005, 07:09 AM

One of a number of my letters to the editor published in a nationwide newspaper last year in response to the fucktards who got upset that we were legalising civil unions.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a310/pania/marriage.jpg
A tad condensed because of the word limit and my utter fury whilst writing it.

The Civil Union Legislation was enacted in April this year. Gay couples haven't torn our society apart. Now for the next step, full gay marriage.

KKF

08-19-2005, 08:26 AM

Duh. ?!
There is a lot of clergy. Too much, to be exact.
Besides, times change. Also, nearly everyone in Slovakia knows
someone who is a priest's son.

Also, if I say 10-70%, it means that at max 7 out of 10 priests
are gay. Still leaves 3 out of 10.
For those who have trouble with maths.
I suppose you are a girl?

Umm, your margin of error is HUGE! Shit beyond huge. You're making fun of girls as if they don't know math but you sure as hell don't know statistics. Seriously think about what you are saying. You are saying that their is a bigger percent of gays in the church than non-gays. So WHY would they still be strongly against gays? Man, I want some links backing up what you say. I would love to read these sites.

Y.T.

08-19-2005, 10:30 AM

Seriously think about what you are saying. You are saying that their is a bigger percent of gays in the church than non-gays. So WHY would they still be strongly against gays? Man, I want some links backing up what you say. I would love to read these sites.

Um, faith? Believing that if they accepted homosexuality, they would go to
hell? A huge steaming pile of hypocrisy? Remember, the CC has
always been about hypocrisy. Roll back to the middle Ages.

Funnily enough, they only passed the doctrine of papal
infallibility in late 19th century. For Americans who
are semi literate, papal infallibility means that whatever
the pope says, is truth.
He can't be wrong.
Sigh.

As to links, use google you twat!
You just need to formulate your search correctly.
So, borrow that family neural cell, and get going.
Or gain access to the old fora. This question of
how many gays are in the CC in the US was a
smeared over several pages. With plenty of links.I hope the
KK in your name have nothing to do with the ..
Klansmen. Although that would explain a lot.
No offense meant. I respect people who are able
to back up their beliefs with some action.
Really I do.
Now, I'm going offline for
a long time. There is hope for me yet.

Roxie

08-19-2005, 10:57 AM

.
For those who have trouble with maths.
I suppose you are a girl?
WOW, you ARE a dumbass!! I knew it was true.

It's "forums" btw, not "fora".

Not only are you completely ignorant about homosexuality and religion, but you know nothing of girls either. It doesn't suprise me with your absurd ideas on what an ideal g/f would be.

Y.T.

08-19-2005, 12:35 PM

Well. It's forums for Americans.
People who know a little latin suspect that the
plural of forum is fora.
I wish Cuibono was here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum

WOW, you ARE a dumbass!!
It feels great when people understimate me.
It's sweet when they finally get it how wrong they
are. But, I feel sorry for you. You'll never get it.
I suppose you are also a fat American?

Ahh.

Jai

08-19-2005, 12:41 PM

Its quite simple, really. Homosexual-only entities (be they human, giraffe, or whatever enlarged bullshit example you want to give) fail life.

The single true goal of life, broken down into its most basic elements across ALL living entities, is to reproduce. No man can pump a fellow mans asshole and reproduce, nor can any woman eat out a fellow women and somehow fertilize her in the process.

Homosexuallity is therefor a mental illness. We should be investing in finding a cure, not wasting time deciding if its "legal" for these sick people to pretend to function normally in society.

Dont try and turn this into a "you ebil homophobe" post either, because its not. I dont hate homosexuals, I pity them... and the world that "tolerates" them instead of trying to help. I mean, honestly, allowing, encouraging! people to pretend to have a sex change? (lets face it, no amount of operations, therapy or hormone treatement is going to change you from an xy to an xx. It just wont happen). It should be criminal.

Y.T.

08-19-2005, 12:46 PM

Well.. from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexuals are not useless.
They can take care for people,whose parents got eaten by other people.
(or animals)

Following your logic, grannies and grandfathers should be
summarily executed for taking up breathing space and resources...
They, after all, are not really alive. If they can't reproduce.

As to going offline. Tomorrow.
Besides, you can't be that stupid.
Stop trolling.

If you think evolution is pernicious nonsense, I suggest going out,
with a handgun, and shooting yourself into the head.
It's better in the long run.

I mean, honestly, allowing, encouraging! people to pretend to have a sex change?

Given enough time, I think removing the useless dangling appendage
between my legs is going to get more and more appealing.- When I'm sixty,and and already spawned some useless brats, or feel no need to do so, Jogging won't be so painful then.
Besides, implants producing the neccessary hormones should be common by then.

Jai

08-19-2005, 12:58 PM

TBH I dont really understand most your reply (was it even all in response to my post?) but whatever.

A granny or a grandfather already passed life... they had kids who had kids who will have kids and so on. Im not sure why youd want to execute them. You seem to have a thing for shooting people though 0_o

Explosive issue though isnt it. Most forums just lock anything about this because they know it degenerates into insults fired back and forth between neo-nazi "kill all homos" assholes and liberal social terrorist "your just ignorant" losers. Consider this the only reply anyone calling me "ignorant" (or narrow minded... LOL) for not agreeing that homosexuallity is all fine and dandy will get btw :)

I like that... narrow minded... for not agreeing with you ;)

kensei

08-19-2005, 01:15 PM

Well Jai, I think it has something to do with the fact that your post come off as so narrow-minded that no one is dignifying them with response.

ruaidhri

08-19-2005, 01:27 PM

Jai, interesting post. If your intent was to fire up this thread, you’ve done it big time.

I hope that you don’t really believe what you wrote.

I find it quite depressing to believe that our primary purpose for existence is to have baby after baby. Carrying your line of reasoning forward, sex, according to you should never be for anything other than propagation. That’s sad. My wife and I waited seven years before we decided to have any children. Then, we only had two. Was it wrong that we controlled nature both before and after having children? We certainly were physically capable of having more. We stopped because we wished to properly care for our children including putting them through college. We’ve done that.

Understand that I’m a 64 year old happily married man with two grown sons. Over the course of my life, I have had friends that turned out to be gay. Regardless of my liberal opinions, I’ll admit that it does make me uncomfortable to be around gays making out. But, while I don’t understand the attraction to one’s own sex, I do appreciate that it does exist and believe that my total acceptance should not be a prerequisite for their happiness.

This thread is about gay marriages. It’s not asking you or me or anyone else to be married to a person of our own sex. All it’s asking is: Should gay people be allowed to enjoy the same legal privileges society affords to heterosexuals? It’s all about equality under the eyes of the law. I’m all for that. Let them enjoy the benefits and let them bear the responsibilities of marriage.

We have a lot of real problem is our own countries and in the world today that are far more important than if our governments should allow gays to be married. In my opinion this shouldn’t even be an issue. If two people, regardless of sex, wish to legally join together in marriage, the state should not stand in their way. I could care less if a church blesses a marriage. That is certainly within their domain. Religion should have no say, however, in the political arena. Churches should not attempt to force their doctrine on others through the state.

kensei

08-19-2005, 01:27 PM

I think it's hilarious the way the gay-marriage issue comes up, and all of a sudden every self-serving person is ready to take place as humanity's overseer. That's right, homosexual couples will not spawn new life to add to the already overpopulated masses. That's the same for untreatable cases of women being barren or men being impotent. Believe it or not, man has evolved to a point where the need to reporduce is just part of life. A part, may I add, that not everyone agrees to take part in. Is there anything wrong with that? No. It's their life, and they have the right to live it as they choose, be it without spawning or otherwise. A heterosexual couple who chooses to spend their life together without having children is no less important than a couple that chooses to. What right do you or anyone have to say "These people are sick and need to be fixed!"? I have bi-polar. You know what? I don't want to be force-fed pills to fix me. I'll live my life as I am *shrugs*

Jai

08-19-2005, 01:38 PM

Like I said, I was breaking the meaning of life down to its barest bones. If you want to turn it into "lets all have nice careers, find love, travel, etc ad nausium" then sure, let them get married. I honestly dont care :)

I just oppose the concept of homosexuality being "normal", for the reasons I gave above.

My intent wasnt to fire up the thread, though no doubt it will happen... so far its mostly been liberals agreeing with themselves and declaring that everyone else is just stupid (for a change) :) By tomorow youll see probably half a dozen Howlers jump up and down with "you ignorant evil poof hater" posts LOL

kensei

08-19-2005, 01:50 PM

Well, now that it's been confirmed that Jai is an ignorant git, anyone actually have something insightful to say?

Jai

08-19-2005, 01:50 PM

I remember reading somewhere about a psychiatrist in Europe who actually experimented with attempting to "cure" homosexuality.

He had a fairy high success rate too. I cant remember the number but it was more than half and less than all.

I must have had extra-sensory-reply-prediction turned on. Youve no idea how much the "you dont agree with me so your ignorant" replies make me smile :rolleyes: Its like winning by forfeit :D But wait, theres more.. now its "you dont agree with me so your stupid". Awe how cute :)

Lets say that tomorow there evolved an actual genetically homosexual race, which somehow was a population theoretically large enough for perpetuation while also being completely isolated from all contact with the species they evolved from...

So now we have say 10,000 genetically homosexual humans, split evenly male and female, who as a race will survive until the last of the initial generation dies of old age. There would be no reproduction and no continuation. In the context of the larger evolutionary view of life, that means "game over - you lose".

TBH though I think im taking this off topic so I digress. Im all for letting homosexuals get married and live life to the fullest with the same rights as anyone else. I just disagree with this threads corporated opinion of "its normal" which has been built entirely on arguments consisting of "because I said so" and "your ignorant".

Honestly responding to a fair argument with nothing more than "your just narrow minded" has got to be a contender for a dictionary example of the word hypocritical

kensei

08-19-2005, 02:06 PM

Is it anything like reading a post by the intellectually-impaired and getting a smile out of it? 'cause if that's the case, then I think I have a pretty good idea, git ^_^

TygressVirgo

08-19-2005, 03:06 PM

Jai,

I know that this isn't going to do anything to change your mind, but I must know; how many homosexual people that you know? And I mean people that you have shared a close personal friendship with, not just some one you know from around town.

Jai

08-19-2005, 03:09 PM

I work with a few - including an XY who is now an XX, at least cosmetically if you get my drift.

I can give you the answer that you want on the close personal friendship part though.

none

Make of it what you want :) Like I said, im not homophobic and dont mean to come across that way :)

kensei

08-19-2005, 03:18 PM

No, homosexuality is not normal. That's why homosexuals are called a minority. The way you present your argument, Jai, lends one to believe that due to the fact that homosexuals don't serve humanity on a genetic level (can't reporduce) you believe them to be inferior citizens of society. How about the number of hetero couples that birth a child and, lacking what it takes to parent a child properly, said child become a supposed "deficit" on humanity as a whole? What does that make this couple?

TygressVirgo

08-19-2005, 03:20 PM

no, I'm just wondering how you can say it is a mental illness. I think if you really got to know someone who was homosexual, you might better understand where they are coming from with their feelings.

ruaidhri

08-19-2005, 03:28 PM

Jai, now I understand where you’re coming from. You were merely exploring what is “normal”.

From a purely biological perspective where the purpose of life is simply to perpetuate life of the species, I can’t disagree with you, homosexuality is abnormal because by itself it can not propagate. But, there are other more commonly accepted definitions of what society considers normal. The key word in the last sentence was “society”. If accepted by society it’s normal; if not, it’s abnormal. That’s what most people use as their guide to acceptable behavior. That’s what determines mental illness.

As I said in my previous post, regardless of my liberal bias I remain uncomfortable around Gays when they are “making out”. Now that could also be said about heterosexuals but then it’s more a matter of degree. A public heterosexual kiss on the cheek wouldn’t bother me or even attract my attention. A public homosexual kiss on the cheek would immediately attract my attention and discomfort. Obviously, society, particularly that of my generation, has had its effect on me regardless of my liberal philosophies. But, today’s younger generations don’t have the same hang-ups common with mine. Homosexuality is accepted today; therefore, it’s normal.

So, we’re both in agreement. There is no reason to not allow gays to marry. Our approval or disapproval of their lifestyles should not impact their opportunities for happiness or legal equality.

tekkan

08-19-2005, 03:28 PM

Actually due to the fact that Humans have developed self-awarness and can have intellectual thought. A group a compeletly homosexual humans will still continue the existance of human life. Just because they don't find reproduction pleasureable does not mean that they will not realize that reproduction is nescessary.

The only thing that will differ in their society is that the act of reproduction will now be seen as a choir and not as something pleasurable. But I am sure that even homsexual people find joy in child rearing.

============

As with my previous posts. Although I have come to tolerate Homosexuality, I myself still have my prejudice against them. I still use the word "gay" at times in a negative way. Though sometimes I catch myself before doing so. I find homosexuality "unnatural". I can't help it. And most people are in the same position as I am.

So in terms of gay marriage. Well, as of right now, you can only hope for tolerance. Acceptance will have to come from a different generation.

=================

And Zakalwe. You're the sterotypical angry eastern euorpean. Arrogant and full of prejudice.

[Edit for major spelling and grammar]

hapacheese

08-19-2005, 04:01 PM

As with my previous posts. Although I have come to tolerate Homosexuality, I myself still have my prejudice against them. I still use the word "gay" at times in a negative way. Though sometimes I catch myself before doing so. I find homosexuality "unnatural". I can't help it. And most people are in the same position as I am.

So in terms of gay marriage. Well, as of right now, you can only hope for tolerance. Acceptance will have to come from a different generation.

Wow, tekkan. Thank you for this. While a lot of people "demand" acceptance immediately, I believe that true acceptance cannot happen immediately. So, for now, this is the best that a lot of people can hope for. You can never control someone's thoughts, but you can ask them to treat each other with tolerance and civility. :D

setrict

08-19-2005, 05:26 PM

Well Jai, I think it has something to do with the fact that your post come off as so narrow-minded that no one is dignifying them with response.
Well, now that it's been confirmed that Jai is an ignorant git, anyone actually have something insightful to say?
I always find it frustrating when a person is accused of being narrow-minded for expressing and idea or opinion. You may disagree with him, and that's just fine. That's your opinion. Calling someone ignorant or narrow-minded when they don't agree with you just makes you a hypocrite.
have something insightful to say?
It's called discussion, if you only want to be exposed to your own ideas I guess that makes you homoidealistic? Hetro-idea-aphobic? Did I just pull a new word out of my ass, yes I did.

/tosses some more fuel on the fire :D

And now for something funny (imo):
fudgepacker (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/fudgepacker.html)

KKF

08-19-2005, 06:03 PM

I always find it frustrating when a person is accused of being narrow-minded for expressing and idea or opinion. You may disagree with him, and that's just fine. That's your opinion. Calling someone ignorant or narrow-minded when they don't agree with you just makes you a hypocrite.

It's called discussion, if you only want to be exposed to your own ideas I guess that makes you homoidealistic? Hetro-idea-aphobic? Did I just pull a new word out of my ass, yes I did.

Actually its not hypocrite to call someone narrow-mindeed if they are. Since his views lack tolerance, breadth of view, or sympathy to their cause. Further more he is very uninformed about the situation at hand. So he "is" ignorant.

Also this really isn't a discussion, in the true meaning of the word. This is a conversation thats about it. ;)

Jai

08-19-2005, 06:08 PM

Actually its not hypocrite to call someone narrow-mindeed if they are. Since his views lack tolerance, breadth of view, or sympathy to their cause. Further more he is very uninformed about the situation at hand. So he "is" ignorant.

Also this really isn't a discussion, in the true meaning of the word. This is a conversation thats about it. ;)

lol :rolleyes:

translation

"he doesnt agree with me so he "is" ignorant"

Thats as narrow minded as it gets my friend. Or perhaps not -

Which in the eyes of god is "wrong". The religious right plays a HUGE role in this. You can't deny that fact. Also since you are a atheist why are you against gay marriages? It just doesn't add up.

Now THAT is narrow minded :D

KKF

08-19-2005, 06:11 PM

Um, faith? Believing that if they accepted homosexuality, they would go to
hell? A huge steaming pile of hypocrisy? Remember, the CC has
always been about hypocrisy. Roll back to the middle Ages.

Funny because again all my life being a Roman Catholic and growing up around Roman Catholic priest not to mention my father. I can say I have NEVER met a homosexual priest. And I have met more than 10. :rolleyes:

Funnily enough, they only passed the doctrine of papal
infallibility in late 19th century. For Americans who
are semi literate, papal infallibility means that whatever
the pope says, is truth.
He can't be wrong.
Sigh.

Your point being?

As to links, use google you twat!
You just need to formulate your search correctly.
So, borrow that family neural cell, and get going.
Or gain access to the old fora. This question of
how many gays are in the CC in the US was a
smeared over several pages. With plenty of links.I hope the
KK in your name have nothing to do with the ..
Klansmen. Although that would explain a lot.
No offense meant. I respect people who are able
to back up their beliefs with some action.
Really I do.
Now, I'm going offline for
a long time. There is hope for me yet.

Why should I use google? The burdon of proof is on YOU, you twat. :rolleyes: Further more the news does not always report everything accurately. If you have not noticed the news has been centered around of late to grab your attention and blows things out of proportion at times.

About my nickname. First off if you didn't notice I am HISPANIC, I don't think the Klansmen would let a hispanic join even if I wanted to. Which I don't. Further more its a abrivation of a nick I use. So good try at insinuating something that is far far from the truth. Shit the funny part is that I have been proably discriminated by klansmen before. :confused:

You sir are a idiot.

KKF

08-19-2005, 06:14 PM

lol :rolleyes:

translation

"he doesnt agree with me so he "is" ignorant"

Thats as narrow minded as it gets my friend.

Wrong. Your view is one sided and does not take into account what others have been stating. Hence you are narrow-minded. Further more ignorance is lacking information on the subject. Since you don't even have a homosexual friend how can you certainly say they have a mental illness? Further more you don't know what mental illness really "is", Any of various disorders characterized chiefly by abnormal behavior or an inability to function socially, including diseases of the mind and personality and certain diseases of the brain. Since homosexuals CAN function in society just fine it would not be characterzied as a mental illness. Also had you had any friends that were gay you would KNOW that they could interact with you socially just fine. And hence why you ARE ignorant.

KKF

08-19-2005, 06:18 PM

Now THAT is narrow minded :D

How is that narrow-minded? Religion DOES have a huge affect on why people are against homosexuals. Where have you been the past couple of years. The vocal majority against homosexuals HAS been the religious right.

kensei

08-19-2005, 06:24 PM

Jai

08-19-2005, 06:34 PM

Wrong. Your view is one sided and does not take into account what others have been stating. Hence you are narrow-minded. Further more ignorance is lacking information on the subject. Since you don't even have a homosexual friend how can you certainly say they have a mental illness? Further more you don't know what mental illness really "is", Any of various disorders characterized chiefly by abnormal behavior or an inability to function socially, including diseases of the mind and personality and certain diseases of the brain. Since homosexuals CAN function in society just fine it would not be characterzied as a mental illness. Also had you had any friends that were gay you would KNOW that they could interact with you socially just fine. And hence why you ARE ignorant.

Hardly, my view states something that hasnt been brought up seriously in this thread - the case against.

Lets skip the typical liberal social terrorist "I am teh knowlege" lines,

What on earth leads you to come up with rubbish pronouncements like "you dont even know what a mental ilness really is", and where did you get your preposterous definition? Just so you know, your ass is not a valid reference point for this sort of pontifical statement. There are many afflictions, situations and issues that are described as "mental illnesses" where the minds involved are still very much capable of functioning in society. Kensei said he has Bi-Polar, which is a mental illness - are you claiming he doesnt function? Just who is ignorant now?

Under the other half of your made-up definition, Id qualify one man pumping another in the "out" slot as "abnormal behaviour". This one isnt really up for discussion, as normal can be definantly proven to mean the the majority course of action, so until theres more homosexuals than hetrosexuals, normal is on my side of the white line.

I wouldnt have considered having a friend who is gay a pre-requisit to talking about moral issues such as gay marriage, but each to their own. Of course, since your (probably) not a nuclear physacist (spelt wrong) you wont have an opinion on nuclear power, and since your not a politician, you dont bother voting, right?

Youll notice I didnt "certainly say" anyone had a mental illness. All my comments are my personal opinion lauded with as much fact as I can be bothered to research at the time of posting. Not to mention that this is a discussion thread, not a "proven medical facts" thread :rolleyes:

BTW - Narrow minded is thinking that just because someone is an Aethiest they dont oppose homosexual marriage, or even the very concept of homosexuality.

Balain

08-19-2005, 06:42 PM

Wish I had seen this earlier before so many posts. I'm goign to throw my two cents in. Some of these should probally be in a diffrent thread.

1. According to the original post. No I don't think Gay marriages should be allowed. Yes gay couples should have the rights other people get. Let them live their lives, have a union or what ever but leave the term "marriage" for an actual man/woman marriage. There are religios reason also to keep an actual "Marriage between men and women. This is a tradition that should be kept. Leading to point 2. If they should get a tax break like a traditional married couple I haven't decided that yet. I'm leaning to tax breaks should be given to traditonal marriages only though.

2. Some traditions should be kept. Yes there have been bad traditions. Some things mentioned here I wouldn't even consider to really be a tradtion. Here is my view though. The more we let traditions go to make some people happy then some other people want to let other things go and soon there are no traditions and then nothing is sacrosanct.

3. I find it funny that if you don't agree with someone that is homesexual you are a homophobe. I have a couple of gay and lesbian friends. They are friends to me, they are dear to me. One of the lesbian friends married her girlfriend. She knows I do not approve of gay marraiges. She's still my friend though. When I see her we hug and kiss I have no problem with her as a person but we disagree on some things no big deal. Oh a friend had a gay roommate. He wanted to take us to a gay strip bar. I turned him down. He accused me of being a homopgobe. I tried to explain. I have no fear of homesexuals they can do what they want. But I don't feel like watching some man stip and wave his dick in my face. To me that's not fun. If he wants to do that then he can go do it. Sorry for rambling there, but you can disagree with homosexuals and not be a homophobe.

4. There is nothing wrong with awarding some benefits to tradional marriage. For this aruement we don't even need to look at gay marriages. as a whole the population is declining. I'm not sure of the figures any more. But I believe a nation to keep up needs a birthrate of 2. I'm not sure whatthat rate was passed on. but manu many nations are falling far below that. I lot of european nations are at 1 or lower. The problem seems to be people leaning towards a selfish greedy life, steems from the me generation I guess. I know I'll get tons of hate mail for that one. So my point is goverments should award people to get married and have kids and have families. Bringing gay marriages into this. Well they simply don't naturally lead to having families. yes some can adopt yes some may get sperm from some one or a suragate mother but two men can't have children naturally.

5. Gay couples or a gay single should be allowed to adopt children. Having parents is better than being loooked after by the state.These adoptions shouldbe carefully considered though. Especially with older children. More than likely older children being adopted will have emotional problems. Having gay parent(s) could make these worse.

6. People are using nature as an argument for gay marriage. Then when someone else uses nature to counter your argument you get all huffy. Using Nature for this argument is a bunch of bull. Is being gay a genetic thing or physiologcal or psychological. Whatever it is nature has no impact. Yeah there are some animals that sometimes appear to be performing homosexual acts. So saying we should allow gay marriage is like saying all those people that kill and eat people should be set free and we should encourage that behavoir because some animals kill and eat each other. Marriage has nothing to do with nature. Animals don't get married!

7. I see this happening more and more and think it's a sad. People want you to express your views or opinions. These people say everyone has a right to speak and say what's on their minds. But if you speak up and it's diffent than theirs you're evil and stupid and whatever else comes out. I could go on and on about this.

8. OKay that was probally more than two cents worth

tekkan

08-19-2005, 06:45 PM

Since you don't even have a homosexual friend how can you certainly say they have a mental illness?

Though, even if he did have a homosexual friend, he still can't go off stating that homosexual tendency is a mental illness, unless

a) He is a praticed doctor in the field relating to mental illness and have preferom extensive studys and has a formal written paper on this and has at the approval and agreement of the majority of his collegues.

or

b) He isn't a praticed doctor but has a copy of the paper mentioned in a)

Until then, lets all use the pharse, In my opinion... rather than spouting opinions as fact.

And if I didn't follow my own rule in any of my previous posts, I blame alcohol for killing too many of my brain cells.

Jai

08-19-2005, 06:46 PM

7. I see this happening mor and more naf think it's a sad. People want you to express your views or opinions. These peopel say everyone has a right to speak and say what's on their minds. But if you speak up and it's diffent than theirs you're evil and stupid and whatever else comes out. I could go on and on about this.

Im an atheist, but I can only find one word to suit that point Balain..

Amen.

tekkan

08-19-2005, 06:51 PM

Kensei said he has Bi-Polar, which is a mental illness - are you claiming he doesnt function? Just who is ignorant now?

Under the other half of your made-up definition, Id qualify one man pumping another in the "out" slot as "abnormal behaviour". This one isnt really up for discussion, as normal can be definantly proven to mean the the majority course of action, so until theres more homosexuals than hetrosexuals, normal is on my side of the white line.

Normal is defined by the majority. So technically you are right. Homosexuality and bisexuality is abnormal. Because the majority of the people are heterosexuals. But abnormallity shouldn't be a consideration when deciding what is right and wrong.

I wouldnt have considered having a friend who is gay a pre-requisit to talking about moral issues such as gay marriage, but each to their own. Of course, since your (probably) not a nuclear physacist (spelt wrong) you wont have an opinion on nuclear power, and since your not a politician, you dont bother voting, right?

Youll notice I didnt "certainly say" anyone had a mental illness. All my comments are my personal opinion lauded with as much fact as I can be bothered to research at the time of posting. Not to mention that this is a discussion thread, not a "proven medical facts" thread :rolleyes:

BTW - Narrow minded is thinking that just because someone is an Aethiest they dont oppose homosexual marriage, or even the very concept of homosexuality.

Correct.

Y.T.

08-19-2005, 06:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakalwe
Funnily enough, they only passed the doctrine of papal
infallibility in late 19th century. For Americans who
are semi literate, papal infallibility means that whatever
the pope says, is truth.
He can't be wrong.
Sigh.

Your point being?
Well, if you don't object to someone who claims that he is never
wrong, I have nothing to say. Probably you believe that
the Bible is never wrong.. or not. I just hate absolutists who
derive their certainty from some ridiculous traditions or holy books.
As a future engineer.. I can derive certainty only from mathematics.
(and science, but.. science can't disprove the existence of God, because
the whole theory of his existence is unprovable. You can't make a repeatable
experiment in which his existence is revealed. (no one ever suceeded).
(and... I bet for a billion dollars or my life(whichever is cheaper), that
no one is ever going to. Still, I am agnostic on this. Undecided.)

So people who take shortcuts and invoke some funny books irk me.

I can say I have NEVER met a homosexual priest. And I have met more than 10.
Last time I heard, US. gays did not have to wear pink stars.
How do you tell a gay priest from a straight priest?
The voice differences are not universal. Many gays are very
masculine, in bearing. Not every one of them is a 'fairy'.
Did you sleep with them? That's a sure way to find out...

So, burden of proof for lazy people who can't be bothered
to replicate what I did several weeks ago:

A long rambling article from a priest. On the issue.
http://us.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2000-11/essay.html

By an archbishop (well, did not really check with the Vatican, whether he really is. Shit. He is from the old catholic church and gay, too)
http://www.whosoever.org/v8i2/catholic.shtml
more on him:
http://www.christiangays.com/articles/face.shtml

Something better:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm
Well, it's second hand.(not the original source) Too bad.
But, it's very definite. It appears that the percentage
of gays among CC priests is far higher than among the general
population. Where, it's usually given as 5%. ('round here. In Slovakia).
Before Roxie starts denying, I suggest she reads the abovementioned articles
several times. I do hope she reads books.
(I can't imagine what it's like not being able to read a page in a 1-4 minutes)
(of not-too-dense beletry. Not textbooks. Definitely not calculus..)

Y.T.

08-19-2005, 07:00 PM

Normal is defined by the majority. So technically you are right. Homosexuality and bisexuality is abnormal. Because the majority of the people are heterosexuals. But abnormallity shouldn't be a consideration when deciding what is right and wrong.

I can't resist.
Idiocy is normal. Being intelligent is abnormal.
(by intelligence, I mean above average smartness. )
It's a tautology, sure, but a nice one.

A good friend of mine once teased gays.. made out with them just for fun..
He has some guts.. (the stereotype of gays being physically weak &
cowardly is really off the mark. I suspect some of them are more callous than straight men due to all the punishment they had to endure for their sex. orientation)

tekkan

08-19-2005, 07:04 PM

1. According to the original post. No I don't think Gay marriages should be allowed. Yes gay couples should have the rights other people get. Let them live their lives, have a union or what ever but leave the term "marriage" for an actual man/woman marriage. There are religios reason also to keep an actual "Marriage between men and women. This is a tradition that should be kept. Leading to point 2. If they should get a tax break like a traditional married couple I haven't decided that yet. I'm leaning to tax breaks should be given to traditonal marriages only though.

A government should not make descions based on religion. A government should be independent of religion. Yes, Marriage was created through religion. But through time, it has evolved into something more.

In terms of the marriage we are discussing right now. It is more legal than religious. They don't want the church to recongnize them. They want the government to.

2. Some traditions should be kept. Yes there have been bad traditions. Some things mentioned here I wouldn't even consider to really be a tradtion. Here is my view though. The more we let traditions go to make some people happy then some other people want to let other things go and soon there are no traditions and then nothing is sacrosanct.

While old traditions are lost, new traditions are created. Change isn't always a bad thing.

3. I find it funny that if you don't agree with someone that is homesexual you are a homophobe. I have a couple of gay and lesbian friends. They are friends to me, they are dear to me. One of the lesbian friends married her girlfriend. She knows I do not approve of gay marraiges. She's still my friend though. When I see her we hug and kiss I have no problem with her as a person but we disagree on some things no big deal. Oh a friend had a gay roommate. He wanted to take us to a gay strip bar. I turned him down. He accused me of being a homopgobe. I tried to explain. I have no fear of homesexuals they can do what they want. But I don't feel like watching some man stip and wave his dick in my face. To me that's not fun. If he wants to do that then he can go do it. Sorry for rambling there, but you can disagree with homosexuals and not be a homophobe.

I don't think anyone said that if you disagree with a homosexual then you are a homophobe.

And it relations to your story, yes your friend's roommate was just being a dick. Yes, homosexuals can be assholes too.

4. There is nothing wrong with awarding some benefits to tradional marriage. For this aruement we don't even need to look at gay marriages. as a whole the population is declining. I'm not sure of the figures any more. But I believe a nation to keep up needs a birthrate of 2. I'm not sure whatthat rate was passed on. but manu many nations are falling far below that. I lot of european nations are at 1 or lower. The problem seems to be people leaning towards a selfish greedy life, steems from the me generation I guess. I know I'll get tons of hate mail for that one. So my point is goverments should award people to get married and have kids and have families. Bringing gay marriages into this. Well they simply don't naturally lead to having families. yes some can adopt yes some may get sperm from some one or a suragate mother Leading but two men can't have children naturally.

I agree that only child bearing couples should be rewarded benefits that are for bringing new life into this world.

5. Gay couples or a gay single should be allowed to adopt children. Having parents is better than being loooked after by the state.These adoptions shouldbe carefully considered though. Especially with older children. More than likely older children being adopted will have emotional problems. Having gay parent(s) could make these worse.

It would all depend on the parents. But I think older children would have the least problem, because they would be old enough to understand. While younger kids would have trouble grasping why they have 2 daddies and no mommy and all the other kids have one of each.

6. People are using nature as an argument for gay marriage. Then when someone else uses nature to counter your argument you get all huffy. Using Nature for this argument is a bunch of bull. Is being gay a genetic thing or physiologcal or psychological. Whatever it is nature has no impact. Yeah there are some animals that sometimes appear to be performing homosexual acts. So saying we should allow gay marriage is like saying all those people that kill and eat people should be set free and we should encourage that behavoir because some animals kill and eat each other. Marriage has nothing to do with nature. Animals don't get married!

Its a classic arguement. If people are religious they can claim god made them that way. It is natural.

If they are not, they can claim nature intended them to be that way.

But you are right. Marriage does have nothing to do with nature. It is a man made notion.

But sexual orientation can be related to nature of one argues that fact.

7. I see this happening mor and more naf think it's a sad. People want you to express your views or opinions. These peopel say everyone has a right to speak and say what's on their minds. But if you speak up and it's diffent than theirs you're evil and stupid and whatever else comes out. I could go on and on about this.

This is the internet. What did you expect? :)

hapacheese

08-19-2005, 07:07 PM

1. According to the original post. No I don't think Gay marriages should be allowed. Yes gay couples should have the rights other people get. Let them live their lives, have a union or what ever but leave the term "marriage" for an actual man/woman marriage. There are religios reason also to keep an actual "Marriage between men and women. This is a tradition that should be kept. Leading to point 2. If they should get a tax break like a traditional married couple I haven't decided that yet. I'm leaning to tax breaks should be given to traditonal marriages only though.

Which is why I believe the word "marriage" should be stricken from the law books. However, under what basis do you claim that only traditional marriages should get tax breaks? How can you justify it without having inequality?

2. Some traditions should be kept. Yes there have been bad traditions. Some things mentioned here I wouldn't even consider to really be a tradtion. Here is my view though. The more we let traditions go to make some people happy then some other people want to let other things go and soon there are no traditions and then nothing is sacrosanct.

Traditions should be upheld by the people, religious groups, etc. Not the government. It is not the government's job to uphold the sanctity of various beliefs, but rather, to ensure equality under the law and enforce those laws.

3. <snip>but you can disagree with homosexuals and not be a homophobe.

Agreed.

4. There is nothing wrong with awarding some benefits to tradional marriage. For this aruement we don't even need to look at gay marriages. as a whole the population is declining. I'm not sure of the figures any more. But I believe a nation to keep up needs a birthrate of 2. I'm not sure whatthat rate was passed on. but manu many nations are falling far below that. I lot of european nations are at 1 or lower. The problem seems to be people leaning towards a selfish greedy life, steems from the me generation I guess. I know I'll get tons of hate mail for that one. So my point is goverments should award people to get married and have kids and have families. Bringing gay marriages into this. Well they simply don't naturally lead to having families. yes some can adopt yes some may get sperm from some one or a suragate mother Leading but two men can't have children naturally.

I agree on some points, but disagree on others. Current governments/societies are set up to depend on ever-increasing populations. How long can that last? How long is it until we can no longer support our own populations? Take a look at Japan, for example. There simply isn't enough usable land for the population to expand. In addition, hey do not have nearly as many open gays as America, yet their rate of birth is much lower than the US (1.7 children per couple, vs 2.4 or so... forget the exact US figure). And despite more and more gays coming out in the US, the population is still on the increase.

Gay people *will always be gay*. Forcing them not to marry will not influence their will or ability to procreate. However, if they can adopt a child and raise that child properly to become an active and productive member of society, isn't that more beneficial than, say, a poor heterosexual family having excessive amounts of children and living off of welfare? (Not saying all heterosexuals are, just showing the inequality of the statement that heterosexual family automatically has more value than a gay family.)

5. Gay couples or a gay single should be allowed to adopt children. Having parents is better than being loooked after by the state.These adoptions shouldbe carefully considered though. Especially with older children. More than likely older children being adopted will have emotional problems. Having gay parent(s) could make these worse.

And this last statement is based on...?

6. People are using nature as an argument for gay marriage. Then when someone else uses nature to counter your argument you get all huffy. Using Nature for this argument is a bunch of bull. Is being gay a genetic thing or physiologcal or psychological. Whatever it is nature has no impact. Yeah there are some animals that sometimes appear to be performing homosexual acts. So saying we should allow gay marriage is like saying all those people that kill and eat people should be set free and we should encourage that behavoir because some animals kill and eat each other. Marriage has nothing to do with nature. Animals don't get married!

I agree that it is an argument that is misued. However, I specifically use the "nature argument" to combat the claim that homosexuality is a purely learned behavior and is "not natural." The claim for the right to marry is a simple one of equality under the law. This does not necessarily apply to all countries that do not believe in total equality under the law, but the US supposedly does. In fact, there are already precedents set in various areas of society that specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference. This is an inconsistency.

7. I see this happening mor and more naf think it's a sad. People want you to express your views or opinions. These peopel say everyone has a right to speak and say what's on their minds. But if you speak up and it's diffent than theirs you're evil and stupid and whatever else comes out. I could go on and on about this.

Well, you are free to speak your mind and free to think whatever you wish. However, it is the government's duty to ensure equality under the law. You can say anything you want (in most cases), but if you make claims in a debate, particularly when the rights of actual people are involved, you best be able to back up your claims with a solid argument.

People often misunderstand "equality in expressing opinions" for "everybody is right, nobody is wrong." This is not the case. You can say the sky is green, as it is your right to do so, but that doesn't make it right. You can say that people should not be allowed have interracial marriages! But it doesn't make you right. It is your opinion, and nothing more, just as people have the right to their own.

tekkan

08-19-2005, 07:08 PM

I can't resist.
Idiocy is normal. Being intelligent is abnormal.
(by intelligence, I mean above average smartness. )

normal = average

Thank you for proving my point.

Also smartness isn't a word. So by your point, I guess you'd be normal then.

tekkan

08-19-2005, 07:10 PM

Man Hap. I think only one of us should continue posting. We always end up saying the same things. :p

hapacheese

08-19-2005, 07:13 PM

Hahaha, indeed. I just tend to be long-winded :D

Balain

08-19-2005, 07:21 PM

A government should not make descions based on religion. A government should be independent of religion. Yes, Marriage was created through religion. But through time, it has evolved into something more.

Sorry That wasn't so clear. I didn't mean that goverment and religion should be mixed there. Was just pointing out two diffrent cases for it.

While old traditions are lost, new traditions are created. Change isn't always a bad thing

Change can be good. Sometimes it bad all depends what is being changed. I think some things need radical changing. I was just making a point not all traditions need to be lost. Not all traditions are necesarily bad.

I don't think anyone said that if you disagree with a homosexual then you are a homophobe.

I don't think anyone really said it. I read through a lot of the posts quick and it just seemd some peopel almost had that attitude.

It would all depend on the parents. But I think older children would have the least problem, because they would be old enough to understand. While younger kids would have trouble grasping why they have 2 daddies and no mommy and all the other kids have one of each.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other I guess.

I'm no child pscilogist. Just basing it on anecotes from family and friends. When I said younger kids I meant under 3ish. Older kids I was thinking like 4 to 8ish. Older tthan that I don't know.

Anyways I was thinking the under 3 would grow up and accept it where the 4 to 8ish might have problems accepting it. Agian I'm no expert here.

This is the internet. What did you expect?

Far to much I guess lol

Jai

08-19-2005, 07:31 PM

Then perhaps the true solution to the argument is to remove the word "marriage" from the lawbooks and replace it with something lawyer-speak, like civil union.

Then you can ban gay marriage and no one has a leg to whinge on (marriage is a church notion, after all) and they can just go ahead and get whatever the not-marriage "legal" equivilent is and have every right the same as anyone else under the law.

Im very much with you though Tekken - I tolerate homosexuality, but I dont think ill ever accept it. I still believe (opinion, not fact) its not the behavior of a mentally stable intelligent person to spit in the face of biology and the rules of life itself. But even then I can accept that its happening and will happen no matter what I think, and accept that such people have every right to expect equal treatment as me.

Balain

08-19-2005, 07:36 PM

And this last statement is based on...?

I don't know what my whole point was there. Like I said it was anecotal from friend and family with kids and teachers and what not.

A lot of gay people would make much better parents than some of the parents out there.

I guess there are just more issues involved. So you have to consider those as well. when dealing with a gay couple adopting

hapacheese

08-19-2005, 07:38 PM

Well said :)

Wow... some actual intelligent discussion on a message board! What is the intarwebs coming to?!? ;)

Jai

08-19-2005, 07:39 PM

hapacheese

08-19-2005, 07:40 PM

There is no doubt whatsoever that alot of homosexual pairs would make much better parents than alot of heroin addicted "single mother" (mother only in name) crack whores. Its also my opinion that the traditional nuclear family unit beats the hell out of both hands down.

Yet the law allows for tax benefits for heterosexual parents, regardless of their parenting abilities (unless they are turned in for child abuse, neglect, or whatever, of course), but homosexual couples are not. That is the crux of the issue for me. :D

Jai

08-19-2005, 07:44 PM

kensei

08-19-2005, 08:12 PM

Jesus Jai, half of your post consist of you bitching about them damn godless liberals. Why don't you make a thread to complain about them or something?

Jai

08-19-2005, 08:16 PM

Everyone has their pet hate I guess. Yours is "ignorant" people obviously :p

KKF

08-19-2005, 08:26 PM

Well, if you don't object to someone who claims that he is never
wrong, I have nothing to say. Probably you believe that
the Bible is never wrong.. or not. I just hate absolutists who
derive their certainty from some ridiculous traditions or holy books.
As a future engineer.. I can derive certainty only from mathematics.
(and science, but.. science can't disprove the existence of God, because
the whole theory of his existence is unprovable. You can't make a repeatable
experiment in which his existence is revealed. (no one ever suceeded).
(and... I bet for a billion dollars or my life(whichever is cheaper), that
no one is ever going to. Still, I am agnostic on this. Undecided.)

So people who take shortcuts and invoke some funny books irk me.

Your point being? I still don't see the point this has to do with the discussion at hand. And you are mistaken if you think I believe the Bible is never wrong. Concidering Im for gay rights. So again your point being?

Last time I heard, US. gays did not have to wear pink stars.
How do you tell a gay priest from a straight priest?
The voice differences are not universal. Many gays are very
masculine, in bearing. Not every one of them is a 'fairy'.
Did you sleep with them? That's a sure way to find out...

Oh here we go making stupid comments once again. Concidering these men and women both had known my parents for years and years. I would think my dad or mother would know if one of them was gay. Shocker I know but friends tend to talk to others about what they feel. Further more your attempts at insulting me are lacking in well "the funny." If anything quit while you're ahead before I retorting in kind.

So, burden of proof for lazy people who can't be bothered
to replicate what I did several weeks ago:

Wow you really don't understand this concept. Its not my responsibilty to look things up to SUPPORT your argument its yours. Hence, no I can't bothered to do you argument for you. Jesus fucking christ talk about not knowning how to carry on a "debate".

A long rambling article from a priest. On the issue.
http://us.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2000-11/essay.html

For obvious reasons, no reliable statistics are available. So where did you come up with this number of 10 to 70%? Further more it says that aids is rampant in the church. I actually just called my father and asked him about this. He said and I quote, "Out of all the priest I have known in my life, not one has died of aids. Even though their are homosexuals in the church to say that its a big number is plain stupid."

By an archbishop (well, did not really check with the Vatican, whether he really is. Shit. He is from the old catholic church and gay, too)
http://www.whosoever.org/v8i2/catholic.shtml

Studies have shown that 'reported' cases of child sexual abuse show a preponderance of the acts being committed by heterosexual men against children of both sexes.

If anything that disproves what you where saying earlier. You might want to find articles that actually prove what you are stating.

more on him:
http://www.christiangays.com/articles/face.shtml

After doing a little research on my own about this man and what church he is in I came to the conclusion that you should of picked someone else. This guy isn't even a ordained Roman Catholic Priest, in fact he never was. He is in http://www.reformedcatholicchurch.org/index2.htm which allows gay priest. But has no connection to Roman Catholic Church. If anything again you are falling short on proving what you wanted to prove.

Something better:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm
Well, it's second hand.(not the original source) Too bad.
But, it's very definite. It appears that the percentage
of gays among CC priests is far higher than among the general
population. Where, it's usually given as 5%. ('round here. In Slovakia).

Really, thats not what it says.

What percentage of priests have a homosexual orientation? Nobody knows, with any degree of accuracy.

So again its all based on assumptions. So where are these facts that state that there 10-70% homosexuals in the Catholic Church?

Before Roxie starts denying, I suggest she reads the abovementioned articles
several times. I do hope she reads books.
(I can't imagine what it's like not being able to read a page in a 1-4 minutes)
(of not-too-dense beletry. Not textbooks. Definitely not calculus..)

Wow, before you go off and start insulting her you might try to actually back up your statements with facts. In fact most of the articles help out HER argument not yours.

AssButt.

08-19-2005, 08:26 PM

To whoever said gays shouldn't get married because marriage is supposed to be for reproduction purposes, get a fucking clue. How many times have you had sex for reproductive purposes? Probably zero, unless you're married, which brings it up to about 2-3.

tekkan

08-19-2005, 08:30 PM

KKF

08-19-2005, 08:31 PM

Jai

08-19-2005, 08:31 PM

Jai

08-19-2005, 08:34 PM

My parents proably pay more in taxes than anyone here. And they still complain that the rich shouldn't get tax cuts. That obviously includes them. They can afford the taxes a couple thousand more won't hurt them. But a couple thousand more will hurt the poor. Stupid neo-conservatives never think past the present.

In that single paragraph youve explained to me your pigheaded god-like decrees in every post you make.

Rich kid thinks he knows better than everyone else because his daddy can afford it :rolleyes:

KKF

08-19-2005, 08:39 PM

In that single paragraph youve explained to me your pigheaded god-like decrees in every post you make.

Rich kid thinks he knows better than everyone else because his daddy can afford it :rolleyes:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, in a single paragraph you think you know me and where I come from? If you happen to read back just a little you would of read where I admit I can be wrong. But obviously I have a god-like decree on everything. Unlike you I never have stated that I know who you are and WHERE you come from. But I guess, you have some super power to tell you this, just from a paragraph. Please oh mighty one tell me something else about others.

The best part is that my dad isn't the one who is working and making the money. Shit he hasn't for the past say 20 years or so. In fact my parents became wealthy right after I left highschool and I paid for my own college. But good try anyways jr. :rolleyes:

P.S. Good job on skipping my statement. :eek: Shouldn't of expected anything different from you.

kensei

08-19-2005, 08:40 PM

I'm assuming Jai's opinions on homosexuals come from the fact that he's impotent.

Jai

08-19-2005, 08:42 PM

Half your posts are just personal insults mate, that goes to show the sort of person you are - "im right because im right" - how many times did you call Zak a twat because you had nothing else to say? lol :)

Skipping your statement? What do you want me to say, that your two minority parents (rich people who think the tax system is fair) are wrong and should suffer for it? Ill leave that for nuffers like yourself. If thats their view, thats their view and woopdeedoodah for them. I dont earn enough to pay the highest bracket of tax and I think its unfair on those that do. Does that somehow make my opinion undeniable truth? Uh, that would be no... peanut

KKF

08-19-2005, 08:42 PM

I'm assuming Jai's opinions on homosexuals come from the fact that he's impotent.

Zinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng ;)

tekkan

08-19-2005, 08:42 PM

Come on. Can we refrane from personal attacks eh?

KKF

08-19-2005, 08:44 PM

Half your posts are just personal insults mate, that goes to show the sort of person you are - "im right because im right" - how many times did you call Zak a twat because you had nothing else to say? lol :)

Funny, you also don't have your facts straight. He called ME a twat and I was being sarcastic in calling him one back. Oh and I remember right off hand I called him ONCE a twat. Also everything I stated were I was right, I backed up with something. So want to continue making yourself look like a arse mate? :rolleyes:

Jai

08-19-2005, 08:48 PM

The only person who looks like an arse is the guy calling people ignorant for not agreeing out of hand with the crap they splutter, and thats not me mate :)

kensei

08-19-2005, 08:53 PM

Jai, tell me the name of this psychiatrist that treated homosexuals.

KKF

08-19-2005, 08:54 PM

The only person who looks like an arse is the guy calling people ignorant for not agreeing out of hand with the crap they splutter, and thats not me mate :)

Really, now? The thing is I don't make things up to try and make people look bad like you just did mate. But hey I guess that does make me look like a arse. :confused: Further more I will still say that it was a ignorant statement that you made. Concidering you don't even have any gay friends. If you don't even have first hand experience with anyone that is gay and doctors in general agree that its not a mental illness then I'd gather to say thats a pretty bold and ignorant statement to make. But hey, im the arse here Im the one making false accusations. :confused:

AssButt.

08-19-2005, 08:57 PM

Now theres a guy who chose an accurate name for himself.

The movies is the only place where a single shot is always enough to get the ball rolling on that one, AssButt. Reality sees alot of couples banging away with every intention of putting one in the oven for months at a time for no result.

I can understand not thinking before you speak, but not thinking before you type and post...?

I suppose that's true. Nevertheless, my point still stands. Technically, we shouldn't be fucking at all unless we're intent on making babies. I find it unlikely that a married couple will only have sex for reproduction. Unless you're extremely religious, most guys would die to be deflowered before their wedding. Isn't that in itself sinful? According to the Bible, yes, but does that stop them? Hell no! Same with married couples. Let's face it, if they're a typical couple, they're not going to try for a baby on their wedding night. It may be years before they even consider children. In that time, I doubt they'd be sitting twiddling their thumbs, no sirree. They're getting it on like rabbits in the meantime. These people who claim marriage is only for making babies are basically saying the same thing about birth control.

Jai

08-19-2005, 08:59 PM

KKF - Are you a politician? No? Then you shouldnt vote because you dont know what your talking about.

Sound stupid? Now read what you just tried to say and ask the same question.

Now, the difference is you did make something up to try and make yourself look good. Your from-your-ring definition of "mental illness" and contention that it showed homosexuality couldnt be a mental problem was proven to be made up tripe not once but twice. All I said is that in my opinion homosexuality is a mental disorder and should be treated. Now if you could come down from your pedestal and accept that what you say isnt gospel to the hoards, maybe we would be getting somewhere :D

Talking about skipping past statements, I see you never bothered replying when I showed that under your own definition, homosexuality is a mental illness. Relevant quotes -

Further more you don't know what mental illness really "is", Any of various disorders characterized chiefly by abnormal behavior or an inability to function socially

Under the other half of your made-up definition, Id qualify one man pumping another in the "out" slot as "abnormal behaviour". This one isnt really up for discussion, as normal can be definantly proven to mean the the majority course of action, so until theres more homosexuals than hetrosexuals, normal is on my side of the white line.

KKF

08-19-2005, 09:12 PM

KKF - Are you a politician? No? Then you shouldnt vote because you dont know what your talking about.

Sound stupid? Now read what you just tried to say and ask the same question.

I don't have to be a politician to have a opinion that is based on facts. Your opinion was NOT based on facts. Since in general doctors agree that homosexuality is not a mental illness. But good try in your comparison. Also good job in ignoring what I just stated about you lieing about what I did. But yeah Im the "arse" here. :eek:

Now, the difference is you did make something up to try and make yourself look good. Your from-your-ring definition of "mental illness" and contention that it showed homosexuality couldnt be a mental problem was proven to be made up tripe not once but twice. All I said is that in my opinion homosexuality is a mental disorder and should be treated. Now if you could come down from your pedestal and accept that what you say isnt gospel to the hoards, maybe we would be getting somewhere :D

First off I didn't make that definition up. www.dictionary.com But thanks for giving me credit for it. You know since I randomly make things up like you do. By the way its definition number two on the list. Also heres a helpful little link for you about mental disorders. http://psychcentral.com/disorders/ Do you see homosexual disorder there? I don't. Maybe if you stop making assumptions and started talking facts we could get some where.

KKF

08-19-2005, 09:15 PM

Thats because I didn't see it. But Im sure I ignored it just because I have no valid argument. :rolleyes: Concidering I DIDN'T make that up and it isn't "my" definition you can take from it what you want. But good try their jr, better luck next time. But I think I'll listen to people who have done research on mental illness before I take your word on it.

Y.T.

08-19-2005, 09:16 PM

From article 4.
Analysis of the estimates of others:
bullet According to Amanda Ripley of Time Magazine, estimates range from 15% to 50%. 3
bullet According to Bill Blakemore of ABC News, "...nobody knows what percentage of the American priesthood is gay; estimates range from less than 10% to more than 30%." 4
bullet Personal estimates:
bullet Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former priest, has studied celibacy, chastity, and sexuality in the priesthood for four decades. He has authored three books on the topic. He once estimated that 30% of the priesthood is homosexually oriented. 5 Elsewhere, he is quoted as estimating that between 25% and 45% of American priests are homosexual in orientation. 6 He told the Boston Globe: "If they were to eliminate all those who were homosexually oriented, the number would be so staggering that it would be like an atomic bomb; it would do the same damage to the church's operation...It would mean the resignation of at least a third of the bishops of the world. And it's very much against the tradition of the church; many saints had a gay orientation, and many popes had gay orientations. Discriminating against orientation is not going to solve the problem."
bullet Sister Maryanne Walsh, spokesperson for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that it would it be difficult to find evidence to support these Sipe's estimates of the percentage of gay men in the priesthood. She feels that it is also irrelevant. She said: "There’s no real purpose in saying whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual. The issue is whether they can make a commitment [to chastity]." 6
bullet Bishop Jerome Listecki is an auxiliary bishop in Chicago. He estimates that "perhaps more than 10%" of priests have a homosexual orientation." (Emphasis ours). 5
bullet Father Donald Cozzens, an author, psychologist, and Catholic seminary president says that there is such a high percentage of gay priests in the church that he is concerned that “the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession.” 5 In his book, "The Changing Face of the Priesthood," -- published in the year 2000 -- he estimates that 50% of Roman Catholic priests have a homosexual orientation.
bullet A NBC report on chastity and the clergy found that "anywhere from 23 percent to 58 percent" of the Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation. 7
bullet Author and sociologist James G. Wolfe estimated that 48.5% of priests were gay. 8
bullet Actual surveys:
bullet In the Fall of 1999, the Kansas City Star sent a questionnaire to 3,000 priests in the U.S. 73% did not reply. The low response rate could be anticipated. One would expect homosexuals and bisexuals to be reluctant to respond to the questionnaire since it deals with such a sensitive issue, and originated from a newspaper. Homosexual and bisexual priests would probably be less likely to reply to the survey. Among the 801 priests who did reply:
bullet 75% said they had a heterosexual orientation;
bullet 15% homosexual;
bullet 5% bisexual. 9
bullet During 1990, Rev. Thomas Crangle, a Franciscan priest in Passaic, N.J., mailed a survey to 500 randomly selected priests. Of the 398 responses, about 45% said that they were gay. 10
This is quite conclusive when it comes to numbers of gay people in the CC.
Look closely, and you'll see it falls into 10-70% range.
Sorry people, I'm off for two weeks at least, now. And,
don't ask your father. Read about the subject more.
And then consider what your father says.
Bye..

KKF

08-19-2005, 09:18 PM

From article 4.

This is quite conclusive when it comes to numbers of gay people in the CC.
Look closely, and you'll see it falls into 10-70% range.
Sorry people, I'm off for two weeks at least, now. And,
don't ask your father. Read about the subject more.
And then consider what your father says.
Bye..

Its not conclusive at all. Did you happen to miss the part I quoted? Where it states that their is no conclusive evidence on the amount that are gay? The article itself states that from the start. Doesn't matter what a few small studies have to say about it. The catholic church is huge. I won't make a assumption about a subject till the evidence is clear cut. You really need to look at the article in full before you make such assumptions about it being conclusive. Also I don't see it anywhere reaching 70% in those articles.

hapacheese

08-19-2005, 09:20 PM

A law that discriminates against one part of the population in favour of another?

never :) The entire income tax system of (every?) western country discriminates against people for earning too much :) Yet you can hear the social libs scream like wounded beasts from across the country if the "rich" get a tax cut that means they only have to pay 8 times as much tax as the "poor".... sigh

Just wanted to comment on this really quick before reading the rest of the comments that got posted while I was out.

The difference here is that all people, regardless of race, creed, religion, or sexual orientation, has a "fair" shot at becoming rich. There are no governmental edicts (although this could potentially be argued via convoluted history of oppression of some peoples) that prevent them from doing so. Therefore, it is equal.

The reason why the rich are taxed more than the poor is because regardless of how much money you make, the minimum standard cost of living never changes. Every dollar that a poor family must pay in taxes has a much higher relative value than every dollar that a rich family does.

And while rich families have a higher spending potential per capita, the total population of rich people vs poor people is severely skewed, making it impossible for rich people to support the economy based on their own shopping habits. More money in the pocket of the poor-to-average family means a healthier economy.

/Is a left-leaning independent that is considered in the "upper middle class" brackets of taxes, and doesn't mind

Jai

08-19-2005, 09:25 PM

I don't have to be a politician to have a opinion that is based on facts. Your opinion was NOT based on facts. Since in general doctors agree that homosexuality is not a mental illness. But good try in your comparison. Also good job in ignoring what I just stated about you lieing about what I did. But yeah Im the "arse" here. :eek:

Thanks for proving my point. Your taking what people (but only those who agree with you) think "in general" as fact. Your statement implies (as you know for truth) that some doctors agree that homosexuality IS a mental illness, yet you claim it as a FACT? LOL

KKF

08-19-2005, 09:35 PM

Thanks for proving my point. Your taking what people (but only those who agree with you) think "in general" as fact. Your statement implies (as you know for truth) that some doctors agree that homosexuality IS a mental illness, yet you claim it as a FACT? LOL

Sigh, so you want to argue like a 5 year old. Ok I'll play that game. Nothing is 100% fact. Prove to me that their is not someone out there that believes something is different from the norm. Go ahead try. If you want to argue with me be reasonable because NOTHING is 100% fact. Their are some doctors that believe that you are gay because you don't have gay friends. Is that true? Well according to them thats FACT! :rolleyes:

Please next time you are going to argue a point make it a worthy one. The overwhelming majority of doctors believe homosexuality is NOT a mental illness. And they base that off their studies and what they have found. For you to say that oh but wait a very small minority of doctors think its a mental illness and point that out as me being arrogrant, for not accepting that. Well is plain stupid. Good try though jr.

Jai

08-19-2005, 09:56 PM

Jai

08-19-2005, 10:05 PM

Take your posts about homosexual catholic priests for example. You claim Zaka is wrong because your parents know some priests and "would know if they were gay". What a truck load of bullcrap :)

KKF

08-19-2005, 11:07 PM

Arguing like a 5 year old is calling people "ignorant", "narrow minded", "lacking tolerance, breadth of view and sympathy for a cause" because they dont conform to your point of view. Even worse, thats almost ALL you posted in your first reply to my opinion :)

Thats the definition of it. Thank you www.dictionary.com! And I still don't see how what I stated is wrong?

Arguing like a 5 year old is calling your opinion "fact". Your The rest of your response to my post was "this isnt a discussion, its a conversation" - because to you your opinion on the matter is CERTAINLY correct - just who is ignorant and narrow minded, I wonder?

First off, since we are arguing like you want. My opinion is the one viewed as fact by the majority of doctors. Thats why I consider it fact. Also I said that in JEST, see the winky? Its called making a llittle joke. You really are just pulling at straws here.

The only FACT is that there is no established FACT in this issue. I presented an opinion based on a my understanding of the biological facts of life. Your chosen response was to bait, name-call and generally just flame and post "I am right because I say so" under the guise of made up "facts".

Their are no 100% facts in this world but when the majority of doctors all agree that this IS NOT a mental illness I'll think I'll go with what they are saying. Its not "made up facts" as you so put it. It is the majority of the medical world. But If you wanna argue the fine points of facts go ahead.

The FACT is that under your own posted definition of mental illness, homosexuality is a mental illness because it is abnormal. You cant refute that, its in your own words - abnormal behavior constitutes mental illness.

The fact is that you are taking two words out of context out of that definition. Irregardless show me a accredited medical journal that states that homosexuality is a mental illness?

BTW, your "jnr" rubbish just makes you sound all the more like a tool "fossil" :rolleyes:

Almost as bad as your lieing about what I stated and did. To think you would be that stupid to do something like that when the proof of my actions is in this very thread. Good one jr.

KKF

08-19-2005, 11:10 PM

Take your posts about homosexual catholic priests for example. You claim Zaka is wrong because your parents know some priests and "would know if they were gay". What a truck load of bullcrap :)

Again you need to learn to read. I was giving a example that my father would have a idea what his friends sexual preference was since he GREWUP with them. Heres a shocker he has yet to show any evidence that 10-70% is the amount of homosexuals in the church. The burdon of proof lays on him, and he has yet to prove that. I was giving a example of why I doubted his numbers were correct. Again good try jr. Keep drawing them straws.

Ya know, im almost starting to think you really are stupid Keep it up, ill be back in 12 hours to keep shitting on your posts Nice pm jr. really proving me wrong! Sticking it to the rich kid aren't you!

Myrsilus

08-19-2005, 11:18 PM

Wow this thread got bad. Where's the love, people?

That's all, really... I wouldn't dare get caught up in this shitstorm now.

MajorProblem

08-20-2005, 12:44 AM

Wow this thread got bad. Where's the love, people?

That's all, really... I wouldn't dare get caught up in this shitstorm now.
^ Agreed, let's not resort to personal insults guys, it makes your blood pressure go up :)

unoriginal_cyn

08-20-2005, 01:26 AM

I would just like to throw out some of my random thoughts here after just reading all the posts:

Being openly-gay is tough, and takes a great amount a courage when you consider the amount of discrimination and violence that exists against homosexuals. If it were truly a choice to be gay, and not something innate, then one would wonder why anyone would choose it.

If marriage, as some people describe it, is essentially for reproduction purposes, then lesbian marriages should trump all marriages since the women, using any one of our current reproductive technologies (or just a turkey baster and some semen), could theoretically concieve twice as many children! :D

If people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry because they can't reproduce, then should we extend that to sterile people?

How can anyone really think gay marriage is going to have a huge impact on our population? I would think that women going to university has/had a much greater impact on the dwindling population since we're spending less time bagging us a husband and popping out babies during our most fertile years and more time, y'know, learning stuff. But that doesn't mean I want to give up an education. Also, is a decline population really a bad thing? Aren't we exhausting enough of our resources as it is?

There have been a lot of arguments about nature, and what is "natural." Some people have said that homosexuality is natural because there are other examples of it in the animal kingdom. Others have counter argued that not everything that happens in nature is right, e.g.. some animals eat their babies. I guess one thing I have to say about that is that you really can only compare humans with certain other animals, such as primates, and look at their social system (e.g. cannibalism is a no-no, homosexuality exists and is often not discouraged). We're nothing like sharks so you can't really compare us to them. Either way, I agree with some of you that the whole nature thing is irrelevant, because most of what humans do is not "natural" in the first place (heck, we've been trying to fight nature ever since we existed).

If we really think we have a right to decide who gets married and who doesn't, then why don't we extend it to straight couples too! We can have an elected panel and they'll decide if the couple is suitable for marriage or not. Heck, we might even reduce divorce rates!

Anyway, those are some thoughts and sorry if some of it is irrelevant to the discussion. So yeah, I support gay marriage and don't see how it's a bad thing.
And we really need to stop the name-calling here. Enough of the "Your argument shows how immature/ignorant/just plain dumb you are" or "you spelled a word wrong so I'm not even going to consider your argument because it's probably dumb anyway"

ruaidhri

08-20-2005, 03:20 AM

Jesus! I was correct when I predicted that Jai would start something with his original post.

I have a question: How does calling someone names prove your point? It doesn’t! Has anyone taken the time to read Jai’s original posts? He’s not against gays! He’s not against giving them legal rights. I don’t believe he’s against gays marrying each other. He doesn’t want to harm gays.

What’s his sin? He doesn’t believe homosexuality is normal. So what! A lot of people don’t. That’s only his and their opinion. You have a right to your own opinion just as Jai does to his. You certainly aren’t going to change his mind nor will he change yours.

Currently everyone is so backed into the corner that no one is willing to even consider the other's argument. In a way that makes sense because, in my opinion, logic has seriously taken flight in this thread. I haven’t read a single good argument. Certainly, name calling and insulting your opponent is not an argument.

Remember this thread is about Gay Marriages. Today, that’s a political issue. You’re for it or you’re against it.

This thread has become boring because everyone is writing the same thing over and over without even truly considering previous posts. From my perspective, there are far more interesting threads I can spend my time reading and responding.

Jai

08-20-2005, 04:50 AM

LOL @ KKF

I dont even need to reply to that :) into the box with mr "your wrong because your impotent" kensei you go :)

ManiacLove

08-20-2005, 05:42 AM

Jai, tell me the name of this psychiatrist that treated homosexuals.

Actually there are many psychiatrists who try to "treat" most claim high success rates. What they don't know is, I believe the statistic was that 90% of treated individuals go back to that lifestyle and it is not successful.

And wrong. My theory is homosexuality is caused by pheoromones. (Sp?) But I haven't studied this in depth, so I can't say.

Also, homosexuality is NOT, I repeat, not, recognized as a mental illness by any accredited mental health organization. (I know a lot more about mental health systems then the average person, I'd assume.)

I don't know why people can't accept other for who they are and move on. So what is Adam & Steve get married? Why do you care? Are they making hot gay love in your bedroom? And even if they were, you don't have to have gay sex to get gay married.
Marriage is just a piece of paper, and a tax cut. Love is love.

Someone also said something about it being a fetish because you can have sex without being in love.. or have love without sex...

Sex can be about intamacy.
I've only slept with one person and I know the difference between fucking and making love. I love knowing that my boyfriend is the one for me, and I love sharing myself with him. It's such an overwhelming, genuine feeling. Everyone should be able to feel that, in my opinion.

kensei

08-20-2005, 05:52 AM

Jai, setting aside my personal opinion of you, I don't think you've said anything to support your point what so ever. You've pointed out that the male/male anatomy isn't naturally compatable for reporduction, which is a given. You've stated that you heard of a phychiatrist who was treating homosexuals, but have yet to cite a name or anything. You've claimed that homosexuality is a mental illness, contrary to the fact that the majority of the scientific community disagrees with you. Other than that, you've either dodged arguments by spewing personal attacks or copped-out with the "OMG everyone's saying that I'm ignorant because I disagree with them!" card. What makes you ignorant is simply that you are unaware of the facts. What makes you narrow-minded is that you believe at an intellectual level, homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals because they are "spitting in the face of biology". I'll admit to making an immature personal attack on you, but that was merely in response to your own attack on another.

KKF

08-20-2005, 06:07 AM

Actually there are many psychiatrists who try to "treat" most claim high success rates. What they don't know is, I believe the statistic was that 90% of treated individuals go back to that lifestyle and it is not successful.

And wrong. My theory is homosexuality is caused by pheoromones. (Sp?) But I haven't studied this in depth, so I can't say.

Also, homosexuality is NOT, I repeat, not, recognized as a mental illness by any accredited mental health organization. (I know a lot more about mental health systems then the average person, I'd assume.)

I don't know why people can't accept other for who they are and move on. So what is Adam & Steve get married? Why do you care? Are they making hot gay love in your bedroom? And even if they were, you don't have to have gay sex to get gay married.
Marriage is just a piece of paper, and a tax cut. Love is love.

Someone also said something about it being a fetish because you can have sex without being in love.. or have love without sex...

Sex can be about intamacy.
I've only slept with one person and I know the difference between fucking and making love. I love knowing that my boyfriend is the one for me, and I love sharing myself with him. It's such an overwhelming, genuine feeling. Everyone should be able to feel that, in my opinion.

Nod, exactly what I was trying to say. :D