The looming war over gay marriage

[JD_2B]

I was not mentioning gay marraige I was just saying pressure to conform to societal standard of marraige is not a positive, it's neutral at best.
oh and marry me or lose me is not a choice so much as it is a threat.

Call it whatever you want. I, however, fail to see how giving a man a choice between sealing the relationship in a ceremonious contract of marriage and losing the woman he loves for not doing that which is historically and religiously a tradition of male to female courtship, could in any way be construed as threatening.

[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]threat[/SIZE][/FONT] (thr

t) [SIZE=-2]KEY[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]NOUN:[/SIZE]

1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

[SIZE=-1]TRANSITIVE VERB:[/SIZE]
Archaic [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]threat·ed[/SIZE][/FONT], [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]threat·ing[/SIZE][/FONT], [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]threats


[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]How on earth can a woman giving an ultimatum between the decision to further the relationship or lose her, not doing so being the decision which would inevitably cause a man to lose her, some kind of expression or intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, danger, or punishment on a man?[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] Grow up. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Marriage is neither painful, injurious, evil, dangerous, or punishing. Perhaps the thought of a broken heart may be construed as a painful experience, but if the woman not getting married to the man she loves would break her heart, then in my opinion, this is merely a method of self preservation and dignity. When relationships fail to grow, or fail to continue to be symbiotic, they tend to fail.

I sure as hell won't be any man's perpetual girlfriend for life. Got me bent!!! LOL!!
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[JD_2B]

I was not mentioning gay marraige I was just saying pressure to conform to societal standard of marraige is not a positive, it's neutral at best.
oh and marry me or lose me is not a choice so much as it is a threat.

And what is your basis for the assertion that conforming to a societal standard of marriage is somehow not positive?

 

[Father Time]

I was not mentioning gay marraige I was just saying pressure to conform to societal standard of marraige is not a positive, it's neutral at best.
oh and marry me or lose me is not a choice so much as it is a threat.

And what is your basis for the assertion that conforming to a societal standard of marriage is somehow not positive?

Because getting married just because of peer/society pressure is a really dumb idea. Those shouldn't even be much of an influence for something that big.

 

[Father Time]

I was not mentioning gay marraige I was just saying pressure to conform to societal standard of marraige is not a positive, it's neutral at best.
oh and marry me or lose me is not a choice so much as it is a threat.

Call it whatever you want. I, however, fail to see how giving a man a choice between sealing the relationship in a ceremonious contract of marriage and losing the woman he loves for not doing that which is historically and religiously a tradition of male to female courtship, could in any way be construed as threatening.

[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]threat[/SIZE][/FONT] (thr

t) [SIZE=-2]KEY[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]NOUN:[/SIZE]

1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.

[SIZE=-1]TRANSITIVE VERB:[/SIZE]
Archaic [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]threat·ed[/SIZE][/FONT], [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]threat·ing[/SIZE][/FONT], [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]threats


[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]How on earth can a woman giving an ultimatum between the decision to further the relationship or lose her, not doing so being the decision which would inevitably cause a man to lose her, some kind of expression or intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, danger, or punishment on a man?[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1] Grow up. [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Marriage is neither painful, injurious, evil, dangerous, or punishing. Perhaps the thought of a broken heart may be construed as a painful experience, but if the woman not getting married to the man she loves would break her heart, then in my opinion, this is merely a method of self preservation and dignity. When relationships fail to grow, or fail to continue to be symbiotic, they tend to fail.

I sure as hell won't be any man's perpetual girlfriend for life. Got me bent!!! LOL!!
[/SIZE][/FONT]

You don't see 'do X or else' as a threat?

 

[Father Time]

It is really not about rights CG, as it is about an agenda. The following I bolded is a quote a poster made a while back and I saved. I think it explains this argument pretty well:

Why are they wasting their time and energy over a WORD if their real goal isn't to completely devalue the institution of marriage for EVERYBODY ?

No one cares about a word, if marraige had no legal quirks about it they wouldn't care nearly as much.

Although it's really fucking funny that the person you're quoting claims marraige is just a word then complains that it's the gays who are devaluing it.

You have to love irony.

Not in the quote. Never states the marriage is "JUST" a word, It asks why...oh just read it as written. I don't feel like pasting it again for you to misread again.
The gays have been the ones stating that it is "just a word"

It's not the word that matters so much as the legal contract that comes with it. I said it before and I'll say it again, if they have the same features whether or not a homosexual union is called a marraige or a civil union is strictly aesthetic as far as I'm concerned.

Although from what I heard, legal-wise it would just be easier to call them a marraige then to make a whole new legal term.

 

[Toro]

Why are they wasting their time and energy over a WORD if their real goal isn't to completely devalue the institution of marriage for EVERYBODY ?

Their real goal is not to completely devalue the institution of marriage. Their real goal is to get married. They want to be equal in society.

 

[logical4u]

Could you name two direct harms on society clearly caused by gay marriage?

Families are torn apart when a young person is 'recruited' to the lifestyle.

They aren't recruited and lots of perfectly legal things can tear a family apart, giving gays the right to marry will not make the family even more torn apart.

Although I have to say 'we shouldn't allow an adult to do X because their family will disapprove' is THE weakest excuse and stupidest reasoning I've ever heard.

Oh and the same could be said for itner-racial marriage.



See above, also it's unfair and immoral to demand your offspring bear the responsibility of taking care of you in your old age.



A. Prove it
B. The same can be said for alcohol
C. We can always just stop government funded healthcare.



Source now. It doesn't even make any sense, are you saying letting two people get married will increase their chance of being criminals? We should get rid of all marriage then.



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight because it's impossible to let homosexuals marry each other and not bring it up in the classroom.

You remind me of those braindead morons in California who held up signs saying PROP 8= free speech. Their "logic" (and I use the term loosely) being that if we allowed gay marriage it would directly lead to the institution of overly restrictive hate speech laws.

Serious question, are you dumber than a screwdriver, or are you just spitting out random arguments hoping one of them would stick?

People who want to show off being gay are going to do so even if they aren't married. Being married will not change them. Also once again 'the family won't approve' is a REALLY stupid argument.

It will increase the mental health costs of homosexuals that believe they will be happy when 'legalized homosexual marrige' happens and they still can't marry the one they want because of rejection or other reasons.

Seriously are you retarded or something? People can need mental treatment if they get rejected by a loved one, they don't need to be able to get married for that to happen (nor do they have to be homosexual).

It will cause government costs to increase because the documentation and counselers will have to be available for homosexuals. etc, etc, etc

Same could be said for heterosexuals so let's destroy marriage all together.

You're arguments are petty and stupid, other then 'families won't approve' all you're really doing is talking about the potential risks/costs of getting married most of which would be on the consenting adults, and of course since they're choosing to take the risk, it's insignificant.

Oh and you seem to be under the delusion that if homosexuals don't have a right to marry they will cease to exist and that allowing them to marry will insure their continued existence. This of course is tremendously stupid as homosexuals still exist where there is no gay marriage.

I was asked to provide two examples. There was nothing about making them practical. If you want to talk 'practical' there would be no homosexual marriage discussion because homosexual marriage is not about being 'practical'.
Your disagreement that things should not be done to promote and please families, yet your whole arguement for 'marriage is to 'pleas' those involved, and to 'make' families. One of the drawbacks to the whole homosexual marrige debate: the homosexuals want to have it both ways, not equal, more.

 

[logical4u]

Families are torn apart when a young person is 'recruited' to the lifestyle.

Were you "recruited" to the straight lifestyle?

Families are torn apart, if they are prejudiced and closed-minded.

Families that raised children to support the family in the future are more likely not to have grandchildren or inlaws to help support them in their old age (they will have to rely on those ''death panels").

What year is this, 1850?

By your logic, we should actively discourage people who don't want to have children to not marry either.



Too funny.

If you are worried about healthcare costs, campaign for Americans to stop cramming so much junk down their throats and get their fat asses off the couch and out exercising. America is one of, if not the, fattest country in the world, and something like a third of the population is at least 20 pounds overweight. This is many multiple times more damaging that the "homosexual lifestyle."



By your logic, we should ban heterosexual marriage because it also "increases law enforcement and crimes."



Because the gay community wants to "recruit" your kids.

I'm sure we heard this argument in places like Selma and Montgomery c1960 re: black people.

It will increase mental health costs because people that have homosexuals in their family that publicly demonstrate their preferences will embarass and humiliate them to distraction.

If they are that distracted, they are already in therapy!

It will increase the mental health costs of homosexuals that believe they will be happy when 'legalized homosexual marrige' happens and they still can't marry the one they want because of rejection or other reasons. It will cause government costs to increase because the documentation and counselers will have to be available for homosexuals. etc, etc, etc

Too funny. You can't make this stuff up.

This has to be one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read. People will go to any length to rationalize their prejudices.

Can you show that any of this will not happen? There are cases of homosexuals running a boys home and raping the children there; if that wasn't bad enough, they brought in 'homosexual aquaintence' and allowed them to rape them too. A homosexual professor in NC sold his young child for sex. There was a case of a homosexual woman abusing her child for the pleasure of her partner.
Other than the 'few' horror stories (and you can show just as many on the heterosexual side), I cannot prove this. The press seems to not publish any statistics on homosexual probles (suicide rate, depression rates, domestic abuse, etc, etc etc), I am speaking from my private observations and trying to see where this would lead.
I am waiting for someone that is arguing for homosexual marriage a community that is mostly homosexual where heterosexuals want to move with their families, or to hold it up as a shining example to prove that it is a better way to live.
There is nothing in the constitution to guarentee happiness (only the pusuit). Homosexuals have the same Bill of Rights that heterosexuals have, they simply want....more.

 

[logical4u]

Can you demonstrate any society that 'accepted' gay marriage that grew and prospered?

Can you demonstrate any society that 'accepted' a president from from a minority race before the US and prospered?

And yes, the comparison is the exactly the same. If you seek to imply that the evil gay army will tear asunder the foundations of the Republic and eat babies in the street if they are recognized equally, then you must demonstrate it. You can't. So, you're dodging.

It's pathetic.

please demonstrate how 'homosexual' marriage is of any benefit to society.

Please demonstrate how letting you walk free and vote is any benefit to society as a whole.

you have no proof, no evidence that homosexual marriage will improve the lives of anyone other than the two involved.

Wrong. You're about to argue it for me

[Marriage], improved the lives of 'both' families, of those married, and of the community and society where they lived.
For those with the petty arguements: it is true that EVERY marriage does not make that happen, but GENERALLY speaking, marriage stabilizes communities.

There's no such thing as 'traditional marriage' as you wish it to be- the oldest tradition was harems and polygamy.

Good examples. YAWN.

 

[Toro]

Can you show that any of this will not happen? There are cases of homosexuals running a boys home and raping the children there; if that wasn't bad enough, they brought in 'homosexual aquaintence' and allowed them to rape them too. A homosexual professor in NC sold his young child for sex. There was a case of a homosexual woman abusing her child for the pleasure of her partner.
Other than the 'few' horror stories (and you can show just as many on the heterosexual side), I cannot prove this. The press seems to not publish any statistics on homosexual probles (suicide rate, depression rates, domestic abuse, etc, etc etc), I am speaking from my private observations and trying to see where this would lead.

Yes, you are speaking from your own private observations. Perhaps rather than cite meaningless anecdotes - most crimes are committed by heterosexuals BTW - you should do some independent research rather than merely finding isolated examples that confirm what you already believe.

There are countries that already have legalized gay marriage. Find out how it is working there.

And get to know some gay people. Talk to them about what you believe and see if they confirm it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

There are cases of homosexuals running a boys home and raping the children there; if that wasn't bad enough, they brought in 'homosexual aquaintence' and allowed them to rape them too.

And there are innumerable examples of the heterosexuals abusing young children of the opposite sex. Funny thing is, child molesters are disproportionately straight.

 

[Father Time]

Families are torn apart when a young person is 'recruited' to the lifestyle.

They aren't recruited and lots of perfectly legal things can tear a family apart, giving gays the right to marry will not make the family even more torn apart.

Although I have to say 'we shouldn't allow an adult to do X because their family will disapprove' is THE weakest excuse and stupidest reasoning I've ever heard.

Oh and the same could be said for itner-racial marriage.



See above, also it's unfair and immoral to demand your offspring bear the responsibility of taking care of you in your old age.



A. Prove it
B. The same can be said for alcohol
C. We can always just stop government funded healthcare.



Source now. It doesn't even make any sense, are you saying letting two people get married will increase their chance of being criminals? We should get rid of all marriage then.



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight because it's impossible to let homosexuals marry each other and not bring it up in the classroom.

You remind me of those braindead morons in California who held up signs saying PROP 8= free speech. Their "logic" (and I use the term loosely) being that if we allowed gay marriage it would directly lead to the institution of overly restrictive hate speech laws.

Serious question, are you dumber than a screwdriver, or are you just spitting out random arguments hoping one of them would stick?

People who want to show off being gay are going to do so even if they aren't married. Being married will not change them. Also once again 'the family won't approve' is a REALLY stupid argument.



Seriously are you retarded or something? People can need mental treatment if they get rejected by a loved one, they don't need to be able to get married for that to happen (nor do they have to be homosexual).

It will cause government costs to increase because the documentation and counselers will have to be available for homosexuals. etc, etc, etc

Same could be said for heterosexuals so let's destroy marriage all together.

You're arguments are petty and stupid, other then 'families won't approve' all you're really doing is talking about the potential risks/costs of getting married most of which would be on the consenting adults, and of course since they're choosing to take the risk, it's insignificant.

Oh and you seem to be under the delusion that if homosexuals don't have a right to marry they will cease to exist and that allowing them to marry will insure their continued existence. This of course is tremendously stupid as homosexuals still exist where there is no gay marriage.

I was asked to provide two examples. There was nothing about making them practical. If you want to talk 'practical' there would be no homosexual marriage discussion because homosexual marriage is not about being 'practical'.

Well let's see in practical terms homosexual marraige means more adoption which means less taxpayer dollars spent on orphans, also spending on a wedding pumps money in the economy. Now what in practical terms can top that for no homosexual marraige?

Your disagreement that things should not be done to promote and please families, yet your whole arguement for 'marriage is to 'pleas' those involved, and to 'make' families. One of the drawbacks to the whole homosexual marriage debate: the homosexuals want to have it both ways, not equal, more.

How exactly do they want it both ways? All they want is an option to get married, they can still choose not to take it and possibly badmouth marriage, just like straights get to do.

 

[Father Time]

Can you show that any of this will not happen? There are cases of homosexuals running a boys home and raping the children there; if that wasn't bad enough, they brought in 'homosexual aquaintence' and allowed them to rape them too. A homosexual professor in NC sold his young child for sex. There was a case of a homosexual woman abusing her child for the pleasure of her partner.

How about the straight guy who imprisoned a girl for 18 years as her sex slave.

Other than the 'few' horror stories (and you can show just as many on the heterosexual side),

Then why bring it up? It's all stupid guilt by association.

I cannot prove this.

And don't you ever forget it.

The press seems to not publish any statistics on homosexual probles (suicide rate, depression rates, domestic abuse, etc, etc etc), I am speaking from my private observations and trying to see where this would lead.

You have not conducted any studies, you have no solid data, all you have is extreme case anecdotal evidence which proves nothing.

I am waiting for someone that is arguing for homosexual marriage a community that is mostly homosexual where heterosexuals want to move with their families, or to hold it up as a shining example to prove that it is a better way to live.

Why should that be the fucking standard? Why should it matter what heterosexuals think of them? Why does it have to be a better way of living to be an option?

There is nothing in the constitution to guarentee happiness (only the pusuit). Homosexuals have the same Bill of Rights that heterosexuals have, they simply want....more.

Marriage ain't in the bill of rights and it still wouldn't be even if it was legalized.

Oh and yeah those gays are so damn greedy to want access to the same government offer heteros get. You can't make this bullshit up folks.

 

[Big Fitz]

heh... Looks like I don't need to deal with anything.

 

[FA_Q2]

Logical4u
No one has taken your rights. You have the right to marry. It is 'your' problem that you chose a person that is off limits; get over it and choose better, or choose to be alone.

Those that want homosexual marriage are about taking the rights from others: the right not to have their child (produced from a heterosexual union in over 99.9% of the time) indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle via the school system that will be required "by law" to "support" the "legal" act, not to have their family line ended, because their child has been targeted and recruited and convinced that they are 'gay', not to have their grandchildren neglected because a homosexual parent is more concerned with pleasing a lover than protecting the child, etc. Homosexuality, IMHO is anti-family, anti-society and harmful in the long run to any culture. It celebrates imorality, encourages abuse, molestation, and humiliation, while those that push its' agenda claim to have integrity and honor, agian IMHO.
I repeat, those that are pushing this 'agenda' are more concerned with infringing on others rights than having 'equal' rights.

I finally got through the 20 pages of replies. That’s the problem with these debates; it is difficult to get started when you come in late

I am split on this issue. I do not think gays will get the right to marry any time soon because, when left to the voters, it is overwhelmingly against it. I have always been surprised by this as there really is very little against gay marriage.

First I would like to go back to the church that was brought up in the beginning. A lot of resistance has been from churches that do not wish to marry gay couples and fear being forced into it. This is WRONG, plain and simple. Churches that refused to marry gay couples were in trouble of losing their tax exempt status if they did not change and I do not believe that any church should be forced to perform a ceremony that is against their beliefs. This was an attack on the religious institution of marriage and was perpetuated by a small minority within the gay rights movement. I believe that a simple law that allows gay marriage should include protection for churches that do not wish to perform the ceremony. This would relieve some of the resistance as well.

What I am afraid of is the normalization of “gay.” I will be forthright, I believe that being gay stems from a wiring issue and is not natural. Keep your animal kingdom bullshit to yourself here, cancer is not a natural state either and that exists in animals as well. I don’t think that it is a disease or needs to be cured though so don’t start flaming for the lack of a better analogy. My belief that it is not meant to be is simple – male and female exist for procreation and male/male, female/female cannot procreate therefore gay relationships is not how it is supposed to work. I also do not think that gay is a choice. I sure as hell never chose to become attracted to women, it just happened and I feel the same way with gays. I really do not care whether it is behavioral or genetic; it does not matter because it is not a choice. I fear that if it is normalized that it may become that way though. I do not want to hear our future children go “hey I have had bad luck with the ladies so I think I’ll try a dude.” This fear is NOT sufficient to take away the ability (yea, I didn’t say right since that seems to be a sore spot) to get married. I do not believe in oppression just because I don’t approve of the behavior.

FT
People who want to show off being gay are going to do so even if they aren't married. Being married will not change them. Also once again 'the family won't approve' is a REALLY stupid argument.

NO, as it becomes normalized and accepted it will be more open. That is a fact and most likely another big reason that people still oppose gay marriage, they simply do not want to see it or expose their children to it. It is something many of us will simply have to get used to. Hell, I don’t mind gay people at all and have had a few friends that were pretty damn open about it but I really do not want to be walking down the road and run into to construction worker dudes snoggin in the street

Logical4u
Homosexuality, IMHO is anti-family, anti-society and harmful in the long run to any culture. It celebrates imorality, encourages abuse, molestation, and humiliation

I would have to agree to the first sentence, and feel obligated to point out that those things have NOTHING to do with removing the ability for gays to marry. It even exasperates those things. The second sentence is true bigotry as all are unfounded and there is NO way to call homosexuality immoral without resorting to biblical sources.

Logical4u
Can you demonstrate any society that 'accepted' gay marriage that grew and prospered? Can you demonstrate any openly homosexual community where people are trying to take their families to be part of 'that' community?
You want to ask the hard questions, please demonstrate how 'homosexual' marriage is of any benefit to society. Your view of the world seems to revolve around what pleases 'the homosexual crotch', you have no proof, no evidence that homosexual marriage will improve the lives of anyone other than the two involved. Marriage (traditional), improved the lives of 'both' families, of those married, and of the community and society where they lived.
For those with the petty arguements: it is true that EVERY marriage does not make that happen, but GENERALLY speaking, marriage stabilizes communities.
Allowing, a really bad idea on the basis of lets try it and see if it works is like dumping manure in your drinking water, thinking you can remove it if you don't like the taste. Once it is done, all is tainted.

The funny part here is that all the benefits that marriage confers somehow evaporate when applied to the gay community. Here is the true problem that anti gay marriage has. Many of the vices gays face today are DIRECTLY resultant from society inability to accept them for who they are. Why do gay couples have such a high “turnover rate?” I would directly relate that to all the pressure society places on them to not be gay and the refusal to allow them to marry. Marriage would still encourage single safe partners and allow gays to better integrate with straights as they become more accepted. I am not articulating this well but the basic point is all the advantages marriage has for straights and the society they are in also apply to gays, minus the children.

You want a benefit from gay marriage how about the orphans that will be adopted by those married couples? That seems like a pretty good benefit to me.

Again, split on this. A loving gay family is defiantly better than many of the pathetic foster home children are placed into but there are many hardships placed on children in that type of home. Not the least of those is the desire to be like daddy and daddy – gay. Again, I don’t think that this is sufficient to stop gay couples from adopting, I just don’t know what should be done if there even is anything that can be done. I would prefer straight couples to have precedence but that even reeks of discrimination though there is evidence that a male female household is more stable for a child.

JD
Also, marriage does not equal procreation, which is a generally socially acceptable means of living one's life. Since cohabitation is also a generally socially accepted way of living, and single parenting, or foster or familial, or adoptive parenting is accepted as well- then I truly do not understand why gay marriage is still taboo in the slightest.

It is taboo because it is disgusting. Be honest, the thought of a man hammering on another man is revolting, at least to me. It is a gut reaction and most people find it impossible to separate their gut feelings from their logic.

jeff
It is really not about rights CG, as it is about an agenda. The following I bolded is a quote a poster made a while back and I saved. I think it explains this argument pretty well:

Why are they wasting their time and energy over a WORD if their real goal isn't to completely devalue the institution of marriage for EVERYBODY ?

Another thing I am worried about because a civil union is EXACTLY THE SAME in most states and the rights movement is still pushing for the marriage word. I think it is about acceptance, something we ALL strive for and gays are not allowed. Even the most self assured individual still wants to be accepted by society as they are.

Fitz
heh... Looks like I don't need to deal with anything.

There, I think I gave you some stuff

 

[☭proletarian☭]

female/female cannot procreate

Females could reproduce on their own. Parthenogenesis is possible in mammals.

Male/female with a hysterectomy due to uterine cancer cannot reproduce

male with narrow urethra/female cannot reproduce...

Many couples choose to not reproduce...

Are we to forcefully breed people and only recognized legal contracts entered into by successful breeders?

there are many hardships placed on children in that type of home. Not the least of those is the desire to be like daddy and daddy – gay

Clearly, you haven't known anyone raised by two parents of the same sex.

 

[JD_2B]

Can you show that any of this will not happen? There are cases of homosexuals running a boys home and raping the children there; if that wasn't bad enough, they brought in 'homosexual aquaintence' and allowed them to rape them too. A homosexual professor in NC sold his young child for sex. There was a case of a homosexual woman abusing her child for the pleasure of her partner.

How about the straight guy who imprisoned a girl for 18 years as her sex slave.

Or any number of other stories about straight people procuring a minor in their charge as a prostitute, or molesting them, or otherwise.
Nobody can say that this would not happen, either in a heterosexual home OR in a homosexual home, so abuse is NOT the issue at all, and is only yet another overstated emotional plea from the homophobic arena. In fact, one could EASILY make the same types of comparisons in the Catholic Church, and plead that Catholics should not ever be charged with the caring for children, based on the sheer number of clergymen charged with child molestation. Any sane person knows that THOSE clergymen are individuals, and not representative of the whole.
I, for one, am sick of gross misrepresentation of a group, based on the illegal actions of certain individuals within it.

Other than the 'few' horror stories (and you can show just as many on the heterosexual side),

Then why bring it up? It's all stupid guilt by association.

You have not conducted any studies, you have no solid data, all you have is extreme case anecdotal evidence which proves nothing.

I am waiting for someone that is arguing for homosexual marriage a community that is mostly homosexual where heterosexuals want to move with their families, or to hold it up as a shining example to prove that it is a better way to live.

Why should that be the fucking standard? Why should it matter what heterosexuals think of them? Why does it have to be a better way of living to be an option?

There is nothing in the constitution to guarentee happiness (only the pusuit). Homosexuals have the same Bill of Rights that heterosexuals have, they simply want....more.

Marriage ain't in the bill of rights and it still wouldn't be even if it was legalized.

Oh and yeah those gays are so damn greedy to want access to the same government offer heteros get. You can't make this bullshit up folks.

Brilliant.. =)

 

[Sunni Man]

Abiogenesis is possible in mammals.

Abiogenesis is a fantasy based on quack science

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Abiogenesis is possible in mammals.

Abiogenesis is a fantasy based on quack science

That was a typo. I was referring to parthenogenesis. (having a discussion about abiogenesis at another forum )

 

[JD_2B]

First I would like to go back to the church that was brought up in the beginning. A lot of resistance has been from churches that do not wish to marry gay couples and fear being forced into it. This is WRONG, plain and simple. Churches that refused to marry gay couples were in trouble of losing their tax exempt status if they did not change and I do not believe that any church should be forced to perform a ceremony that is against their beliefs. This was an attack on the religious institution of marriage and was perpetuated by a small minority within the gay rights movement. I believe that a simple law that allows gay marriage should include protection for churches that do not wish to perform the ceremony. This would relieve some of the resistance as well.

That is actually a very insightful post. I am forced to agree, based on the First Amendment.

What I am afraid of is the normalization of “gay.” I will be forthright, I believe that being gay stems from a wiring issue and is not natural. Keep your animal kingdom bullshit to yourself here, cancer is not a natural state either and that exists in animals as well. I don’t think that it is a disease or needs to be cured though so don’t start flaming for the lack of a better analogy.

That's cool.. But there are still a lot of things about the brain that we have yet to understand. For one thing, there is an "appetite" hormone that obese people do not tend to produce enough of. This hormone was only recently discovered in lab rats, and those rats that did not have enough of it, would not feel full, the way the fit rats did. The rats who were lacking in the hormone would feel the need to eat sooner than the fit rats, and become obese quickly.
I say this, because many people erroneously believe that all that is needed by anyone, to lose weight, is diet and exercise. While it is empirically true that burning more calories than one consumes will cause a person to lose weight, there is also the issue of constantly feeling starved for nourishment, because your brain is not capable of responding to this.
Anyways, this is such a common issue that I think that there must be all sorts of possibilities that homosexuality is something that some people are born with, or at least are born with certain implications that would greatly increase their chances of being homosexual.

My belief that it is not meant to be is simple – male and female exist for procreation and male/male, female/female cannot procreate therefore gay relationships is not how it is supposed to work.

Not all males and females who marry, do it because they intend to procreate. Not all males and females even CAN procreate. Also, it is not a social stygma to choose not to have children, so using the argument that having children or planning on it, should somehow be a prerequisite to marriage is not conducive to even the heterosexual marriage argument, much less the homosexual one.

I also do not think that gay is a choice. I sure as hell never chose to become attracted to women, it just happened and I feel the same way with gays. I really do not care whether it is behavioral or genetic; it does not matter because it is not a choice. I fear that if it is normalized that it may become that way though. I do not want to hear our future children go “hey I have had bad luck with the ladies so I think I’ll try a dude.”

Wait now.. You don't want it to be normalized, yet...

This fear is NOT sufficient to take away the ability (yea, I didn’t say right since that seems to be a sore spot) to get married. I do not believe in oppression just because I don’t approve of the behavior.

You support it, then? WOW, thats good news!! =)

Hell, I don’t mind gay people at all and have had a few friends that were pretty damn open about it but I really do not want to be walking down the road and run into to construction worker dudes snoggin in the street

I doubt that will ever happen on a regular basis. It happens with straight people, too, on the basis of occassionally, but not regularly, so no worries!!

The funny part here is that all the benefits that marriage confers somehow evaporate when applied to the gay community. Here is the true problem that anti gay marriage has. Many of the vices gays face today are DIRECTLY resultant from society inability to accept them for who they are. Why do gay couples have such a high “turnover rate?” I would directly relate that to all the pressure society places on them to not be gay and the refusal to allow them to marry. Marriage would still encourage single safe partners and allow gays to better integrate with straights as they become more accepted. I am not articulating this well but the basic point is all the advantages marriage has for straights and the society they are in also apply to gays, minus the children.

It is taboo because it is disgusting. Be honest, the thought of a man hammering on another man is revolting, at least to me. It is a gut reaction and most people find it impossible to separate their gut feelings from their logic.

=) Noted!! =)

jeff
It is really not about rights CG, as it is about an agenda. The following I bolded is a quote a poster made a while back and I saved. I think it explains this argument pretty well:

Why are they wasting their time and energy over a WORD if their real goal isn't to completely devalue the institution of marriage for EVERYBODY ?

Another thing I am worried about because a civil union is EXACTLY THE SAME in most states and the rights movement is still pushing for the marriage word. I think it is about acceptance, something we ALL strive for and gays are not allowed. Even the most self assured individual still wants to be accepted by society as they are.

But I cannot agree completely. A civil union is not the same thing. Civil unions of gays, do not allow for a survivor to get certain benefits, a whole plethora of them, that they would otherwise receive in a marriage.