# gay marriage



## cfleck (Feb 24, 2004)

can someone please explain to me why this is such a big deal?  i can't figure out how this is a bad deal for anyone.  it seems to be all over the news, but no one seems to have an argument for why it is 'bad'.


----------



## MBHockey (Feb 24, 2004)

cfleck said:
			
		

> can someone please explain to me why this is such a big deal?  i can't figure out how this is a bad deal for anyone.  it seems to be all over the news, but no one seems to have an argument for why it is 'bad'.



because the whole point of marriage is to have a family, the natural way i guess.

don't get me wrong, i dont get why people care what other people do, if they love each other that's all that matters


----------



## octane (Feb 24, 2004)

I find it amusing to see the various churches of the world react like some terrified rabbit caught in the headlights of an on-coming car.

They just don't know _how_ or have the elbow room _to_ maneuver in such a fast-moving world like the one we live in.

What I will say is, I am not religious at all, but I find it quite annoying how for the most part, the vast majority of people will only go to church twice in their lives; to be christened and to be buried.

So far, I've avoided the former and will also ultimately avoid the later. But if I was priest / padre / vicar / shaman / whatever, I would not allow anyone to marry at my church unless they had been regular church-goers.

Today, for most people, there is no sanctity to marriage, it's become an entirely paper-thin, vestigial tradition of purely cosmetic appeal to be prized only for the materialistic gains it offers; married-couples tax relief, nice dress, photographs, half a dozen cruet sets, a 2-week holiday in the sun, blah, blah, blah...


----------



## MBHockey (Feb 24, 2004)

octane said:
			
		

> I find it amusing to see the various churches of the world react like some terrified rabbit caught in the headlights of an on-coming car.
> 
> They just don't know _how_ or have the elbow room _to_ maneuver in such a fast-moving world like the one we live in.
> 
> ...



Yeah, and apparently it's OK with the church to sodomize young children...


----------



## octane (Feb 24, 2004)

MBHockey said:
			
		

> Yeah, and apparently it's OK with the church to sodomize young children...



Let's not go down that route. Yes, it's a known issue, but it's a little much for this forum, don't you think?..


----------



## MBHockey (Feb 24, 2004)

octane said:
			
		

> Let's not go down that route. Yes, it's a known issue, but it's a little much for this forum, don't you think?..



no, othwerwise i wouldn't have posted it.  I'm sorry if this offends you, but is it any different than hearing about it on the news all the time?


----------



## octane (Feb 24, 2004)

MBHockey said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if this offends you...



You can't offend me, I'm English.

And no you're not sorry or you wouldn't have said it.

I have _zero_ problems with you getting into a tizz over this, I was thinking more about the less robust among us who might not want to hear about it.

Go for it, rant all you want, don't let me get in your way...


----------



## andychrist (Feb 24, 2004)

Speaking on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," Mr. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said Mayor Newsom, a Democrat, needed to be stopped.

"In San Francisco it's a license for marriage of same sex," Mr. Schwarzenegger said. "Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs  I mean, you can't do that. We have to stay within the law. There's a state law that says specific things, and if you want to challenge those laws, then you can go to the court."
The governor told Tim Russert, the host of "Meet the Press," that when he was in San Francisco on Friday, "all of a sudden we see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing. The next thing we know is there's injured or there's dead people." 

The San Francisco police have reported no violence related to the same-sex marriage certificates. Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for Bill Lockyer, the California attorney general, suggested that Mr. Schwarzenegger might have confused his visit to San Francisco with "part of his next movie."


----------



## MBHockey (Feb 24, 2004)

octane said:
			
		

> You can't offend me, I'm English.
> 
> And no you're not sorry or you wouldn't have said it.
> 
> ...



I don't know where you got the notion that i was going to go on a rant.  No one is forcing you to read this, so don't if you feel that you can't handle it.


----------



## octane (Feb 24, 2004)

MBHockey said:
			
		

> I don't know where you got the notion that i was going to go on a rant.  No one is forcing you to read this, so don't if you feel that you can't handle it.



[?]

Say something, then. You were alluding to child abuse .. and?

We're all ears...


----------



## MBHockey (Feb 24, 2004)

octane said:
			
		

> [?]
> 
> Say something, then. You were alluding to child abuse .. and?
> 
> We're all ears...



That is all i was going to say.  Which is why i don't understand where you got the notion that a rant was on its way.  But, feel free to keep ignoring these previously mentioned statements and respond with question marks.


----------



## octane (Feb 24, 2004)

MBHockey said:
			
		

> That is all i was going to say.  Which is why i don't understand where you got the notion that a rant was on its way.  But, feel free to keep ignoring these previously mentioned statements and respond with question marks.



No, I don't ignore people.

Might not acknowledge, agree, respect or otherwise condone certain people's views, beliefs or opinions, but I never ignore...


----------



## uoba (Feb 24, 2004)

Anyhooo... it's a cheap shot to pick-up on media outcries concerning molestation throughout the clergy. As much as it is to say there's way too many immigrants around here etc etc. Sure, it has happened, but no more than it has in schools and other walks of life. Picking up on stock quotes from the media circus won't cut it if your going to try and make a point.

As for marriage. The point of marriage is different things to different people, far too vast to bother discussing on an OS X forum. 

Anyway, in my case, sometime this year (when we've got the time), it's to allow my son to have a British passport, get those tax breaks, and to legitimise the fact that we call each other Husband and Wife (which we've been doing for 2 years already... charlatans). It won't prove I love my "wife" any more than already do, but some people need that. 

Some people need marriage for religious reasons (stop the press!!), including gays. For me, it certainly won't be religious, as much as Xmas isn't


----------



## octane (Feb 24, 2004)

Amen to that!..


----------



## Satcomer (Feb 24, 2004)

I know this will be against the tide in here. I am torn on the issue. I can understand the notion of a gay couple wanting this. I also have a traditional view of marriage. My view goes against the grain of a lot of people. I believe the idea of marriage should not be taken lightly by people (straights & homosexuals)! Divorce is WAY to HIGH in western culture! So, if the LAW allows it, then marriage should be applied EQUALLY! That INCLUDES divorce and all the fun that goes along with it! 

My saying is "so be it". Just a word of warning. Marriage is not all it's cracked up to be. This is my only warning.


----------



## octane (Feb 24, 2004)

Let people get married, let them do what they want. It's no big deal now .. except if you live in the state of California, that is...


----------



## chemistry_geek (Feb 24, 2004)

Well, now I get to join in the discussion.  I DO have a problem with Gay Marriage.  One, it should NOT be called "marriage" as a marriage is a religious union between a MAN and a WOMAN, forms the basis of a family unit, and is recognized by laws all over the world as such with rights.  If the gay population wants to get "married" or "garried" then a new term(s) should be introduced to indicate the union between a MAN and a MAN ("gamenarried"), and a WOMAN and a WOMAN ("gawarried").  We have very specific language differentiating the genders, their expected societal roles, behaviors, etc...  The same should hold for the union of gay couples.  The second problem I have with gay marriage is what effects these "unions" or relationships can have on their heterosexual children, assuming one partner somehow had sex with the opposite sex and is responsible for bringing a life into the world.  I'm not up on the current psychology research publications, but I'd like to know for sure how these experiences affect children.  If there are no adverse affects (and I know there are - teasing by peers in schools, prejudices, etc...), then go for it, let it happen.  But if there are adverse affects, then it should not be allowed, or allowed with restrictions against involving children.  Just don't polute or misuse the term "marriage" when none really exists.  I think what the gay population is really looking for is a legally recognized union ; they don't have to call it marriage.


----------



## JetwingX (Feb 24, 2004)

As far as I can see, this is a religious/political issue. So what if a homosexual couple wants to get married. I would just let them do it. But if people are really going to make a big fuss I would agree with chemistry geek (aside from having a problem with it and the names) that they should be allowed a form of marriage that would allow them to have the same right as a married couple.


On a side note - Boy do we Californians like to be in the news ! ^_^


----------



## speedfreak (Feb 24, 2004)

This is how webster's sees it

1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

2. The marriage vow or contract. [Obs.] --Chaucer.

3. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

4. Any intimate or close union.

Description 4 would apply to the homosexual community.  Description 1 is quite specifically geared to the heterosexual community.  

chemistry geek -  I like the idea of two new words and you logic behind the idea.  The english language is based on a large vocabulary with very specific meanings.  There is room for a few more.  
The root of the modern word marry comes from greek maria referring to the Virgin Mary.


----------



## mdnky (Feb 24, 2004)

A marriage is actually a legal union, nothing more (at least in the US).  Sure, there's religious undertones to some but in all actuality in the states it's a legal union with benefits.  Religious or those so-called 'moral' reasons against it should have no bearing what-so-ever on the topic, since they have no legal ground within the US (thankfully).

Therein lies the problem, since specifically excluding same-sex couples would be a direct violation on the constitution and equal protections afforded by it.  It would actually boil down to discrimination.  It's no better than forcing people with different color skin to sit at the back of the bus or use different stores/restrooms/entrances/etc.

Marriage is a generic term for the most part, and any attempt to specify it such as legaly to a union between a man and woman will meet strong legal challanges by certain groups, who will most likely win those challenges.

To be quite honest, I personally believe that the idea behind 'marraige' is flawed, or at least in the manner people percieve it now a days.  I forget the numbers, but it's something like 2/3 of all marriages in the past decade end within 5 years time now.  What happened to the 'till death do you part' part?  Given that, what is the point of it?  Maybe those who are raising such a stink should take some lessons from these alternate lifestyle couples...how to keep a relationship even through severe personal difficulties.





			
				chemistry_geek said:
			
		

> One, it should NOT be called "marriage" as a marriage is a religious union between a MAN and a WOMAN, forms the basis of a family unit, and is recognized by laws all over the world as such with rights.


----------



## cfleck (Feb 24, 2004)

i'm with mdnky on this one.  marraige is a generic term under the law as religion isn't supposed to influence it (althought it sneaks in there).  that is really the only point that i've seen against it.  the religions are still free to not recognize it.  a law of this type doesnt affect them.

for some reason, everyone is in a tiff over the word.  call it a civil union or whatever, but still 20 posts later, no one has made a compelling argument in my eyes why gays cant have said union


----------



## MikeXpop (Feb 24, 2004)

chemistry_geek said:
			
		

> The second problem I have with gay marriage is what effects these "unions" or relationships can have on their heterosexual children, assuming one partner somehow had sex with the opposite sex and is responsible for bringing a life into the world.  I'm not up on the current psychology research publications, but I'd like to know for sure how these experiences affect children.  If there are no adverse affects (and I know there are - teasing by peers in schools, prejudices, etc...), then go for it, let it happen.  But if there are adverse affects, then it should not be allowed, or allowed with restrictions against involving children.


 Oh please. Do you know how many kids out there are being teased in school, or being on the wrong end of predjudices? That really is a nonissue.

Aside form that, the possibility that a kid will be affected because he is being raised with 2 dads or 2 moms. That's assuming that parents are the only influences on a child's life. There are aunts, uncles, teachers, friends, peers, guidance counselors, etc.

This is all besides the point. A gay nonmarried couple can raise a child, and a married gay couple can easily not raise a child.


----------



## mdnky (Feb 25, 2004)

To add to that, a straight married couple can't always raise a kid either.  There's more than enough proof of that in the world today.

There's been no compelling arguement made for a very simple reason...there is none.


----------



## Cat (Feb 25, 2004)

I think we should keep the marriage issue and children issue separated. Gay couples want to marry for the same reasons hetero couples want to marry: love, romance, economics, rights. Denying them to do that is discrimination. Instead of issuing a new word, we should expand the classical concept of marriage to include the new phenomena. Remember the colonial period? Negroes (pardon the term) were not considered humans. We have now learned fortunately to accept all branches of humanity in our midst and have fortunately not invented another word to indicate them. Same with gay marriage. Marriage is union of two people: what does gender matter? 

Regarding children, AFAIK the important thing is that there is a Father Figure and a Mother Figure: who exactly they are doesn't really matter. E.g the father figure can be you grandpa if your dad works abroad, but it also could be your bigger brother if your orphan, or your mother if she's alone, or your mothers partner, whatever their gender.

Unless your view is inherently religious, thinking that the only role of marriage is ("legal") procreation, I see no reason at all to forbid same-sex unions.


----------



## octane (Feb 25, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> I think we should keep the marriage issue and children issue separated. Gay couples want to marry for the same reasons hetero couples want to marry: love, romance, economics, rights. Denying them to do that is discrimination...



Now this annoys me intensely.

In the UK, you get tax breaks and lower vehicle insurance among other things _just_ because you're married.

So because two people -- whatever gender they might be -- have gone to the expense of getting married, they suddenly become more reliable, responsible or mature?

So by giving these rights _only_ to married couples, I'm denied. Aren't I being discriminated against?

I hate to drift into expletives to make a point [often a sign of weak argument .. not in this case], but that is a load of shit you can smell a mile off.

This isn't an attack leveled against you Cat, just the points you've raised and the way the system is tilted against the likes of me who will never marry.



			
				Cat said:
			
		

> Instead of issuing a new word, we should expand the classical concept of marriage to include the new phenomena...



It's this expansion that is causing shockwaves in the various churches around the world.

It sounds easy, but how do you expand something within a religious context when in many cases, religious teachings are quite clear on the issue of homosexuality...


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 25, 2004)

For MANY reasons that I'm not going to post here because we will need LOTS of cyberspace,  I'm against gay marriage... Religion one or not!  This may sound whatever you may want it to sound BUT...  I'M AGAINST IT


----------



## donkey (Feb 25, 2004)

i'm going to be a bit of a smart-alec now.  please forgive.  hulkaros, thats fine and dandy, but this isn't a poll.  we want to know WHY!



> It sounds easy, but how do you expand something within a religious context when in many cases, religious teachings are quite clear on the issue of homosexuality...



thats cuz it is easy if you actually believe that separation of church & state stuff.  the fact that in the eyes of the law there are NO religious attachments, should keep the state from forbidding such a thing on those grounds.

as far as the economic deal, i'm sure there are studies involved here as insurance allows for lower rates as well.  last i checked insurance is based on a lot of statistics so, yeah, you probably do tend to "settle" down a bit when you get married.  

thats really my only beef actually.  if they called it something else, but got all the same rights, i'm cool with that, but that seems not to be an option based on what the media is reporting.


----------



## Cat (Feb 25, 2004)

Octane: why don't you want to marry on principle? It's just a piece of paper, like any other contract. You exchange some rights with the other person, mutual assistance, pool resources, etc. This is economically also very convenient and from a tax perspective the government/insurance companies etc. give you a kind of group discount/lower risk price. Why gender would matter in this case is a mystery ...

From a religious point of view, I think there are two main problems: 1) many religions only consider marriage as a vow to bear and rise children 2) in most religions one gender dominates traditionally over the other. If religions want to survive, sooner or later they will have to accept changes. Female emancipation has made great progress in the last 100 - 150 years, I suspect the gay-rights movement will need something similar before becoming accepted. Remember I live in merry old Holland where we already have legal gay marriages, which are a complete non-issue now. Priests and Imams occasionally shout something unintelligible about homosexuals being animals or mentally ill, but these are silenced as discriminatory outbreaks and nobody really pays any serious heed to them anymore.  By the way, Holland is also 40% officially atheist, and unofficially even more ...


----------



## andychrist (Feb 25, 2004)

http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=1


----------



## octane (Feb 25, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Octane: why don't you want to marry on principle?..



Because it is without value.

There are people who insist that you cannot possibly love another fully until you marry them.

This is not only tragic for it's blinkered short-sitedness, but it's typical of the perceptions of certain people as to how we should all live.

I am not atheist. I'm of the 'belief' that [to paraphrase the late Carl Sagan] we really don't know what we don't know.

Here's a little puzzle for you:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?..


----------



## adambyte (Feb 25, 2004)

I think at the very least, gay people should be allowed Civil Unions with all the same perks as a regular heterosexual marriage. Maybe expanding "marriage" to include gays is just a bit much for this country, but in general, I'm all for equal rights.



> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.



This does not make God malevolent. You cannot know good without knowing evil. If we were all deliriously happy all the time, we wouldn't know it, because we got so used to it. To know good, you have to compare it against something: bad. It's that whole yin-yang thing. It's getting the complete experience.

The argument is flawed in that it assumes because one lets bad stuff happen, you are being mean. When really, you are just offering the other end of the spectrum for a full life experience.

But, that's an aside from the gay marriage thing.


----------



## octane (Feb 25, 2004)

adambyte said:
			
		

> ... But, that's an aside from the gay marriage thing.



Another thread for another day...


----------



## lilbandit (Feb 25, 2004)

The "why does God let bad things happen to good people?" argument is REALLY old. Read the Bible or at the very least some half arsed theology. It all boils down to God giving humanity free will. Gay marriage? I would have to say that on balance I'm against it, purely because I would see it as a stepping stone to allowing gay couples to adopt. I would have to draw the line at that point in my own head. There is something profoundly sad about a couple(heterosexual) that cannot conceive. How could you give a child to a(loving) gay couple ahead of a(loving) heterosexual couple? A gay couple, loving and committed as it may be, cannot conceive a child without outside influence, I just find it hard to swallow the idea that gay couples are entitled to children and marriage would be a stepping stone to this.


----------



## octane (Feb 25, 2004)

lilbandit said:
			
		

> The "why does God let bad things happen to good people?" argument is REALLY old. Read the Bible or at the very least some half arsed theology.



It might be an old argument, but it's a fundamentally simple one to which some of the best theologians can only shrug their shoulders to.

Oh I can assure you I have much more than an half-arsed theory.



			
				lilbandit said:
			
		

> ... A gay couple, loving and committed as it may be, cannot conceive a child without outside influence, I just find it hard to swallow the idea that gay couples are entitled to children and marriage would be a stepping stone to this.



And I totally agree.

But this side-issue owes nothing to common-sense or right & wrong, it's governed by political correct diktat.

And this is why in some cases gay couples have been pushed to the front of queue; to satiate the desire of being seen to be all-welcoming, all-loving and mono-cultural and all of the other tiresome, rainbow-colored things people scream and shout about these days...


----------



## Ricky (Feb 25, 2004)

Until marriage -- heterosexual or not -- is perceived as more than a slip of paper in this society, it's pointless.

Just my two cents.


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 25, 2004)

donkey said:
			
		

> i'm going to be a bit of a smart-alec now.  please forgive.  hulkaros, thats fine and dandy, but this isn't a poll.  we want to know WHY!



Ok, I will try to settle this in a Spartan way 
Being a gay, either via becoming later on in your life, or by simply born one, it is not a normal thing!  It is something that simply is not the rule but the exception of the rule... The rule of life that is!


----------



## andychrist (Feb 25, 2004)

Using a Mac is not normal either.


----------



## octane (Feb 25, 2004)

andychrist said:
			
		

> Using a Mac is not normal either.



Imagine that? We could all be the computer equivalent of being gay!

Err, andychrist, will you marry me?


----------



## andychrist (Feb 25, 2004)

Sure.  To whom would you like me to marry you?


----------



## octane (Feb 25, 2004)

And as if by majik! A topical article...


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 25, 2004)

octane said:
			
		

> Here's a little puzzle for you:
> 
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
> ...



In order for this "puzzle" to work you must first answer this:
Who's God? 

If you mean the general explanation of God across religions let me solve this kids puzzle for you:
_Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent._ You don't know His will! He IS omnipotent.
_Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent._ He IS able but you don't know His will!
_Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?_ He IS able but you don't know His will...
_Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?_ He IS able but you don't know His will... Call Him God because He IS and you are a mere mortal as we all are


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 25, 2004)

andychrist said:
			
		

> Using a Mac is not normal either.



Who said that it is... That is why most of us here are using at least one


----------



## lilbandit (Feb 25, 2004)

Hulkaros, simply saying that being gay is wrong or not natural doesn't fly any more, whether you become gay through environmental factors or are born gay, fact is that there are LOTS of gay people out there (and possibly on this forum).Sticking your head in the sand and saying it isn't natural won't get us anywhere. You can't make these people straight and I'm sure that lots of gay people are happy with the way they are and wouldn't want to change their sexuality. That said, open discussion is the only way that people can arrive at informed decisions. Issues like gay marriage do force people to rethink their attitudes and think about where they stand. I don't agree with gay marriage purely because it is a stepping stone to adoption and subversion of the heterosexual family unit.


----------



## octane (Feb 25, 2004)

hulkaros said:
			
		

> In order for this "puzzle" to work you must first answer this:
> Who's God?
> 
> If you mean the general explanation of God across religions let me solve this kids puzzle for you:
> ...



How profound.

I'm moved .. no, really! 

It's a bit of a get-out though isn't it? This god-moves-in-mysterious-ways rubbish.

If I was to see god, I'd ask how she copes with all of the work-related stress.

Does she see a vocational therapist?..


----------



## lilbandit (Feb 25, 2004)

What!! God a woman??? Everyone knows that HE wears a long white outfit, has a long white beard with matching hair. He always has his staff with him and he knows everything and he is really wise.....hang on, GOD=Gandalf


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 25, 2004)

lilbandit said:
			
		

> Hulkaros, simply saying that being gay is wrong or not natural doesn't fly any more, whether you become gay through environmental factors or are born gay, fact is that there are LOTS of gay people out there (and possibly on this forum).Sticking your head in the sand and saying it isn't natural won't get us anywhere. You can't make these people straight and I'm sure that lots of gay people are happy with the way they are and wouldn't want to change their sexuality. That said, open discussion is the only way that people can arrive at informed decisions. Issues like gay marriage do force people to rethink their attitudes and think about where they stand. I don't agree with gay marriage purely because it is a stepping stone to adoption and subversion of the heterosexual family unit.



Look: Some times talk is just air... And in this particular thread, talk will get you nowhere  Talk all you want... I had enough of this "air"  Now, let me put my head back to the sand...


----------



## bobw (Feb 25, 2004)

Thanks to Bush, SHE takes drugs.


----------



## octane (Feb 25, 2004)

lilbandit said:
			
		

> What!! God a woman??? Everyone knows that HE wears a long white outfit, has a long white beard with matching hair. He always has his staff with him and he knows everything and he is really wise.....hang on, GOD=Gandalf



You mean edX: admin the white!..


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 25, 2004)

octane said:
			
		

> How profound.
> 
> I'm moved .. no, really!
> 
> ...



God doesn't move in mysterious ways... We, humans do... The fact is that you don't know how He moves and even if you knew you would still could not understand His movement! 

Ask Him whatever you want... The replies will not come... As for the work-related stress: He doesn't work... He simply IS...

He doesn't see anyone in particular... He sees everything!


----------



## mdnky (Feb 25, 2004)

hulkaros, problem here is that 'god' has no place in the legal issues involved.  Many people do not believe in a god as you might.   Some may believe in something, some in nothing.  Some may use a different name, etc., etc..  

Regardless if you like it or not, they have a right to do so (1st amendment).  Just as  so-called religious zealots (by that I mean anyone who forces their views upon another) have a right to have their beliefs.  

They do not however have a right to force said beliefs upon another.  Creating a law to ban something such as same-sex marriages would be doing just that.  The reasons they give against it are moral objections (based on ficton/religious ideals).  There hasn't been one good reason to deny this type of thing, other than people's bias beliefs or fear of the unknown/change.


----------



## JetwingX (Feb 25, 2004)

MikeXpop said:
			
		

> Oh please. Do you know how many kids out there are being teased in school, or being on the wrong end of predjudices? That really is a nonissue.



No! The question is do you know! Have you personally asked kids who have gay parents if that is the way they feel? Do you know kids that feel this way? I am guessing the you probably haven't. I on the other hand know three high school students (all from different families) who really don't mind/care/get teesed/have a problem that their parents/guardians are gay. so i don't think you can use that as a shield to hide behind

-From my point of view as a "child" adults don't ask, they assume


----------



## Arden (Feb 26, 2004)

If homosexual people want to marry each other, let them.  It's nobody's business but their own, no matter who tries to argue otherwise.


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 26, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> hulkaros, problem here is that 'god' has no place in the legal issues involved.  Many people do not believe in a god as you might.   Some may believe in something, some in nothing.  Some may use a different name, etc., etc..
> 
> Regardless if you like it or not, they have a right to do so (1st amendment).  Just as  so-called religious zealots (by that I mean anyone who forces their views upon another) have a right to have their beliefs.
> 
> They do not however have a right to force said beliefs upon another.  Creating a law to ban something such as same-sex marriages would be doing just that.  The reasons they give against it are moral objections (based on ficton/religious ideals).  There hasn't been one good reason to deny this type of thing, other than people's bias beliefs or fear of the unknown/change.



About the God section of my answers: It was simply something between me and Octane...  And not that God has anything to do with gay marriage  So there


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 26, 2004)

Arden said:
			
		

> If homosexual people want to marry each other, let them.  It's nobody's business but their own, no matter who tries to argue otherwise.



I wish Arden that this subject was that easy to solve  But it ain't 

But because I see that this thread will keep going on, I will ask some REAL questions to the whole "free" gay community around here:
-What about the cases of parents making sex with their own children/family members?
-What about the cases of people who like to thief others?
-What about the cases of people who like to not only take drugs but spread them also, one way or another?
-What about the cases of people who carry guns like it's all over Western Cowboy films again?
-What about the cases of people who enjoy group sex?
-What about the cases of people who constantly bully other people around?
-What about the cases of people who take money in order to sell out themselves and other people/companies/whatever?
-What about the cases of people who cheat on their families sexually and in other ways?
-What about the cases of people who "make" sex to animals?
-What about the cases of people who enjoy being sexually abused or abuse others?
-What about this and that?

All the above questions and of course MANY more for the people who act that way, they too, think, believe, know that it is normal or at least it should be... If tomorrow we gave the above listed "people" the right to do so, will that hurt me? You Arden? The gay people? Anyone for that matter? And not just hurt us in the sort term but in the long term, down the road?

The only REAL answer is THAT WE DO NOT KNOW  And that's the only universal truth wither anyone likes to believe or not! 

What's next? Having people marry to animals?  Hey! After all it is their right! It is their personal right!

Yeah! Sure! Keep saying that to yourselves  All we need is an Akira to solve our problems  ::ha::


----------



## Cat (Feb 26, 2004)

> -What about the cases of parents making sex with their own children/family members?


That is incest, not homosexuality. If both parties were adult and consenting and aware of any genetical risks beared by their eventual children, I would say: let them!





> -What about the cases of people who like to thief others?


Theft is illegal and has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.





> -What about the cases of people who like to not only take drugs but spread them also, one way or another?


If the drug is considered illegal by your legal system, then it is illegal for them to do so. It should be tolerated if the harm they do does not exceed the positive effects (consider the different legal status of smoke, alcohol, weed, coffee and cocaine).





> -What about the cases of people who carry guns like it's all over Western Cowboy films again?


Statistics about countries where it is legal to do so (e.g. the USA) compared with statstics of countries where it is not legal to do so would tell us more.





> -What about the cases of people who enjoy group sex?


Yeah, what about them? Is it illegal to have group sex or to masturbate? 


> -What about the cases of people who constantly bully other people around?


They should be disciplined, as their conduct, while not techically illegal, is morally reprehensible.





> -What about the cases of people who take money in order to sell out themselves and other people/companies/whatever?


I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to here ...





> -What about the cases of people who cheat on their families sexually and in other ways?


Such a behaviour is certainly morally reprehensible and might even be literally illegal in some countries. I would argue that the problem is not the cheating in itself, but the situation underlying it: what is wrong in the family to make the wife or husband go to another for sexual or emotional satisfaction? The cheating in itself is normally not the cause but a consequence of preceding problems: no more love, economical problems, personality crisis etc. Mostly these happen in cases where the partners didn't really thin kthrough their relation. Moreover, when in an early stage, before wedding and children, they cause very little harm.





> -What about the cases of people who "make" sex to animals?


If they actually like it ... and the animal is treated appropriately ... well, I'd say let them! Seriously, I am refraining from calling this "unnatural". Mankind has done many and extremely unnatural things in its evolution. One drive has always been the maximalisation of pleasure and the minimalisation of pain. If zoofilia (sex with animals) gives pleasure, well, let them be.





> -What about the cases of people who enjoy being sexually abused or abuse others?


I would say that the same applies as in the case of incest: adult, consenting parties with knowledge of the risks involved. I suppose that society could impose some limit on the injuries inflicted at that point beyond which the normal everyday functioning of the succubus/a would be seriously impaired. Moreover, most kind of abuse is moral abuse, as in debasement etc. Phisical sadomasochism taken to the level of physical injury is a pleasure share by a very small minority.





> -What about this and that?



I don't know about this and that, but the point in question is why society would prohibit the homosexual couples to obtain the same civil status as heterosexual couples. You didn't really provide reasons for you earlier point ("it's not natural") but gave examples of other behaviour considered unacceptable. I think those examples are wrongly chosen: in almost all of them there are physical risks (genetically weak offspring, physical and mental injury though drug abuse, higher risk of violent death through bearing of firearms,etc.). In the case of homosexual civil marriage none of these apply: homosexual couples already exist, they do not harm each other but love each other, they do not damage society, but simply care or each other, have friends, go to school, work, etc. What is the problem? Just regulate an already existing status quo by providing the relevant laws. We all pursue happiness and one of the limits we encounter in that pursuit are the rights of our fellow humans. Why do we want to stand in the way of homosexual happiness? Move out of the way!

You said it would not be natural: well, is wearing clothes natural? living in cities? would you want us back naked up the trees? Is monogamy natural? What is "natural"? Humans aren't natural at all: we shape nature according to our wishes, even our own nature. We have evolved customs and pleasures which make us far from natural. Where would you draw a line? Would you relly go so far as to say that some people are not human? We have done that in the past: negroes, jews, etc. have been severely discriminated. What if your doughter/son ahd come home with a black or a jewish person there and then? Would you have shunned her/him? WE have accepted those unions in the end because we realised it was the right thing to do: no barrier should exist. We now face the next hurdle: homosexual marriage. i see no reason to prohibit it. Do you?

There has been talk about children: what about children? Homosexual coupes cannot have children by conventional means. Other means exist. What would be resons to deny them to make use of those means? Do we fear the children would be educated badly, wrongly, grow up as perverts? Children from heterosexual couples already do so, but it is mostly children from "broken families" who do so: orphans, children whose parents neglect them, fomr parents who break up, who beat each other and their children, who have a drinking or drug problem, etc. On average, gay couples have thought longer and harder about living together and wouldn't do so if they were not really determined and sure and in love, seeing the opposition they commonly face. I would think that they would provide a loving and stable environment for children and I do not see any reason to think their children will grow up any more wrongly that children of so-called regular couples. 
If you think teasin is tha main problem, then you are giving a very bad reason to prohibit gay unions and adoption rights, as the teasing and shunning is done by very nearsighted, closeminded people. THEY are the problem, not homosexuals.


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 26, 2004)

Homosexuals ARE the problem... No matter how good you are trying to color THAT problem 

Paint it... Color it... PhotoShop it... Homosexuality IS a problem... Both physical and psychological... And if you want to discuss in a simple, everyday way:
 One's behind is a body tool to drop stuff from inside and certainly NOT to stick things in it  You wanna get simple as hell? Male+Female=Right... Anything else is BS and should stay BS... Instead of rationalize everything humans do, like you did in your post, you should REALLY get over it... NO WAY how you want to support gay plus other BS stuff that humans do, IT AIN'T right... Both physical and psychological... Just because some messed up minds want to do this and that and just because it is their civil "right" to do so or just because they are grown up we MUST let them do so? BS... Absolute BS... I suppose Bin Laden or whatever this guy called, just because he was grown up and all his people were grown up, they had the right to cause that doomsday... Or Bush just because he had the power was right to let hell on earth 

Repeat after me X times (where X = infinity):
--> Gay stuff = AIN'T right! <--
--> Rationalizing BS that grown humans do (with rights or not) = AIN'T right! <--

I may me stubborn on gay BS but at least  I ain't sticking in mine or anyone's else behinds stuff  wither is my right or not! * *spits from disgust even on the idea* *

**spits again and promises that will not post in this gay "thread" again**

* Thanks bobw, for... you know why  *


----------



## Cat (Feb 26, 2004)

Hulkaros please calm down, I don't like you when you are angry! 

I do not want to provoke you and I am not trying to offend you. I do not want to turn this thread into a flame war. However, I must say that you seem to have a very limited view of homosexual love. Is love for you identical with sex? Love is much more than simple physical sexuality and sex is much more than penetration. Do you really think that male homosexual couples can only find pleasure or satisfaction by anal penetration? What about female homosexual couples?

Please let's keep this limited to the topic at hand: legalisation of homosexual marriage. Please Hulkaros and others: do not use false comparisons that lead off-topic. Zoofilia and drugs have nothing to do with homosexuality and neither have Bin-Laden and Bush.

You may call it rationalisations, but I am just trying to reason here, as in giveing reasons pro gay marriage. i have not yet heard any convincing arguments contra. If you really want to claim that homosexuality is a disease, I would like to hear you demonstrate it or at least tell me WHY you think so. Remember a twohundred years a go we considered coloured people unhuman and denied them most fundamental rights, hundred years ago we considered women inferior and denied them many findamental rights (to vote, to own property, to inherit, to sign contracts etc.), now we are denying gay couples some fundamental rights ... can't you see that the grounds and reasons are the same and invalid in all cases? What good reasons are there for discrimination of any kind?


----------



## octane (Feb 26, 2004)

Cat said:
			
		

> Zoofilia and drugs have nothing to do with homosexuality and neither have Bin-Laden and Bush.



That sentence will live with me for all time. Hilarious! 

How you managed to type that and keep it serious, I've no idea.

Hats off to you, Cat!



			
				Cat said:
			
		

> ... Remember a two hundred years a go we considered coloured people unhuman and denied them most fundamental rights, hundred years ago we considered women inferior and denied them many fundamental rights...



World of difference and terrible example...


----------



## lilbandit (Feb 26, 2004)

Cat, an honest question, would you give a gay couple a child ahead of a hetero-sexual couple in an adoption situation? There is already a waiting list a mile long in Ireland with committed and loving hetero couples hoping to adopt. i just don't see why we should twist technology, morality and biology to please gay people, no matter how stable and committed their relationship is. Octane mentioned that this all smacks of PC BS and I have to agree. It is unfortunate that gay couples cannot conceive naturally but what can I say? Humans ain't built to allow gay reproduction!


----------



## Cat (Feb 26, 2004)

I'm not saying that we should give precedence to homosexuals above heterosexuals, but giving them the same civil rights. First of all, marriage. Adoption is a separate issue, the relevant authorities must decide whether a couple is fit or not for adoption. All I say is that homosexuality alone is not a sufficient reason to deny rights such as marriage and adoption. There is no "twisting" of anything going on. There are technologies to help couples that cannot conceive: the reason for which they cannot conceive is irrelevant. I am not twisting morality: what is immoral about love? And I am certainly not twisting biology: this is just another way to say something would be unnatural. Most of human behaviour can be considered unnatural. I am not saying this to please gay people or to bathe myself in political correctness: I know gay people, good friends of mine. They are perfectly normal, sane, intelligent persons, not depraved, immoral monsters. I see no reason to deny them either marriage or adoption.

Humans aren't built for a lot of things, including flying and standing upright: so?


----------



## chevy (Feb 26, 2004)

Where did you see that gays cannot give birth ?

They are plenty of gays who are also "natural parents".


----------



## lilbandit (Feb 26, 2004)

They can give birth a) with outside help such as surrogacy or b) children from a previous relationship. Basically, 2 men cannot reproduce by themselves. Neither can 2 women. I also think that ivf is a tricky issue, but thats for another day. That said, I just feel that a child would benefit more from a heterosexual family. It is more balanced, a gay couple (male or female) would not provide that same basic human balance found in a traditional family unit. A mother and a father is (in my mind) the best option and in a situation such as adoption, a loving and committed hetero couple would always have priority. I suppose that as a teacher I see the effects of family breakup every day. Some of the children in my classes don't come into consistent contact with a male until they reach senior cycle primary school (around 9-12 yrs old). The children that are well adjusted typically have at least one loving parent (male or female) but crucially in these cases there is always a healthy amount of contact with both sexes. I'm not just talking about a grandfather who calls around once or twice a week, but a consistent and sustained pattern. For example,collection from school and then an hour or so spent in male or female company (whatever the case may be). I'm just commenting on real situations that I have noticed while working with children. It goes without saying that in general the children who fare best are those with a committed mother and father at home.In terms of gay adoption, how can they compete with a loving hetero couple?


----------



## bobw (Feb 26, 2004)

And which one does Windows


----------



## mdnky (Feb 26, 2004)

hulkaros said:
			
		

> But because I see that this thread will keep going on, I will ask some REAL questions to the whole "free" gay community around here:
> -What about the cases of parents making sex with their own children/family members?
> -What about the cases of people who like to thief others?
> -What about the cases of people who like to not only take drugs but spread them also, one way or another?
> ...



Exactly what do those questions have to do with marriage, and allowing same-sex couples to marry?  Absolutely nothing.


----------



## mdnky (Feb 26, 2004)

octane said:
			
		

> Cat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How so?


----------



## chevy (Feb 26, 2004)

lilbandit said:
			
		

> They can give birth a) with outside help such as surrogacy or b) children from a previous relationship. Basically, 2 men cannot reproduce by themselves. Neither can 2 women. I also think that ivf is a tricky issue, but thats for another day. That said, I just feel that a child would benefit more from a heterosexual family. It is more balanced, a gay couple (male or female) would not provide that same basic human balance found in a traditional family unit. A mother and a father is (in my mind) the best option and in a situation such as adoption, a loving and committed hetero couple would always have priority. I suppose that as a teacher I see the effects of family breakup every day. Some of the children in my classes don't come into consistent contact with a male until they reach senior cycle primary school (around 9-12 yrs old). The children that are well adjusted typically have at least one loving parent (male or female) but crucially in these cases there is always a healthy amount of contact with both sexes. I'm not just talking about a grandfather who calls around once or twice a week, but a consistent and sustained pattern. For example,collection from school and then an hour or so spent in male or female company (whatever the case may be). I'm just commenting on real situations that I have noticed while working with children. It goes without saying that in general the children who fare best are those with a committed mother and father at home.In terms of gay adoption, how can they compete with a loving hetero couple?



This is absolutely true.

Do they only compete with loving hetero couples ? Are all hetero couples loving ? Life is not THAT simple.


----------



## octane (Feb 26, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> How so?



I'm not going to dignify that with an answer.

If you can't figure it out for yourself, I'm not telling you.

I think the situation we have here is a lot of people in a mad rush to assume the moral high-ground.

I prefer it down here, I can see more clearly from where I'm standing...


----------



## lilbandit (Feb 26, 2004)

In the world of adoption it is that simple, the Department of health and children (or your equivalent social service) vet people based on interviews, background checks, psychologcal assessments, references from neighbours, work, everything. If a gay couple want to adopt this is what they must go through, the same as everybody else. My point is simply this, if it is deemed necessary to take a child into care, they more than anyone else need the most stable and productive environment possible. I think that by their very definition, a gay couple simpy cannot provide round the clock stability and balance between the sexes. That said, families are not perfect and life outside adoption is not that simple. Yet I see no reason to dilute the requirements for potential adoptive parents to satisfy gay rights.


----------



## mdnky (Feb 26, 2004)

octane said:
			
		

> I'm not going to dignify that with an answer.
> 
> If you can't figure it out for yourself, I'm not telling you.
> 
> ...



You won't reply cause you can't.  It is the exact same thing, prejudice and discrimination.  There is absolutely no difference in denying a person rights/freedoms/etc. based on skin color/race or based on sexual preference.


----------



## speedfreak (Feb 26, 2004)

When exactly did marriage become a right?


----------



## speedfreak (Feb 26, 2004)

If it were a right one could marry whomever they wished.  This is not the case.  One cannot marry their sibling for example.  or their cousin.  Shall we allow this also.  Why? or Why not?


----------



## andychrist (Feb 26, 2004)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4352011/

http://nytimes.com/2004/02/25/opinion/25WED1.html?8bl


----------



## Viro (Feb 27, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> How so?



Err... lemme guess. Because in the UK at least, back in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the whole anti-slave movement was started by Bible believing Christians, who became convinced from the Bible that God created man equal and that slavery was wrong? Look up James Ramsay, John Newton, and William Wilberforce.

Keep in mind though, that these people were Christians who believed in the Bible, and used the Bible as the basis of determining what's right or wrong. To over-simplify things, they looked at what scripture said, and became convinced that slavery was wrong, and the sweeping reforms were necessary.

The situation now with gay marriages is completely different. The churches that do support it, don't really believe the Bible. To support their argument, they point to the bits in the Bible that talk about God who's loving, but then they completely ignore the other bits in the Bible where this loving God says that gay sexual-relationship is wrong. If you believe that God is loving, then you must accept that he does things in your best interest. So if he prohibits gay relationships it must be in your best interest, even if you don't agree with/understand it. Any good parent will impose prohibitions on their children as long as it is in their best interest. The child does not necessarily agree/understand, I know I didn't!

As a Bible believing Christian, whose moral compass is the word of God, you can't expect me to suddenly do an about turn and impose an idea that doesn't fit in with what I know the Bible says. That would make me a hypocrite. 

This isn't an attack against gays. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I'll persecute/reject you. The Bible does tell us to love one another. The Greek word love here is _agape_, which is like the love a father shows his son. It isn't _eros_ which has a sexual meaning to it. So Christians are called to love everyone, including gays.

That is why many of the churches in the UK are against gay marriage. That is why I am against gay marriage. It may be that you don't believe in the Bible, it may be that you believe in 'something', not the God who has revealed himself in the Bible. You may now walk away thinking that Christians are the worst bigots, the homophobes, the hypocrites. The whole reason Christians are willing to stand up on this issue and be ridiculed by society isn't because they get some kick out of doing it, and ego trip, or because of some martyr complex. It is because we believe in the Bible, and we believe that it is in the best interest of everybody, especially gays that what the Bible says is followed. If Christians believe in that, would it be loving for them to turn a blind eye, and allow gay marriage to go ahead unchallenged?


----------



## octane (Feb 27, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> You won't reply cause you can't...



You flatter yourself, you really do.

I think you are so keen to be seen to be all-welcoming and complicit with the tolerance of 'modern society' you are more than prepared to allow your holier-than-thou attitude to ride roughshod over common-sense mental fail-safes.

You are the kind of person likely to call me a homophobe.

What kind of world do we live in when there is a pseudo-scientific word conjured up to describe the entirely reasonable and normal act of revulsion towards the idea of homosexuality?

If you cannot see how or why the aforementioned example is so bad, I feel sorry for you.

At some point in your life, you've lost site of the very simple, basic elemental constructs of what it is to be a human...


----------



## mdnky (Feb 27, 2004)

speedfreak said:
			
		

> If it were a right one could marry whomever they wished.  This is not the case.  One cannot marry their sibling for example.  or their cousin.  Shall we allow this also.  Why? or Why not?



I was leaning towards a more general sense there in terms of the meaning 'right'.  Mainly, the right to be happy...free will, all that kind of stuff.


----------



## mdnky (Feb 27, 2004)

Viro said:
			
		

> As a Bible believing Christian, whose moral compass is the word of God, you can't expect me to suddenly do an about turn and impose an idea that doesn't fit in with what I know the Bible says. That would make me a hypocrite.



But see there lies the problem.  According to the law (US) there is no god. What would make someone a hypocrite is to force others to be discriminated against through applying that person's religious beliefs on them.  People need to live by their own beliefs, not force everyone else to live by them.

How exactly does it harm you if some gay couple is married?  It doesn't at all.  You just don't like the idea of it.  Most children don't like to eat vegetables...should we outlaw carrots and celery just for that reason?  The mere thought of it is downright silly.


----------



## octane (Feb 27, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> But see there lies the problem. According to the law (US) there is no god. What would make someone a hypocrite is to force others to be discriminated against through applying that person's religious beliefs on them. People need to live by their own beliefs, not force everyone else to live by them...



Mdnky, this is entirely correct, and I agree with you whole-heartedly.

I say let gays marry, that has been my assertion all along, but that does not mean that I recognize gay unions, in the same way I don't recognize religion as being any more meaningful or significant than a club or membership.

I think the overall argument of this thread has split into three: the socioreligious context, the biological context and the issue of civil liberties.

Only this morning, a survey was published in the UK that shows that religious belief has declined massively in the UK. The figure of UK church-goers is something like 21%.

So with those figures, you can separate a union between two people from its religious connotations.

Gay people are not mentally or physically incapacitated in any way. They work, they pay taxes.

What worries me is not so much the issue of gay marriage in itself, but the depressing precedence this issue creates.

At some point, I may well bring a child into this world. What world might that be with such blithe and sycophantic attitudes that we are no longer prepared nor able to draw sensible lines in the sand where on one side we have simple common sense and an adherence to very simple, basic rights & wrongs and on the other we have political correctness gone mad and veraciously blind and deliberately evasive and obstructive of what is right and wrong?

Who knows why 'gayness' exists, maybe it is a biological mechanism to reduce population growth, there are other theories.

Scientist definitely 'know' what makes a person gay [something to do with a dispersal of protein molecules in some part of the brain], but what depressed me even further was when I read some years ago where some American think tank who were on the verge of proposing a bill to ban couples from aborting or even performing pre-natal corrective therapy on a child who had been identified has having biology conducive to homosexuality.

Why? What moral imperative would this fulfill? The answer is clear: none.

The only motive is a 'popularist' agenda, to make a minority of people happy in the face of a frowning majority.

What the f*ck is happening to this world we all call home? [insert theory here...]


----------



## mdnky (Feb 27, 2004)

octane said:
			
		

> You are the kind of person likely to call me a homophobe.
> 
> What kind of world do we live in when there is a pseudo-scientific word conjured up to describe the entirely reasonable and normal act of revulsion towards the idea of homosexuality?



There's "pseudo-scientific words" for just about every fear out there...why should this be any different?  Spiders, Heights, Planes, Tight Spaces, etc...the list is endless.  Fear is best diagnosed by the person with the fear, so you can enlighten us as to the status if you wish.  It's not a thing I really have any interest in one way or another, but a problem you need to solve for yourself.




			
				octane said:
			
		

> If you cannot see how or why the aforementioned example is so bad, I feel sorry for you.



No, just want you to actually give a reason for such a statement.  Prove it wrong or "so bad".  Quite honestly I think you're just skirting around the issue at hand.




			
				octane said:
			
		

> I think you are so keen to be seen to be all-welcoming and complicit with the tolerance of 'modern society' you are more than prepared to allow your holier-than-thou attitude to ride roughshod over common-sense mental fail-safes.
> 
> At some point in your life, you've lost site of the very simple, basic elemental constructs of what it is to be a human...



"holier-than-thou attitude"?  [ROFL]

No, I have quite a few friends who are affected by such things.  I've known many of them a long time and respect them.  They deserve the exact same fair and equal treatment as I do IMHO.  If I can marry the person I'm dating and fell in love with (legally), why can't they?  I could put a ring on her finger quite easily, but exactly what would that accomplish?  That option is open to us, but to some of my friends it's not.  Simply because of the prejudice harbored by others.  I find that to be absolutely and totally ignorant and downright disgusting.

The simplest, most basic element of human existence (besides life) is happiness.


----------



## mdnky (Feb 27, 2004)

I think what it boils down to is people need to take a long, hard look at the issue at hand.  You may not like the idea of it, which is fine.  But preventing it would be wrong as it has absolutely nothing to do with you.


----------



## octane (Feb 27, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> ... No, I have quite a few friends who are affected by such things. I've known many of them a long time and respect them.  They deserve the exact same fair and equal treatment as I do IMHO.



Well whippydo! Aren't we the modern man!

Who cares what friends you have? Does that somehow elevate you to a higher point in the argument because you know a few gay people?

[?]

Odd, very odd.



			
				mdnky said:
			
		

> If I can marry the person I'm dating and fell in love with (legally), why can't they?



Try reading my posts before asking a question to which I've already furnished you with an answer to.

Also, I did answer your question about why the analogy was wrong. The answer is in my previous post, but to see it, you have know what you're looking for, and you clearly don't.

I don't have to skirt round any issue, what the hell makes you think that?

I can knock anyone into cocked hat on just about any issue I feel strongly about and I've argued your point more clearly and coherently than you can ever do; gay people are not dysfunctional .. they pay taxes et cetera.

I've argued with more tenacious people than you in my sleep!

I have to ask you this: is any of this your opinion or is it all second-hand? I meet _so_ many people like you who go with any faddy, up-to-the-minute buzz-word issue without even equipping yourself with the full scope of the matter at hand.

It's that fashionable opinion people are all talking about in some trendy bar, it's that right-on issue you read about in a magazine.

I like to make my own opinion by seeing _both_ sides of the argument, not lurching towards the one with the cow eyes and hard-done-by look...


----------



## octane (Feb 27, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> I think what it boils down to is people need to take a long, hard look at the issue at hand...



I have. I did about ten years ago and I was as sure then as I am now.

The dynamics of the argument have not changed one bit, only now we have people who throw up obfuscating clouds of 'attacks on civil liberties' and other yawn-educing trivia...


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 27, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> I think what it boils down to is people need to take a long, hard look at the issue at hand.  You may not like the idea of it, which is fine.  But preventing it would be wrong as it has absolutely nothing to do with you.



I said that I will not post to this thread again... I'm trying hard not to reply to some things here... But I cannot help myself! Your gay interest replies are making me mad! However...

Here it is:
We, the people who do not want gay people to marry each other, are the ones with prejudice and this and that? Isn't that an absolute contradiction to gay nature or what?  Gay people are the epitome of prejudism! They are living everyday in their own prejudice against their opposite sex Both psychological and physically! Instead of them trying to find a cure for their "disease" they go ahead and embrace it AND try to make that sound like it is a normal, logical, democratic, rational, right, truthful to human nature design, etc.

As for your:
"But preventing it would be wrong as it has absolutely nothing to do with you."
According to who? To you? It has everything to do with others you know? Just because some messed up minds and/or chemicals in some peoples' bodies out there want to do whatever they want to do, that doesn't mean that we have to accept their ways!

You want to call us, racists, prejudists, homophobes, whatever, go ahead and call us... THAT is your right! Still, I don't think that the straight people are having gay people their slaves, group beating them, rape them, treat them like animals, etc. 

About gay marriage: Why get marry in the first place? Why you NEED that? To complete what? To seal your love with each other like normal couples do? I have a special message for you: *Being gay ISN'T normal! Not in ANY way!* Psychological or physical! Even if gay people try to tell us otherwise!

Nah! Gay people should live their gay life the way are living it in the first place... Twisted! Get a divorce instead! Not get married! Or have a trip into the heart of an active volcano... Jump from the top of Eiffel Tower without ropes or something! Continue to live your gay life in twisted ways... That's what you are anyways capable of... Twist everything!

Penguins and in general animals have nothing to do with gay rights! When was the last time that you heard about animals getting marry in a church, town hall or whatever? Because if gay people believe that because some animals out there are "loving" animals of the same sex and they too need to "love" other "animals" of the same gay interest then they should not need to marry in the first place... Animals don't do that! ::ha::

On the other hand it seems clear that some "animals" out there want to do whatever gay thing they believe in 

Gay people should live their joyful, truthful, lovely gay life and embrace whatever beliefs they may have and let others live their miserable, full of lies and misconceptions straight life  

The problem in this age and time isn't that gay people cannot marry each other but that more and more straight people are becoming gay and/or divorcing... That in itself is disgusting to say the least...

And I too, know and respect gay people... And even my, from time to time, hair styler is gay! Respect gay people but up to a point! Respecting someone isn't the same as letting him/her do or don't do whatever he/she pleases!

Damn! We don't let our children do whatever they want! That doesn't mean that we do not respect them, love them or whatever!  Damn it even more! Because we don't let ourselves do whatever we want to do MANY times during our everyday lives! And certainly most of use DO love and DO respect ourselves


----------



## lilbandit (Feb 27, 2004)

eh..thats some post...don't know where to start...maybe the part about you knowing and respecting gay people.. Not to put too fine a point on it but are you gay hulk?...Lilbandit runs for cover to Ireland's finest nuclear fallout shelter (The Big Tree pub, Dublin)


----------



## bobw (Feb 27, 2004)

hulkaros
*Respect gay people but up to a point*
 You either respect someone or you don't. 

*hair styler is gay*
Aren't you afraid he/she will make a pass at you? How horrible would that be.

*Respecting someone isn't the same as letting him/her do or don't do whatever he/she pleases!*
You don't have the Right to let anyone do/not do what they want.

This thread has gotten way out of hand, and shows that some of you have no idea what life, respect, friendship, understanding, is about. Actually, it makes some look like complete morons.


----------



## lilbandit (Feb 27, 2004)

share your wisdom with us bob!


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 27, 2004)

lilbandit said:
			
		

> eh..thats some post...don't know where to start...maybe the part about you knowing and respecting gay people.. Not to put too fine a point on it but are you gay hulk?...Lilbandit runs for cover to Ireland's finest nuclear fallout shelter (The Big Tree pub, Dublin)



Run for cover! 

Seriously, now: No, I'm not gay! Sir Ian McKellen or whatever his name is, surely is!


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 27, 2004)

"*Respect gay people but up to a point*
 You either respect someone or you don't. "

You can respect ANYONE by faking it, by really respecting him/her or by simply playing by the social rules like in a party or something 

"*hair styler is gay*
Aren't you afraid he/she will make a pass at you? How horrible would that be."

Errr... No? It would not be horrible! I would simply avoid "him" like I do with women, girls, et al  So, far "he" didn't try to hit it! 

"*Respecting someone isn't the same as letting him/her do or don't do whatever he/she pleases!*
You don't have the Right to let anyone do/not do what they want."

Actually, I have!  For example the mods here... They are telling us what to do/don't do

"This thread has gotten way out of hand, and shows that some of you have no idea what life, respect, friendship, understanding, is about. Actually, it makes some look like complete morons."

Maybe so, maybe so... 

But at least I ain't gay!


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 27, 2004)

MBHockey said:
			
		

> because the whole point of marriage is to have a family, the natural way i guess.
> 
> don't get me wrong, i dont get why people care what other people do, if they love each other that's all that matters



the marriage's purpose is not only to have a family and kids. maybe people jut want to be officially with the person they love. whether they want to have kids or not.

if people love each other, i think it's that what matters.
and love is not a problem.


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 27, 2004)

chemistry_geek said:
			
		

> I DO have a problem with Gay Marriage.  One, it should NOT be called "marriage" as a marriage is a religious union between a MAN and a WOMAN, forms the basis of a family unit, and is recognized by laws all over the world as such with rights.  If the gay population wants to get "married" or "garried" then a new term(s) should be introduced to indicate the union between a MAN and a MAN ("gamenarried"), and a WOMAN and a WOMAN ("gawarried").  ,,,



I am female, and I am not religious. My boy friend is not religious either.
As we are not Christian, according to that point of view, we should not be enabled to have a marriage? And especially not if we have no urge to overpopulate the world more (ie have ny kids)?


----------



## bobw (Feb 27, 2004)

*Actually, I have!  For example the mods here... They are telling us what to do/don't do*

Actually, you don't. The mods here are not telling you what you can/can't do, only make sure board rules are followed.

*But at least I ain't gay*

You may not be gay, but you certainly do show your ignorance on the subject.


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 27, 2004)

hulkaros said:
			
		

> I wish Arden that this subject was that easy to solve  But it ain't
> 
> But because I see that this thread will keep going on, I will ask some REAL questions to the whole "free" gay community around here:
> -What about the cases of parents making sex with their own children/family members?
> ...



And what exactly do those questions have to do with gays and gay marraiges?

All the gays I know are normal people. I don't believe they fancy group sex, sadomasochism, violent behaviour etc any more than non-gays. Actually, I would not expect really that kind of behaviour of those gays / bi that I know.

I think those questions can be adopted to the children of the heteros, not just same-sex marraiges.


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 27, 2004)

bobw said:
			
		

> *Actually, I have!  For example the mods here... They are telling us what to do/don't do*
> 
> Actually, you don't. The mods here are not telling you what you can/can't do, only make sure board rules are followed.
> 
> ...



Thanks for letting me know this kind of things! You put me in perspective...

Long live the gay people who are perfect, healthy, correct, whatever in every other area that non gay people are... Let's all unite into a beatiful gay loving life!

Long live the gay people! Long live the way of gay people! Long live the gay perfection! All HAIL to the gay people of this world! Come on! Everyone! Embrace the gay way of life! The non ignorant one! 

**gets back to his ignorant, non-gay life, enjoying Bad Boys II scene with the gay stuff in the store all while eating his non-gay Pizza**


----------



## hulkaros (Feb 27, 2004)

Giaguara said:
			
		

> And what exactly do those questions have to do with gays and gay marraiges?
> 
> All the gays I know are normal people. I don't believe they fancy group sex, sadomasochism, violent behaviour etc any more than non-gays. Actually, I would not expect really that kind of behaviour of those gays / bi that I know.
> 
> I think those questions can be adopted to the children of the heteros, not just same-sex marraiges.



Nah! Nothing! Ignore my rant... I've embraced the gay side of my everyday, on line, life by now 

Long live the gay people! ::love::

PS. One of my favorite songs of all time: Electric Six - Gay Bar


----------



## andychrist (Feb 27, 2004)

Don't you just hate ridiculous non-sequiturs?

I mean, I love my Mac, but I wouldn't wanna marry it.


----------



## Giaguara (Feb 28, 2004)

Peace and love.
Love yourself and the one that you love. 
Close your eyes, and breath deeply .. this topic probably is better with a break for elaboration...
Love.

g.


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 2, 2004)

Here we go again.

*Whatever your opinions are, please respect other people and their opinions.* Remember that theorically there is the whole world reppresented here, so please no bad taste comments regarding anyone's sexual behaviour, race, ehtnicity etc, especially in this contest. And it applies to everyone. Keep it civil. 

This topic is too interesting to keep on shelf.


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 2, 2004)

Well everyone else is getting into this, those who care can read my position in my iBlog:

http://homepage.mac.com/brianleahy/iblog/C1679595315/index.html


----------



## lilbandit (Mar 2, 2004)

You must be joking mods, liveliest discussion in months and it was shut down without even a warning


----------



## bobw (Mar 2, 2004)

*lilbandit*
It was shut down for awhile to give one or two people some time to cool off. We are not required to give warnings.

*brianleahy*
Your blog = Excellent.


----------



## lilbandit (Mar 2, 2004)

Nevertheless it was one of the most animated discussions for a long time. Somebody posted a thread a while back saying that things have become a little sterile on the forum. Everyone agreeing, nobody sticking to their guns etc., given the lack of firey threads recently maybe a well worded, short warning (while not required) might have been more productive. I don't like any kind of ad hominem arguments but I think everyone enjoys a lively discussion. Just asking you guys to moderate not dictate.


----------



## edX (Mar 2, 2004)

not to join in this discussion in depth, but i was just wondering, would a marriage be any more legitimate if it were between a gay man and a lesbian? is being a man and a woman really some kind of indicator of the legitamacy of a relationship? in part this question asks whether it is same sex marriages that are being looked down upon, or just a general denunciation of gays in general. something to think about.


----------



## bobw (Mar 2, 2004)

*asks whether it is same sex marriages that are being looked down upon, or just a general denunciation of gays in general*

I think some people don't differentiate.

I would like to see, and I doubt info is available, what the statistics are for gay couples. What the percentage of breakups are. 

Divorce in the US is over 50% for first marriages. My guess is that divorce/breakups of Gay couples would be a lot less.


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 2, 2004)

> would a marriage be any more legitimate if it were between a gay man and a lesbian?



Very good, exactly the sort of question that exposes the issue for the farce that it is.

In a similar vein:  How much more or less legitimate is a marriage between a man and woman who don't want any kids (such as my wife and I)?

How about a man and woman who can't stand each other, but marry for (oh, say) tax reasons?

Who are better parents, a loving, doting gay couple, or a hetero pair of crackheads living in an abandoned warehouse?

I also love the 'argument by incredulity' - in which the arguer believes he is making a cogent point by saying something like: "that's just messed up" or "that's just wrong".  This is another way of saying "it bothers me, but I can't think of any specific reason why" -- which may be true enough, but it hardly forms a reasonable basis for a law.

Here's another question which I think exposes a key weakness of this issue:  Why do so many straight people tacitly assume that the right to marriage is - or ought to be - theirs to grant or withhold?  Is this any less wrong than when some white Americans tacitly assumed that civil rights for blacks were theirs to grant or withhold?  Just who do we think we are, anyway?


----------



## octane (Mar 3, 2004)

For me, the issues are simple.

As I said in earlier threads, homosexuals and lesbians are able-bodied people who are not mentally of physically incapacitated by their sexual impediments.

So if they can be productive workers and pay taxes like the rest of us, then let them be. If they want to marry, let them.

What I want to know is, where do we draw the line? Do we continue to allow common sense to be marginalized for the sake appeasing a minority?

In this case, marriage isn't the major issue, but it clearly highlights it.

Please do not make the assumption that I'm drawing comparisons between these two peoples, but this serves as a good example of where we are going all for the sake of political correctness and malformed sense of preserving human rights.

Do we allow people with congenital mental or physical disorders to marry and if so, to we allow them to have children?

Based on the 'right on' attitudes of some of the posters from this thread, the answer would be in the affirmative.

But why?

The chances of the child being even more incapacitated than their parents is increased significantly.

It's most likely that their parents are in care, so what kind of situation are creating for ourselves?

It's quite simple: we're creating a rod for our own backs.

We over-burden the social system even further and everyone must pay for the rights of certain individuals who are probably unlikely to even be able to comprehend love, let alone have a sense of it.

In the case of homosexuals and lesbians, let them marry. But there is a line, and it's very clear, but it's a line that has been trodden on so often, it's almost faded away.

This line is the biological imperative. Whatever can be said, must be measured against the what is biologically correct.

I'll say it, it seems no one else has the courage: homosexuality is not an essential part of our biology, so why do we tolerate it?

The utterly deplorable comparison between gay rights and the rights of woman to vote leaves me agog at it's calamitous stupidity. Woman are an essential part of our species, as are females of most creatures that walk, crawl and fly. Homosexuality -- although observed in other species -- isn't.

If you want simple proof, you look to nature. Do we see gay lions rearing their young? Do we see gay chimps tending to their offspring? It's not difficult, it's very obvious to see.

So we have a breakdown of the once-familiar family structure. So we no longer have the nuclear family. So what do we do? We compound the problem even further with the sort of does-it-matter-any-more shrugging of shoulders.

So simply because a gay couple are loving and have a suitable income to bring up a child, we overlook the screamingly obvious omission of an adherence to some semblance of a normal and productive social environment that we have lived by for millions of years.

Yes! Let's suspend all notion of evolutionary order for the sake of political correctness. What the hell does mother nature know anyway? We are the new order.

These are very, very simple issues of right and wrong. They don't take too much thinking about, but because of the world we live in, there is no right and wrong any more. There's no black and white, there's just a big grey smudge where no one knows what the hell anything means anymore...


----------



## edX (Mar 3, 2004)

octane, you've pretty obviously never observed many animals. homosexuality among animals is pretty common. even the ordinary housedog is pretty indiscriminate when they're horny. yet somehow they manage to produce in large enough numbers that we have to put many of them 'to sleep' each year. most gays i know would argue that it it their biological imperitive to be as they are. given a choice of being 'normal' & happy and being gay and attacked by society, many (if not most) would choose the former. however, their biology is telling them differently. mother nature is singing a different song to them. but then, "What the hell does mother nature know anyway?" 

we're facing world overpopulation and you're spouting about the biological imperitive and surival of the species? please try and explain the logic in that.


----------



## cfleck (Mar 3, 2004)

what irks me is when people like rosie o'donnel state to the world that she is going to marry her "lover" to SPITE the president.  now that is a slap in the face to what marraige is about.

on another note, there is something to be said for gay couples raising children.  octane raises some good points about it not necessarilly biologically needed.  now whether a gay couple raising a child skews that child's development is obviously up for study, but it does make you wonder.  it may seem a bit wishy-washy but at the moment i'm inclined to agree with the child-raising point here.  why should they get to?  there is nothing saything that it is "right", and it is arguably "wrong".  

and to hulkaros-like comments.  i think i can speak for the majority here by saying that gays are not perfect, but they are people and deserve to be treated as such.

i may have asked this before, but is there a religious group that support gays?  to my knowledge there isnt, but i'm curious.


----------



## octane (Mar 3, 2004)

EDx, I could pull your rebuttal to pieces all day, you're saying absolutely nothing I haven't heard many, many times before.

These are tired arguments that do nothing more than collect verbal and anecdotal dust as the years roll by.

By the very fact that you chose to pick on this minor excerpt of the my post, I take it as an admission that you have no real or credible answer to the rest of what I said.

Before I step away from this thread, satisfied that I've said all that can be said in defense of sanity and all that is blatantly right-minded, I will say this:

The views of yourself and people like you are the views you'll carry through with you for the rest of your life.

The people here of my generation are the legislators of the future. The laws that you people put in place will take decades to undo and even longer to correct.

Please consider your opinions with more vigor and at least attempt to put the needs of everyone before the needs of the few.

This kind of thing matters to us all...


----------



## cfleck (Mar 3, 2004)

IMHO there is a big difference between humping anything you get the chance to and homosexuality.  i'm not saying there aren't any actualy homosexuals in various species, but i am curious as to what they contribute to the progression of the species.  do they help raise any offspring?

overpopulation is hardly a reason to promote gay marraige.  if that were the case, the government should maybe give out baby licenses.  

fact is, at this hour of the morning i'm more inclined to believe that a straight couple is better suited to raise a child.  not that they are all perfect, but is it possible that a homosexual couple would face an uphill battle from the start?


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 3, 2004)

If you want to focus the attention on children, then let me start by saying that I agree on one point - it probably is not in anyone's best interests for people with severe and debilitating genetic defects to have children.  For that matter, I think that even healthy hetero couples are using entirely too many fertility drugs, while so many healthy orphans go unadopted.

Not all gay marriages end up (one way or another) with children, but many that do, adopt.   To point out another 'glaringly obvious' issue: adoptive parents do not pass on any genetic traits.  Also, gay couples can ALREADY adopt children whether they are legally married or not (you can trust me on that, I know one such couple.)   So arguably, allowing them to be legally married can only benefit the children they are already allowed to adopt.

I'd also like to underscore the drawbacks of using biological imperatives as your guide.  *THE* biological imperative of any species is for each individual to produce as many copies of it's DNA as possible.  For men, this means impregnating anything with a pulse - for a male, monogamy makes no biological sense.  A certain amount of this DOES take place, but I don't see anyone saying we ought to see MORE of it...


----------



## cfleck (Mar 3, 2004)

> So arguably, allowing them to be legally married can only benefit the children they are already allowed to adopt.



for one, i dont think it is right for a single parent to adopt.  thats not the topic of this post so i wont go into why, but that seems to be how gays get to adopt.  correct?  i guess my retort to this is i'd rather see the adoption process changed.  it just seems right to me that you need to be married to raise kids the "right" way.  if divorce/widowing/etc occurs that is something you have to deal with, but to go into it facing an obstacle like being a single parent seems ridiculous.


----------



## bobw (Mar 3, 2004)

* it just seems right to me that you need to be married to raise kids the "right" way*

This statement is a joke and a put down to all single parents doing a great job. I was a single parent from the time my kids were 1 and 6. They both turned out great. College grads, never in trouble, making more money than I ever did. Turned out to be very nice people.

Raising a child with both parents in his/her life is the ideal situation, but this doesn't happen more than 50% of the time, at least with both parents living together with the kids. A lot of parents remain in the kids life after a divorce, but a lot don't. That doesn't mean the kids won't grow up normal. Gay people are no different in this regard. ANYONE that chooses to raise a child on his/her own, takes a lot of responsibility and I'd give them credit, Straight or Gay. Too many kids don't have homes and need at least one parent.

I'd like to ask, if I may, how old both Hulk and Octane are. I'm assuming you're both very young. You both have opinions that won't work in our world, as we live in it today.

*i'm not saying there aren't any actualy homosexuals in various species,*

That's good, because it's well documented.

*overpopulation is hardly a reason to promote gay marriage*

Don't think I've heard anyone say this.

*fact is, at this hour of the morning i'm more inclined to believe that a straight couple is better suited to raise a child.*

Please post later in the day to avoid this belief.

*but is it possible that a homosexual couple would face an uphill battle from the start?*

Only if other people cause problems because of them being Gay.

*EDx, I could pull your rebuttal to pieces all day, you're saying absolutely nothing I haven't heard many, many times before.*

Same can be said of your posts.

*efore I step away from this thread, satisfied that I've said all that can be said in defense of sanity and all that is blatantly right-minded, I will say this:*

You're not helping your Sanity defense. Right-minded -  you mean for your own mind. Don't think that you represent the majority of people with your opinions.

*Please consider your opinions with more vigor and at least attempt to put the needs of everyone before the needs of the few.*

This statement has no point on this issue in the US. Gay's marrying each other will not harm you or me. 

As I said earlier, some people here are just showing how ignorant they can be on a subject.


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 3, 2004)

bobw said:
			
		

> I'd like to ask, if I may, how old both Hulk and Octane are. I'm assuming you're both very young. You both have opinions that won't work in our world, as we live in it today.



I'm a 13 years old kid inside a 28 years old body  As for my opinions not working in our world maybe all you wanted to say is that they don't work in YOUR world?  Because in the world *I* live each and everyday I don't have ANY problems with other people no matter what their sex is... On the other hand I cannot say the same thing about this thread 

I asked a question before and got no answer even from the high and mighty such as yourself:
What if some humans of this world will want to marry with animals? Not today... Not tomorrow... But maybe just maybe some years down the road... Do I have to accept that too? Why? Because it is their right to do so? Grown up people, civil rights, true love, taxes, and all that?  Pppppplllllleeeeaaaassseeee 

As for people using that old argument of black versus white people being the same thing as gay versus straight marriage, ain't that an absolute BS? Black people even now, get beaten, do not get jobs, get raped, etc. just because they are the wrong color... When was the last time that you could point a place on earth and call it a ghetto full of gay people? Town, city, country, etc. full of gay people? Being black/white it ISN'T the same thing as being a gay/straight. IT SIMPLY ISN'T THE SAME THING! At least I NEVER said so! Get a life! 



			
				bobw said:
			
		

> As I said earlier, some people here are just showing how ignorant they can be on a subject.



And the really fun part is that they continue to do so all while thinking that they are the non ignorant... Or could that be, in a fashionable, arrogant way?


----------



## bobw (Mar 3, 2004)

*I'm a 13 years old kid inside a 28 years old body*
Maybe a 28 year old body, but you're showing you do have, and use a 13 year old brain.

You really don't have any life experience yet, or know what life is all about. You are too young to know what you're talking about here.

*Black people even now, get beaten, do not get jobs, get raped, etc. just because they are the wrong color.*

This happens to all people in all races, it's not confined to Black people. Gay bashing used to be like a sport to a lot of people.


*What if some humans of this world will want to marry with animals?*

I think a question like this really shows your ignorance. Just my opinion though.


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 3, 2004)

hulkaros, I find it very interesting you are greek. The history of Greece, lets say 2000 years ago .. well, was famous for a lot of things. Women were not allowed to go to the theaters etc, sexual relationships between men were considered normal, and of women who knows - maybe Sapphos gives some hints in the poems (if they are interpreted right). 


Well. Gays raising kids ...

When I was a kid, I was raised by my parents (a mum and a dad) who were always fighting. The common opinion on htat time was that the kids of the separated parents had problems, but many of my friends had only one parent. And I was envying their peace at home. They could bring friends home too, without having to fear their parents behaviour. Well - untill today, I have never brang friends home (except once when I was small) and can't rally consider being a bf there, not even if I was married to him.

So my point comes to the conclusion no matter what sex the parents are or how many are they, if they love each other and their children, it works. If I had a choise between lets say two dads and the parents I had, I could have chosen the two dads option if it was more peaceful (but not two mums, no I can't imagine it working for me). 

At least men tend to understand better how men think, and women supposedly understand how women think. Hm.

Do we have anyone here who would have had two mums or two dads raising him/her? Maybe it's also no different from divorcing and having then a stepdad or stepmom.


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 3, 2004)

bobw said:
			
		

> *I'm a 13 years old kid inside a 28 years old body*
> Maybe a 28 year old body, but you're showing you do have, and use a 13 year old brain.



Is this a theme around here? Repeating what one said for himself in a post over and over in order to convince who and why? In the end you simply don't know me but hey, keep reading 



			
				bobw said:
			
		

> You really don't have any life experience yet, or know what life is all about. You are too young to know what you're talking about here.



Thank God that I don't have YOUR life experience on gay marriage! Phew! That was a close one! 



			
				bobw said:
			
		

> This happens to all people in all races, it's not confined to Black people. Gay bashing used to be like a sport to a lot of people.



Can you point us to some gay ghettos, counties, countries, etc?  As for gay bashing being a sport: Dunno 'bout you but I certainly don't bash gay people!  I just question their marriage "right" simply because I believe that this specific rabbit hole goes too deep for everyone across the globe 



			
				bobw said:
			
		

> I think a question like this really shows your ignorance. Just my opinion though.



Nah! This question really shows your inability to answer that question... Evade all you want but it is the same thing: Being gay is no different than someone loving animals and not humans of the opposite sex to my eyes and thank God to other eyes as well...

As for me being ignorant and this and that: I think your forgot to mention the part about me being ignorant on this subject and not being ignorant overall in my life! You simply cannot call me ignorant in general simply because you are the Super Mod here or because in your eyes I'm ignorant in this matter... Respect... Remember your lessons about that word? What? All of a sudden you don't respect me? Just because I'm not gay or because I don't like gay people getting marry?  Keep it straight (pun intended)


----------



## hulkaros (Mar 3, 2004)

Giaguara said:
			
		

> hulkaros, I find it very interesting you are greek. The history of Greece, lets say 2000 years ago .. well, was famous for a lot of things. Women were not allowed to go to the theaters etc, sexual relationships between men were considered normal, and of women who knows - maybe Sapphos gives some hints in the poems (if they are interpreted right).



I think that there is no secret in this: Modern greek people are nothing like their ancient counterparts especially on this matter... Thank God!  Then again I wasn't there at that age and time and I think no one was there too! And seeing how easily the media can twist ANYTHING in this age and time one can only wonder how badly history is twisted through thousands of years especially for nations that wiped over and over again by other nations 



			
				Giaguara said:
			
		

> Well. Gays raising kids ...
> 
> When I was a kid, I was raised by my parents (a mum and a dad) who were always fighting. The common opinion on htat time was that the kids of the separated parents had problems, but many of my friends had only one parent. And I was envying their peace at home. They could bring friends home too, without having to fear their parents behaviour. Well - untill today, I have never brang friends home (except once when I was small) and can't rally consider being a bf there, not even if I was married to him.
> 
> ...



What are you trying to say? Just because your personal "troublesome" childhood was not what you wanted/expected from life it is ok for gay people to get marry and have children? Hmmmm 

As for men understanding men and women understanding women, you solved the puzzle of peace in humans lives! Tomorrow lets convince all companies, countries, people of this world to unite into a huge gay family! We will understand each other better and we will breed kids with no problems whatsoever! Men with men and women with women = No problems in this world... Yeah! Right! And I'm the Incredible HULK  If that ain't the absolute division of humans then what is? 

Let me ask the wise people of this thread this what-if scenario:
If your parents weren't straight would you exist in order to be right here, right now, to play your democratic, reasonable, righteous, etc. games?

And no! I'm not talking about being adopted or this and that! Even if one was adopted he/she surely didn't came in existence by gay people but from straight ones! 

Damn!
Seed and Seed = No Life...
Field and Field = No Life...
Seed and Field = Life...
Anything else, clearly, is absolute BS!

Even with the aid of modern science the same rules apply! And even after that possible day that a real life Junior "miracle" will occur the same rules will be on!


----------



## bobw (Mar 3, 2004)

I'm a 13 years old = enough said =  all understandable now


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 3, 2004)

I don't know about 'ghettos' per-se but there are certainly no shortage of predominantly-gay communities, most famously in parts of Manhattan, San Francisco and West Hollywood, but plenty elsewhere too.  These places I list here are by no means ghettos, but there is a self-evident reason why this is so:

Gays can hide in plain sight if they so desire, blacks cannot.  Gays can often pass as straight, relatively few blacks can pass as white.  Bigoted whites WANT blacks herded together into poor neighborhoods, and blacks cannot fly below radar.  There are, sadly, few obstacles to the formation of black ghettos, and many factors that encourage it.

By contrast, the only way that gays can usually form large communities is in an environment where they can freely meet one another and operate openly enough to move into a common area, i.e. deliberately 'organize' into communities.   Hence, environments like those I have listed - areas known to be gay-friendly - have large and thriving gay communities.  These also happen to be upscale, expensive places to live, so they aren't ghettos, per-se.   The forces at work are different, but the discrimination is no less real.

In addition, many of the same arguments now being used to oppose gay marriage were once used to oppose interracial marriages (It'll cheapen the institution!  The children will suffer!  It's a slippery slope; next people will be marrying animals!!)  These ideas are no less offensive in this situation than they were in that one.  The situations are _eminiently_ comparable.

Not only is it wrong to deny gays the right to marry, it's an act of appalling hubris to imagine that we have any right to sit in judgement.  What gay couples do in the privacy of their own homes is nobody's business, in _any_ context.  By which I mean this: _not only_ is it improper to ask them about it or look down on them for it, it's also improper for any person or organization to consider it as even a background factor making any sort of decision that affects them, whenever we self-importantly presume to hand down edicts about what they may or may not do.   

That unpleasant squirming you might feel in the pit of your stomach has nothing to do with objective reality, and is no basis for making public policy decisions.


----------



## Total Konfuzion (Mar 3, 2004)

I believe that everyone should have the right to suffer equally....hence...everyone should have the right to get married.


----------



## bobw (Mar 3, 2004)

Well said Total


----------



## michaelsanford (Mar 3, 2004)

Interesting. The arguments for and against this are so far almost entirely secular.

Religion is _very_ important to me, it governs almost all aspects of my life. Marriage to me is not a legal union, it is a spiritual and religious union which is simply expressed legally for the convenience of our secular government (/society).

That said, my personal opinion is akin to chemistry_geek's : if they want a legal union which affords them the legal privileges and responsibilities of any other marriage, why not let them have it !


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 3, 2004)

There seems to me little point in actually _debating_ the religious aspects - they are quite cut & dried, with almost no room for any debate.  

For most faiths, a key characteristic is that certain ideas are regarded as beyond the reach of further research or insight; God (tradition holds) handed down the official line long ago, and it is scandalous, if not outright heresy, to suggest that these issues could ever be reopened.   Arguably, this characteristic is what has caused the Roman Catholic Church to fragment into other sects over the centuries;  when some group disagreed with The Church, their only recourse was to break away into a different church.   A good thing?  A bad one?   Who is to say?   I'm not religious myself, but I do think that before a person commits himself to a faith, he should be familiar - and comfortable - with all its beliefs and traditions.

Gay relationships are condemned by most (though not all) Christian sects, and certainly by Islam, and I believe Judaism too.  Does anyone know of a religion that explicitly condones gay relationships?   How about one that doesn't commit one way or the other?


----------



## edX (Mar 4, 2004)

most all neo-pagan religions condone and welcome gays. i don't think this is like some official policy, but more the result of the open and loving attitudes of most who are drawn to the Crafts in this day and age.

frankly, what worries me about gay marriages is that if they are legitimized, then current domestic partner laws and benefits will no longer be applicable and many non married hetero couples (like me and mine) would lose them as well. most of these policies of 'spousal equivilants' might get thrown out the door and no longer be available to anyone who doesn't choose to get married legally. but selfish reasons aside, i can't come up with any reason gays shouldn't matter. in fact, i doubt that anyone can come up with anything but selfish reasons why they should or shouldn't. so it comes down to 'live and let live' in my opinion.


----------



## uoba (Mar 4, 2004)

Amen to that... doh! er... agreed!

Or to put it another way, the theme of this thread: people trying to get their own subjective views across in the guise of objective ones, and since there's no such thing as an objective view, we might as well all retire and enter a world of solipsism right    )...


----------



## cfleck (Mar 4, 2004)

as it stands right now, i say give them a civil union.  the only reason for the different name would be to let people have "marraige".  i'm still up in arms about the adoption thing.  i'd like to see some actual studies i guess.


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 4, 2004)

> i'm still up in arms about the adoption thing



I suspect that anyone would agree that, in an ideal world, we'd like to see every orphan adopted by a healthy, happy, affluent, loving couple - and (I'll admit) preferably a straight couple - but from my perspective, this is **ONLY** because of the potential stigma the kid might have to endure by having gay parents, not because I think gays are actually bad parents.

However, in many cases, this is not the choice adoptees face.  There are, in fact, LOTS of kids up for adoption all the time -- just not a lot of healthy, full-term, newborn white kids.  THEY are adopted almost instantly, within days.  

Others, failing to meet one or more of those criteria, languish for years, wards of the state, moving from one foster home to another and reaping little benefit from it.   If a kid is a minority, more than a year old, or has any health problems - such as may result from being the child of a drug addict - their prospects are dim indeed.

As for gay parents adopting: yes, I think technically only one of the couple becomes the legal parent.  However, adoption agencies are extremely nosy, and learn everything they can about each person before permitting an adoption.  Rest assured, when a gay couple adopts, the adoption agency is well aware of the situation.


----------



## bobw (Mar 4, 2004)

I'd also like to see some studies, as I said earlier. I don't believe a child raised by a Gay couple would suffer in any way, other than other children making fun of them. This already happens to kids of mixed race, fat, geeks, etc. Nothing new. It certainly won't make them gay.

In the US, the divorce rate for first time marriages is over 50%. Somehow, I think the Gay divorce rate would be lower. Men get along better with other men then they do with women, not sure about women, in all my years, they're still a mystery 

In any case, Religion doesn't belong in this discussion, at least not in the US. There is separation of Church and State here. So it's strictly the laws of the Government. These do need to be changed and made the same in all states for all people. Gays can't be discriminated against, whether you like it or not. Sooner or later, Gay marriage will be happening in all states in the US.

I'm indifferent on Gay marriage. I don't care if they marry or not, but they should have the same rights as I do, as anyone in this country has.

Gays adopting children here in the US has been going on for a long time, but only one partner actually legally adopts.


----------



## cfleck (Mar 4, 2004)

i'm definately not convinced that gay marraiges would have a lower divorce rate.  in fact i'd say initially they are prone to be higher because people will get married out of spite/novelty/etc.  just look at rosie o'donnel

and for separation of church & state, yeah thats the rule, but it doesn't seem to be the concern in this case.  if you look through the bulk of the posts against gay marraige there is a strong religious background to the feeling.

we need some psych people in this forums to supply us with some reports!


----------



## bobw (Mar 4, 2004)

If you look at the news and read the news articles in the US, you'll see a majority of the Gay couples getting married, have been together for years, and a lot have adopted kids they are raising.

*and for separation of church & state, yeah thats the rule, but it doesn't seem to be the concern in this case*

Doesn't matter if it's the concern in this case, with posters of this thread. I know a lot of people object because of their religious beliefs, but that is not relevant to this issue, regardless of what anyone has to say, including Church leaders. It's going to come to one thing here in the US, the Civil Rights of a person.

Church leaders, of all people, should keep quite on this issue. They've been covering up Gays in the Ministry for years, child molestation, etc. An, it's not just the Catholic religion.


----------



## cfleck (Mar 4, 2004)

> If you look at the news and read the news articles in the US, you'll see a majority of the Gay couples getting married, have been together for years, and a lot have adopted kids they are raising.



i'm not doubting their time together nor the fact that many want to get married for all the "right" reasons.  what i'm saying is that they are going to be no different than straight people with regard to divorce PLUS you have people like rosie who are going to get married for shitty reasons and be MORE prone to divorce.

and i know some have adopted kids.  no has said they haven't.


----------



## bobw (Mar 4, 2004)

I think Gay people will have a lower divorce rate than straight people. Just my opinion. Rosie got married because she wanted to and loves her partner. They've been together for a long time and have 4 kids. She got very upset at what Bush said, and made a big point of it, which she could because she's a personality.
In the world we live in today, Gay marriage should be the least of our concerns.


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 4, 2004)

The seperation of Church and State is, and has long been, an important priniciple in the USA, and it is one that I consider absolutely vital.   However, it is not part of the constitution, and as far as I know, no federal law exists which mandates it.  

The phrase comes from a famous letter by Thomas Jefferson, who opines that "a wall of seperation exists between the church and the state."   Jefferson's opinions carry a lot of weight even to this day -- but it still isn't a law.

It needs to be.  I think there is clear evidence that there are many politicians and judges in the US today who would like to really like to start passing laws - or at least, interpreting laws - based solely on their religious beliefs.   As a NON-member of these folks' faith, this scares the crap outta me.  You want to worry about a slippery slope, HERE'S one to worry about - how far is it from here to the Taliban?


----------



## andychrist (Mar 4, 2004)

Oh the Chil'ren! Think of the Chi'lren!

Okay, well here's what some of them think:

http://www.colage.org/research/index.shtml


----------



## mdnky (Mar 4, 2004)

bobw said:
			
		

> In the world we live in today, Gay marriage should be the least of our concerns.



Yup


----------



## mdnky (Mar 4, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> The seperation of Church and State is, and has long been, an important priniciple in the USA, and it is one that I consider absolutely vital.   However, it is not part of the constitution, and as far as I know, no federal law exists which mandates it.



http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd0.htm




			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> It needs to be.  I think there is clear evidence that there are many politicians and judges in the US today who would like to really like to start passing laws - or at least, interpreting laws - based solely on their religious beliefs.   As a NON-member of these folks' faith, this scares the crap outta me.  You want to worry about a slippery slope, HERE'S one to worry about - how far is it from here to the Taliban?



Not far if the current course of actions keep up.  That's a scary thing, indeed.


----------



## Satcomer (Mar 4, 2004)

I said in once and i'll say it again. If homosexuals want to be married, so be it. However, the ultra liberals (which most homosexuals are) are going to regret it the day that gay divorce settlements , child custody, and all the fun comes their way. They can have their cake and eat it. Just don't expect anything more special than the run of the mill marriage. I am tired of people trying to get "special rights" in the United States. The last time I looked we were all suppose to have EQUAL rights. No more, no less!!!


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 4, 2004)

Satcomer said:
			
		

> The last time I looked we were all suppose to have EQUAL rights. No more, no less!!!



I quite agree, it's not like marriage is some kind of ticket to paradise.  Equal rights, and equal pain as well.


----------



## michaelsanford (Mar 4, 2004)

bobw said:
			
		

> * it just seems right to me that you need to be married to raise kids the "right" way*
> 
> This statement is a joke and a put down to all single parents doing a great job. I was a single parent from the time my kids were 1 and 6. They both turned out great. College grads, never in trouble, making more money than I ever did. Turned out to be very nice people.



Here here ! My mother died when I was young and my dad managed, somehow, to raise my sister and I all alone, until recently (but at my age parenting is more like friendly advice).



> Gay relationships are condemned by most (though not all) Christian sects, and certainly by Islam, and I believe Judaism too.  Does anyone know of a religion that explicitly condones gay relationships?   How about one that doesn't commit one way or the other?


You might be interested to read « The Trouble with Islam » by Irshad Manji (who is homosexual).


----------



## cfleck (Mar 4, 2004)

look people, if you read the post i simply said that you face an uphill battle raising kids without 2 parents.  the point was that if you are going to adopt, it seems silly to start out with that challenge.  christ.


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 5, 2004)

It took some searching but I found a an article that I had once heard discussed:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/homosexuality.php?artnum=20010813

...which asserts, among other things, that "the gay divorce rate is just over one-fifth that of heterosexuals. "


----------

