Gay Marriage, PLease, let's be mature

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[b]Bush 'Troubled' by Gay Marriage Issue

Associated Press


President Bush said Wednesday he was troubled by gay weddings in San Francisco and by legal decisions in Massachusetts that could clear the way for same-sex marriage.

He declined to say whether he was more inclined now to back a constitutional ban. However, he spoke privately with conservative Catholics about the issue, and activists who favor such a ban said the president would soon announce his support.

"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision."

One group took issue with Bush's insistence that "people," not the courts, need to resolve the issue.

"In San Francisco, the democratically elected mayor took this action just weeks after hundreds of thousands of people voted for him," said Jon Davidson, senior counsel of Lambda Legal, a gay and lesbian legal group.

"It's the right-wing groups that have taken this into courts seeking to define marriage in a way that would exclude same-sex couples, in violation of California's Constitution," Davidson said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush recognized that gay marriage is a divisive topic. But, he said, "this is an issue where he believes it is important for people to stand up on principle."

Bush met with 13 Roman Catholic conservatives. They included Deal Hudson, the publisher of Crisis magazine and a friend of Bush political adviser Karl Rove; William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights; Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Reagan; and Kathryn Jean Lopez, associate editor of National Review magazine.

Gay and lesbian couples from Europe and more than 20 states have flocked to San Francisco City Hall since city officials decided to begin marrying same-sex couples a few days ago. At the current pace, more than 3,000 people will have taken vows by Friday promising to be "spouses for life."

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that it is unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marriage.

At least 38 states and the federal government have approved laws or amendments barring the recognition of gay marriage. On Wednesday, the Utah House gave final legislative approval to a measure outlawing same-sex marriages and sent it to the governor, who has not taken a position on the bill.[/b]

[color=violet]How can the events in San Fransisco be encouraging Bush's idea of marriage being between a man and a woman? That makes no sense. For that matter neither does stating that the people should make the descisions on marriage when he clearly stated before that he dissagrees on people making the descision that same sex unions should be legalized.

WHile this sounds like a Bush Bashing post, I think we shoudl go beyond that-along with the whole idea of homosexuality being the same as beastiality. We're all adults, or clsoe to it so let's make a concious descision to try and act in a civilized manner. We should try to respect people's veiws on this subject.

As for me, I'm a liberal reguardless of the political party. Added into this is the fact that I'm not a Christian and I'm married. I find it amusing that while many people will claim that the Bible claims that this is immoral while in San Fransisco all these marriages (to the best of my knowledge) have taken place before a justice of the peace and not in a church. Also, I feel it's narrow minded to assume that everyone in America is Christian and adheres to the norm.

As a married person, I don't feel that legalizing same sex marriages will discredit the sanctity of marriage which in some ways is another oxy-moron since throughout history marriages have been used souly to gain property or secure relations between countries without reguard to either member's feelings towards one another.

Well, I've said my peice and I invite others to do the same. and if I'm doing somethng
wrong by posting this topic, I apologize in advance.

Thank you and Blessed be,
Chibi Horsewoman[/color]

[wrist cutter]

I thought Bush had a very smart response to this.

He opened the doors a little, but without just outright saying, "Welp, I give up. You guys win. Let's let gays get married all throughout America." I'm sure all you hip youngsters realize that there are people who oppose gay marriage, and that they make up quite a bit of Bush's support. He has to keep these people in mind; but at the same time I think most of America is in support of legalized gay marriage. So he's in a very difficult position currently and I think he's handling it quite well. He's trying to accomodate both sides, which in the end won't work, but in the meantime serves as a temporary solution until he can come up with a final verdict.

It's really only a matter of time before it becomes legal throughout America. It's inevitable really. Bush knows this and he's just trying to play his cards right. He can't abandon the majority of his supporters, nor can he give up on the majority of America. He's making an effort to balance the two and I hope it helps his approval rating.

[Boba Fett]

[color=green]First of all, I?d like to state that this guy Davidson is a nut. He claims that:[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']"It's the right-wing groups that have taken this into courts seeking to define marriage in a way that would exclude same-sex couples, in violation of California's Constitution," Davidson said.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]This is blatantly false. He is violating California state law by allowing marriages consisting of one man and one woman. In fact, California has passed laws that define marriage as between one man and one woman. In accordance with the state constitution, which Mr. Davidson cites, he should be thrown in prison. For any public official in California to allow these marriages is a felony. This man is defying the will of the people in California, and should be punished accordingly.

I don?t care if you like or dislike gay marriage, if you have any respect for democracy and the laws of the state of California you should condemn this mans actions.[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman] [color=violet']How can the events in San Fransisco be encouraging Bush's idea of marriage being between a man and a woman? That makes no sense. For that matter neither does stating that the people should make the descisions on marriage when he clearly stated before that he dissagrees on people making the descision that same sex unions should be legalized.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]You?re not reading carefully, and this has lead you to wrong conclusions. Bush says:[/color]

[quote name='Bush'] I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision."[/quote]

[color=green]President Bush said that these events are [I]influencing[/I] his decision. You said that these events have ?[I]encouraged[/I] his idea of marriage being between a man and a woman?.

There is a monumental difference here. Clearly, he should take into account what is going on is Massachusetts and San Francisco.

As for Bush?s opinion on Gay Marriage, you?ve missed an important fact. Bush?s opinion is in concurrence with the will of the people. [URL=http://www.abpnews.com/abpnews/story.cfm?newsId=4015]56% of people oppose gay marriage while 30% support it.[/URL] As wrist cutter noted, Bush?s mind is currently occupied with the upcoming election. He, unfortunately, will compromise his ideals for votes. I?m willing to bet that Bush will stick with the will of the people, whichever direction they decide to take.[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']WHile this sounds like a Bush Bashing post, I think we shoudl go beyond that-along with the whole idea of homosexuality being the same as beastiality. We're all adults, or clsoe to it so let's make a concious descision to try and act in a civilized manner. We should try to respect people's veiws on this subject.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]Nobody here has ever compared, to my knowledge, bestiality and homosexuality. That?s just wrong.

I also think that respecting other people?s views is an excellent idea. I salute you for your civility.[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']As for me, I'm a liberal reguardless of the political party. Added into this is the fact that I'm not a Christian and I'm married. I find it amusing that while many people will claim that the Bible claims that this is immoral while in San Fransisco all these marriages (to the best of my knowledge) have taken place before a justice of the peace and not in a church. Also, I feel it's narrow minded to assume that everyone in America is Christian and adheres to the norm.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]I?m a staunch and proud conservative. Like you, I?m not a Christian. Unlike you, I?m single.

The bible has nothing to do with this debate, seeing as it will be decided in the courts. Although religion my be a catalyst for opposition to this issue, it wont have a large effect on it.

Assumption is never a good thing that I agree with. However, like it or not, most Americans are white, straight and Christian. It is narrow minded to assume that all Americans are, but most do fit this definition.[/color]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=violet']As a married person, I don't feel that legalizing same sex marriages will discredit the sanctity of marriage which in some ways is another oxy-moron since throughout history marriages have been used souly to gain property or secure relations between countries without reguard to either member's feelings towards one another.[/color][/quote]

[color=green]Marriage has always been the bedrock of society. One man marries one woman and they raise their children together. If you begin to blur the definition of marriage, you will start to lose the sanctity that marriage currently enjoys.

Take the Netherlands for example, which is a secularist paradise. Homosexual unions have been legalized there for a little while now. Currently, marriage there is a joke and holds very little value. That country?s been burdened with far more than it?s fair share of dysfunctional families and unwanted children. Why? This is due to the fall of marriage. Without stable families, a nation will become unstable.

-Boba[/color]

[Arkadyz]

[color=deepskyblue][font=times new roman]Well im gonna have to agree that whats happening in san fran is wrong...While im a supporter for gay marriage hes still violating california law and what the people voted on which is completely against democracy.

Unfortunatly it doesnt look like too much is going to change...Although things are looking up in Mass.

As for my personal view on it...I think that gay marriage really should exist and the fact that its banned seems unconstitutional to me...If 2 people love each other enough they should be able to get wed and enjoy all the legal and personal benefits that a man and woman do when they exchange vows.

And since everyone else seems to be stating it ill go with the trend...Im white, straight, and christian like boba stated of many americans, but i dont particularly understand their opposition to gay marriage...

And I dont think religion or the bible should have anything to do with this...

Thats just my uninformed flawed opinion :p [/color][/font]

[Shy]

[size=1]Even though my family is notorious for ruining the sancity of marriage, I have always felt like a Gay marriage is something really crosses a line in forcing homosexuality into the mainstream. A wedding in and of itself was once a very religious ceremony, and it almost seems like a mockery of those beliefs to have two men or two women marry. In my opinion it is just the same as having a pair of atheists going through with the ceremony -- really you are shoehorning your lifestyle/values into those of another, and it just doesn't make sense to me.

There was once a family on our street that was Jewish, and for whatever reason they chose to decorate their house with blue lights, signifying Hannakuh. That really undermines yourself when you have to conform to everyone else's traditions like that. No other species on Earth goes through a wedding ceremony, and I see no reason why a pairing cannot be "official" without there being tuxedos and boring receptions.

Having said that, I do see the legal and emotional need for civil unions. I'm lucky enough to work at a company that acknowledges same-sex partnerships, and gives them the same respect and benefits that married couples do. When the world stops looking at homosexual relationships as being purely sexual they will see the need for legal recognition that is equivalent to a marriage.

On another level, I'd like to point out how ridiculous it is for a single city to issue marriage licenses that violate the state laws. That is a huge issue to me, and I don't think that one city overstepping their boundaries is a push in the right direction.

-Shy[/size]

[SasukeUchiha]

I think this all goes back to the seperation of church and state. I think Gay couples should be allowed to marry in courts. There is nothing in the U.S. constitution that says Gay Marriage is illegal.
It is the christian view on this subject that keeps this from happening. I am not bashing the christian religions or trying to make generalizations, I know there are many more religions that have this view, and that not all people of these religions have this opinion, but since presidents tend to be christian I am using that as the example.

Many people call Gay Marriage a joke, but what is so funny about 2 people that love each other enough that they want to come together and openly show their love and eternal bond? Yes, you may not agree with it, yes you may think it doesnt really matter, but why is it such a big deal? Does it really effect you that much for 2 people to come together and be happy? The popular opinion on Gay people tend to be that its all about sex and its dirty and unnatural. As with all groups of people that is true, but a generalization never holds true for a majority.

Bush I belive did do the right thing for his political career by taking a more conservative stance on the issue, but I do not believe that it was the right decision for American's. If this country really practices equality, it should show it once in a while.

[Sandy]

This is really a tough issue...

Last year (or was it the previous..) we gaypeople here in Finland got a chance to register our relationships, yet it isn't considered a marriage. Now the discussion is spreading to the Lutheran Church, where some priests are willing to bless the registered relationships - of course the majority of the zealots in the Church oppose. But the majority of the commoners are luckily tolerant about this issue, and I expect a change of things soon.

But that is the situation in Finland. I've been following the news about this issue lately, and I really don't think it is the time for gay marriages in USA. There's just too much going on there, beyond the pond, as we say. It seems that the atmosphere there has too much hatred and prejudice and will to avenge that stirring the conservatists is a bit too risky... Who knows what kind of gay-banning law the Congress will put up if they're too pressed. Really, politics is a dangerous game when played by morons!

...Oops, sorry... But I honestly think that anybody who worry too about what other people's private lives are morons, and should concentrate on themselves more. Being gay isn't against the law (anymore), remember that!

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Sage']But that is the situation in Finland. I've been following the news about this issue lately, and I really don't think it is the time for gay marriages in USA. There's just too much going on there, beyond the pond, as we say. It seems that the atmosphere there has too much hatred and prejudice and will to avenge that stirring the conservatists is a bit too risky... Who knows what kind of gay-banning law the Congress will put up if they're too pressed. Really, politics is a dangerous game when played by morons![/quote]

[color=green]Stirring up conservatives is risky? It?s not like we?re going to outlaw homosexuality and chuck homosexuals in camps?

The Congress of the United States would never pass any legislation that would ban gays, to think so is absurd. The Congress may pass legislation banning gay marriage, but it would never go out of its way to persecute homosexuals.

Your last comment, regard morons and politics, annoys me. I?m assuming you?re saying the conservatives that oppose Gay Marriage and/or Civil Unions are morons. I don?t like to assume things, so I?ll wait for you to reply on that one.

You?d be advised to avoid name-calling because of political, religious or spiritual views.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='SasukeUchiha']I think this all goes back to the seperation of church and state. I think Gay couples should be allowed to marry in courts. There is nothing in the U.S. constitution that says Gay Marriage is illegal. [/quote]

You aren't talking about this little part of the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment? This clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." ?

That's the separation of church and state, right there... if anything, it keeps the government from telling people what religion to follow. Please recall why this was formed.. the religious conflict in England that ended up sending religious groups like the Puritans to the U.S. I feel that Boba explained the traditional aspects of marriage well enough, hopefully you will take some time to read his perspective.(Not just you Sasuke, to anyone that will inevitably rebut my argument.)

[QUOTE=SasukeUchiha]
Many people call Gay Marriage a joke, but what is so funny about 2 people that love each other enough that they want to come together and openly show their love and eternal bond? Yes, you may not agree with it, yes you may think it doesnt really matter, but why is it such a big deal? Does it really effect you that much for 2 people to come together and be happy?[/quote]

What's so funny about an 18-year-old son that loves his 50-year-old father enough that they want to have sex and get married? How can you presumably say that it is WRONG?
I have no problem with people being happy. Please understand that our freedoms aren?t to make everyone ?happy? all the time. Is ?being happy? enough to justify legislation? Are you insinuating that homosexuals today aren?t happy with their current relationships? That somehow having some legal documentation would somehow make people ?Happy?? Not only that, I sincerely doubt all marriages would make people happy, as 50% of marriages today end in divorce.

This is why it matters to me: they want to change our social strata. Once something is brought up for legislature in a country run by the ?common man? for the ?common man?, I feel it?s my responsibility to pass judgment and vote when called to vote. It?s all our jobs as citizens.

[QUOTE=SasukeUchiha]
The popular opinion on Gay people tend to be that its all about sex and its dirty and unnatural. As with all groups of people that is true, but a generalization never holds true for a majority. If this country really practices equality, it should show it once in a while.[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I?m wrong here, but doesn?t homosexual mean ?having sex with the same gender?? Sure some people think it?s legitimately dirty. As for unnatural? last time I checked, the anus was not for sex. If we are bringing naturalism into the arena, our duty as a species is to reproduce. Homosexuality fails the inherent purpose of humanity as a species.

..Equality? Surely you aren?t referring to the civil rights movement of the 60?s? I suppose from a biological perspective, you cannot consciously choose to be black. Can you consciously choose to be homosexual? Yes you can. I?m sure I?ll be able to elaborate later.

======
Note: Take what Chibi says seriously, avoid flame wars. Threads like this have a tendency to get themselves closed, fast. I'm going to talk to James about even letting this thread stay up... We'll see...

[Maully]

[color=green]Forgive the ignorace on my part, but could someone please elaborate on the difference between a Marriage and a Civil Union are for me?

I have to say that I waffle on this subject. I would like to see gay marriages become legal. Then I think of the long term effects of it. If gay marriage is legalized, it will set a precident in the courts for other non-traditional marriages, which even supporters of gay marriage think of as wrong. I think while it would do a service for the gay community, it would undermine a lot of structure in the family sector.[/color]

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE=Molleta][color=green]Forgive the ignorace on my part, but could someone please elaborate on the difference between a Marriage and a Civil Union are for me?
[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=green]As far as I know, the difference between Marriage and Civil Unions is in name only. This different name for the same act was created in an attempt to be more acceptable to opponents of gay marriage and therefore more politically correct.

Kind of funny that we both use the same font, color and size options...[/color]

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New][SIZE=2]Recently, same-sex marriage was legalized in "up here", though this took one hell of a debate to accomplish.

Personally, I hold the same view on the subject as my English teacher. In his words, (these could have been taken from somewhere else, but he said them in class) "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the country it governs."

I honestly do not feel that there should even be a debate about this. Even though same-sex marriage is harshly scorned by the Bible--probably any other religious document alike to it, as well--I don't think this even counts as an argument.

The church and the state were seperated for a reason: they couldn't get along. I see it like two little children who always fight persisting to sit together during circle time.

To be frank, I think the whole thing is very silly. If it's not hurting you directly, then you have no right to speak against it, unless it invovles hurting others. Since when does openly loving another human being count as hurting some one, aside from your ex-significant other?[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

[Arcadia]

[size=1]I don't think I quite understand why stability within families is even being called into question here. A family can be "stable" or "unstable", regardless of any person's sexual orientation within that family. While there are cases where a man or woman might want a divorce because somebody within the relationship admits to being gay, there are also [i]many[/i] other reasons for divorce that can be just as turbulent to the family group, if not more. And as someone previously mentioned, 50% of marriages don't make it. I think we have bigger problems to worry about when it comes to family values than somebody being gay.

I'm of the belief that being gay doesn't make somebody any less of a person, or their family any less of a family, and on that basis alone, they should at least be granted the same rights and privileges that the rest of us already have.[/size]

[Mitch]

[size=1][color=red] There was just a thread about this.

I'll say what I've said before succintly, since I don't see any reason to belabor it: being gay means nothing. Same-sex marriage isn't wrong.

It's only for those morally upbrang religious people that seem to think it's wrong. That think having "morals" topples everything.

Well, it says something in the constitution. Something that was ignored when the blacks were interred in slavery. When the Japanese were interned in WW II. When segregation and prejudice ran rampant, and as it still does.

It said all men are created equal. That's what the laws of this union state.

So where is the deal? I don't see it, certainly.

All men are created equal, and so same-sex marriage isn't wrong at all. All men (and women) should get the same. They should be treated equally; they should be allowed to do all the same thing.[/size][/color]

[Shinken]

I wholeheartedly concur with Arcadia. I don't believe that, just because a person is gay, they shouldn't be able to marry. After all, they love their partner just as much as a heterosexual does theirs when they're at the altar, and yet they too end up with a divorce on their hands. So, how exactly does sexual orientation come into the equation?

I believe that it would be hypocritical to allow heterosexuals the right to marry, and to deny (and even "constitutionally illegalize" -and I use that term lightly) the right of gays to marry. It's no better than what was done to try and illegalize the voting rights of slaves or women earlier in US history. As far as the Church's arguments against it... Don't get me started.

[Sandy]

Sorry, Boba, I know I spoke too hastily when I wrote that... I beg you to understand that I sometimes have trouble finding right words, being a "foreigner" and all...

It's like you say, I called those who have prejudiced and groundless opinions morons, and unfortunately the image I have through news and media in general is that it is the conservatist party who opposes things like homosexuality, abortions, equality between men and women etc., simply because those things were banned before (and doesn't even the title "conservative" mean somebody who opposes changes?). I strongly believe that things shouldn't be taken for granted, no matter how many generations before us has done so, if you get my point.

Homosexuality is one of those things. Yes, most of the religions ban it, and homosexuals have had to hide their true personality for centuries or longer (yes, there has always been gay people), but this doesn't mean the future can't be different. Just because some book that billions of people read says it's unnatural, it doesn't mean it really is! To quote myself: "nothing in nature is unnatural".

And what goes to gay marriages, why do the ones who oppose it even care?! What is it up to them, really? Sure, they may say that their conscience goes against it, but there is really other feelings below them: fear, uncertainty, hatred, bitterness... I understand, but I don't approve.

Among my believings goes that each people is an individual, so it is really wrong of me to categorize every follower of a political party a moron, but - apart being both a hypocrite and somewhat schizophrenic (not diagnosed ;) ) - it is really hard to me to live up to my ideals as well, as is the case with every humanbeing, I believe.

So, sorry Boba, for being a moron myself. As you see, there's at least some intelligence in front of this PC as well. ;)

And now that I ranted endlessly about my beliefs, I should probably add something to the discussion. This whole "gay parents make their kids gay as well" falls into the same category of opinions caused by fear I mentioned earlier. Some people have this fixation that if they allow gay people to roam around free, the population will suddenly cease to grow (as gayness is contagious, of course), and it would mean the end of all civilization. That's some chain of logic, huh?

[oshi]

Hetero couples can get married and divorced on a whim. They can date for three months, decide that they're "meant for each other" and tie the knot. They can have three children that they don't want, and then they can decide that they "made a mistake" and get a divorce, despite the fact that they then have thrown three kids into an unstable environment, and effected their lives in an unchangable way.
Whereas a gay couple has to fight this hard, just to be able to gain the right to visit their loved one in a hospital? To share the same life insurance plan? What is wrong with this, now, hmm? Gays can barely adopt--even though there's no evidence that kids living with gay parents are negatively influenced.
I don't think that marriage means anything right now, anyway. My parents are married, and have been for twenty years, so I have a good example of it to guide me. But it's not about religion anymore. Firstly, it's about love, and second, about laws. You shouldn't get married unless you're in love, and if you love each other enough to get married, you should have the right to.
I guess I'm pretty open-minded about this kind of thing. I read an article a while ago about a French couple. They were brother and sister. However, they were perfect for each other. They're both very happy, and they have a lovely, healthy child. As long as your actions are not hurting anyone--which rules out pedophilic "relationships" and incest abuse--you should not be forced into the same mold as everybody else.
Everyone lives a different life, and everyone has different views. This shouldn't be a matter of religion--because everyone's take on that is different, too.

[SasukeUchiha]

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]You aren't talking about this little part of the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment? This clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." ?

That's the separation of church and state, right there... if anything, it keeps the government from telling people what religion to follow. Please recall why this was formed.. the religious conflict in England that ended up sending religious groups like the Puritans to the U.S. I feel that Boba explained the traditional aspects of marriage well enough, hopefully you will take some time to read his perspective.(Not just you Sasuke, to anyone that will inevitably rebut my argument.)[/QUOTE]

Oh i understand his perspective, he wants votes. Yes, there is an ammendment of the constitution, but has it really been carried out? Look at the Pledge of Allegiance or what you swear on when you testify in court.

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]What's so funny about an 18-year-old son that loves his 50-year-old father enough that they want to have sex and get married? How can you presumably say that it is WRONG?
Are you insinuating that homosexuals today aren?t happy with their current relationships? That somehow having some legal documentation would somehow make people ?Happy?? Not only that, I sincerely doubt all marriages would make people happy, as 50% of marriages today end in divorce. .[/QUOTE]

That first statement does not make sense to me, I am reading it and it is sounding very insulting to me, but I am not goign to make an issue out of it because I am not positive what point you were exactly trying to make. If marriage is just some document that will end in divorce, what is the problem with letting everyone have a go at it. And I am not saying that they are not happy, I am saying that they deserve to show their HAPPYNESS. I do not know your sexual orientation, but if you were gay, transgender, ect. and fell in love with someone I am sure you would want to express that too.


[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]Correct me if I?m wrong here, but doesn?t homosexual mean ?having sex with the same gender?? Sure some people think it?s legitimately dirty. As for unnatural? last time I checked, the anus was not for sex. If we are bringing naturalism into the arena, our duty as a species is to reproduce. Homosexuality fails the inherent purpose of humanity as a species.

..Equality? Surely you aren?t referring to the civil rights movement of the 60?s? I suppose from a biological perspective, you cannot consciously choose to be black. Can you consciously choose to be homosexual? Yes you can. I?m sure I?ll be able to elaborate later..[/QUOTE]

As for your first statement, heterosexual couples also have sex in the anus. Its not just a Gay thing. Once again I think that is offensive, your views are fine, and I will not attack you for them because everyone has the right to have an opinion.
....And you cannot consciously choose to be homosexual, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, who in their right mind would choose to be a homosexual and have people look down on them and be excluded from many of the RIGHTS we should have as Americans. I definitly would not and yet here I am.

[Maully]

[color=green]I figured that my post ending would be misinterprated. When I was talking about the family, I didn't mean anything about homosexual family units. I have no problem with this, actually. It is the bigomist and the pedophiles that will use the findings and orders of the courts in their favor, much to the derailment of the definition of family itself.

As to marriage, as I said before, I am for gay marriage in and of itself, but to make such a decision is short sited. When the Maine courts made their decision, within a week there was an appeal made by a man who was in prison for illegal puligamy. His grounds, if the constitution held up that the state cannot ban marriage between any two people, then he could not be in the wrong. He had several wives and 30-something kids, I believe. How sacred can marriage be at that point?

I've noticed that the separtion of church and state has been brought up here. That clause says that the church cannot rule the country and the country cannot rule the state. Saying that, even if gay marriage is pushed through, many churches would still not perform the cermonies, nor could the government force them to.

Boba, that's what I get, so, everyone, what's wrong with civil unions?

Boba, also, not only do we use the same font, Boba Fett was always my favorite Star Wars character.[/color]

[Transtic Nerve]

Do any of you get tired of arguing the same nonsense over and over again.

Look, whether or not people agree with it or it's against religion or whatever BS you can pull from out your arse, it the meaning behind our country as a free nation.... the fact, I, as a gay man cannot gain the same rights as lets say... Boba, a straight man, can in marriage makes this not a free country... By denying certain people certain rights that other people have is not freedom. It goes against the whole meaning of America... ofcourse, since anyone who opposes gay marriage is so stuck up in religion and this sanctity of marriage BS, they don't see that.

How many times must i tell you that [b]this isn't about religion[/b], this is about RIGHTS of the people. Please pull your head out of your arse and start saying anything else.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New][SIZE=2] Personally, I hold the same view on the subject as my English teacher. In his words, (these could have been taken from somewhere else, but he said them in class) "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the country it governs."[/SIZE][/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]

[color=green]The government may not have any business in the bedrooms of the people, but the people who make up the government do. This may seem wrong to some, but if a nation decides that it wants to outlaw something it can do so. If a majority of Americans decide that they simply don?t want to allow gay marriage in their country they have the means to outlaw it. This is a government by the people, for the people. The people will decide what goes on in their country.

California has exercised this right and other states, possibly even the federal government, may as well.[/color]

[quote name='Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New][SIZE=2] To be frank, I think the whole thing is very silly. If it's not hurting you directly, then you have no right to speak against it, unless it invovles hurting others. Since when does openly loving another human being count as hurting some one, aside from your ex-significant other?[/SIZE][/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]

[color=green]If it?s not hurting you directly, then you have no right to speak against it, unless it involves hurting others?

This will hurt others. It?ll crack the bedrock from which all society is based. Into that crack, things will pour. Finally, the rock will shatter.

I don?t like the idea of that happening. Our society has, for millennia, had marriages between one man and one woman. Together, they raise their children. It is only since the sexual revolution that our society has entered into a period of great social upheaval. Since then, things have gone downhill. I can tell you that the clothing some people, especially females, wear to school would have been completely unacceptable then. Janet Jackson would be a social outcast, unable to sell albums or get any kind of pop-star gig. Rappers who spew profanity would be looked upon with disgust, not admiration.

Legalizing gay marriage will further attack the traditional lifestyle that has served our culture well since America was founded. I don?t think we should throw it away now.[/color]

[QUOTE=Mitch][size=1][color=red] It's only for those morally upbrang religious people that seem to think it's wrong. That think having "morals" topples everything.
[/size][/color][/QUOTE]

[color=green]Only moral people think its wrong? Sounds like a good argument [b]against[/b] gay marriage to me.[/color]
[quote name='Mitch][size=1][color=red]It said all men are created equal. That's what the laws of this union state.[/size'][/color][/quote]

[color=green]That?s right. I?m just as equal as everyone else. Except when I apply to college, which is a different issue entirely.

It?s also my right to speak my mind, so I?ll take advantage of my first amendment right and do so. It?s fine if you oppose my position, but don?t expect me to take it lying down.[/color]

[Genkai]

[QUOTE=Boba Fett]

[color=green]Marriage has always been the bedrock of society. One man marries one woman and they raise their children together. If you begin to blur the definition of marriage, you will start to lose the sanctity that marriage currently enjoys.

Take the Netherlands for example, which is a secularist paradise. Homosexual unions have been legalized there for a little while now. Currently, marriage there is a joke and holds very little value. That country?s been burdened with far more than it?s fair share of dysfunctional families and unwanted children. Why? This is due to the fall of marriage. Without stable families, a nation will become unstable.

-Boba[/color][/QUOTE]

Marriage is the bedrock of society, true, but I don't think gay marriages will change that. Marriage is two people commited to eachother ( *glances at signature*). There are so many reasons that marriage is falling apart that have nothing to do with homosexuality, gay marriages will give the rights of a committed couple that straight couples enjoy and take for granted. A gay couple that had been together for years and years doesn't have some of the same rights as straights. For instance, such a couple could live in the same houehold and pay for it in joint, but if the one whose name it is under dies, does that mean that the other half of the couple gets it? No. Sorry, that's a bad example, but really, I need to ask...

How is it hurting anybody to help gays? There're no valid reasons, in my opinion, for gay marriages to become illegal, especially not fearing that society is going to become unstable because of it.

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']....our duty as a species is to reproduce. [/quote]

Yeah, but they're gay. So they're not gonna have sex with a member of the opposite sex in order to reproduce , anyway. There've been gays all throughout time. Not to mention, in the last 40 years, during which gays have mecome much more open, the population has DOUBLED. That's not even an ISSUE.


[quote name='Driix D'Zanth']Can you consciously choose to be homosexual? Yes, you can. [/quote]


[B]NO!![/b] If you were LGBT, you would know, it is not a concious decision. At ALL.

Really, it's not. It blows my mind that anyone could actually think this.

Sorry that this post was all over the place. I probably seem like an *** who has no idea what he's talking about. But really, I've looked into this. And I'm not seeing anything negative.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New][SIZE=2].
Personally, I hold the same view on the subject as my English teacher. In his words, (these could have been taken from somewhere else, but he said them in class) "The government has no business in the bedrooms of the country it governs."

[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

The government isn?t deciding a thing about the "bedroom". Sodomy is legal. Sodomy with the same gender is legal. As for the argument about "if it doesn?t hurt another person, why is it wrong, etc" I believe Boba and I once again share the same sentiments.

[QUOTE=Mitch][size=1][color=red] There was just a thread about this.

I'll say what I've said before succintly, since I don't see any reason to belabor it: being gay means nothing. [/size][/color][/QUOTE]

I?m sure the gay population would enjoy hearing this. As for it being wrong; that?s debatable. ;)

[QUOTE=Mitch][size=1][color=red]
It said all men are created equal. That's what the laws of this union state.
So where is the deal? I don't see it, certainly.
All men are created equal, and so same-sex marriage isn't wrong at all. All men (and women) should get the same. They should be treated equally; they should be allowed to do all the same thing.[/size][/color][/QUOTE]

All men are created equal. By this formula, murderers are created equal. I?m not about to say a murderer is any less "human" than anyone else. I oppose murder. I?m exaggerating here, get the point and move on. Just because people are created equal in skin doesn?t mean the government should support equality [I]en actum[/I]. I don?t treat gay people differently than I do homosexual people, I just disagree with a single life choice. The "all men are created equal" argument was used in the Civil Rights movement, right? Why did Martin Luther King, Jr. declare all men are created equal? Because God says that people are created equally. What precedent, other than some religious text, do you have to proclaim that all men are created equal?

[quote name='Shinken'] It's no better than what was done to try and illegalize the voting rights of slaves or women earlier in US history. As far as the Church's arguments against it... Don't get me started.[/quote]

Ladies and gentlemen.. start your engines. By all means, give your opinions of the Church on this. What does voting have to do with this? The only reason we were denying these people of their rights was because of their skin color or gender, something that cannot be helped.

[quote name='oshi']Hetero couples can get married and divorced on a whim. They can date for three months, decide that they're "meant for each other" and tie the knot. They can have three children that they don't want, and then they can decide that they "made a mistake" and get a divorce, despite the fact that they then have thrown three kids into an unstable environment, and effected their lives in an unchangable way. [/quote]

Ah, you are against divorce! So am I.

[QUOTE=oshi]
Whereas a gay couple has to fight this hard, just to be able to gain the right to visit their loved one in a hospital? To share the same life insurance plan? What is wrong with this, now, hmm? Gays can barely adopt--even though there's no evidence that kids living with gay parents are negatively influenced.
I don't think that marriage means anything right now, anyway. .[/QUOTE]

Last time I checked with my lawyer, I could (through power of attorney) share property, material deeds, hospital visits, several forms of insurance (except for some forms of life insurance and health insurance), if I had a kid I could share him, etc. The list goes on. I sincerely doubt that homosexuals want to get married because of the "benefits" (cause everyone knows, that?s why your parents got married ;) ) Please don?t discredit the value of marriage. You?re almost slapping the people who have had successful marriages in the face with that comment.

[QUOTE=oshi]
I guess I'm pretty open-minded about this kind of thing. I read an article a while ago about a French couple. They were brother and sister. However, they were perfect for each other. They're both very happy, and they have a lovely, healthy child. As long as your actions are not hurting anyone--which rules out pedophilic "relationships" and incest abuse--you should not be forced into the same mold as everybody else.
Everyone lives a different life, and everyone has different views. This shouldn't be a matter of religion--because everyone's take on that is different, too.[/QUOTE]

You underestimate the importance of religion in some people?s lives. It forms much of the moral fabric with which they abide by. The fact you don?t really care about the brother and sister getting married illustrates my point. You have realized that if you can?t oppose gay marriage, you can?t honestly oppose any form of marriage , incestial or not.

[quote name='SasukeUchiha']Oh i understand his perspective, he wants votes. Yes, there is an ammendment of the constitution, but has it really been carried out? Look at the Pledge of Allegiance or what you swear on when you testify in court. [/quote]

When do you say "I believe in God?". What "God" are do you think the pledge of allegiance refers to? Swearing in court "so help you God" doesn?t suddenly mean you have to believe, respect, or even know anything about any religion at all? The Declaration says our fundamental lives are "God-given", unalienable. This document was written by DIESTS, they didn?t believe in God, but they recognized that somehow they needed a moral foundation. The idea of an omnipotent and unchanging truth (as truth wavers within a populous) gives us a means to our freedoms.

[QUOTE=SasukeUchiha]
That first statement does not make sense to me, I am reading it and it is sounding very insulting to me, but I am not goign to make an issue out of it because I am not positive what point you were exactly trying to make. If marriage is just some document that will end in divorce, what is the problem with letting everyone have a go at it. And I am not saying that they are not happy, I am saying that they deserve to show their HAPPYNESS. I do not know your sexual orientation, but if you were gay, transgender, ect. and fell in love with someone I am sure you would want to express that too. .[/QUOTE]

I never said marriage is a document that ends in divorce. I was elaborating on the fact that you can base the same arguments for ideas like incest on the same principles homosexuality are based on. As Boba said before, this is the foundation of our social structure crumbling before our eyes. Marriage isn?t an expression of love, it?s a commitment. Gay people express happiness about their sexual orientation as much as you could expect from anyone. Just because something makes you happy, doesn?t make it right.

[QUOTE=SasukeUchiha]
As for your first statement, heterosexual couples also have sex in the anus. Its not just a Gay thing. Once again I think that is offensive, your views are fine, and I will not attack you for them because everyone has the right to have an opinion.
....And you cannot consciously choose to be homosexual, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard, who in their right mind would choose to be a homosexual and have people look down on them and be excluded from many of the RIGHTS we should have as Americans. I definitly would not and yet here I am.[/QUOTE]

I never said it was restricted to homosexual couples. But that?s the only means male homosexuals may have sexual relations. Females also have unconventional sex. It is as unnatural in a homosexual?s bed as it is in a heterosexual?s bed.

You cannot choose who you love. Much less choose what "love" is. With such an esoteric meaning all leading back to some poorly defined concept, I?m not sure love even merits homosexual marriage. Who knows what love is? We cannot define love at all! So while you can?t choose the way you feel about someone, can you honestly say that you fall in love? From a scientific standpoint, love is a nice mixture of oxitosin, epinephrine, norepinephrine, dopamine, and a few other chemicals inspired by the desire to have sex. Usually this stimulation comes from a member of the same sex. However, every once in a while, these chemicals mix when we see a member of the same sex. Did our bodies make a mistake? Physiological evidence says yes; we are only human, after all.

The conscious choice appears in whether or not we act upon the feelings of our heart. In terms of the government supporting a validation of an act that I consider unnatural or morally wrong; I must oppose such suggestion.

Lastly, quit shouting the word "rights" as if they appear so unfounded. Why do you think we have "rights" in the first place? What exactly did you, or I do to deserve the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']Do any of you get tired of arguing the same nonsense over and over again. [/quote]

Yes.

[QUOTE=Transtic Nerve]
Look, whether or not people agree with it or it's against religion or whatever BS you can pull from out your arse, it the meaning behind our country as a free nation.... the fact, I, as a gay man cannot gain the same rights as lets say... Boba, a straight man, can in marriage makes this not a free country... By denying certain people certain rights that other people have is not freedom. It goes against the whole meaning of America... ofcourse, since anyone who opposes gay marriage is so stuck up in religion and this sanctity of marriage BS, they don't see that.

How many times must i tell you that [b]this isn't about religion[/b], this is about RIGHTS of the people. Please pull your head out of your arse and start saying anything else.[/QUOTE]

My neighbor pays less of a tax bracket because he?s poor. My black friend got into the University of Michigan and I didn?t, because his race was the equivalent of an SAT. Equality? Fair? As far as I?m concerned, homosexual and heterosexual sex are opposites, how are they equal? You also must identify which you support.

Marriage is a religious institution. Civil union is not. In order to demand gay marriage means you must demand a change in the customs and religious ceremony that is marriage (it came before the state ceremony, which is at it?s basic form a civil union). Nothing is being denied at all, Chris, you are asking for something that wasn?t offered in the first place (I?m highlighting on the root that perspectives are being spun, here). Homosexuals just want it to be CHANGED. You are claiming an unfounded right.

How many times must you be told that religion and morals have as much validity as your arguments for the "rights" to gay marriage. Why do you believe you have that right? Well, compare those to the beliefs of those who oppose your opinion, and you will understand why people oppose it. Don?t forget how important religion is to people, it?s the reason people believe we have any rights to begin with. How on earth can we justify rights without some moral foundation? Morality is merely the ability to distinguish what you believe is right and wrong, not merely a right or a "wrong"(crime, etc).

We are all forgetting that it can be peacefully opposed from a biological standpoint J (Although, I don?t think biology has much to do when validating a civil act).

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=violet]There's been some talk about the moralityof allowing same sex couples to marry. I'll probably sound either stupid or redundant but how can allowing two people who are in love be considered imoral? Explain that.

As TN has been saying, this idea has nothing to do with religion and I agree with him on it. What it has to do is with allowing people the right to marriage-the ability to enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples. The right to see their partner in ICU and to adopt children. Basic human rights which are given to most couples.

I can argue logically and legitamately on this topic. My husband had a much more stable home life when he lived with his auint and her partner than when he lived with his mother and her string of live-in boyfriends. So I fail to see how two men or two woman could fail in their attempt to offer a child a stable loving home.

I was watching World News Tonight a few minutes ago and one of the legislator's from California says that in the long run this could be detrimental to the complete legalization of same sex marriages. This legislator is gay. I'm curious to see what other people think about this man's opinion. Do you feel that one person's opposition to a state's ruling could help or hurt people in the long run?

I'm all for democracy, but I can't see how a country that denies a group of people the basic right of marriage can be considered a democracy. If there was a law baring people from different religions or different ethnic backgrounds from marrying people would be all over the place to take down that law. How is homosexual marriage any different? (Try to stay away from bringing up incest, that isn't the same thing at all) Even if you don't want to give them a right to marry, atleast give them a civil union-or even a right to common law marriage (if that's anywhere close to the same thing. IF I got that wrong let me know.)

As for marriage being a sacred thing. Throughout history it hasn't been very sacred at all. People were married off like property to secure land or dimplomatic ties. Besides that fact, many of the european monarchs had mistresses, only sleeping with their legal spouses to produce legitamate children. Infact, King James I of England as well as a few of the French kings were homosexuals.

Well, I've included a bit more of my opinion, take it as you will

Chibi Horsewoman[/color]

[Brasil]

I think we may be asking the wrong questions. Drix, Mods and all, forgive the spam.

madsatirist (6:52:01 PM): Sup
madsatirist (6:52:05 PM): When you're at a party,
fat clown6969 (6:52:06 PM): n/m You?
fat clown6969 (6:52:08 PM): lol
fat clown6969 (6:52:10 PM): yes?
madsatirist (6:52:11 PM): and see two chicks hook up,
madsatirist (6:52:16 PM): what goes through your mind?
fat clown6969 (6:52:24 PM): gah
fat clown6969 (6:52:27 PM): disappointment
fat clown6969 (6:52:36 PM): cause I missed two opportunities ;-)
madsatirist (6:52:38 PM): cause you're not getting in on the action
madsatirist (6:52:39 PM): lol
madsatirist (6:52:45 PM): seriously, though
madsatirist (6:52:49 PM): when two chicks hook-up
madsatirist (6:52:53 PM): what goes through your mind
madsatirist (6:53:00 PM): you stop for a few minutes and admire it, right?
fat clown6969 (6:53:04 PM): two lesbians
fat clown6969 (6:53:07 PM): usually no
fat clown6969 (6:53:15 PM): I tend not to dwell on it
fat clown6969 (6:53:21 PM): now.. if these two girls are like...
fat clown6969 (6:53:23 PM): getting it on
fat clown6969 (6:53:39 PM): My body starts to do things that my conscience doesnt like ;-)
madsatirist (6:53:43 PM): hehe
madsatirist (6:53:52 PM): so you're cool with watching two lesbians doing stuff
fat clown6969 (6:54:02 PM): I have to be honest
fat clown6969 (6:54:07 PM): no.. logically I'm not
fat clown6969 (6:54:19 PM): I don't agree with what they are doing
madsatirist (6:54:33 PM): ...
madsatirist (6:54:35 PM): ?
madsatirist (6:54:39 PM): lol
fat clown6969 (6:54:41 PM): I know
fat clown6969 (6:54:46 PM): I'm no man *turns in shame*
fat clown6969 (6:54:47 PM): ;-)
madsatirist (6:54:48 PM): hahaha
fat clown6969 (6:55:10 PM): the whole media image of guys liking lesbians really doesn't realistically apply to me
madsatirist (6:55:20 PM): oh?
fat clown6969 (6:55:24 PM): I don't like lesbianism.. *shrug*
fat clown6969 (6:55:38 PM): just gets me hot..
madsatirist (6:55:39 PM): so if two of the most gorgeous women invited you to their place
fat clown6969 (6:55:43 PM): hot girls... gah
madsatirist (6:55:51 PM): you would go, right?
fat clown6969 (6:56:29 PM): Why would i decline their invitation?
fat clown6969 (6:56:35 PM): If they started having sex, I'd probably leave
fat clown6969 (6:56:47 PM): but I don't avoid people because they are lesbians, Alex
madsatirist (6:57:05 PM): care to elaborate?
fat clown6969 (6:57:55 PM): Well... I value my morals.
fat clown6969 (6:58:10 PM): If someone would ask to have sex with me (with the exception of Natalie Portman) I would probably decline
fat clown6969 (6:58:17 PM): Because I don't think it's right.
fat clown6969 (6:58:33 PM): Now, because two lesbians getting it on makes me hot, doesn't mean I'm cool with their choice
fat clown6969 (6:58:40 PM): I just get horny over it..
fat clown6969 (6:59:01 PM): You know that study saying the average male thinks about sex ever 15 seconds?
madsatirist (6:59:01 PM): brb
fat clown6969 (6:59:04 PM): np
madsatirist (7:05:11 PM): I had to take out ze trahsh
madsatirist (7:05:13 PM): hehe
fat clown6969 (7:05:55 PM): oh
madsatirist (7:06:02 PM): So, do you mean to tell me that you don't succumb to your naughty bits at all?
fat clown6969 (7:06:21 PM): I'm not Jesus. I make mistakes
fat clown6969 (7:06:26 PM): :-)
madsatirist (7:06:29 PM): hehe
madsatirist (7:06:34 PM): so you have gotten with people
fat clown6969 (7:06:38 PM): Hmm?
madsatirist (7:06:39 PM): more than one person at a time
madsatirist (7:06:42 PM): ?
fat clown6969 (7:06:47 PM): *shifty eyes*
madsatirist (7:06:51 PM): I've got my post
fat clown6969 (7:06:54 PM): let's just say I.. have

[color=darkred] Naughty, naughty Alex. Posting only half the story? Right before we concluded that it was a hypothetical suggestion that I've had sex? I suppose you people should know that I've not had sex.. so let that story end there. Oh, and let me add that I later said that I don't avoid people or dislike people because they are gay...I just disagree with one of their personal choices.~Drix[/color]

See, the liberals here are asking the wrong questions. While Drix doesn't agree with what gays do, he would watch them during certain activities. Scruples are an unfortunate thing, eh Drix?

It seems that the entire argument against gay marriage is out of a...self-consciousness, in that people still feel uncomfortable around those who are different.

You know, I think that's what the whole thing boils down to:

People are still very uptight. They don't want to succumb to matters of the flesh, because their conscience (or socially-imposed boundaries) says so.

Something to think about. Dinnertime for me, so I'll be back.