What do otakus think about Homosexuality?

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][quote name='Drix']If a homosexual couple walks into a church, swap rings, and the priest gives them their blessing, I don?t care. If they want to call eachother husband, and husband? I don?t care. If they want to visit eachother at hospitals, and have equal property transfer; I don?t care! In fact, I support their ability to do so![/quote] That is good. I don't see why they should ban gay marriages though. I'm glad you support their ability to do so, and wouldn't interfere with that right. It is people who want to ban it that I think are unreasonable.

Heterosexual relationships and marriage don't always mean the best for the baby. A fair number of them don't even have babies, so, excepting "sociological non-religious purposes", there is no reason to ban them...and the "sociological non-religious purposes" don't work either, as there is nothing to suggest that gay marriaged partners will be any better or worse than straight partners. Basically, no reason to ban gay marriage.

[quote name='Adahn']On that note, to me, man-on-man relations are about as bad as having sexual relations with animals. The person could enjoy it, and so could the animal. It's just an example of how something that doesn't hurt anyone can still be considered wrong.[/quote] Ignoring, of course, the fact that it is cross-species and mutual love is not an issue...[/size]

[Kitty]

[COLOR=Blue][SIZE=1]What do [i]I[/i] think? To be honest, nothing. The subject rarely crosses my mind.

Why? Maybe because I've shut out all talk of the subject. Or, possibly, I plain out don't care.

Actually, it could be a bit of both. It would be because I have a set opinion. I don't really care what anyone else thinks, nor should anyone dealing with disapproval of their sexual preference. Therefore, I don't listen to anyone else's "bitching" about it, or really think about it much.

My two closest friends joke about, as they like to put it, "the gayness of others". I find this childish and stupid. Therefore, I don't take part in it. What they do, everyday during lunch, is make fun of how "gay" things are. It has become a common adjective in their, already, crude and obscene vocabulary. "Gay", however, is not a word I use much at all.

In fact, if I hadn't, long ago, decided to [b]accept their choices and not try to change them, whether it be for what I think the better or not[/b], I might not be friends with them to this day.

Now, read what I just typed in bold. Read it again. That's what I think [i]everyone[/i] should do. Not that I'm going to force anyone to do so.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]
Ignoring, of course, the fact that it is cross-species and mutual love is not an issue...[/size][/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]*spawns a mini-debate*[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Why is sex between different species wrong? *thinks of mules*[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Also, since when does love have anything to do with sex? Mutual enjoyment can be shared in either case.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I'm not ignoring anything but what seems obvious to me. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me.[/color][/size][/font]

[eleanor]

[i]But please, if you are asking my opinion on your lifestyle and how it should be publicly recognized; I?m going to examine my moral fiber and give you a vote/answer. When homosexual marriage is brought up to change our definition of marriage for the sake of ?equality? I chuckle to myself and say, ?Sorry buddy, you got to meat the prerequisites.? I don?t think homosexuals should get married for the same reason rich people shouldn?t get welfare: they don?t meet what I see as requirements for marriage! My ?requirements? aren?t very difficult? they are the same sociological non-religious purposes that I think marriage was created for: the benefits are for the baby. There is nothing sociologically unhealthy about too many heterosexual marriages. Can there be too many homosexual relationships? It is certainly possible. Not only that, bringing the idea of homosexual marriage into a public forum such as government, especially within a republic ?of the people? you demand my ethically-supported response. I would be deceiving my moral obligation as a Christian and a voter to just vote ?yes? when I don?t believe it is ?right?. [/i]

[color=darkslateblue] Just to say, right off the bat, I am NOT directing the rest of this post at you, Drix. I'm merely using it to direct it the people that I'll soon be talking about.

Personally, I think that's an excellent response. Most of my friends would go with that response. I'm really very glad that you're not running around screaming 'bloody murder' everytime you hear about a gay marriage and saying 'homos sucks' or w/e people say, so I respect you. :)

Well, actually, now that I think of it, the quote doesn't fit that well with what I'm saying... >_>.

Anyways, I get really sick when some people say 'I don't care about gay people getting married, but I still don't think it's right because it violates the meaning of marriage and etc. etc. etc.' BUT, they think Britney Spears's, what, 40 hour marriage or something, is better than two gay people getting married.

Hello, people!

In my opinion, and possibly many other people's opinion, marriage is a very SERIOUS thing and it should not be taken light in any way whatsoever. What I'm basically saying is that I get angry at people who dislike:

Two gay people getting married and having a very good and positive relationship for the rest of their lives

but they think:

Britney Spears running off and marrying some guy for like, a day, is better than the above happening.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=maladjusted][color=darkslateblue] Just to say, right off the bat, I am NOT directing the rest of this post at you, Drix. I'm merely using it to direct it the people that I'll soon be talking about.

Personally, I think that's an excellent response. Most of my friends would go with that response. I'm really very glad that you're not running around screaming 'bloody murder' everytime you hear about a gay marriage and saying 'homos sucks' or w/e people say, so I respect you. :)

Well, actually, now that I think of it, the quote doesn't fit that well with what I'm saying... >_>.

Anyways, I get really sick when some people say 'I don't care about gay people getting married, but I still don't think it's right because it violates the meaning of marriage and etc. etc. etc.' BUT, they think Britney Spears's, what, 40 hour marriage or something, is better than two gay people getting married.

Hello, people!

In my opinion, and possibly many other people's opinion, marriage is a very SERIOUS thing and it should not be taken light in any way whatsoever. What I'm basically saying is that I get angry at people who dislike:

Two gay people getting married and having a very good and positive relationship for the rest of their lives

but they think:

Britney Spears running off and marrying some guy for like, a day, is better than the above happening.[/color][/QUOTE]

Hey, I think both are equally immoral! I am against frivolous divorce and marriages like Mrs. Spears' as much as I'd be against gay marriage. But the system can't stop that from happening, it is flawed after all. Adding homosexuality would do nothing to benefit marriage, in my opinion, and possibly work as retroactively as any sort of Brittany marrriage.

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] ^_^ Yeah, I figured you would think that. I'm just talking about the other people... [/color]

[Lunai]

[color=green]I have a perspective on this...

I realized when I became sexually active (at the ripe age of 19) that I was bisexual. It had nothing to do with experimentation, although I've heard a lot of comments to that effect. It wasn't a choice I made...simply put, I am attracted to both males & females and enjoy having relationships & sexual relations with both.

This isn't something that I flaunt. I just don't feel the need. The majority of those who know me well enough to have my phone number are quite aware. But I've never personally felt the need to advocate it.

I can feel for you, Miryoku. I am very aware that my grandmother wouldn't understand or accept my bisexuality. She has enough trouble with the idea that I have male friends I spend time with and don't sleep with! Sometimes, you just have to try. With parents, I would imagine that it's much harder to try. And by try, I mean try to get everyone to an acceptance point. Perhaps they don't want to meet any of your significant others...[i]ever[/i]...but perhaps at some point they won't be cold towards you for your lifestyle.

As far as homosexual rights concerning marriage is concerned, I think that if you're a consenting adult, you should be able to marry another consenting adult. No matter what the sex.

Now, as far as marches in San Francisco and wearing t-shirts, and things of that nature concerning gay rights go: I cannot help but compare it to racial equality movements of a few decades ago (the 60s). Perhaps this has something to do with my being Black. But historically it seems to me that anytime there is a political platform which includes telling someone that you cannot do what everyone else does because of [u]insert reason here[/u] then I see people marching, organizing against it.

As far as nearly everything goes, I am a big fan of the paraphrased Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm."[/color]

[Baron Samedi]

[size=1][quote=Adahn]*spawns a mini-debate*

Why is sex between different species wrong? *thinks of mules*

Also, since when does love have anything to do with sex? Mutual enjoyment can be shared in either case.

I'm not ignoring anything but what seems obvious to me. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me.[/quote]How could it be anything but obvious? With humans, there is more to it than enjoyment. There is [generally...] love involved too. An animal cannot experience love, in any way that we can acknowledge. There is a significant difference between a donkey and a horse mating, and a human and another animal mating. Not only would it involve coupling with a completely different species, but as humans, we know more than survival and procreation. We have morals, and ethics.

And, aside from humans, there are only three other species known to have sex for 'enjoyment'. Dolphins, pigs, and... monkeys [not sure about the monkeys though...].[/size]

[TheShinje]

[size=1][color=Teal]
I thought I'd just throw in a little FYI, concerning the homsexuality found among animals.


As Christians, we believe that we are set apart from the animals. This means that finding homosexuality amongst animals isn't a free license to practise so. Animals don't have the law, or the Bible. Some animals eat their own young... but I think that's been brought up in this thread already, so I won't beat a dead horse here.

Again, not being 'homophobic' here, I'm just sick of that argument is all.[/color][/size]

[Adahn]

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1]How could it be anything but obvious? With humans, there is more to it than enjoyment. There is [generally...] love involved too. [/size][size=1']An animal cannot experience love, in any way that we can acknowledge.[size=2][/quote][/size][/size]
[size=2][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I agree with you when you say that sex is wrong without love, if that's what you're saying. However, I don't really see how it helps your point. People have sex without love all the time, and nobody cares. People even pay to have sex with other people.[/color][/size][/font]
[size=1][/size]
[QUOTE=Baron Samedi]
[size=1]There is a significant difference between a donkey and a horse mating, and a human and another animal mating. Not only would it involve coupling with a completely different species,[/size]
[size=1][size=2][/QUOTE][/size][/size]
[size=2][/size]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]A donkey and a horse are completely different species. A species is defined as 'organisms capable of mating and producing viable offspring'. Mules are sterile.[/color][/size][/font]
[size=2][/size]
[QUOTE=Baron Samedi]
[size=1] but as humans, we know more than survival and procreation. We have morals, and ethics.[size=2][/QUOTE][/size][/size]
[size=1][size=2][/size][/size]
[size=1][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Would you care to explain how humans having 'morals and ethics' supports your point? From what I can tell, 'morals and ethics' are anything but static, as we can see from this thread, itself. It is wrong to have sex with animals because it says so in the Bible. Do people enjoy having sex with animals? Yes. Can animals enjoy it, or at least not be harmed by it? Yes. It's just a matter of time before man-animal sex activists are given their rights, too.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi]
And, aside from humans, there are only three other species known to have sex for 'enjoyment'. Dolphins, pigs, and... monkeys [not sure about the monkeys though...].[/size][/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]From what I know, male-male sexual relationships are more enjoyable for one person than the other. Since we can't ask animals how they feel, there's no reason for us to assume that the passive partner enjoys it any more or less than an animal would.[/color][/size][/font]

[Dagger]

[quote name='Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]From what I know, male-male sexual relationships are more enjoyable for one person than the other. Since we can't ask animals how they feel, there's no reason for us to assume that the passive partner enjoys it any more or less than an animal would.[/color][/size'][/font][/quote]

Um... aren't you making an [i]extremely[/i] offensive assumption here? What is the phrase "from what I know" supposed to imply, anyway? Does it automatically let you off the hook if you're completely wrong?

~Dagger~

[Retribution]

Everyone, [b]stop quoting the Bible[/b]. It's people like who you are blind to other people's points of view and opinions.

For all you know, the person reading your post couldn't care less about the Bible, it's message, or it's meaning to the argument. It's just another book. Sure, I'm a Christian, too, but we live in AMERICA. And in AMERICA, we get to practice whatever religion we want, so don't bring religion into this debate, please. 'Immorality' is complete garbage, since we do plenty of immoral things every day, but no one lifts a brow or points a finger at.

In this country, we aren't allowed to discriminate against people on their race, gender, [b]creed[/b], religion, etc. Meaning, we shouldn't be allowed to amend the ****in Constitution with a *** amendment, that contradicts it!

Soo... in conclusion, don't flash your religious beliefs just to get an amendment passed, because other people don't share your view, so why are you allowed to cram it down someones throat?

[DarkOtakuBoy]

Well, I came out about a year ago. Luckly, here in New Jersey its more or less liberal as you can get, so I never had one problem or lost one friend from being gay. I just, I dunno....I dont even, nor ever HAVE seen it as an issue. My mom is a little (ok, a lot) disturbed about it, but I guess its understandable.
I was just so happy when I told my friends and they basically said, "umm...so? i thought you had something important to tell us." Its just so wonderful that a lot of people dont even SEE it as an issue anymore. I always just looked at it as a sexual preference and not a lifestyle or a social issue. For example, my friend asked me once why I dont wear rainbow pins in support of "the cause", and I told him, I'll never have gay pride because in my life, I wanna have pride in my accomplishemts, not preferences. Also, I just hate making something into a political issue. (My old punk rock anarchist days are still showing. lol.)
The cool thing about coming out is, I met some awesome gay otaku right in my school, and made some close friends. I used to think gay anime fans were a rare breed, but its so cool that when your 'out', people feel secure and will tell you about themselves too, when they wont tell anyone else. I'm thankful that I made some people confortable when they were going through being in the closet, cause I know from experence that 'the closet' is a very lonely place.

As for gay marrage. Lets just say I'm against the whole institution of marrage. I dont need a church or the U.S. government to dictate the unconditional love me and my boyfriend feel.(if i still had one. lol.) This is only my personal opinion.

Dark Otaku Boy

[I]'I'm a 21st century digital boy! I dont know how to read, but I got a lot of toys' - Bad Religion[/I]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]Um... aren't you making an [i]extremely[/i] offensive assumption here? What is the phrase "from what I know" supposed to imply, anyway? Does it automatically let you off the hook if you're completely wrong?

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]Well, I just took a course on Ancient Greece that placed male-male relationships above male-female ones. In a male-male relationship, one partner was active, and one was passive. Passive partners could lose citizenship for being penetrated, and the older partner was always active. The goal of the active partner was to satisfy himself.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]In every male-male homosexual act, one partner is active, and one is passive. One penetrates, and the other is penetrated. If you want to read more into it, I suggest Plato's [i]Symposium[/i]. If people are offended by what I say, I can't help that. I'm just basing my statements off of what I [i]know.[/i][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't know how things are done today, and I don't care to know. The active/passive part of it, however, cannot be contradicted.[/color][/size][/font]

[James]

[QUOTE=Adahn][font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]In every male-male homosexual act, one partner is active, and one is passive. One penetrates, and the other is penetrated. If you want to read more into it, I suggest Plato's [i]Symposium[/i]. If people are offended by what I say, I can't help that. I'm just basing my statements off of what I [i]know.[/i][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't know how things are done today, and I don't care to know. The active/passive part of it, however, cannot be contradicted.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE]

[color=#811C3A]o_O;;

So you are now defining the sexual acts that EVERY homosexual couple undertakes?

That is highly, [i]highly[/i] presumptuous. I guarantee you, not every homosexual relationship involves either penetration or clearly defined active/passive roles.

That's yet another stereotype and it isn't even being presented here with very much of a purpose. Even if it were true, there's no real point to it. I think that DarkOtakuBoy said it best -- people shouldn't be judged based on their sexuality (just as I wouldn't judge a straight couple for doing something "kinky" in their bedroom or whatever), or their race, or their nationality or whatever else. They should be judged on their character first and foremost.

I think that regardless of people's views, that is surely something people will agree on, at a basic level.[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Altron]
In this country, we aren't allowed to discriminate against people on their race, gender, [b]creed[/b], religion, etc. Meaning, we shouldn't be allowed to amend the ****in Constitution with a *** amendment, that contradicts it!

Soo... in conclusion, don't flash your religious beliefs just to get an amendment passed, because other people don't share your view, so why are you allowed to cram it down someones throat?[/QUOTE]

I posted this argument first because I want you to read it first, everyone. Just take your time and view it's oh-so-heartwarming ponit. Let's move on to the second point when you are ready... and make a glass of warm milk, cause this might go down hard.

[QUOTE=Altron]Everyone, [b]stop quoting the Bible[/b]. It's people like who you are blind to other people's points of view and opinions.

For all you know, the person reading your post couldn't care less about the Bible, it's message, or it's meaning to the argument. It's just another book. Sure, I'm a Christian, too, but we live in AMERICA. And in AMERICA, we get to practice whatever religion we want, so don't bring religion into this debate, please. 'Immorality' is complete garbage, since we do plenty of immoral things every day, but no one lifts a brow or points a finger at.[/QUOTE]

You see it? It's tricky, hidden behind a self-righteous attempt at social justice. It's kinda hard to intepret beyond all the regurgitated rhetoric I hear at every event supporting the "right" to marry.

Behind the smoke and mirrors we get some good ol' fashioned discrimination! Now, that my be too hard a word... suffice it to say, he just tried to completely devalue my entire ethical foundation! He just tried to say that opinions, when referring to a MORAL foundation, when commiting an ETHICAL decisions, are worth nothing when influenced by the Bible. Sorry buddy, bible-born ethics are no less substantial than any of your opinions. I know you hate to consider the fact that certain people may view homosexual marriage as "immoral", and for all intensive purposes that is perfectly fine! Instead of trying to attack the ground he stands on, why don't you be a reasonable young debate machine and try an honest rebuttal.

You have to learn that "not agreeing" with someones opinion doesn't always mean that i haven't listened to it. I've listened to yours, and the opinions of others on this debate forum for a couple years now, and whatever ethical background they draw it from (socratic philosophy, the Koran, the Torah, Christianity, Hume's method of doubt). God forbid I tell them that what they say is irrelevant because of their "creed" or "religion". Voltaire once stated: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.''

When I am asked whether or not I support Gay marriage, I am called to an ethical dilemma. How I come to my conclusions are my business, how I ameliorate them are my arguments, and my arguments [b]will[/b] hold as much bearing in [i]any[/i] argument as much as the next voter.

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=Altron]Everyone, [b]stop quoting the Bible[/b]. It's people like who you are blind to other people's points of view and opinions.

For all you know, the person reading your post couldn't care less about the Bible, it's message, or it's meaning to the argument. It's just another book. Sure, I'm a Christian, too, but we live in AMERICA. And in AMERICA, we get to practice whatever religion we want, so don't bring religion into this debate, please. 'Immorality' is complete garbage, since we do plenty of immoral things every day, but no one lifts a brow or points a finger at.

In this country, we aren't allowed to discriminate against people on their race, gender, [b]creed[/b], religion, etc. Meaning, we shouldn't be allowed to amend the ****in Constitution with a *** amendment, that contradicts it!

Soo... in conclusion, don't flash your religious beliefs just to get an amendment passed, because other people don't share your view, so why are you allowed to cram it down someones throat?[/QUOTE]

Um, last I checked the purpose of this thread was to ascertain people's opinions on homosexuality. NEWSFLASH: People's religion's color their opinions! What a shocking idea, that one of the core elements of your personhood should effect your opinions!!!

See my thread on censorship in california. Like it or not, religion is part of life. Deal with it.

[Retribution]

Before I reply, I guess I was a little wronged at attacking people's 'ground to stand on,' instead of 'giving a rebuttal to their opinion.'

[QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]
God forbid I tell them that what they say is irrelevant because of their "creed" or "religion". [/QUOTE]
Not irrelevant. Just no reason to ban something. It contradicts our Constitution, and unless we amend it, it'll stay that way for a long while. Whether you're for the issue or against it, really doesn't change the way the Constitution is written.

That's why I think this whole issue is ludicrous, mainly because we have no right to be voting over this stuff. If you want to ban gay marriage, delete the word 'creed' out of it. THEN we can start the votes.

And just because we think that according to our faith, gays are immoral or whatever, doesn't mean they think so. And if they don't think so, can you really push your beliefs down their throats? Don't try to live other people's lives just because of your opinion.

The sanctity of marriage? Who said they'd have to have a Christian or even relgious marriage. A state marriage would do, so long as they have the same rights as a straight person.

And Xander, I never said that it wasn't. I was saying that we have no right amending the constitution based on a party(s) decisions on what is 'moral or not.' The way you vote can and will be affected on your religion, I'm just saying that Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have the right to push their beliefs on others.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=Altron]
Not irrelevant. Just no reason to ban something. .[/QUOTE]
I might be reading between the lines, but isn't calling something irrelevant about the same thing as saying it has no "reasonable" bearing on an argument?

[QUOTE=Altron]
It contradicts our Constitution, and unless we amend it, it'll stay that way for a long while. Whether you're for the issue or against it, really doesn't change the way the Constitution is written. .[/QUOTE]
Kiddo, if the Constitution were that easy to intepret, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court. Please, tell me where in the constitution it mentions "gay marriage"?
[QUOTE=Altron]
That's why I think this whole issue is ludicrous, mainly because we have no right to be voting over this stuff. If you want to ban gay marriage, delete the word 'creed' out of it. THEN we can start the votes..[/QUOTE]
This is especially interesting, first you quote the Constituion like it's somehow solving this whole issue, then you conclude that our basic right to vote should be removed and that Gay Marriage should just be instituted without asking the people.... that's the AMERICA I love!

[QUOTE=Altron]
And just because we think that according to our faith, gays are immoral or whatever, doesn't mean they think so. And if they don't think so, can you really push your beliefs down their throats? Don't try to live other people's lives just because of your opinion.[/QUOTE]

As a matter of fact and in a subtler sense, we [i]can[/i] "push eachother's beleifs" down eachother's throats! I'm not "pushing" my beliefs on anyone, [b]I[/b] am not the one that wants to change anything. It's homosexuals (and their supporters) that want to change marriage... not the other way around.

If you had read the previous posts, rather than "pushing your beliefs" down my throat, you would somehow understand that I'm not arguing against homosexuality or their ability to marry. I just don't believe it should be recognized in public forum; aka Government.

[QUOTE=Altron]
The sanctity of marriage? Who said they'd have to have a Christian or even relgious marriage. A state marriage would do, so long as they have the same rights as a straight person.[/QUOTE]

When was sanctity an issue? I don't need the government telling me that I'm married to someone. I will accept the privilages that marriage brings, but I don't need them to somehow ameliorate my marriage!

[James]

[color=#811C3A]I only have one question. If the Government does not recognize a marriage, what makes it a marriage? At least, in a legal sense.

I say that because the main reason for gay marriage to be pushed forward (other than the simple question of equality for all people) is to allow partners certain basic rights (ie: hospital visits, rights relating to the death of a spouse and so on). I mean, if a legal basis were to be created, I assume that the government should acknowledge it.

I understand people not wanting the church to recognize it -- but the government is different. I'm sure the government probably recognizes a lot of things that people disagree with, but it does so as a matter of equal rights under the law.

So I'd tend to make the distinction between government and church. If churches choose not to recognize such things, that's fine -- they're private institutions that are generally able to make their own rules and codes of conduct.[/color]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']I might be reading between the lines, but isn't calling something irrelevant about the same thing as saying it has no "reasonable" bearing on an argument?[/quote]
Yes, you're reading waaay between the lines. Stop overanalyzing. You know what I mean.

[quote]
Kiddo, if the Constitution were that easy to intepret, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court. Please, tell me where in the constitution it mentions "gay marriage"?[/quote]
Seriously, cut the elusive answer stuff. From what you are saying, if the constitution doesn't explicitly say it, it's a loophole? *sigh* Anyway.

[quote]This is especially interesting, first you quote the Constituion like it's somehow solving this whole issue, then you conclude that our basic right to vote should be removed and that Gay Marriage should just be instituted without asking the people.... that's the AMERICA I love![/quote]
... I didn't quote the Constituion like it'll solve anything, only to further my point, in that we, in my opinion, have no right voting over this, because in our Representative Democracy, we can't vote to change the Constitution. Only our reps, therefore, we can't vote on this issue, so how could I be even claiming to remove your right to it? You never had it in the first place. And why do gays need your or someone else's permission to live their life? I guess you can always pull that 'immorality' think on me again, like people seem to be doing now.

[quote]As a matter of fact and in a subtler sense, we [i]can[/i] "push each other's beleifs" down eachother's throats! I'm not "pushing" my beliefs on anyone, [b]I[/b] am not the one that wants to change anything.[/quote]
What do you mean by this?
[quote]
It's homosexuals (and their supporters) that want to change marriage... not the other way around.[/quote]
Yes and no. Homosexuals do want to change marriage, in the sense that it isn't only between a man and woman, but also a man + man, woman + woman. No, because laws never said that it [i]had[/i] to be between a man and woman. That's why Bush and his people are scrambling to ban it in the states.

[quote]
If you had read the previous posts, rather than "pushing your beliefs" down my throat, you would somehow understand that I'm not arguing against homosexuality or their ability to marry. I just don't believe it should be recognized in public forum; aka Government.[/quote]
Pushing my beliefs down your throat? No, I was defending my position, stating my opinion, and answering your questions, as well as posing some of my own. Pushing my beliefs down your throat would be something like
... I'm a Christian, and you're a Jew. In the Bible, it says that all other religions are sinful and wrong. So I either forcibly convert you to Christianity or killl you.
I've read your posts, and I'm only voicing my opinion. How that sounds to you is for you to determine.



[quote]When was sanctity an issue? I don't need the government telling me that I'm married to someone. I will accept the privilages that marriage brings, but I don't need them to somehow ameliorate my marriage![/QUOTE]

I never said you did. I was merely putting out my opinion to people who think that gay marriages assault the 'sanctity of marriage.'

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=James][color=#811c3a]o_O;;

So you are now defining the sexual acts that EVERY homosexual couple undertakes?
[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I am only talking about male homosexual relationships.[/color][/size][/font]
[color=#000000][/color]
[color=#000000][QUOTE=James][/color]
That is highly, [i]highly[/i] presumptuous. I guarantee you, not every homosexual relationship involves either penetration or clearly defined active/passive roles.[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]The only homosexuality I recognize as a sin is that which is forbidden in the Bible.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[url="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Lev/Lev020.html#13"][color=#0000ff]Lev 20:13[/color][/url] [color=black]If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.[/color]

[QUOTE=James]
That's yet another stereotype and it isn't even being presented here with very much of a purpose. Even if it were true, there's no real point to it. I think that DarkOtakuBoy said it best -- people shouldn't be judged based on their sexuality (just as I wouldn't judge a straight couple for doing something "kinky" in their bedroom or whatever), or their race, or their nationality or whatever else. They should be judged on their character first and foremost.[color=#000000][/QUOTE][/color]
[color=#000000][/color]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I don't judge people by their sexuality, I judge them by their actions. Laying with a man as one would lie with a woman is a mortal sin, akin to adultery or bestiality.[/color][/size][/font]

[QUOTE=James]
I think that regardless of people's views, that is surely something people will agree on, at a basic level.[/color][/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]I agree with it, also. In addition, just as a fun fact, anybody who is against female homosexual relationships cannot say that the grounds for their decision is based on the Bible. According to the Bible, if there is no penetration, there is no sex.[/color][/size][/font]

[Dagger]

[QUOTE=Adahn]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]I am only talking about male homosexual relationships.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE]

So, what? As James pointed out, not all male homosexuals engage in the same sexual practices, just as not all male heterosexuals engage in the same sexual practices. I mean, what you described a few posts back is in its essence akin to saying something like, "heterosexual couples always use the missionary position" or "lesbians only have oral sex."

Out of curiousity, do you strictly follow every single rule laid out in Leviticus?

~Dagger~

[Godelsensei]

[COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Adahn, it isn't exactly possible for a woman to penetrate a man.

By your logic, that makes heterosexual sex immoral.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]So, what? As James pointed out, not all male homosexuals engage in the same sexual practices, just as not all male heterosexuals engage in the same sexual practices. I mean, what you described a few posts back is in its essence akin to saying something like, "heterosexual couples always use the missionary position" or "lesbians only have oral sex."

Out of curiousity, do you strictly follow every single rule laid out in Leviticus?

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=blue]If there is a male homosexual relationship that doesn't involve what is described in that verse, then I've got no beef with it. There is no 'broad definition' of sex that involves all actions men and women can do to please each other. Sex is vaginal or anal penetration by a male.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Probably not, but when I see a verse inbetween 'don't have sex with animals' and 'don't commit adultery', I take it rather seriously.[/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff][/color][/size][/font]
[font=Courier New][size=2][color=#0000ff]Goldensensei, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to explain yourself further, because I can't seem to understand what you're trying to say.[/color][/size][/font]