Sexuality: What's right or wrong?

[Esther]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]I'm going to be lazy as well and bypass reading all the arguments as I feel they're too far in for me to jump in. Anyways, I'm going to throw in my two cents here.

I personally believe that homosexuality is in no way immoral/wrong. I'm pretty sure that homosexuals are born being just that: homosexuals. Although there are some people who choose to engage in same-sex relationships voluntarily, but that's a whole other topic.

What I fail to comprehend is why people would want to regulate what others do in their bedroom. No one's telling anyone to go out and watch gay people have sex or attend their weddings; so why is there a problem?

For all I know, two men right now can be celebrating the night away after getting married right here in California. Is it effecting me? No. Why should I even CARE?

It really, really, REALLY disgusts me that we have to VOTE on whether or not to give two people who truly love each other the right-of-way to marry each other.

And I'm going to admit right now: I used to be against same-sex marriage -- until I realized how stupid I was for thinking that way in the first place.

Being married is such a beautiful (for the most people, lol) experience one can ever have. It's not acceptable that we deny our fellow Americans the right to express their love for one another through the bond of marriage. What is this, the 1950's?

This is not a matter of "Well my religion says..". This is a civil rights matter.

Sure our nation may have been founded on Judeo-Christian values, but that was almost 300 years ago. Since then our country has undeniably gone through dramatic change. We can no longer run this nation based on one religious group's views when we represent hundreds of different religious and non-religious views. It just doesn't work that way anymore.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"]I don't even know where to begin with this thread so I'm not going to go there. Especially since some statements [spoiler]you may read that as A LOT[/spoiler] lead me to believe that there is quite a bit of ignorance about certain aspects of religion in the first place.

So moving along to what I think instead... A few have hit it exactly in my opinion, and that is, what others do behind closed doors is none of your business. With all the different religions and practices out there, I think a very important factor is being overlooked here, and that is tolerance.

Whether or not you think it's wrong is irrelevant. Judge not least ye be judged, is how it goes if I remember correctly. If there is a price to paid, then that will be their problem not yours. And making that choice, if it is a choice, is also theirs to make.

Instead of worrying over what others may or may not being doing, get your own lives in order instead. [/FONT]

[Lunar]

[quote name='Nathan'][FONT="Arial"]So moving along to what I think instead... A few have hit it exactly in my opinion, and that is, what others do behind closed doors is none of your business. [B]With all the different religions and practices out there, I think a very important factor is being overlooked here, and that is tolerance. [/B]
Whether or not you think it's wrong is irrelevant. [B]Judge not least ye be judged, is how it goes if I remember correctly.[/B] If there is a price to paid, then that will be their problem not yours. And making that choice, if it is a choice, is also theirs to make.

[B]Instead of worrying over what others may or may not being doing, get your own lives in order instead[/B]. [/FONT][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="Indigo"]I don't really think of it as Christians being intolerant. We mind, but that doesn't mean we agree and as I've said before, we're trying to help people not go to Hell, but since that's a totally different thing............as for the judging thing, saying someone's way of life is wrong, that's not judging. Judging is when you say that someone who's ways are wrong(in your mind) makes them either disgusting or not to be treated like you would treat someone else who's ways are right(in your mind). Thinking someone is wrong and categorizing them as bad people are totally different things. i have friends who curse like crazy, are bisexual and think that writing on the ceilings of buses is funny. but guess what? they're [I]still[/I] my friends, and i think they're awesome. When you say worrying over what others are doing and not getting your own lives in order, no one's perfect and isn't it a very big chance that someone does have their own lives in order or are trying to get their lives in order by testifying?[/COLOR]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Eclipsed Dreamer'][COLOR="Indigo"]I don't really think of it as Christians being intolerant. We mind, but that doesn't mean we agree and as I've said before, we're trying to help people not go to Hell, but since that's a totally different thing............as for the judging thing, saying someone's way of life is wrong, that's not judging. Judging is when you say that someone who's ways are wrong(in your mind) makes them either disgusting or not to be treated like you would treat someone else who's ways are right(in your mind). Thinking someone is wrong and categorizing them as bad people are totally different things. i have friends who curse like crazy, are bisexual and think that writing on the ceilings of buses is funny. but guess what? they're [I]still[/I] my friends, and i think they're awesome. When you say worrying over what others are doing and not getting your own lives in order, no one's perfect and isn't it a very big chance that someone does have their own lives in order or are trying to get their lives in order by testifying?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]I don't think it's fair to say that Christians mind. Maybe some Christians mind, I could care less about someone's sexual preference. It doesn't change what I think about the person- yes i know it won't change most people's views.

And that whole judge not lest ye be judged I go by that too. Along with 'Let he who is without sin throw the first stone' and 'The greatest gift of these is love'.

Every religion teaches about love it's up to the practitioners of the religions to decide if they want to go with those teachings or not. And it's clear that you're doing that.

My big thing is why are so many people up in arms about defining marriage between a man and a woman and making it so same sex couples don't have the same rights to argue over china patterns and place settings as 'traditional' couples. I think gay people should have the same chances to be just as miserable as straight people.[/color]

[Lunar]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][color=#9933ff]I don't think it's fair to say that Christians mind. Maybe some Christians mind, I could care less about someone's sexual preference. It doesn't change what I think about the person- yes i know it won't change most people's views.

And that whole judge not lest ye be judged I go by that too. Along with 'Let he who is without sin throw the first stone' and 'The greatest gift of these is love'.

Every religion teaches about love it's up to the practitioners of the religions to decide if they want to go with those teachings or not. And it's clear that you're doing that.

My big thing is why are so many people up in arms about defining marriage between a man and a woman and making it so same sex couples don't have the same rights to argue over china patterns and place settings as 'traditional' couples. I think gay people should have the same chances to be just as miserable as straight people.[/color][/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Indigo"]
Okay, a certain group of Christians mind. I remember you saying that don't hate the relegion, hate the person practicing the religion.......hope i'm not using hate too freely. i think they should let same sex couples marry(although it's wrong) because they are Americans as well, and everyone has their rights, it's still wrong though.........when you say it's clear that I'm doing that, what are you referring to?:confused: Btw, that hurt Crimson Spider...................it's sad that blacks are always stereotyped for thugs, some of us are classy...and don't blast rap music....and don't curse.....[/COLOR]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Eclipsed Dreamer'][COLOR="Indigo"]
Okay, a certain group of Christians mind. I remember you saying that don't hate the relegion, hate the person practicing the religion.......hope i'm not using hate too freely. i think they should let same sex couples marry(although it's wrong) because they are Americans as well, and everyone has their rights, it's still wrong though.........when you say it's clear that I'm doing that, what are you referring to?:confused:[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]Sorry I'm concentrating more on winding down for the night (nearly 12AM here and I have to work at 7AM) I meant that you don't care and that a person's sexual preferences don't change your opinions on the person.

I just don't understand why people think it's wrong to allow same sex couples to marry. Usually it's argued that marriage is for procreation just like sex. But what about couples who don't intend to have children or people who are married and can't have children?

I'll have more of an argument tomorrow. I swear it![/color]

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"][quote name='Eclipsed Dreamer][COLOR="Indigo"]I don't really think of it as Christians being intolerant. We mind, but that doesn't mean we agree and as I've said before, we're trying to help people not go to Hell[/COLOR][/QUOTE]You don't help someone not go to hell by backing laws to deny them the same rights as straight couples, or by discharging them from the military when it's found out they aren't straight. That's what being intolerant is all about, continual insistence that another's way of life is wrong and trying to save them from something that may or may not even exist, in this instance hell. [QUOTE=Eclipsed Dreamer][COLOR="Indigo"]as for the judging thing, saying someone's way of life is wrong, that's not judging. Judging is when you say that someone who's ways are wrong(in your mind) makes them either disgusting or not to be treated like you would treat someone else who's ways are right(in your mind). Thinking someone is wrong and categorizing them as bad people are totally different things. i have friends who curse like crazy, are bisexual and think that writing on the ceilings of buses is funny. but guess what? they're [I]still[/I] my friends, and i think they're awesome. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]Judging is the act of declaring someone's actions to be wrong. An example in this case would be the ban on same sex marriages. It has nothing to do with them being your friends. That's a cop out to willingly deny them the same civil rights that straight people have while at the same time brushing it aside with the "they're awesome" statement. Don't hide behind the illusion that your being nice by considering them your friends if you turn around and treat them like second class citizens in the same breath. [QUOTE=Eclipsed Dreamer][COLOR="Indigo"'] When you say worrying over what others are doing and not getting your own lives in order, no one's perfect and isn't it a very big chance that someone does have their own lives in order or are trying to get their lives in order by testifying?[/COLOR][/quote]No it's not a big chance. Everyone has their hang ups so and thinking it's their duty to pass laws and force others to conform to their 'views' of morality is unnecessary and intolerant. It fails to accept or even address that other practices and ways of life exist. [/FONT]

[MaskedRider]

[B][URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSnNHUaNR_8]Here's how I feel[/URL][/B]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

I'm back. This is a long post, because I am touching on, like, 3 different subjects.

BTW, that reference to black criminals was a contrast to stereotyping of Christians. By taking the same logic and applying it to an area that is more widely accepted as being incorrect, it will urge people to re-think their position. That way, people will stop generalizing Christians, just like they have stopped generalizing races.

Sometimes it backfires, though.

-------------------------------------------------------

There is a difference of wording that many people do not understand. There are two functions of the word "Judged". The first is to decree or declare, and this is the kind that is discouraged in the Bible. We are not so divine that we can just define the nature of the world around us. Only a source of absolute knowledge and divine authority can decree anything.

That isn't to say that we can't have an opinion. The second function of judge is to discern or compare, and this is the kind that is most encouraged. Humans are allowed to look at their environment, and come to conclusions from the information they have. There is no statement of pride in deciding which food is sweeter. This is also a lot of the judgment that is preformed. For you see, the Bible does teach against homosexuality. If someone decides to follow the Bible, and reiterate what is said in the Bible, that is a discerning factor. Similarly, if a study says that 65% of all aids contractions occur from male on male sex, and I state this, then I am not judging. I am discerning from the information present.

Therefore, I am allowed to criticize homosexuality as much as I like, as long as I do so in an honest and observant matter. Indeed, you should take the same operation to me, and to all others.

------------------------------------------------------

Now, on to rights and all of that good stuff: I generally like to apply by the same reasons that many others have to my own life: I do not care what you do behind closed doors. The fact that they do something behind closed doors does not change my opinion on the matter. For whatever location an act is preformed, the nature of that act does not change, so I retain all of my stances. Just do not bother me with it.

But oh, do the homosexuals bother me with it. They do so in many ways, too:

#1: From my disapproval of their actions, they have chosen to declare me the criminal element in their lives. They see me as the enemy towards their freedom from justifying their actions, as if all things in their lives would have been peachy and perfect had I not soiled it with my opinion. And so, they continue to oppose me by opposing all of the things that they stand for. This action is not dissimilar from a child hating his/her parents because the parents refused to give that child candy.

#2: Their opposition to me goes much further than just disagreeing. They want to go as far as to limit my rights in favor of theirs, and have the public opinion hate me as well. As if their own opinion just isn't enough, they MUST have others agree with them and then despise me. This is when their actions cease being behind closest at all. Their actions are pulled out, and then thrown in the face of the public for all to see.

#3: This one is unrelated to the above two. People's actions aren't strictly isolated and arbitrary. What is done affects who someone is, and who someone is affects what is done. With that said, homosexual behaviors and relationships have effects on people's attitudes, actions, and health. My friends and my acquaintances have a direct effect on me through their health, their state of mind, and their actions, whether they are hidden behind closed doors or not. Like any decent person, I show concern for my fellow man, and I will not turn a blind eye to their actions.

The universe is not so simple that what is done behind close doors only affects what is behind those doors.


----------------------------------------------------

Now, the nature of the legality of homosexual marriages, that is a tertiary issue to the real problem.

Originally I would write arguments full of statistics, precedents and psychology to make my statement that same-sex marriages shouldn't be legal. But put through the trials of fire, I have learned that they did not stand. Why is it that they didn't stand, you ask? Because the argument for same sex marriages is not one of logic. Let me give you an example:

Lets say you have someone who is overweight, and they eat fast food on a regular basis. You tell them that eating fast food is hazardous (at least I would), but they want to eat fast food anyway. What you probably will do to convince this person is to tell them all of the statistics related to fast food, the FDA analysis of contents, the effects that it will have on health, how they will be healthier and feel better if they ate a healthy diet, and the composition of fast food. However, the other person refuses to stop eating food, and provides the following reason: "I don't care whether or not it is bad for me. I want to eat fast food, and any of the problems I suffer are worth it. You can't limit my freedom to do so."

Indeed, one side will try to bribe the other with statistics, saying that all the good things would happen would outweigh the bad things or their ethics. But, those are just tertiary manifestations of the issue that is really important: Freedom, Responsibility, and Authority. This is an argument of emotion and ideals, not of logic.

Therefore, I will tailor my argument against same sex marriages to suit this, because any statistics are either ignored, denied, or accepted as a necessary evil for the greater good.


Same Sex marriages serve not as an act of giving rights, but as an act of comfort and appeal to a small minority. There is a select group of people who are not happy that marriage is what it is, and seek to re-define it because they are not happy with their uniqueness. They feel that they must be condoned by the state in order to be accepted, and this condoning must be done with free money.

Homosexuals are never denied the right to marriage. A man, regardless of his sexuality, can marry any woman he chooses, regardless of her sexuality. Homosexuals can marry, and they can marry each other. There is no unfair distribution of rights. Everyone has the exact same rights in marriage. Whether or not someone chooses to use these rights is up to their will. Indeed, many homosexuals do marry women to get marriage rights already.

The re-definition of marriage is akin to someone redefining words like "estate", "brother", "month", or "cheese", because some minority chosen a lifestyle that acts in a manner that is unhappy with the current objective definition. The minority seeks to have an abstract romantic ideal placed on marriage applied to their own actions and it does so by trying to change the objective definition. The connotation that is applied, like the kinship applied to the word "brother", is strictly arbitrary, and is the responsibility of a person themselves to handle. These redefinitions have absolutely no regard for the operation of the act, or the legal status in the act.

To dictate that marriage is the union between same sex couples is to violate the right that different sex couples have toward the current definition. Married couples already have themselves a right to marriage, regardless of connotation and any sexuality. By trying to claim any right towards an institution, you violate the rights that are already present. It is the responsibility of the person for their own connotation, their own practice, and their own happiness. Not the taxpayers.

The idolization of the homosexual to a blameless media victim group is strictly arbitrary in society, and the same thinking that is applied to legalizing same-sex marriages can also be readily applied to legalizing polygamy, beastiality, and pedophilia. The romantic connotation of marriage is useless when applied in a logical and legal situation.

The primary function of marriage in society is the creation and steady upbringing of children, and the rights granted to married couples reflects this upbringing. The marriage of same-sex couples does not reflect solidarity or uniting for a stable unit capable of raising children. Same-sex marriages are based on sexual and emotional satisfaction, and therefore lack any solid reason to re-define the institute. It would be the responsibility of the couple to acknowledge their own satisfaction, instead of having the local government create a "make believe" world of acceptance and redefinition at the taxpayers expense.

Given a condition where same-sex marriages are legalized, unless it was directly the action of the vast majority of the society to do so, then same-sex marriages will fail in their purpose to make same-sex couples feel more accepted. Criticism and discrimination will continue to abound in the population, so further actions will be forced to make the minority of a minority feel accepted by everyone around them. They would remove the rights for another person to criticize them.

[Lunar]

[quote name='Nathan'][FONT="Arial"]You don't help someone not go to hell by backing laws to deny them the same rights as straight couples, or by discharging them from the military when it's found out they aren't straight. That's what being intolerant is all about, continual insistence that another's way of life is wrong and trying to save them from something that may or may not even exist, in this instance hell. Judging is the act of declaring someone's actions to be wrong. An example in this case would be the ban on same sex marriages. It has nothing to do with them being your friends. That's a cop out to willingly deny them the same civil rights that straight people have while at the same time brushing it aside with the "they're awesome" statement. Don't hide behind the illusion that your being nice by considering them your friends if you turn around and treat them like second class citizens in the same breath. No it's not a big chance. Everyone has their hang ups so and thinking it's their duty to pass laws and force others to conform to their 'views' of morality is unnecessary and intolerant. It fails to accept or even address that other practices and ways of life exist. [/FONT][/QUOTE]
[COLOR="Indigo"]
Dude, I just said that I don't mind them getting married. I never said that banning them from certain things will help them not go to Hell. They'll still do it, no matter what the law says. Judging, is[I] not [/I] in fact declaring someone's actions are wrong. For example, judging would be if someone says that 6+2=62 which it isn't and then declaring them stupid for doing so. I've said previously, that the U.S. shouldn't ban same sex marriage, because they are Americans. As for the illusion thing, why are jumping to conculsions??? Never said they were second class citizens. Never said I treat them like crap. And I definetly never said I didn't like them. Clearly, I'm not hiding behind the illusion that I'm being nice by considering them friends. If one them's dying and they're gay and not my friends, would I leave them to die? No. Just because I don't agree with their way of life doesn't make me inhuman. When people try to testify, they're not forcing others to be the way they are. They are spreading the word on what they think is right. Certain people try to do that, but some of us don't. It's no one's right force their views on someone else, it'll cause them to rebel more so. And just because someone tries to tell someone something's wrong doesn't mean they don't accept or addrss that other ways of life exist.:animeangr[/COLOR]

[Skye]

[size=1]You know what I don't understand? Why we continue to make threads like this when all that comes from it is everyone being mad at everyone else over something that is personal. :p Everyone is entitled to their opinions; it [i]is[/i] America. We have no right to force our opinions on other people, however. If they want to know, then tell them. But if they don't agree, we have no right to tell them to go to Hell. I mean, for real, people.

To me, sexuality is something personal and should not involve the rest of the world. As long as they don't try to make me do something I don't want to do, what's the harm? Just like religion. :p

Here's a completely new idea for yah: there is a theory out there that the increase in gay and lesbian sexualities has to do with our increasing population and the natural desire for survival. Overpopulation is just as dangerous as underpopulation, so our species is trying to control it. Scientists have actually proven that animals do this, too. :] Gay pengiuns. How cool is that?[/size]

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"][quote name='Eclipsed Dreamer][COLOR="Indigo"]Dude, I just said that I don't mind them getting married. I never said that banning them from certain things will help them not go to Hell. They'll still do it, no matter what the law says. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]Yes you did, the bit on laws prohibiting same sex marriages is an example, not a statement that you personally vote for said laws. Unless I'm mistaken, you aren't even old enough to vote correct? Also, they'll still do it? What are you referring to? Unless the law changes they can't get married legally. Unless you're referring to the physical side of the relationship, in which case you are correct, they will do it regardless. [QUOTE=Eclipsed Dreamer][COLOR="Indigo"]I've said previously, that the U.S. shouldn't ban same sex marriage, because they are Americans. As for the illusion thing, why are jumping to conculsions??? Never said they were second class citizens. Never said I treat them like crap. And I definetly never said I didn't like them. Clearly, I'm not hiding behind the illusion that I'm being nice by considering them friends. If one them's dying and they're gay and not my friends, would I leave them to die? No. Just because I don't agree with their way of life doesn't make me inhuman. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]Slow down a little and stop getting angry. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you and a few other Christians here, but I'm 100% positive that certain faiths actually send out statements for their leaders at a local level to read to the members, telling them to vote against any law that would allow same sex marriage. This is the hypocritical illusion I speak of. They think they are being kind and helping someone out while voting to deny them rights and stripping them of the right to chose if they get married or not. It was not meant as a direct statement towards you though I can see how you took it that way and for that I'm sorry.[QUOTE=Eclipsed Dreamer][COLOR="Indigo"'] When people try to testify, they're not forcing others to be the way they are. They are spreading the word on what they think is right. Certain people try to do that, but some of us don't. It's no one's right force their views on someone else, it'll cause them to rebel more so. And just because someone tries to tell someone something's wrong doesn't mean they don't accept or addrss that other ways of life exist.:animeangr[/COLOR][/quote]I'm afraid that in this respect I think perhaps you are a bit unaware of the practices and money spent by churches to make sure people who are gay continue to be deprived of the same civil rights. In this I disagree, if their really was acceptance, they would offer the chance to change and simply leave it alone when the person refused, but they do not.

One other thing, this is only my second day at the forum here, if I'm annoying you that much, just ask for clarification instead of getting furious. I assure you I don't bite. I suspect it will take me time to get use to discussions where people can't see my face or hear my voice. So if I come off the wrong way, just tell me, don't get mad though. ;)[/FONT]

[Lunar]

[COLOR="Indigo"]Sorry. I was just frustrated. Not angry. My apologies.:animeswea You're right. I'm fourteen, and I don't really have a say on voting and stuff. However, it's strange that I'm not an average teenager. i don't listen to music on a regular basis, and I'm trying to keep up with what's happening in this world.........off topic, anyways, you are right about [I]certain[/I] faiths trying to force their relegion on to others. I apologize if I'm getting frustrated too easily, I forgot you just got here:animeswea Anyway's I'll tel ya!;)[/COLOR]

[Clash]

[COLOR="Indigo"][COLOR="DarkRed"]Didn't read all the posts........................................
I think that gay marriage should not be banned because that would be denying them rights that straight people have. I agree with E.D., though. Some "Christians" try to force their relegion onto others. That's not right. Christians aren't supposed to force others to follow their relegion. I'm against people being gay or bi. It's wrong and not meant to be. Sure what others do behind closed doors isn't our business, but still, some of us are trying to help.[/COLOR][/COLOR]

[Esther]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']
#1: From my disapproval of their actions, they have chosen to declare me the criminal element in their lives. They see me as the enemy towards their freedom from justifying their actions, as if all things in their lives would have been peachy and perfect had I not soiled it with my opinion. And so, they continue to oppose me by opposing all of the things that they stand for. This action is not dissimilar from a child hating his/her parents because the parents refused to give that child candy.
[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]You sort of remind me of the people who oppose inter-racial marriages. You're trying to cover up your intolerance by using all this complicated logic and sweeping your real bigoted-ness under the rug.

The logic you state here doesn't make any sense. Of course you're the enemy towards their freedom. Of course homosexuals unfortunately face discrimination and probably will for a very long time but by people like you advocating their oppression you're also advocating against their pursuit of happiness which, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is an inalienable right of man.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Their opposition to me goes much further than just disagreeing. They want to go as far as to limit my rights in favor of theirs, and have the public opinion hate me as well. As if their own opinion just isn't enough, they MUST have others agree with them and then despise me. This is when their actions cease being behind closest at all. Their actions are pulled out, and then thrown in the face of the public for all to see.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]I don't think that by allowing two men to marry my rights would suddenly mean nothing. I'd actually be even more greatful of them now that all of my fellow citizens enjoy the same rights.

What do you mean "thrown in the face of the public for all to see"? Isn't that what straight people do these days anyways? There's no stopping it. It'd still happen even though people don't want it to. Suppose I totally despised of people wearing shorts. Would that stop someone with shorts on from walking down the same sidewalk as I? No. You don't like to see two men kissing. Is it going to stop them from kissing? No. Why should YOUR personal beliefs stop people from doing what they want? It doesn't make any sense.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']This one is unrelated to the above two. People's actions aren't strictly isolated and arbitrary. What is done affects who someone is, and who someone is affects what is done. With that said, homosexual behaviors and relationships have effects on people's attitudes, actions, and health. My friends and my acquaintances have a direct effect on me through their health, their state of mind, and their actions, whether they are hidden behind closed doors or not. Like any decent person, I show concern for my fellow man, and I will not turn a blind eye to their actions.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Um, what? I have 2 gay friends and they do not effect my attitudes, actions or health at all. There are 3 people who make me extremely content on the face of this planet: my husband, my mom, and my gay best friend!

If it really bothers you that bad and effects your health like you claim (which I laughed out loud at btw) then don't have gay friends.[/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The primary function of marriage in society is ... and steady upbringing of children[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]What if two lesbian mothers can provide a loving, warm home in a great neighborhood? Would you rather the child stay in an orphanage or unstable and moving from foster to foster home?[/SIZE][/FONT]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Nathan;822766][FONT="Arial"] Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you and a few other Christians here, but I'm 100% positive that certain faiths actually send out statements for their leaders at a local level to read to the members, telling them to vote against any law that would allow same sex marriage. [/FONT][/QUOTE]You are not mistaken. The LDS church does do this. I have not been a member of any religion in quite some time, but I have friends who are. I find this sad since it is something they did not use to do. Have a document sent to the bishop of each ward that they read to everyone at the beginning of the main meetings on Sunday. They tell their members how to vote and that just disgusts me. I won't go too far on this tangent though since it deviates off the topic too much.[quote name='Nathan'][FONT="Arial"'] In this I disagree, if their really was acceptance, they would offer the chance to change and simply leave it alone when the person refused, but they do not. [/FONT][/quote]This is why I find that action of the church incomprehensible. They teach about making the right choice, and how you will have trials, but what kind of choice is it if you take it away to begin with? That's manipulative and controlling and something I personally cannot stand, and incidentally, one of the many reasons why I left said religion.

Anyway, my stance has not changed. I don't believe it's wrong, even if it's a choice and they aren't born that way. I see it as a sign that there are still people in this world afraid of change or things being different that what they think it should be.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]You sort of remind me of the people who oppose inter-racial marriages. You're trying to cover up your intolerance by using all this complicated logic and sweeping your real bigoted-ness under the rug.[/quote][/font][/size]

Not quite. I have taken the Socratic Method to homosexuality, and these are the conclusions I have come to. Though it is annoying that everyone immediately takes the ad-hominem approach in these arguments.


[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]The logic you state here doesn't make any sense. Of course you're the enemy towards their freedom. Of course homosexuals unfortunately face discrimination and probably will for a very long time but by people like you advocating their oppression you're also advocating against their pursuit of happiness which, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is an inalienable right of man.[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

Well, you have done a good job of re-stating their views and enforcing them, but very little to actually argue this view. Here is the big question: Why don't homosexuals just ignore my opinion and go on to live their lives in private? Why is it that they have to take someone that doesn't agree with them, and then dedicate their lives towards limiting the rights of this person? The argument for the pursuit of happiness assumes that I am going to be happy with homosexuals taking the sacred institute of marriage and defiling it to just mean that two people lust for each other. I would not. Therefore, same-sex marriages are denying me of my right towards the pursuit of happiness when they change marriage.

You need a much better reason to change marriage than just throwing in "Pursuit of Happiness". It is an institution with a legal function, and one that takes up the taxpayer's dollars. You can't vote yourself generous bonuses from the treasury only because it would make you feel better.


[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]I don't think that by allowing two men to marry my rights would suddenly mean nothing. I'd actually be even more greatful of them now that all of my fellow citizens enjoy the same rights.

What do you mean "thrown in the face of the public for all to see"? Isn't that what straight people do these days anyways? There's no stopping it. It'd still happen even though people don't want it to. Suppose I totally despised of people wearing shorts. Would that stop someone with shorts on from walking down the same sidewalk as I? No. You don't like to see two men kissing. Is it going to stop them from kissing? No. Why should YOUR personal beliefs stop people from doing what they want? It doesn't make any sense.[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

Gay Pride Parades, various novels, and persistent court appeals throw the issue in the face of the public, and these are done only because several individuals have, heaven forbid, voiced their distaste for homosexuals. That is what I was referring to. That whole story about the shorts is an unneeded tangent. Anyway, the rights that they limit are things such as my freedom of speech against them, my right to retain the objective definition of marriage, my right to have my child adopted by a straight couple, and eventually my right to place laws to control the public from otherwise bad choices. Those are the ones that are being argued against currently.

[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Um, what? I have 2 gay friends and they do not effect my attitudes, actions or health at all. There are 3 people who make me extremely content on the face of this planet: my husband, my mom, and my gay best friend!

If it really bothers you that bad and effects your health like you claim (which I laughed out loud at btw) then don't have gay friends.[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

Yes, they do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing with me on this issue. Your friends represent the human side of the homosexual argument, which is the case that you are arguing for (interracial references, pursuit of happiness, freedom of public expression).

Anyway, I will make friends with whomever I happen to make friends with. If this person is being influenced by a bad culture, a bad peer, drugs, or some other influence/problem, then under the given condition that I am their friend, I will help them with this problem. You can't expect me to just throw my hands up and say "Your not my friend anymore!" to someone I had known for years because he decided to come out of the closet some day.

[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]What if two lesbian mothers can provide a loving, warm home in a great neighborhood? Would you rather the child stay in an orphanage or unstable and moving from foster to foster home?[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
I would rather keep them in a foster home, because I am very skeptical that two Lesbian Mothers could provide a loving, warm home that can raise the child adequately.


EDIT: I thought I should include this:

The homosexuals aren't the primary targets toward any of my reformations or arguments, but really one of the many outlets on the battleground over the family unit. There are countless things that I do not agree with, such as no-instance divorces, free access to birth control, polygamy, the romantic ideals, objectifying of sexes, and all of those other things that are fairly new to the political scheme. A problem that is constantly seeking to spread itself out, breeding more problems as other methods try to contain it. Were I to have my way, I would reform marriage on as many grounds as possible, instead of just selecting this one issue and letting it stop from there.

[Esther]

[quote name='Crimson Spider'][/font][/size]

Not quite. I have taken the Socratic Method to homosexuality, and these are the conclusions I have come to. Though it is annoying that everyone immediately takes the ad-hominem approach in these arguments.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Well, what do you expect? It's a debate (like I've already stated numerous times, one that shouldn't even BE debated) on civil rights. Also, I am answering your points -- I'm just not making them all fancy and instead giving it to you raw.

Second, you can claim to be taking any method you want towards this argument. In my eyes, you're just trying to dress something really ugly up in something really fancy and it's not going to work with me.[/SIZE][/FONT]



[quote name='Crimson Spider']
Well, you have done a good job of re-stating their views and enforcing them, but very little to actually argue this view. Here is the big question: Why don't homosexuals just ignore my opinion and go on to live their lives in private? Why is it that they have to take someone that doesn't agree with them, and then dedicate their lives towards limiting the rights of this person? The argument for the pursuit of happiness assumes that I am going to be happy with homosexuals taking the sacred institute of marriage and defiling it to just mean that two people lust for each other. I would not. Therefore, same-sex marriages are denying me of my right towards the pursuit of happiness when they change marriage.

You need a much better reason to change marriage than just throwing in "Pursuit of Happiness". It is an institution with a legal function, and one that takes up the taxpayer's dollars. You can't vote yourself generous bonuses from the treasury only because it would make you feel better.[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]No, what the argument for the pursuit of happiness does assume is that you are infringing upon their right to be happy. By being a hinderance on what they want to do with their personal lives you're creating a road block in their pursuit of happiness. PPerhaps if people with the same views as you would stop taking to the voting booths and voting against the civil rights of homosexuals; they just might be able to do what they want with their lives and then ignore you. Did African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement just sit there and ignore their ignorant, racist oppresors? Thank God they didn't! And not until all their "undeniable rights" as citizens of this country are granted, many people like myself along with people of the LGBT community will continue to promote true freedom and equality for ALL Americans.

I find your statement that allowing same-sex marriages would "defile marriage to mean that two people lust for each other". People (straight and gay) who choose to marry each other do so out of love, not just lust.

I married my husband because I was in love with him, found him attractive, and felt connected to him. I'm sure that many same-sex couples who get married have the same reasons. Do you consider my marriage to be a defilement of the "true meaning of marriate" or whatever you want to call it?[/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Gay Pride Parades, various novels, and persistent court appeals throw the issue in the face of the public, and these are done only because several individuals have, heaven forbid, voiced their distaste for homosexuals. That is what I was referring to. That whole story about the shorts is an unneeded tangent. Anyway, the rights that they limit are things such as my freedom of speech against them, my right to retain the objective definition of marriage, my right to have my child adopted by a straight couple, and eventually my right to place laws to control the public from otherwise bad choices. Those are the ones that are being argued against currently.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]I think it's so annoying when people use the First Amendment as their first back-up for everything. Honestly, freedom of speech has been distorted from it's true meaning so it can support someone's ability to spread hate/hateful speech and not be punished for it; such is true in your case.

If you really wanted your child to be adopted by a straight couple then you could use an agency that allows couples giving their child away to choose another couple to serve as the adoptive parents. No one is going to force you to give your child to a gay couple.. which I really don't see what the problem there is...[/SIZE][/FONT]



[quote name='Crimson Spider']Yes, they do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing with me on this issue. Your friends represent the human side of the homosexual argument, which is the case that you are arguing for (interracial references, pursuit of happiness, freedom of public expression).[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Okay, I see how they can effect my actions. However, I think I'd still fight for the giving of rights to homosexuals even if I didn't have any gay friends. I still fail to comprehend how they effect my health?[/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Anyway, I will make friends with whomever I happen to make friends with. If this person is being influenced by a bad culture, a bad peer, drugs, or some other influence/problem, then under the given condition that I am their friend, I will help them with this problem. You can't expect me to just throw my hands up and say "Your not my friend anymore!" to someone I had known for years because he decided to come out of the closet some day.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]You can't "help" gay people to cease being gay. It's already been proven; so let that one go already.

As for the whole friend thing, I would hope that friend would be able to help you better understand what they're all about.[/SIZE][/FONT]


[quote name='Crimson Spider']I would rather keep them in a foster home, because I am very skeptical that two Lesbian Mothers could provide a loving, warm home that can raise the child adequately.[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Are you that oblivious to the thousands of children who have been raised by two parents of the same-sex to go on and lead healthy lifestyles? [/SIZE][/FONT]

[Vicky]

[quote name='Esther']


[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Are you that oblivious to the thousands of children who have been raised by two parents of the same-sex to go on and lead healthy lifestyles? [/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Like the boy who went to my High School and got straight A*s (bar one subject wherein he got an A) and is now proceeding to be one of the smartest, friendliest, funniest children in his college?

By the way, his father left him before he was even one and he grew up with two women (his mother and her partner). In any case, Esther's argument is pretty much right. I'm not even commenting on half of the pseudophilosophy/science Crimson is coming out with.

When people say that children shouldn't grow up with same sex parents then I think that's devaluing homosexuals a little bit. The only problem is bullying, but then children wouldn't bully kids who grew up with two mothers if they were taught to be a bit more open minded.

I really doubt there's any major scientific evidence that gay couples cannot raise healthy children. If you believe gay couples should not raise children then neither should single parents, judging by the 'logic' here.

[B]EDIT: Once upon a time I watched this one video that made me lol so much and was, by far, the most solid argument for gay parenting. I couldn't find it but I found one similar, not as good, that anyone who wants to be entertained can have a look at: [url]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPVISQR9fY[/url][/b][/size]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Well, what do you expect? It's a debate (like I've already stated numerous times, one that shouldn't even BE debated) on civil rights. Also, I am answering your points -- I'm just not making them all fancy and instead giving it to you raw.

Second, you can claim to be taking any method you want towards this argument. In my eyes, you're just trying to dress something really ugly up in something really fancy and it's not going to work with me.[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

What I expect is for the debate to be about issues, and not about whether or not it is ugly in your eyes.


[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]No, what the argument for the pursuit of happiness does assume is that you are infringing upon their right to be happy. By being a hinderance on what they want to do with their personal lives you're creating a road block in their pursuit of happiness. PPerhaps if people with the same views as you would stop taking to the voting booths and voting against the civil rights of homosexuals; they just might be able to do what they want with their lives and then ignore you. Did African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement just sit there and ignore their ignorant, racist oppresors? Thank God they didn't! And not until all their "undeniable rights" as citizens of this country are granted, many people like myself along with people of the LGBT community will continue to promote true freedom and equality for ALL Americans.

I find your statement that allowing same-sex marriages would "defile marriage to mean that two people lust for each other". People (straight and gay) who choose to marry each other do so out of love, not just lust.

I married my husband because I was in love with him, found him attractive, and felt connected to him. I'm sure that many same-sex couples who get married have the same reasons. Do you consider my marriage to be a defilement of the "true meaning of marriate" or whatever you want to call it?[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

They are acting as a hindrance towards my pursuit of happiness when they try to re-define marriage, and then make my tax dollar go to their relationship. Their rights aren't being denied. What they want are special rights that only they can exercise, unless you include all of those friends and roommates who will get legal marriages just for the tax benefits.

Homosexuals are not a race. They are a group defined only by their actions and their willing admission.

Sex =/= love. Same Sex marriages are for the condolences of sexual acts and lifestyles. Someone can "love" someone else regardless of any sexual interaction. To bring any relationship onto a sexual level, that is a choice that has to be made. BTW, I consider a lot of heterosexual marriages incorrect as well, for they commit the exact same lust-based infatuation and pathological fulfillment. In fact, those relationships came first, and then homosexual relationships begin to receive support from the extension of this idea. Of course, just as I have never met an alcoholic who admits that they drink too much, I have never met a homosexual that admits that his actions are about an unfulfilled need manifesting into a sexual desire.

[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]I think it's so annoying when people use the First Amendment as their first back-up for everything. Honestly, freedom of speech has been distorted from it's true meaning so it can support someone's ability to spread hate/hateful speech and not be punished for it; such is true in your case.

If you really wanted your child to be adopted by a straight couple then you could use an agency that allows couples giving their child away to choose another couple to serve as the adoptive parents. No one is going to force you to give your child to a gay couple.. which I really don't see what the problem there is...[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

I do not like everyone resorting to the "pursuit of happiness" statement as a first resort for everything, either. But the fact is, that is a point that I have to deal with. Similarly, others have to deal with the fact that you must accept when people criticize or disagree with you, and creating laws forcing them not to would be an exercise in hypocrisy. The particular bill regarding adoption agencies, that hasn't been proposed yet, but it has been brought to my attention by a few people. Something about not letting someone else deny the right to have a child because of the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing. Given that it falls along the very same logic that would allow same-sex marriages to be legalized, it is a step that I fear in the future.


[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Okay, I see how they can effect my actions. However, I think I'd still fight for the giving of rights to homosexuals even if I didn't have any gay friends. I still fail to comprehend how they effect my health?[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

Mental Health more than physical health.


[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]You can't "help" gay people to cease being gay. It's already been proven; so let that one go already.

As for the whole friend thing, I would hope that friend would be able to help you better understand what they're all about.[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

You [i]can[/i] help someone to cease being a homosexual. It has been proven and practiced many times. Also, the opinion that I have about homosexuals is tailored from personal experience, literature, and from trials of fire.


[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Are you that oblivious to the thousands of children who have been raised by two parents of the same-sex to go on and lead healthy lifestyles? [/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]


Oblivious? No. However, it is accepted in the medical community that there is a substantial lack of information regarding same-sex parents and the effects that they have on their children. You see, I have met plenty of people who live out healthy lifestyles after dealing with single parent homes, or step parents that ritualistically molest the child. The number of factors attributing to problems is numerous, and is also largely the responsibility of the person who experiences them. I still maintain my stance that the dichotomy of opposite gender parents is the best environment to raise a child, and statistics have agreed with this.

[Darren]

[SIZE="1"]I know I said I wouldn't post here again, but I'll take a biased approach and attempt to make sense out of some of the arguments that I don't understand.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]The logic you state here doesn't make any sense. Of course you're the enemy towards their freedom. Of course homosexuals unfortunately face discrimination and probably will for a very long time but by people like you advocating their oppression you're also advocating against their pursuit of happiness which, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is an inalienable right of man.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
[SIZE="1"]Unfortunately, I have to agree with Crimson Spider on this topic. You can't use the pursuit of happiness to justify gay marriage. Why? Because gay couples can be happy without getting married. Furthermore, if they really want to get married, they can go to California or Massachusetts and get married. (And due to the fact that states must recognize laws from other states, you could live anywhere in the country and be a happy married gay couple even if that state doesn't allow it.)
Also, I can't remember the exact court case, but I just recently learned about it in Government. There was a case that stated freedom of anything (speech, religion, petition, etc) is restricted if it harms the majority at large. And as we can all agree, the majority feel that it does harm them, for whatever reason. Sure religion plays a role in that and we can't deny the fact that a lot of Americans feel that it harms them simply because it goes against their religion. Fair? No, but it's the majority.
Lastly, both of our presidential candidates have stated that they agree with equal benefits for gay couples. No, this doesn't include marriage, (Which I personally, think is a contradiction) but it does include (if I'm not mistaken. I wasn't paying full attention to the debates) naming your partner as the designated caretaker at hospitals, receiving the benefits of marriage. The only difference is that you don't have a little piece of paper signifying your union, but when you consider the divorce rate in this country, who cares if you have a paper. It's actually better in my opinion because it makes the "break-up" a lot simpler.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Sex =/= love. Same Sex marriages are for the condolences of sexual acts and lifestyles. Someone can "love" someone else regardless of any sexual interaction. To bring any relationship onto a sexual level, that is a choice that has to be made. BTW, I consider a lot of heterosexual marriages incorrect as well, for they commit the exact same lust-based infatuation and pathological fulfillment. In fact, those relationships came first, and then homosexual relationships begin to receive support from the extension of this idea. Of course, just as I have never met an alcoholic who admits that they drink too much, I have never met a homosexual that admits that his actions are about an unfulfilled need manifesting into a sexual desire. [/QUOTE]
[SIZE="1"]This is the part that I don't get. I agree with you on the point that you feel gay marriage infringes on your personal rights, but you bring up the definition of marriage. I understand that the country defines traditional marriage as a union between man/woman due to it's Judeo-Christian beliefs, but it seems that your personal definition is a union between two people who simply love each other. Is that about right? You've said repeatedly that "Sex =/= Love," and I agree with that statement whole-heartedly, but let's also not forget that humans are one of the few mammals on this planet that engage in intercourse simply for pleasure. Not everyone can deny their primal lusts and instincts simply because some consider it immoral.
But that's really beside the point. I personally believe that love leads to sex, but it's not necessarily for reproduction. if a married couple wants to have a child, yes they do have sex, but they also have sex simply for pleasure. Are you implying that it's always wrong to have sex (even for a married couple) unless you have the intent of reproduction, thus making it wrong for gays simply because they can never have kids?
I'm just trying to understand your personal definition here because your views are very confusing. You've even said here:[/SIZE]
[quote name='Crimson Spider']I see your statement, and I do think I should have made the distinction for gay relationships as well. Two men who "love" each other don't necessarily have to have sex with each other, either. There are going to be couples that are based more on compatibility than on the physical nature of the relationship, and in fact this seems to be the dominant type of relationships in lesbian relationships.

But... love and sex are not the same. You can have a relationship without having sex. Just the same, you can have sex without a relationship. I am not talking about love. I am talking about sex, and sexual preferences. Also, you can't just throw your hands up in the air and cry prejudice whenever your beliefs face criticism or are challenged.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE="1"]So, if I understand your definition of marriage correctly, this statement implies that you're okay with gay/lesbian marriage as long as the relationship is really based on love rather than sex/lust. If that's the case, then the previous statement is a contradiction.
Also, I believe what Vicky, Esther, and I are talking about here is sexual orientation, not preferences. Yes, I believe there is a big difference, but that's a debate for another time.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You [i]can[/i] help someone to cease being a homosexual. It has been proven and practiced many times. Also, the opinion that I have about homosexuals is tailored from personal experience, literature, and from trials of fire.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE="1"]Yes, you can. Through brainwash and mental torture. For the homosexuals who actually chose to be gay, I think it's vastly experimentation and they're never really gay; just bicurious. But I believe that there are some people who are born that way and statistics have also proven that the methods used to cure someone of homosexuality either fail or the homosexual in question revert back to their old tendencies later on in life.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Oblivious? No. However, it is accepted in the medical community that there is a substantial lack of information regarding same-sex parents and the effects that they have on their children. You see, I have met plenty of people who live out healthy lifestyles after dealing with single parent homes, or step parents that ritualistically molest the child. The number of factors attributing to problems is numerous, and is also largely the responsibility of the person who experiences them. I still maintain my stance that the dichotomy of opposite gender parents is the best environment to raise a child, and statistics have agreed with this.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE="1"]Obviously, statistics will show that the straight couples show more promising results in raising a child. The reason is simply because nearly every family has a mother/father, (step-parents included) whereas two men/women families are fairly recent and looked down upon by the majority. For the statistics that aren't biased, the rest can be attributed to the fact that the numbers aren't available to compare to the "regular" families because the American government has made it difficult for that to ever happen.
There have also been statistics showing how divorce, abuse, etc. can really effect a child. The numbers show that while gay parents' children may face a harder childhood, children of "regular" families have a harder time coping with life after they've left home. So again, there's no accurate way to prove either side of the story, and the statistics have shown that the only reason why children of gay couples face a rough childhood is because they're bullied in school and that point has already been covered by Esther and Vicky.

Really, I don't see the need for the argument. Things will change eventually, regardless of what Crimson Spider and the numerous other people I know believe. It's just going to take time. Views change throughout history. It's not going to stop here.[/SIZE]

[Esther]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]Hm. Okay, I'll give up the pursuit of happiness argument.

Darren: I couldn't have said it better myself. But there's still a few things I have to say to Crimson...[/SIZE][/FONT]


[quote name='Crimson Spider']I do not like everyone resorting to the "pursuit of happiness" statement as a first resort for everything, either. But the fact is, that is a point that I have to deal with. Similarly, others have to deal with the fact that you must accept when people criticize or disagree with you, and creating laws forcing them not to would be an exercise in hypocrisy. The particular bill regarding adoption agencies, that hasn't been proposed yet, but it has been brought to my attention by a few people. Something about not letting someone else deny the right to have a child because of the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing. Given that it falls along the very same logic that would allow same-sex marriages to be legalized, it is a step that I fear in the future.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE="1"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Like I've said so many times before in this debate: this shouldn't be a vote, this shouldn't be a debate, this should be a given. Those of us in favor of same-sex marriage are not in favor of creating laws to limit your freedom of speech. We're in favor of [I]amending[/I] laws to ensure that every law-abiding citizen in this nation has the same rights as the law-abiding citizen next to them.

Before this country can sit on a pedstal and proclaim our supposed tolerance to the rest of the world, we must practice what we preach. We cannot truthfully call ourselves the "home of the free" when we ourselves refuse to live by the very statement. [/FONT][/SIZE]

[TimeChaser]

While I haven't read every post in this thread in detail, I have read much of it. Although there are some views to which I would like to reply to, mainly on the psychological issues that have been brought up - the medical community has long since removed homosexuality from it's list of neurosis - I'll just get on and express my opinions about this topic.

First, I'm going to take the social angle: Everyone deserves all of the same rights and protections under the law guaranteed to all citizens. Denying people their rights, and writing discrimination into law is an affront to the ideals of freedom, individuality, and self-determination.

People claim that allowing homosexuals to marry would be making a special exception. I see this the other way around: DENYING them their rights is making an exception. Also, I do not understand why "the will of the people" get to decide what is clearly an issue of civil rights. The people were not given the choice to vote on African American civil rights in the 60s and 70s; those were the natural rights of people as human beings and were acknowledged as such by the law. If the "people" had been given the chance to vote, it's a good bet those rights would not have passed. How do other people get the opportunity to vote on the rights of private individuals?

Next is what I think of the religious argument. I'm not going to debate the finer points of what the Bible (or any other holy book) might or might not say. This country was established under the banner of religious freedom as well. Despite claims to the contrary, the Founding Fathers did not establish the United States as a Christian nation:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
- US Constitution

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
- Treaty with Tripoli

Since most of the argument against homosexuals being allowed to marry is couched in religious belief, I see this as a clear violation of the separation of Church and State. You cannot make laws that are clearly biased toward a particular religious view.
Again, for much of this country's history, religion was used as a defense to deny African Americans their rights. If you want to use religion as a justification now, then you cannot be allowed to forget how it was used in the past.

Here's another point. This isn't about marriage only. Other issues that are at stake are partner benefits, joint health care, health care for their children, inheritance, and many other things. I remember recently reading about a lesbian couple who were vacationing here in Florida. One became deathly ill and had to be rushed to the hospital. They would not allow her partner to visit her or be there to give vital medical information to the doctors. The ill woman died, and it could possibly have been prevented. How would you feel if your loved one was on their deathbed, but you weren't allowed to see them because you weren't their legal spouse?

Boiling it all down:
- I believe everyone deserves the same rights.
- Denying them their rights is the exception, not giving it to them.
- Rights that people are entitled to as fellow human beings are not up for vote.
- Because our laws are meant to be separate from religion, using the religious argument to deny rights is a violation of those laws.

[Aaryanna_Mom]

Determining if one?s sexuality is wrong skirts the issue in my opinion. This may have originally been about whether or not you think it?s wrong, but that scratches the surface of a far more complex issue. At its core I have come to see it more as a civil rights issue where my religious beliefs have no place. This is not something I say lightly either since it took me far too long to realize and recognize it.

There have been a lot of cases that denied rights or separated individuals that were incorrect and faulty. For example, women?s rights, black?s rights, etc. All of these addressed unfair discrimination. To start with as it?s been mentioned, homosexuality has long since been removed from the list of mental disorders. This was done back in the early seventies if I remember correctly.

So that moves it completely into the realm of disagreeing with it based on religious beliefs that on some level, have no place here. I think many people forget that even their ability to disagree or fight it are rights that at one time they themselves did not share. Like the right to vote for women. So I see this as one of the next steps or rather next battles that must be fought to remove discrimination.

I find it interesting that people currently enjoying rights that they at one time did not, turn around and use those same rights to block others from similar rights, marriage being one of the most fiercely opposed.

So though I see it wrong morally based on my religious beliefs, I refuse to allow that to make up my mind for me. After all, those same beliefs use to strip blacks of rights within the church, like the ability to hold positions of leadership, and that has been proven to be wrong.

[Kenso]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=1]Well, I was planning on staying away from this, but Aaryanna_Mom's post has compelled me.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][/FONT]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=1]First, at A_M, thank you. I understand how hard it is for some people to acknowledge that their are times when religion needs to be put to the side, and you have a lot of respect from me for being able to do that.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][/FONT]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=1]Second, on to the topic. As I tend to take a rather logical view on things, I can't say whether homo/bisexuality is right or wrong, though I can say it doesn't bother me. What I can say is that many of the issues that arise because of it are civil rights issues, and there is no reason to treat homo/bisexuals any differently. OK, if you're not comfortable calling it marriage, so be it, but there should definitely be provisions made for 'civil unions' or whatever you wish to call them.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][/FONT]
[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=1]I've heard it said that it's wrong simply because it's not the norm. I cannot understand this argument. That's like telling me there's a problem with me simply because my IQ is higher than the 'average'. Or like telling me I can't function in normal society simply because I have ADD (which actually makes it pretty dang easy to function, since I've learned to work with it instead of against it, thanks to a friend of mine, who also has it).[/SIZE][/FONT]