Same Sex Marraige

[Letters]

It's hard to tell with him...

 

[CyberSh33p]

I think this is the dumbest topic ever =\

Its not going to affect me in any way whether a gay couple is married or just dating. If I am uncomfortable with it, they would still be out. I don't have a problem against homosexuals, though I told particularly enjoy looking at it =\

This is just so stupid though. WHo gives a crap really. Give them the right to marry. they're people too.

 

[craig]

Just let this conversation die ffs. It's been debated to death and is a pointless conversation!

 

[GhostValkyrie]

It makes me wonder quite why Gay people who are pretty much persecuted by Christianity

Wait, are you attacking Christianity?

 

[Prince of China]

Jesus is t3h plain 1337!

 

[The Mullinator]

I suspect Christianity is one of most accepting religion when it comes to gays and lesbians, I would hate to think about what they would do to you in a country with a strict Islamic law.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Jesus is t3h plain 1337!

Fo rizzle, baby! W00t!

 

[Revisedsoul]

I suspect Christianity is one of most accepting religion when it comes to gays and lesbians, I would hate to think about what they would do to you in a country with a strict Islamic law.

that would be nice if it was, but with one of my friends has been socialy shunned by every chistian church in town but one, adn thats jsut because it shes bi, not even gay. and each one of the members of the church stated that if they as people were not willing ot cahnge their evil ways that they dont belong in society. but their word is not law thank god, no pun intended.

 

[ductonius]

If you are going to not let people that live in anything but the absolute most healthy environment you are only going to allow two or three children to be born.

I said encourage the healthiest environment. The fact that it cannot always be met is a tragety, but one of those things that must be accepted. However, deliberatly allowing children into a less than the healthiest situation can be avoided enterly.

If that was true you would probably believe in dealing with couples, in terms of allowing or disallowing them to adopt a child, on an individual (one couple, not one person) basis

Being dealt with as an idividual is not a right. Therefore, generalizing about a group does not violate any specific member of that groups rights.

Given that your supposition is wrong, the rest of your argument also falls.

If it is not a religious issue (and it is not, because that would violate the separation of church and state... which G.W. Bush doesn't seem to recall, or else he wouldn't have brought religion into the speach) then what is it?

I do beleive I have stated this many times before.

Marriage is the recognition that the male-female relationship is the most healthy way to raise a child in addition to being a privelege bestowed on those who can propogate our civilization in and of themselves to the exclution of techonology and all other people.

It is a rights issue.

Getting married is not a right, it is a privilege. If it was a right people could demand the right to marry poligamously or the right to marry thier dog. Or, since corporations are treated under the law as persons, two companies could get married in order to get around anti-trust law.

The fact that so many restrictions are palced on who can get married, when, where, under what circumstances, to who etc speaks to the fact that getting married is not a right.

Unfortuantly you are interperiting the right to non-unfair-discrimination as a right to be treated the same as everyone else. This is simply a gross mis-interperitation of the law.

The paralyzed can be blocked from entering professions that require a sound body becuae the discrimination laws do not say they must be treated the same as everyone else.

Since I haven't come across recent (if any) gay marriage & divorce statistics from the United States I can't conclude that gay married people would be more stable than straight married people or vice versa... but I don't claim that one is more stable than the other, unlike you. Unless you have some gay divorce stats (and not just stats of gay couples that were dating and broke up... because tons of straight couples break up after less than a week), don't use gay divorce rates to argue against gay marriage. If you do have them, give us some hard information... not just a conclusion that you might have reached from them.

I thought I made it clear that such information is available only on EBSCO which is not accessable from either of our home computers. I dont beleive you understand what you are asking me to do.

Again, please post some information related to the argument at hand...

It is, unless you are hard-set agianst accpeting any information I happend to supply

Considering that the article you linked to doesn't even mention homosexuality I find it hard to see how it proves that a man-woman relationship is more stable. Normally when one attempts to prove something is better or more stable than something else they compare statistics of both sides. All that article says is that people that live together (or cohabit) are more likely to be together a year after they have a baby. Gay people can live together, too.

You didnt read what I wrote after the link, did you. No, I thought not.

In addition, the artical also states that after one year, cohabiation was less stable than marriage. The fact that you did not mention this is quite academically dishonest. You are ignoring some of the evidence and drawing conclutions from only what you like.

As of 1996:
Percentage of first marriages that end in divorce: ~50%
Percentage of remarriages that end in divorce: ~60%
The US has the 12th highest divorce percentage in the world... the highest being Belarus at 68%.
The US has the highest divorce rate (out of a sampling of 1000 random people, 5 people would get divorced every year) in the world. That is more than five times as fast as China even though their population is much larger than ours.
As of 1997 (only one year later) the divorce rate went up to almost 9 people per 1000 per year.

Every one of the first 10-15 (when I got tired of looking for conflicting evidence without finding any) web site I have looked at give the same results +/- a few percent.

Yes, that is the epitome of stability (sarcasm)... a 1 in 2 chance (more in some cases) of having your marriage fall apart.

Yes, and every other type of relationship tends to be less stable.

I dont think you quite realize what I am saying.

I am saying that male-female marriage tends to be the most stable type of relationship, ultimatly how stable those relationships are is irrelivant if a comparison to the other types is what matters.



It has become painfully obvious that this discussion has gone as far as it can and is not going anywhere soon. We should agree to disagree and leave it like that. Badgering back and fourth is simply a waste of both of our time.

 

[OCybrManO]

I said encourage the healthiest environment. The fact that it cannot always be met is a tragety, but one of those things that must be accepted. However, deliberatly allowing children into a less than the healthiest situation can be avoided enterly.

Yes, it can be avoided... you have the people that attempt to adopt children go through a series of extensive tests, friends have to vouch for their character, their criminal records are checked, etc... like they already do.

Being dealt with as an idividual is not a right. Therefore, generalizing about a group does not violate any specific member of that groups rights.

Given that your supposition is wrong, the rest of your argument also falls.

Strange, people don't want profiling/discrimination/prejudice when it can prevent crimes... but they are all for it when it comes to gay people getting married and/or adopting children.

I do beleive I have stated this many times before.

If I repeat "water is dry" several hundred times it is no more true at the end than it was before I started.

the male-female relationship is the most healthy way to raise a child

That's an opinion... and if it has any merit the cause is probably the intolerance of others and not some strange reason gay people get divorced more often than heterosexual people.

Getting married is not a right, it is a privilege. If it was a right people could demand the right to marry poligamously or the right to marry thier dog. Or, since corporations are treated under the law as persons, two companies could get married in order to get around anti-trust law.

Actually, some religious groups do demand the right to marry multiple partners... but the government only recognizes the Christian form of marriage... but that's neither here nor there.

The fact that so many restrictions are palced on who can get married, when, where, under what circumstances, to who etc speaks to the fact that getting married is not a right.

Just because there are so many restrictions on US citizens participating in politics doesn't mean that we don't have the right to do so. There are also restrictions on the purchase, usage, and safety of firearms but the right to bear arms is stated in the Bill of Rights. On a more basic level, there have to be restrictions on all freedoms but that does not take away our right to be free.

Unfortuantly you are interperiting the right to non-unfair-discrimination as a right to be treated the same as everyone else. This is simply a gross mis-interperitation of the law.

The paralyzed can be blocked from entering professions that require a sound body becuae the discrimination laws do not say they must be treated the same as everyone else.

Are gay people handicapped in some way? Not unless they happen to be a combination of the two. Liking someone of the same sex is only a "less healthy environment" if you perceive gay people as sinful...

I thought I made it clear that such information is available only on EBSCO which is not accessable from either of our home computers. I dont beleive you understand what you are asking me to do.

You do understand how to write things down and then type them into the computer when you get home... don't you? Anyway, even if you aren't familiar with that I have access to all kinds of scientific documents.

You didnt read what I wrote after the link, did you. No, I thought not.

I read every word you submitted... but several lines down from that you said "The artical I provided earlier shows this" to say that unmarried couples are less stable... which is not adressing the topic at hand (unless you use that as a reason to be in favor of marriage being a right for all people... because without it their relationships will be less stable).

In addition, the artical also states that after one year, cohabiation was less stable than marriage. The fact that you did not mention this is quite academically dishonest. You are ignoring some of the evidence and drawing conclutions from only what you like.

How does that support being against gay marriage? You want them to have less stable relationships?

Yes, and every other type of relationship tends to be less stable.

If "every other type of relationship" is just unmarried un-mixed straight couples living together or not living together... then, yes, "every other type of relationship" is less stable... but "every other type of relationship" includes polygamy, gays, inter-racial, relationships involving people that have gone through sex changes, etc. It is short-sighted to take what little information that article shows and attempt to apply it to all other forms of relationships.

I dont think you quite realize what I am saying.

I am saying that male-female marriage tends to be the most stable type of relationship, ultimatly how stable those relationships are is irrelivant if a comparison to the other types is what matters.

I understand what you are trying to say. You seem to understand what you are trying to say. So, why did you even post that article? Why post information if even you admit that it is "irrelivant"? It can only serve to distract your opponents... which is more "academically dishonest" than me forgetting to mention something that supports my view.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Just let this conversation die ffs. It's been debated to death and is a pointless conversation!

So basically you're saying no gay marriage end of story? Come on, if you have such a strong opinion atleast ****in stand up for it. And everyone seems to have ignored my post...

 

[The Mullinator]

Before I go into the marriage thing I feel like a good flame, so I'll just say this. To everyone who's said they don't agree with homosexuality because they think it 'feels unnatural', put a cork in it. It's much more likely you're afraid of homosexually than it is you actually feel it's wrong. Sexual tension, much?

Alright so some of you may have a genuine feeling of unease about such a thing, which only begs the question, what did gays ever do to you? It's discrimination, pure and simple, and what's worse is you're hiding behind religion to justify it.

That said I really don't know if I agree with same-sex marriage. Up until this point I've been for it all the way, but marriage by definition is a union of two people under god, who apparently has a thing about gays. Personally I think marriage is silly, and kind of fickle. I noticed some people in the other thread chose to think of homosexuals as 'attention seekers'. So, why do people get married again?

Marriage might have been a holy union back then, but nowadays it's just a legal binding. Since divorce became so popular it doesn't really mean much to alot of people anyway.

Anyway better wrap it up before I'm banned or something.

I agree with you on everything except about why some people feel uncomfortable about gays and lesbians.

I myself feel slightly uncomfortable with it but it is not because I am afraid of them or I don't believe what they are doing is "right". Its because I am unused to seeing it, I was brought up by society where movies, music, media, and everything else told me that men and women get together. When I was younger it never really occured to me that men can get together with each other and women can get together with each other. It was very alien and shocking to me when I learned about gays and lesbians.

If you showed me a picture of a naked women maybe 12 years ago I would have been uterly disgusted. Now I can't get enough of them. Of course I am not saying that I will start to enjoy seeing gays (I enjoy seeing lesbians however :E ), but I will get used to them, and hopefully so will all other straight people.

 

[PvtRyan]

Lesbian porn, the best invention since sliced bread

 

[Frank]

If you see it from their childrens point of view they will surely be teased one hell of a lot if their parents were gay. But that's not up to us/me to decide.
A gay marriage is just as natural as a normal marriage. The only thing that makes a normal marriage (man + woman) more natural is that we're meant to have kids and they're meant to have kids and they're meant to have kids...I guess you catch my drift, right? And since love is a natural thing and you can't really prevent it from happening then why is a gay relationship unatural? If two humanbeings of the same sex have feelings for each other then why prevent them from expressing it? Then all us heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to show our feelings for our partner either! Both situations are because of natural-love so what's the difference?

 

[OCybrManO]

Lesbian porn, the best invention since sliced bread

Indeed.

Who knew we could have twice the naked women having sex in one scene?

Genius!

 

[X-FacToR]

I think being gay is totally wrong and.. if you don't like the opposite sex go solo.

 

[PvtRyan]

Indeed.

Who knew we could have twice the naked women having sex in one scene?

Genius!

Without hairy sweaty guys with disgusting facial expressions covering your screen! A win win win situation!

 

[Zakat]

Porno sucks in general imo, I'll prolly get flamed for saying this...

But in my honest oppinion so should you have sex with your partner who you love, you shouldn't have sex for money, in my oppinion so is sex a GREAT way of showing your partner how much you love him/her through giving him/her the excessive amount of pleasure you get through sex.

*Hides from getting flamed*
Mmm the foul stench of flamies in teh air and the word off "feminist" flying over your head. I just love flaming wars.:x

 

[Letters]

Zakat, it's pretty bad when you talk about getting flamed just as much as your actual point!

 

[Frank]

I think being gay is totally wrong and.. if you don't like the opposite sex go solo.

Well why is it? Nobody has ever told us that being hetero is right, have they? It may be just as natural to be gay as in not being...

 

[GhostValkyrie]

It may be just as natural to be gay as in not being...

Seeing as two male or female bodies were obviously made for one another, let's not forget how men can get pregnant or how women can A-sexually reproduce.
If you want to look at it non-religiously, look at that:

It's not natural.
Stiffles Reproduction.
Could cause instability in a child.

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

Hmmm, this debate gets brought up again and again and while I don't think its wrong I find it hard to write down an arguement that sticks....


Well, i'll say again. Try and view it from the other side of the arguement.
Gay people are often quoted in saying that they quite simply don't understand why there are any hetrosexuals. As in they see no appeal what so ever....
So they hold the same view as most of you with one key difference. They let the other side live their lives. I think thats much more mature.

Oh and about it stiffleing reproduction. If they can't help the way they feel then it doesnt matter what anyone says. Its still gona happen.



Also, just an interesting point.
If homosexual feelings are to do with genetics then surely gay people will litterally die out because they can't reproduce.

Now thats obviously not happening. So I wonder what is causeing it...

Upbringing purhaps?




Anyway, as you can see, I don't understand homosexual feelings but I don't let it bother me. And I think its rather touching that these people wan't to get married so badly even with the flak they recieve.


Oh and as for the comment about them being attention seekers. Thats plain bull. People stay in the closet for years remember because they don't want people to find out.


I gota go now, but I might ellaborate my opinions further tomorrow.

Night All!

 

[KagePrototype]

I think everyone should read this; it's a great little essay on why banning same-sex marriage is wrong.

 

[The Mullinator]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything said in that article KagePrototype. Good find.

On another note I remember some of the things I have learned about the Greek civilization. You know, the great philosophers, mathematicians, creators of democracy, what many say was the birth of western civilization. Well heres an interesting thing about them: They had MANY homosexual practices. One example is that young boys would often "practice" on their older brothers or friends for when they were doing the real thing. Also take a look at a map of the mediterranean sea, you should find a small island near Greece called "Lesbos". This island was owned and populated by Greeks at the time. Now take a guess as to where the word "Lesbian" came from.

 

[Pauly]

i would say im in between..on this issue

 

[gh0st]

i really havent bothered reading through this topic but id just like to point out that once bush's new gay marriage "ban" gets through the senate, then its pretty much over.. kerry and edwards both support civil unions, NOT marriage.

edit: though its not like kerry is flaky on every other issue so maybe thats not true now

 

[GhostValkyrie]

i really havent bothered reading through this topic but id just like to point out that once bush's new gay marriage "ban" gets through the senate, then its pretty much over.. kerry and edwards both support civil unions, NOT marriage.

edit: though its not like kerry is flaky on every other issue so maybe thats not true now

I'm afraid you're wrong. This is going to be something that we'll be hearing about for a long time, whether or not the Amendment is ratified.

 

[OCybrManO]

Yeah, I'm glad amendments are forever. Now we don't have to worry about that drink... what was it called? Oh that's right, I remember that from history class, it was called "beer." Now we don't have to worry about beer corrupting people since they passed the 18th amendment. I'm sure glad that fad is over.

Seriously, IF the amendment makes it out of both houses of Congress (with a 2/3 vote in each) and is ratified by 38 states (I doubt it) it will be either replaced or repealed when society is more accepting toward gay people. I think Bush is just trying to solidify his standing with the religious voters.

 

[qckbeam]

You know, the fact that people actually think gay marriage is a topic which must be debated frightens me (I'm not just talking about these forums). I mean, it has grown into such a huge debate now, and it's just ridiculous. The only thing worth talking about is the fact that Bush is trying to get an amendment into the constitution which would ban gay marriage. To think that he would put something in there that flies directly in the face of the fundamental ideas of freedom we have come to define ourselves by sickens me. The rest is trivial, and only goes to show how homophobic America is.
Between this and Janet's nipple it has become rather obvious to me that Americans have pretty much fallen back into their shallow lives, and Sept. 11th didn't really happen. We would rather just sit back and talk about these foolish, trivial things, which have obvious answers this country is too ignorant to see, than say, discuss the current state of affairs across the globe or even worry about the important issues here at home. Americans need to get their heads out of the sand, their noses out of other peoples business, and their minds set on the things that matter.

 

[The Mullinator]

You know, the fact that people actually think gay marriage is a topic which must be debated frightens me (I'm not just talking about these forums). I mean, it has grown into such a huge debate now, and it's just ridiculous. The only thing worth talking about is the fact that Bush is trying to get an amendment into the constitution which would ban gay marriage. To think that he would put something in there that flies directly in the face of the fundamental ideas of freedom we have come to define ourselves by sickens me. The rest is trivial, and only goes to show how homophobic America is.
Between this and Janet's nipple it has become rather obvious to me that Americans have pretty much fallen back into their shallow lives, and Sept. 11th didn't really happen. We would rather just sit back and talk about these foolish, trivial things, which have obvious answers this country is too ignorant to see, than say, discuss the current state of affairs across the globe or even worry about the important issues here at home. Americans need to get their heads out of the sand, their noses out of other peoples business, and their minds set on the things that matter.

Its problems like the ones you said that make me want to start up my own country.

 

[GhostValkyrie]

Just to correct you; Bush didn't start the push for the Amendment, he's merely supporting it. I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just letting you all know. This whole thing with the Amendment started last year, and started to really get head-way in January, before the Judges started issuing marriages.

 

[Brian Damage]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything said in that article KagePrototype. Good find.

On another note I remember some of the things I have learned about the Greek civilization. You know, the great philosophers, mathematicians, creators of democracy, what many say was the birth of western civilization. Well heres an interesting thing about them: They had MANY homosexual practices. One example is that young boys would often "practice" on their older brothers or friends for when they were doing the real thing. Also take a look at a map of the mediterranean sea, you should find a small island near Greece called "Lesbos". This island was owned and populated by Greeks at the time. Now take a guess as to where the word "Lesbian" came from.

There's also an island somewhere called "Dildo".

 

[PvtRyan]

Also, just an interesting point.
If homosexual feelings are to do with genetics then surely gay people will litterally die out because they can't reproduce.

Now thats obviously not happening. So I wonder what is causeing it...

Upbringing purhaps?

Homosexuality is mostly genetic. Saying that can't be isn't valid because a carrier of the gene doesn't necessarily mean it's "active" for example, the allele for homosexuality is probably recessive, which means it doesn't always express itself with the carrier.
To give you an example, we call heterosexuality "A", the capital letter means it's dominant, homosexuality "a" the small letter means it's recessive.
Someone with the allele's of "AA" will be straight.
Same for Aa, aA.
Only aa will result in someone being gay.

Let's say the sexual preference genes of Guy 1, G1, are "Aa", he's not gay. And then there's a Female 1, F1, with "Aa". When a sperm or eggcell is formed, the DNA is split into two, a spermcell of G1 can contain either "A" or "a", same goes for F1 with the eggcell. When they reproduce, there are a number of options:

G1 had a and F1 had A: aA, straight child
G1 had A and F1 had A: AA, straight child
G1 had A and F1 had a: Aa, straight child
G1 had a and F1 had a: aa, gay child

This is very simplified, but I hope you get what I'm trying to convey
My point is, that the genes can be carried and passed on without the carrier being gay.

 

[Zakat]

PvTRyan, we love you, in a gay kinda way *Scares*

 

[Bad^Hat]

You know, the fact that people actually think gay marriage is a topic which must be debated frightens me (I'm not just talking about these forums). I mean, it has grown into such a huge debate now, and it's just ridiculous. The only thing worth talking about is the fact that Bush is trying to get an amendment into the constitution which would ban gay marriage. To think that he would put something in there that flies directly in the face of the fundamental ideas of freedom we have come to define ourselves by sickens me. The rest is trivial, and only goes to show how homophobic America is.
Between this and Janet's nipple it has become rather obvious to me that Americans have pretty much fallen back into their shallow lives, and Sept. 11th didn't really happen. We would rather just sit back and talk about these foolish, trivial things, which have obvious answers this country is too ignorant to see, than say, discuss the current state of affairs across the globe or even worry about the important issues here at home. Americans need to get their heads out of the sand, their noses out of other peoples business, and their minds set on the things that matter.

Great to hear from you qukbeam, I totally agree with everything you said. Such trivial things should be dealt with swiftly, and as has been said about the Janet 'issue', you could easily switch the channel and watch people being killed for entertainment, but a nipple makes the courts

 

[PvtRyan]

PvTRyan, we love you, in a gay kinda way *Scares*

And I love gayporn, lesbian gay porn that is :thumbs:

BTW, another reason why homosexuality is probably genetic, there are gay animals too, and since I don't think it's very likely they are influenced by their upbringing or environment, they must have some genetic heritage.

 

[Zakat]

and I hate pornography.

 

[PvtRyan]

and I hate pornography.

Feminist

 

[Chris D]

Homosexuality is mostly genetic. Saying that can't be isn't valid because a carrier of the gene doesn't necessarily mean it's "active" for example, the allele for homosexuality is probably recessive, which means it doesn't always express itself with the carrier.
To give you an example, we call heterosexuality "A", the capital letter means it's dominant, homosexuality "a" the small letter means it's recessive.
Someone with the allele's of "AA" will be straight.
Same for Aa, aA.
Only aa will result in someone being gay.

Let's say the sexual preference genes of Guy 1, G1, are "Aa", he's not gay. And then there's a Female 1, F1, with "Aa". When a sperm or eggcell is formed, the DNA is split into two, a spermcell of G1 can contain either "A" or "a", same goes for F1 with the eggcell. When they reproduce, there are a number of options:

G1 had a and F1 had A: aA, straight child
G1 had A and F1 had A: AA, straight child
G1 had A and F1 had a: Aa, straight child
G1 had a and F1 had a: aa, gay child

This is very simplified, but I hope you get what I'm trying to convey
My point is, that the genes can be carried and passed on without the carrier being gay.

Could the aA and the Aa end up being bisexual? If a aa is a gay gay then surely an aA or an Aa is a half gay?

 

[PvtRyan]

Could the aA and the Aa end up being bisexual? If a aa is a gay gay then surely an aA or an Aa is a half gay?

No, you're not getting it
The capital letter means it's a dominant feature. For example, if black hair is dominant and blonde is recessive, someone with "aa" (they're just example letters, can be anything) would be blonde but someone with Aa would be blackhaired because A is dominant over a and it will be the feature that will be visible/noticable.
Hope I cleared it up
It's a lot more complicated than this, but I just wanted to illustrate that being straight doesn't mean you don't carry the gene but it's 'overshadowed' by the dominant straight allele.