Gay Marriage

[bloodhound]

I personally think live and let live. I think that ammeding the US constitution saying that marriage is only between man and woman devolves the society quite back. With the USA standing on such a high moral ground nowdays, i dont think it would send the right message to the world about freedom in America. Ultimately, americans must make the choice themselves.

[Tesseract]

I dont undestand why people would go to such lengths to say that marriage is only between a man and a women.Its stupid and pointless.People have to make decisions for themselves.

[bloodhound]

oooh. by the way i love you new avatar.

Is that true about win xp not letting u choose ur name LINUX?i am surprised they msoft havent been taken to court on that.

anyway. it seems quite a lot of americans dont support gay marriage. Most of the explanations dont seem to be valid. statments like"Gay marriage is a threat to hetero marriage" in my view are completely baseless.

[jordan]

Depends on how you're talking about marriage.

[Tesseract]

oooh. by the way i love you new avatar.

Is that true about win xp not letting u choose ur name LINUX?i am surprised they msoft havent been taken to court on that.

anyway. it seems quite a lot of americans dont support gay marriage. Most of the explanations dont seem to be valid. statments like"Gay marriage is a threat to hetero marriage" in my view are completely baseless.

Yes, my new avatar is a small 75 x 75 of a large grim reaper tatoo that I have on my arm.I found the image and brought it in a few days ago to be tatooed.Heres a larger version.And When I installed winxp I couldnt use the user name linux so Im using linx.But i probably should have picked penguin or something like that.

Back to the thread, I cant believ some of the stupid things Ive against gay rights and marriage.Stuff like its "unnatural", and "theyre sinners"... :rolleyes:

[bloodhound]

i dint realise it was a grim reaper. it looks like bony creature flying at you head on. cool. if i have a tatto i might get that one. where did u find it anyway.

[Tesseract]

i dint realise it was a grim reaper. it looks like bony creature flying at you head on. cool. if i have a tatto i might get that one. where did u find it anyway.

Yeah, at 75x75 pixels it dosnt look to great I have the bigger image as my desktop background too.I was getting sick of my dancing pi.I got it on the COSMIC ORACLE OF KNOWLEGDE (http://www.google.com) when I searched for my third tatoo.this one.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Gay marriage doesn't matter to me.

[budullewraagh]

i have nothing against it. i support equal rights for all.

[atinymonkey]

I support equal rights for all.


Even 10ft evil death Ninjas? Whoa, that's super liberal.

[budullewraagh]

...yes...

[bloodhound]

i thought ninjas were freedom fighters defending agaisnt the imperialist samurais.

[Sayonara³]

Ah but these ones are evil ones.

I'd like to point out that the fact that they are evil is in no way connected to their gay marriages.

[Tesseract]

Ah but these ones are evil ones.

I'd like to point out that the fact that they are evil is in no way connected to their gay marriages.
There were no gay ninjas ever.

[ydoaPs]

Why is Bloodhound obsessed with homosexuality?

[Sayonara³]

Because it's FUN.

[bloodhound]

what do u mean obsessed. the only other thread i have talked about orientation is in the heterosexuals being inherently homophobic thread. and the main focus there is on heterosexuals.

[Tesseract]

what do u mean obsessed. the only other thread i have talked about orientation is in the heterosexuals being inherently homophobic thread. and the main focus there is on heterosexuals.


And my tatoos.

[bloodhound]

i am not sure if id wanna get a tattoo until safe, easy, clean way to get rid of it is discovered. but then it wont be a tatto would it :)

[Tesseract]

i am not sure if id wanna get a tattoo until safe, easy, clean way to get rid of it is discovered. but then it wont be a tatto would it :)
Exactly, now you get it.I have one on each of my upper arms.And a small one on my leg.

[bloodhound]

i wonder why pple get tatoos? is it to look hard?

[atinymonkey]

i am not sure if id wanna get a tattoo until safe, easy, clean way to get rid of it is discovered. but then it wont be a tatto would it :)

I think you can get 5-year tattoos now, they fade after 5 years just as you don't want it anymore, after you’ve turned into a corporate suit.

[Kbzon59]

gay people should be given the right to get married. I don't undersatnd why they dont have the right. The current limitations for heterosexual weddings are enough to keep the institution of marriage from becoming even a bigger joke (some anti-gaymarrigers have said that allowing gay people to get married woukld make a joke of the institution since, the "locas" would divorce and marry everyday, becuase they are voluble and dont' have determination -they say-).
One of the basic points against homosexual marriages is the publicvity taht the wedding brings: let's face it, most parents dont want their kids to see two man kissing. But teh law should not take that in reckoning when legislating about such theme.
Now, I have a question about american law (i am a mexican law student). Is there a way to get all the rights that come with marriage without getting married?
Saying no to gay weddings is disknowing realtionships and lifelong companionship.
Free union (concubinate) should also be recognized for gayu people.
people who are agaisnt gay weddings have, I think, a mindset like this; If they legally cna do it, tehy will do it. Since the law allows it, our children will be queers. AHHH!!!

[Phi for All]

Much of the resentment towards gay marriages is because marriage is one of the sacraments in Christian churches. Sacraments are sacred mysteries to the ultra-religious who want to adhere to a strict interpretation of biblical canon. They object to the fact that gays want to get married in their churches but not follow their sacred rites.

They are also terrified they might get some of that gay on them and that, like many tattoos, it won't wash off and they'll be condemned as Satan's Gay Ninjas of Perdition.

[Tesseract]

Much of the resentment towards gay marriages is because marriage is one of the sacraments in Christian churches. Sacraments are sacred mysteries to the ultra-religious who want to adhere to a strict interpretation of biblical canon. They object to the fact that gays want to get married in their churches but not follow their sacred rites.

They are also terrified they might get some of that gay on them and that, like many tattoos, it won't wash off and they'll be condemned as Satan's Gay Ninjas of Perdition.

Damn christians, they ruin everything... :mad: What an idiot the guy that wrote the bible must have been.... :mad:

[Phi for All]

Damn christians, they ruin everything... :mad:Don't hate them. Many Christians are simply afraid. Afraid of change. Afraid of sexuality. Afraid of big scary Canadians with tattooed upper arms.

But mostly afraid of gay Canadian ninjas with tattoos.

Every country simply needs to come up with a semi-binding ritual of consentual cohabitation recognized by all that gives the same benefits as marriage without being called marriage. Revenue-sactioned Pagan hand-fasting in a mutually recognized place of comfort springs easily to mind.

[Tesseract]

Don't hate them. Many Christians are simply afraid. Afraid of change. Afraid of sexuality. Afraid of big scary Canadians with tattooed upper arms.

But mostly afraid of gay Canadian ninjas with tattoos.

Every country simply needs to come up with a semi-binding ritual of consentual cohabitation recognized by all that gives the same benefits as marriage without being called marriage. Revenue-sactioned Pagan hand-fasting in a mutually recognized place of comfort springs easily to mind.

Well, I dont like them very much :-( , lets kill them!

[Phi for All]

lets kill them!They'll be expecting that....

We need someone small, with no tattoos, preferably gay but not Canadian... let's send in the half-inch pink ninjas! (http://people.unt.edu/~jmm0020/)

[Phi for All]

Now, I have a question about american law (i am a mexican law student). Is there a way to get all the rights that come with marriage without getting married? In fifteen states and Washington DC, common law marriages are recognized between hetero couples who are not formally married if they act as if they are married and this gives them the same rights as married couples (insurance, pensions, taxes, hospital restrictions, etc). But common law does not recognize ANY same sex couples.

We should send death after them:Can you make him dance or swing the scythe by flexing your biceps or does he just breath funny?

[Kbzon59]

Ok. Thanks for anwering mu question, Phi.

[Tesseract]

Can you make him dance or swing the scythe by flexing your biceps or does he just breath funny?
I can make him jump by flexing my biceps... :D

[Sayonara³]

Screw you George, you damned hippy
...says Senate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3893973.stm).

[Phi for All]

I'm chuffed. :D

[blike]

Although I'm a republican, I'm quite frankly disturbed over the fact that the current administration is seeking to make an amendment to the founding document of this country because of his personal belief. Granted, the constitution was drafted around the convictions of the founding fathers, but those convictions included individual and state rights, and small federal government. In my opinion, the federal government should back up and let the states deal with it on an individual basis.

I don't believe the states should ban homosexual marriages either. Marriage (the ceremony) is a religious event. Let the individual religious leaders decide whether or not they want to marry a couple. The state, however, has no right to impede on personal freedom by denying civil union to a couple.

Even if you believe homosexuality is wrong, immoral, unnatural, whatever, there is no reason for you to impose your beliefs on others. I find it interesting that Christians are the most outspoken against gay marriage. While they have every right to hold that homosexuality is wrong, why don't they take a lesson from God Himself and not force people to do things their way. I always tell my Christian friends that God allows people to break His law and do as they please. So why should any Christian force someone to behave in accordance with their own personal "law".

[jgerlica]

I wouldn't worry all that much, it still has to be ratified by the state legislatures, and I don't forsee them willingly giving up a reserved power.

[Phi for All]

Although I'm a republican, I'm quite frankly disturbed over the fact that the current administration is seeking to make an amendment to the founding document of this country because of his personal belief.Let the individual religious leaders decide whether or not they want to marry a couple. The state, however, has no right to impede on personal freedom by denying civil union to a couple.It takes a lot of guts for a platform Republican to make a statement like that and I applaud you for it, blike. This administration has used fear and hatred to push its private agendas and I'm sick of it. It has turned patriotism into nationalism, and religious conviction into homophobia. If the churches don't want to take the money for same sex weddings that's their business, but ammending the constitution to promote more social division is the last thing this country needs.

[MandrakeRoot]

Not all christians are against gay weddings, so surely there is no need for generalization here !
The netherlands is a christian country at the foundation, though ofcourse church and state are seperated, but the christian community is still relatively strong and gay weddings are allowed since some years now.

I think it is clear that gay couples should get the same rights and obligations as married couples. It could always be called something else than a marriage if people would prefer so.

[Sayonara³]

When people say things like "[I] find it interesting that Christians are the most outspoken against gay marriage", I automatically take it to mean "of the people against gay marriage, it is the Christians who are the most out-spoken".

This is a little off-topic, but why are people so eager to stick themselves in boxes such as "republic", "democrat" and so on? Personally I think that approach opens the door to people who would rather oppose issues with labels.
(I'll split this off if it gets interesting - now split off to here (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4888))

[YT2095]

Not all christians are against gay weddings, so surely there is no need for generalization here !

and not all those Against Gays are Christians either (or Ninjas, good or evil) :)

[admiral_ju00]

I personally think live and let live. I think that ammeding the US constitution saying that marriage is only between man and woman devolves the society quite back.

I agree. Carving an amendment for this in the Constitution is just plain stupid(Just like creating this country and calling it FREE and all man are created equal, but then to import slaves to this free land.....). This and a number of other issues or things that Bush said or done has made me want to see him KICKED out of the office.


And especially if they could do something to Impeach him for something/anything, for example the Iraqi war, or at least our - err, HIS reason for us going there, would be even nicer. :D

[Tesseract]

And especially if they could do something to Impeach him for something/anything, for example the Iraqi war, or at least our - err, HIS reason for us going there, would be even nicer. :D
There are reasons: :rolleyes:

1)Opression of people (we all know that the US has to step right in where thats happening, look at N.Korea,Palestine,Sudan...)

2)Weapons of mass destruction (Dont forget only the US is allowed to have wmds, just because they said so...and it seems Iraq dosnt have any)

3)Harbouring terrorsits (even though there werent very many terrorists when the war started, look how many there are now!)

[admiral_ju00]

There are reasons: :rolleyes:

1)Opression of people (we all know that the US has to step right in where thats happening, look at N.Korea,Palestine,Sudan...)

US should reconsider it's forreign affairs policy. We are trying to act like the world's Big and Very concerned brother and try to be the first to offer help(or troops) to other countries. In most cases our help there is Not needed, Not wanted and or Not Welcomed.

2)Weapons of mass destruction (Dont forget only the US is allowed to have wmds, just because they said so...and it seems Iraq dosnt have any)

Yes, and all the efforts to find them have failed miserably.


3)Harbouring terrorsits (even though there werent very many terrorists when the war started, look how many there are now!)

That's a damn good point.

[Phi for All]

To bring this thread back to domestic policies, has a US administration ever made a more glaring error than to try to bring Church and State together again? Aren't they seperated for a reason?

[Tesseract]

To bring this thread back to domestic policies, has a US administration ever made a more glaring error than to try to bring Church and State together again? Aren't they seperated for a reason?

Well, people tend to change their feelings about things, constantly, it really isnt a big surprise that they make the same policy mistakes after a while.

[BeckyK]

I am 100% in support for gay marriages. Who am I to deny them of that right? We are all humans.

[Aardvark]

We are all humans.

I'm an Aardvark. ;)

[Tesseract]

I'm an Aardvark. ;)

Your not allowed on this site!!! ;)

[bloodhound]

u suck ;)

[Aardvark]

u suck ;)

That's one of the advantages of my lovely proboscis. :D

[Kbzon59]

Why don't americans impeach their prez more often? Why hasn't teh people asked to remove bush?
Has people really fallen for that "we are trying our best to bring our boys back" and cant see the fact that bush simply has to make a phone call to bring them back and chooses not to?
Because of course, americans care more for 1 fal;len solfdier thn for thousand of iraqi children
I have always been astonished by the american coception that the prez embodies the best of the nationm. If that is true, my friends, you are in trouble.
Your prez is not very bright, he is warloving and unadequate.
Do you gusy treally think he has a legit shotr at a second term? I hope not!
Do you think he can sleep at night?
And dont you get me satrted iN Vicente Fox. At least he hasnt killed anyone...

[Severian]

I am against gay marriage.

I think the state has no business asking, or condoning, or condeming, or even having an opinion on what 2 (or more!) consenting adults do in private. I think the state should abolish state condoned marriages of all kinds. There should be no tax breaks and no special rights for couples by default.

Instead, if people want to get 'married' for religious reasons, they should go to their church and have a religious cerimony (with no associated legal binding).

If they want to have the rights currently associated with 'marriage', they should go see their laywer and draw up a contract.


I must admit though to being a little bit confused as to why the gay community is making such a stink about this. Surely there are only two reasons to get married - religous or legal (as outlined above). Since they can still do both of the things I suggest above (ie. have a religious cerimony, and visit their lawyer), why do they need the state to ratify their union? :confused:

[Sayonara³]

Strange that you replied to this thread just before I was about to post this fairly related link:

California annuls 4,000 gay marriages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3560050.stm).

Methinks that move will have repurcussions.

[Severian]

Good! It is a step towards annuling the other 50,000,000 (or whatever) marriages in the US.

;) (I felt I had better add a wink smilie just in case...)

[john5746]

Marriage brings many benefits: Child custody, ownership rights, insurance reductions, tax benefits, etc. Also, I guess some want their union to be seen as more legitimate.

Marriage also brings benefits to society and that is one reason for government to support it. Some would say that social engineering is not a role of government, but I say that it is a chief role of government. Forcing marriage would of course be a different issue, just as forcing gays not to marry.

Society is changing, but slowly. Gay marriage is a question of when, not if.

[budullewraagh]

ay, if you look throughout history conservatism has never prevailed over progressive movements.

[Phi for All]

Marriage provides a stable platform for raising children, among other things. Notice that as divorce becomes easier problems related to raising children become more prevalent. Marriage also means people don't just pick up and leave in a fit of anger. Divorce is becoming too easy, though. I think it should be harder to divorce rather than easier. Too many people bail on their commitments rather than work through the problems.

As an analogy, in Germany it costs about $1400 to get your driver's license (the sound you hear is the jaws of the American readers dropping). In the US it's about $25. In Germany, there's no point system. If you abuse your driving priveleges, they take your license away. Another $1400, please. Germans are some of the most serious drivers I've ever shared the roads with. In the US, people drive like idiots because they get points taken away first, then your license is revoked. It's easier to get your license back so people don't respect the privelege of driving.

My point is, if it were more difficult to do, people wouldn't use divorce as a crutch as often. Families would become more stable because people would learn to work through their differences.

[Severian]

ay, if you look throughout history conservatism has never prevailed over progressive movements.

Which explains why homosexuality was more tolerated in Victorian England than in ancient Greece.....

erm.... hang on a minute.....

:-p

[budullewraagh]

:\
age of revolutions? civil rights movements?

[Sayonara³]

Which explains why homosexuality was more tolerated in Victorian England than in ancient Greece.....
The intolerance of Victorian society was not to do with conservatism, it was the age of the socialite smear campaign.

[SurfSciGuy]

Just like to say that I am totally against ninjas, as they are merely assassins who kill for money - they have no honour.

As for gay marriage - If the state sees fit to bestow priveleges on individual s who choose to get married then those priveleges should be open to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation if the society is to be fair, free and liberal.

As for Victorian intolerance - it was a mixture of a reaction against the headonistic ways of the previous regimes and a rise to prominance of the US and it's puritanical culture. Victorian society becomes more and more intraverted as the years go by and imported ideaology from the likes of Kellog compounded this (can't believe the guy invented cornflakes believing they stopped masturbation). Victorian society also saw the rise of the middle class to the social forefront - traditionally a much more conservative group than the upper classes (who often continued their shenanigans anyway e.g. Prince Edward).

[budullewraagh]

i was referring more to civil rights issues and such. age of revolutions, anyone?

[drz]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=75970#post75970

[john5746]

ay, if you look throughout history conservatism has never prevailed over progressive movements.

I think this is usually the case as new generations demand more freedoms within a society. But, when that society fails(Greeks) or is transported(Puritans), they seem to go backwards.

[Chem-Maniac]

I seriously don't see why a marriage allowed to only heterosexuals would draw the developement of a sociaty back. And other way around, why is it such a positive contribution to a sociaty if homosexuals are allowed to marry? Just bacause we can call ourselfes more tolerant?
Could anyone tell me just one positive outcome of a law allowing gay people to marry? I can't think of anything right now.
A marriage is a sacred thing, with a tradition going back almost to the roots of humanity. Gays marrying? No thank's.

[Sayonara³]

I seriously don't see why a marriage allowed to only heterosexuals would draw the developement of a sociaty back. And other way around, why is it such a positive contribution to a sociaty if homosexuals are allowed to marry? Just bacause we can call ourselfes more tolerant?
Could anyone tell me just one positive outcome of a law allowing gay people to marry? I can't think of anything right now.
Laws are made to protect the rights that a society affords its citizens. Your argument is circular, and unless it applied to every law that was made would be special pleading - i.e. discrimination.

Nobody is asking for a special "gay law" to be made. You need to be more familiar with the issue if you want your comments to make sense.


A marriage is a sacred thing, with a tradition going back almost to the roots of humanity. Gays marrying? No thank's.
And how many times have such wooly and non-specific "arguments" been torn to shreds on here?

[drz]

Could anyone tell me just one positive outcome of a law allowing gay people to marry?

2 people are happy.

Can you tell me of one negative outcome?

[Severian]

Can you tell me of one negative outcome?

Reinforcing the idea that the state should need to legitimise people's private sexual preferences....

[Sayonara³]

Reinforcing the idea that the state should need to legitimise people's private sexual preferences....
That's not the issue, nor is it a negative effect.

[Severian]

I would regard it as a negative outcome. I think that government has no business telling us how we should or should not live our lives.

[Sayonara³]

I would regard it as a negative outcome. I think that government has no business telling us how we should or should not live our lives.
...but only with regards to gay people?

[Severian]

...but only with regards to gay people?

No - quite generally, but extending the concept of state sanctioned marriage is still a bad thing. It makes it more accepted and 'normal'. We should do away with state marriages altogether and leave them for religious groups.

[budullewraagh]

agreed. but as long as state sanctioned marraiges exist, we must have equality

[Severian]

Don't you think it would be easier to get people to accept its removal altogether rather than its enlargement to gay couples?

[drz]

Reinforcing the idea that the state should need to legitimise people's private sexual preferences....

well, this has little to do with sex. This has more to do with recognizing and granting rights which are granted to others who are married. Tax breaks, benefits, access to emergency rooms for ICU, etc.

But I fail to see where this is a negative effect of 2 gay people being married. I fail to see how this has anything to do with your life, nor can I see how this in anyway limits anyone's freedom, nor causes them pain, unhappiness, or makes them unable to live a decent life.

Remember, cause and effect; gay couple married, which caused ______ to happen to me. The answer I'm looking for would go in the blank.

[Sayonara³]

No - quite generally, but extending the concept of state sanctioned marriage is still a bad thing. It makes it more accepted and 'normal'. We should do away with state marriages altogether and leave them for religious groups.
What DRZ said.

Plus I see hypocrisy in complaining on the one hand that the government "has no business telling us how we should or should not live our lives", but on the other hand saying that something that does not affect you makes someone else's lifestyle "more accepted and 'normal'".

The standards you want for yourself are too good for gay people. We're back to discrimination again.

[Severian]

Plus I see hypocrisy in complaining on the one hand that the government "has no business telling us how we should or should not live our lives", but on the other hand saying that something that does not affect you makes someone else's lifestyle "more accepted and 'normal'".


I think you were misunderstanding. I was meaning that allowing gay people to marry makes marriage more widespread, which is a bad thing because it leads to the societal expectation that one should be married to be normal. If society has an expectation that I should be married, that definitely affects me (even if they do not directly discriminate against me for not being married).

[Sayonara³]

I think you were misunderstanding. I was meaning that allowing gay people to marry makes marriage more widespread, which is a bad thing because it leads to the societal expectation that one should be married to be normal. If society has an expectation that I should be married, that definitely affects me (even if they do not directly discriminate against me for not being married).
Apart from the fact that that is really really tenuous, you're choosing to attribute this to gay marriage in particular.

[drz]

I'm not discriminated against for not being married. Never have been. Sure, people discriminate against single parents, especially mothers, but I can't think of being thought of as "not normal" for being single. Hell, I'm not normal for plenty of other reasons.

As far as that goes, define normal.

[Severian]

Yes you are. You don't get the tax breaks, so you are paying a 'single person tax'.

[Killa Klown]

Do any of you know that homosexuality could be considered a type of insanity.

I think they make hormone meds for that type of insanity now-a-days.

[agentchange]

Killa Klown, what a novel idea. However, if anything, the hormones would mostly only have an affect much earlier in the decision-making process. For once that bridge has been crossed, going back can be kind of a complicated process. In many cases, I don't think hormones would have any effect, well, not in the way you would expect it to, probably. Environment, and development, and nutrition, and activity levels, and culture, and their effect on psychology, not to mention history, it's all just too much to factor in regarding the world that we live in today, not to mention simple primal sexual gratification. How do you think it was for the very first couple of homosexuals? There is this one species of goldfish that just have sex with anything in front of them, something, anything. Women could have been kind of scarce back then, a lot like today, in some places and certain situations.

Frankly, I like to think that civilization will move on, but realistically some things about the world are just too monumental to change. On the flip-side, there are those that would say, "Ahh, but it's the best population control!"

As far as gay marriage is concerned, there is no such thing as gay marriage, period. Marriage is naturally defined as being between a male and a female. While animals may have homosexual intercourse for whatever reason, you simply don't find same-sex animals that have life-long relationships, well, except for humans. The whole gender identification phenomenon is really just another homosexual rationalization. However, people will do what they want in this not-so-perfect world and we can just chalk it all up to history.

[the tree]

Mental abnormality is a funny old thing. Technically homosexuality is behavior deviating well out of the normal range, so there's no particular reason not to call it a mental illness. But that doesn't mean anything, apart from that they are different in one way.

[Killa Klown]

In a way EVERY human being is a little CRAZY to a certain point, depending on how mentaly healthy you are.

[geoguy]

I'm happy for any gay couples who have the option of marriage or not. Being married or not is a decision that impacts them more than any fleeting opinion I have on the subject. We have gay couples in our circle of friends...one a police officer, one who is the cover illustrator of my wife's books, one a professional gardener. They and their partners go through the trials and tribulations of any of us in society. I'm pleased that at least here, in Canada, they don't have to live with a negative stigma. Our lives are richer because of the diversity of the culture around us...the more ethnic groups, languages, lifestyles and so on. None of our gay friends have yet 'tied the knot' but we'll be happy for them if that's a decision they make and will feel privileged to witness their marriage vows.

[Pangloss]

I'm fine with gay couples and I've come to accept gay marriage, even with its tricky legal precedent issues (we can solve that problem if we need to).

I'm not so sure about recent efforts to bring homosexuality into the mainstream. Some of that stuff seems to be less about equality and more about generating larger numbers of potential playmates.

[Sayonara³]

I know, let's dig up a thread from three years ago and start repeating bad arguments.

[Haezed]

I know, let's dig up a thread from three years ago and start repeating bad arguments.

Naw, let's just be snotty to each other. It's so much more fun.

[fattyjwoods]

I dont care. It's up to the person to decide whether they want to be gay or not

[Physia]

Gay marriage put the United States behind other countries, therefore we must condemn it.

[Jadey12]

My father is gay. I know that he doesn't really care if he's allowed to get married or not, he's still going to be with his partner.

As far as whether I think gay marriage is ok, I see no negative results from it. I think to solve the problem of "reinforcing the idea that the state should need to legitimize people's private sexual preferences" -Originally Posted by Severian there would have to be no laws regarding gay marriage.
i.e. No laws banning or allowing it.

Right now, I think that generally gays are being discriminated against just as many other groups have been in the past. Eventually people will get over the fact that a man can be in love with a man and a woman can be in love with a woman and they will move on to another group to discriminate against.

[Sayonara³]

Gay marriage put the United States behind other countries, therefore we must condemn it.

In what way has it put the US "behind" other countries, and why should some subjective ranking against other countries take priority over the welfare of your own citizens?

[YT2095]

and they will move on to another group to discriminate against.

Yeah, like Smokers, Grrrrr..... :mad:

[someguy]

honestly, I couldn't care less If gays get married, I understand why they want it so much, and for those reasons we should let them.

The real question is if gayness is genetic then maybe if society really accepts gays and gays are not afraid to hide that they are gay even from a very early age, then maybe there will be less and less gays. Probably in the past many gays had a spouse of the opposite sex and produced children because they needed to hide the fact they were gay. If they stopped doing that then maybe the gay gene would sort of be left out of the gene pool. then, sometime in the future there will be so little gays that it becomes really taboo again people start hiding in closets again and the cycle continues. I don't know... it seems to me that in the past there was a time when being gay was much more accepted in europe than in recent history. but artificial insemination and other things could help against that now I guess.

[Haezed]

I agree that gay marriage should be allowed. I would let them adopt children. We have enough kids in this country being raised by one parent without using this resource.

Also, I'm tired of the parades. Let's just make them mainstream and forget about it.

[geoguy]

Does anyone over 10 years old really like any parades? St. Patrick's Day? Santa Claus (yawn). what's that wierd one in California the Americans have where they do nothing but boast about how many flowers were wasted?

I had a friend who worked for a local TV network and she said the lowest point of journalism was when they would do a blip on some local parade. Just what new can be said when the 5th band goes by that sounds as bad as the 4 that went before it?

[Killa Klown]

Didn't I mention a CURE a Pill or patch that realises some type of hormones that effectivly make the man only horny for WOMEN, thereby making him straight again by fixing the unbalance in his body. I also mentioned that being homosexual could be considered a type of mental illness.

[Haezed]

. I also mentioned that being homosexual could be considered a type of mental illness.

I was choosing to ignore you.

[ParanoiA]

I agree that gay marriage should be allowed. I would let them adopt children. We have enough kids in this country being raised by one parent without using this resource.

Also, I'm tired of the parades. Let's just make them mainstream and forget about it.

Here, Here!

[Sisyphus]

Does anyone over 10 years old really like any parades? St. Patrick's Day?

You've obviously never been to New York.

[the tree]

You've obviously never been to New York.
Or any city, anywhere. Everywhere has parades and everywhere they have the potential to be awesome.
Didn't I mention a CURE a Pill or patch that realises some type of hormones that effectivly make the man only horny for WOMEN, thereby making him straight again by fixing the unbalance in his body. I also mentioned that being homosexual could be considered a type of mental illness.Let's just make this very clear. Homosexuality is only a mental illness in the most meaningless sense of the word. Hormone treatments do not change psychological associations.Got it?

[Sayonara³]

The discussion which emerged in this thread regarding a hypothetical cure for homosexuality has been moved here:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27232

[ParanoiA]

Does anyone over 10 years old really like any parades? St. Patrick's Day? Santa Claus (yawn).

I think so, although I share your sentiment. They're just an annoyance, a day when I have to fight to get around downtown while all the non-downtowners try to figure out how to deal with all the one-way streets and lack of parking. Seems like they always do this on a week day...when I have to work and am forced to interface with this mess.

[john5746]

Gay marriage put the United States behind other countries, therefore we must condemn it.

You want other countries on our behind? :eyebrow:

[Physia]

In what way has it put the US "behind" other countries, and why should some subjective ranking against other countries take priority over the welfare of your own citizens?

In the way that other countries think less of you because you allowed gay marriage.
It is the same as me dissing a homosexual (for example) at school, work, public, etc. Other people's voices are important, as us being a superpower.

It doesn't take priority, it is a priority for us to be dominating in all means.
Man and woman were made to marry each other, and bring new lives to earth.
Take "Adam And Eve" Christian myth for example, I doubt it has any homosexuals getting married, but as I said it is a myth and it is highly believed to be untrue, except in the religious sense.

That's my opinion anyways, you don't need to take it as a serious matter, for it is not in my hand to control this matter, and decide whether it should or should not be.

cheers

[Physia]

You want other countries on our behind? :eyebrow:

No, I want other countries to remember that we are still over them ;).

[john5746]

That's my opinion anyways, you don't need to take it as a serious matter, for it is not in my hand to control this matter, and decide whether it should or should not be.

cheers

Yeah, I don't think you are being taken seriously. Unfortunately, there are a great many people who have the same level of critical thinking skills as you. Some may even be in positions of authority.

A country with enough firepower to destroy humanity, filled with people with irrational beliefs. Very scarry!

[Physia]

Yeah, I don't think you are being taken seriously. Unfortunately, there are a great many people who have the same level of critical thinking skills as you. Some may even be in positions of authority.

A country with enough firepower to destroy humanity, filled with people with irrational beliefs. Very scarry!

You'll notice that humanity is being destroyed by your own hands sometime, too late yet you'll notice :rolleyes:.

Gay marriage is not a good picture about the United States of America, greatest nation in the world. If you fail to notice that we were, still are, and will remain the greatest, then you lack a sense of patriotism and need to just get out of this country for its best :eyebrow:.

Let's hope our authorities will bring us peace and harmony, and not just another disgusting phase of this lovely life; this time illustrated as gay marriage.

Politics my brother, politics and religion are more important than anything at this moment. There are people out there, including the American troops, are being killed for who they are and what they believe in. I don't think that can be substituted by gays getting married, can it be?

cheers :D

[Sayonara³]

So you don't think that cherishing the right of an individual to make their own choices is a good feature of American democracy then?

It is ironic that your own words - "for who they are and what they believe in" - do not concern you at all.

[ParanoiA]

Gay marriage is not a good picture about the United States of America, greatest nation in the world. If you fail to notice that we were, still are, and will remain the greatest, then you lack a sense of patriotism and need to just get out of this country for its best .

I don't get this. Personal liberty and freedom is not a good picture about the united states? If anything it solidifies the original intent of america. I fail to see the relationship between gay marriage and patriotism. In fact, that whole paragraph seems a mess.

Let's hope our authorities will bring us peace and harmony, and not just another disgusting phase of this lovely life; this time illustrated as gay marriage.

Wouldn't we get peace and harmony by letting them get married? Actually, allow me to re-word that to a more accurate distinction - wouldn't we get peace and harmony by not interfering with their marriage? I prefer the government to stay the hell out of my life, I've seen the mess they've become.

Politics my brother, politics and religion are more important than anything at this moment. There are people out there, including the American troops, are being killed for who they are and what they believe in. I don't think that can be substituted by gays getting married, can it be?

Dead american troops and gay marriage? You won't maintain any credibility with people when you so obviously force two ideas together that have nothing to do with each other, in a feeble attempt at shaming people into your view. That's what terrorists do.

The american troops are not be killed for what they believe in, they're being killed because they're on foreign soil with guns and artillery - they're being killed for what some politicians believe in and have duped you into believing in as well. Yeah, it's because we're "free" right? Nothing to do with military invasions, bases, sanctions...none of that....:rolleyes:

[Physia]

So you don't think that cherishing the right of an individual to make their own choices is a good feature of American democracy then?

It is ironic that your own words - "for who they are and what they believe in" - do not concern you at all.

Too much freedom burdens the people.
People should make choices to help their society and not put it backwards.
In the United States, there should only be work, education, and politics; nothing more and nothing less.

Gay marriage is disgusting and goes against our motto "In God We Trust."

American soldiers are Americans and are being killed because of that. They believe in freedom, and they die because of that. That's not irony.

[Physia]

I don't get this. Personal liberty and freedom is not a good picture about the united states? If anything it solidifies the original intent of america. I fail to see the relationship between gay marriage and patriotism. In fact, that whole paragraph seems a mess.

We're fighting a monotheistic religion, in an indirect way, but I would like to leave that out of here for now. Their beliefs are anti-gay marriage, in fact any monotheistic religion that I know of only supports marriage between a male and a female.
Allowing gay marriage in here gives a bad picture. I refuse that. You're a patriot when you do good for your country and show your full support to it ;).

Wouldn't we get peace and harmony by letting them get married? Actually, allow me to re-word that to a more accurate distinction - wouldn't we get peace and harmony by not interfering with their marriage? I prefer the government to stay the hell out of my life, I've seen the mess they've become.

Not exactly; rumors are false, yet they are strong.

Dead american troops and gay marriage? You won't maintain any credibility with people when you so obviously force two ideas together that have nothing to do with each other, in a feeble attempt at shaming people into your view. That's what terrorists do.

Both ideas have something in common; the United States.

The american troops are not be killed for what they believe in, they're being killed because they're on foreign soil with guns and artillery - they're being killed for what some politicians believe in and have duped you into believing in as well. Yeah, it's because we're "free" right? Nothing to do with military invasions, bases, sanctions...none of that....:rolleyes:

They're being killed because they are Americans.
We're in a state of war for the time-being, you can notice that right?
On foreign soil or on native soil, we're carrying arms to fight for a specific goal.
Why did we invade countries during World War II? In fact, why did we carry arms and fight? It wasn't our war, was it?

You can disagree with the government and politicians all you want my friend, but you can't deny the atrocities the other side of the world committed towards the troops and the United States. To do so is plain treason.

[the tree]

Too much freedom burdens the people.What? You're not serious? You would complain about too much freedom?

People should make choices to help their society and not put it backwards.How is increasing personal liberty putting your country backwards?

Gay marriage is disgusting...Ugly people in relationships is pretty gross as well, you'd ban that just because it's disgusting?

American soldiers are Americans and are being killed because of that.
They are being killed because they are the occupying force, in case you hadn't noticed, the coalition isn't just American.

They believe in freedom, and they die because of that.How can you seriously believe that? Take all the threats from all terrorists ever, do any of them mention giving a damn about whether you believe in freedom or not? The same goes for insurgents, they act because of what Americans do, not because of some ridiculous idea about the principles they hold.

...in fact any monotheistic religion that I know of only supports marriage between a male and a female.Then do some research, since your in America you have the added convenience of churches that are particularly passionate about allowing gay marriage have pride-flags outside, they're all over the place.

[ParanoiA]

Allowing gay marriage in here gives a bad picture. I refuse that. You're a patriot when you do good for your country and show your full support to it .

Oh I get it, you choose to live your life on other people's terms and you expect us to do the same. You want to restrict freedom and advance oppression in order to make monotheistic adversaries content with us? I reject such notions, vehemently and proudly. I prefer freedom - real freedom.

And you're not a patriot when you advocate interference in civil liberties. Government should have ZERO say in what marriage is. I don't care if a midget wants to marry a carrot - that's none of your business. That's what real freedom is. A good patriot will always support the advancement of his country and the liberty of its people.

Both ideas have something in common; the United States.

So what about the KKK and Wal-Mart? Both ideas have the united states in common too. So, according to your logic, they are connected. Due to the existence of the KKK, Wal-mart has flourished. We need to crush the KKK in order to stop Wal-Mart from owning the country and selling it in bulk to poor countries.

They're being killed because they are Americans.

Exactly, because AMERICANS can't keep their noses out of anybody's business. Because AMERICANS meddle with their governments and then act all surprised when they get pissed about it. Because AMERICANS make believe that our freedom is being attacked while we occupy their soil and pretend that's not it.

We're in a state of war for the time-being, you can notice that right?
On foreign soil or on native soil, we're carrying arms to fight for a specific goal.

Yes, our goal is to secure oil and establish a foothold in the middle east. We want to redirect their terrorism to their own territory - and we do that by establishing a presence in their territory - keeping them from focusing on our own soil. We dupe you and the rest of the american sheeple into buying into it by selling nifty slogans like "fighting for our freedom". They have successfully got you believing and advocating the idea that our behavior in the middle east is just fine and the people over there have no issues with it at all - it's that we're free.

You make believe it's not the thousands, if not millions of dead that we share responsibility for in the form of CIA meddling, behind the scenes coups, sanctions, "war on terror" - you name it. We would NEVER allow a foreign power to treat us like that - NEVER. Anyone who thinks our freedom is being threatened, apparently believes we should have the freedom to subjogate and imperialize.

England did far less than that to us, yet we mounted an 8 year revolutionary war to kick them out - we'd rather die than be dictated to by them. Why is that so hard to understand? We just celebrated this yesterday...

You can disagree with the government and politicians all you want my friend, but you can't deny the atrocities the other side of the world committed towards the troops and the United States. To do so is plain treason.

Who's denying the atrocities? And it isn't treason even if we were. I think you need to look that word up before you use it. I don't have any love for terrorists and in fact, I view them as children. Much of the middle east suffers from trust fund mentallity - oil in the ground. If it wasn't for oil, why would we give a crap about that region? They just sell rights to drill for their oil - don't have to lift a finger to make ridiculous amounts of money.

They are irrational in their politics and governments. We don't interface well because they don't want to. The thing is, we force the issue and impose ourselves on that region - in politics, business, and etc. I would much rather ignore them until their governments grow up and act like adults. But we won't...we'd much rather impose ourselves and continue the ideas that promote hatred for the US and act all surprised when they attack us.

[Sayonara³]

Physia, if you have any interest in staying on this site as a contributing member, then you need to reconsider your tendencies to drift towards hate speech and logical fallacies.

They are not consistent with our purpose.

[Glider]

No, I want other countries to remember that we are still over them ;).Interesting perspective. I'm sure it'll go along way towards gaining the respect of the rest of the world.

[Phi for All]

In the way that other countries think less of you because you allowed gay marriage.Other countries like Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, South Africa, Belgium, Finland, Canada, countries like those? They all allow gay marriage or something equivalent. You must be talking about countries like Sudan, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, North Korea, and China. Those countries all think like you do.
It is the same as me dissing a homosexual (for example) at school, work, public, etc. Other people's voices are important, as us being a superpower.So when you're disrespecting homosexuals at work, school and in public, you're doing so because you want to look good in the eyes of others because their opinions matter more to you?
It doesn't take priority, it is a priority for us to be dominating in all means.I grew up believing the US had the right to lead only if we did so by example. Leaders require followers and a good follower doesn't follow blindly.
Man and woman were made to marry each other, and bring new lives to earth.
Take "Adam And Eve" Christian myth for example, I doubt it has any homosexuals getting married, but as I said it is a myth and it is highly believed to be untrue, except in the religious sense.So you get the idea that man and woman were made to marry each other from a myth that is highly believed to be untrue? Sounds like pretty shaky ground to build an argument that condemns one person in twenty.Allowing gay marriage in here gives a bad picture. I refuse that. You're a patriot when you do good for your country and show your full support to it.A bad picture?! Oh yeah, to those other countries whose opinions matter so much to you. I don't know why you want to be like *them*. I thought you liked the US. Or are you wrapping up your hatred of homosexuals with your love of country and pretending they are the same?

Just watch out when you play the patriotism card. You need to remember that the United States allows dissent against it's leaders, always has and has always been the stronger for it, even envied for it. I call it open-eyed patriotism. Let's leave the blind patriotism to the terrorists, shall we?

[the tree]

Guys, I think we've torn apart the same couple of posts quite a few times each in our own little way. Whilst redundancy is handy in forming an argument, let's not aim for a rebuttal overload o.k.?

[Sayonara³]

Especially since we all know physia isn't going to let a little thing like rebuttal stand in his way.

[Physia]

What? You're not serious? You would complain about too much freedom?

I would worry about too much freedom.

How is increasing personal liberty putting your country backwards?

Gay marriage gives a bad image to our enemy. They're religious; gay marriage does not go along with their religion. You'll bring the point of "so you prefer your image to your enemy than the image to your countrymen," I'm sure, so I'll reply to it right now. It's not that; it's politics.

Ugly people in relationships is pretty gross as well, you'd ban that just because it's disgusting?

Not in my dictionary, no.

They are being killed because they are the occupying force, in case you hadn't noticed, the coalition isn't just American.

They are being killed because they believe that a human being shall live free and not under tyrannical dictators or leaders. They are being killed because they are American. And I do notice that there are non Americans in there, but same procedure goes for them as well. I agree with you that they are an occupying force, but this occupying force is accepted by a good percent of the Iraqis. Better yet, this occupying force tends to improve Iraq whereas they are destroying it.

How can you seriously believe that? Take all the threats from all terrorists ever, do any of them mention giving a damn about whether you believe in freedom or not? The same goes for insurgents, they act because of what Americans do, not because of some ridiculous idea about the principles they hold.

Should I call that a sense of humor? They are a death culture and their main principle is "convert to Islam or die." That's how they refer to freedom, in an indirect way.

Then do some research, since your in America you have the added convenience of churches that are particularly passionate about allowing gay marriage have pride-flags outside, they're all over the place.

I would actually go by the principles that the Church was built upon, rather than what some materialistic priests think. Churches have been turned into a business my friend, especially in the United States. I wouldn't use these Churches as an example.

Oh I get it, you choose to live your life on other people's terms and you expect us to do the same. You want to restrict freedom and advance oppression in order to make monotheistic adversaries content with us? I reject such notions, vehemently and proudly. I prefer freedom - real freedom.

And you're not a patriot when you advocate interference in civil liberties. Government should have ZERO say in what marriage is. I don't care if a midget wants to marry a carrot - that's none of your business. That's what real freedom is. A good patriot will always support the advancement of his country and the liberty of its people.

Actually, I'm not trying to impose monotheistic adversaries upon you, but I'm telling you that it is a subject to consider when speaking about this topic. We have enough freedom, live with it.

So what about the KKK and Wal-Mart? Both ideas have the united states in common too. So, according to your logic, they are connected. Due to the existence of the KKK, Wal-mart has flourished. We need to crush the KKK in order to stop Wal-Mart from owning the country and selling it in bulk to poor countries.

And according to my logic, dead American troops are more important than gay marriage.

Exactly, because AMERICANS can't keep their noses out of anybody's business. Because AMERICANS meddle with their governments and then act all surprised when they get pissed about it. Because AMERICANS make believe that our freedom is being attacked while we occupy their soil and pretend that's not it.

If we do not act, who will?

Yes, our goal is to secure oil and establish a foothold in the middle east. We want to redirect their terrorism to their own territory - and we do that by establishing a presence in their territory - keeping them from focusing on our own soil. We dupe you and the rest of the american sheeple into buying into it by selling nifty slogans like "fighting for our freedom". They have successfully got you believing and advocating the idea that our behavior in the middle east is just fine and the people over there have no issues with it at all - it's that we're free.

You make believe it's not the thousands, if not millions of dead that we share responsibility for in the form of CIA meddling, behind the scenes coups, sanctions, "war on terror" - you name it. We would NEVER allow a foreign power to treat us like that - NEVER. Anyone who thinks our freedom is being threatened, apparently believes we should have the freedom to subjogate and imperialize.

England did far less than that to us, yet we mounted an 8 year revolutionary war to kick them out - we'd rather die than be dictated to by them. Why is that so hard to understand? We just celebrated this yesterday...

Who's denying the atrocities? And it isn't treason even if we were. I think you need to look that word up before you use it. I don't have any love for terrorists and in fact, I view them as children. Much of the middle east suffers from trust fund mentallity - oil in the ground. If it wasn't for oil, why would we give a crap about that region? They just sell rights to drill for their oil - don't have to lift a finger to make ridiculous amounts of money.

They are irrational in their politics and governments. We don't interface well because they don't want to. The thing is, we force the issue and impose ourselves on that region - in politics, business, and etc. I would much rather ignore them until their governments grow up and act like adults. But we won't...we'd much rather impose ourselves and continue the ideas that promote hatred for the US and act all surprised when they attack us.

You're fighting a death culture; they will spread if we don't act now. Our presence in the Middle East is to decrease their numbers and furthermore remove it and end its existence. All happens through democratic governments. There are more things to worry about than oil. Oil is a tiny reason of why we are there, and no oil is not why these people kill each other. They kill each other because they are being spoon-fed fallacious anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and anti-American propaganda, not forgetting to add the sectarian hatred they have for each other. Our presence in there revived this, but was not the reason of why it started.

Ignore them all you want, but you can't ignore the fact that they are there and are capable of growing stronger if we don't act.

Oh I get it, you choose to live your life on other people's terms and you expect us to do the same. You want to restrict freedom and advance oppression in order to make monotheistic adversaries content with us? I reject such notions, vehemently and proudly. I prefer freedom - real freedom.

And you're not a patriot when you advocate interference in civil liberties. Government should have ZERO say in what marriage is. I don't care if a midget wants to marry a carrot - that's none of your business. That's what real freedom is. A good patriot will always support the advancement of his country and the liberty of its people.

Actually, I'm not trying to impose monotheistic adversaries upon you, but I'm telling you that it is a subject to consider when speaking about this topic. We have enough freedom, live with it.

So what about the KKK and Wal-Mart? Both ideas have the united states in common too. So, according to your logic, they are connected. Due to the existence of the KKK, Wal-mart has flourished. We need to crush the KKK in order to stop Wal-Mart from owning the country and selling it in bulk to poor countries.

And according to my logic, dead American troops are more important than gay marriage.

Exactly, because AMERICANS can't keep their noses out of anybody's business. Because AMERICANS meddle with their governments and then act all surprised when they get pissed about it. Because AMERICANS make believe that our freedom is being attacked while we occupy their soil and pretend that's not it.

If we do not act, who will?

Yes, our goal is to secure oil and establish a foothold in the middle east. We want to redirect their terrorism to their own territory - and we do that by establishing a presence in their territory - keeping them from focusing on our own soil. We dupe you and the rest of the american sheeple into buying into it by selling nifty slogans like "fighting for our freedom". They have successfully got you believing and advocating the idea that our behavior in the middle east is just fine and the people over there have no issues with it at all - it's that we're free.

You make believe it's not the thousands, if not millions of dead that we share responsibility for in the form of CIA meddling, behind the scenes coups, sanctions, "war on terror" - you name it. We would NEVER allow a foreign power to treat us like that - NEVER. Anyone who thinks our freedom is being threatened, apparently believes we should have the freedom to subjogate and imperialize.

England did far less than that to us, yet we mounted an 8 year revolutionary war to kick them out - we'd rather die than be dictated to by them. Why is that so hard to understand? We just celebrated this yesterday...

Who's denying the atrocities? And it isn't treason even if we were. I think you need to look that word up before you use it. I don't have any love for terrorists and in fact, I view them as children. Much of the middle east suffers from trust fund mentallity - oil in the ground. If it wasn't for oil, why would we give a crap about that region? They just sell rights to drill for their oil - don't have to lift a finger to make ridiculous amounts of money.

They are irrational in their politics and governments. We don't interface well because they don't want to. The thing is, we force the issue and impose ourselves on that region - in politics, business, and etc. I would much rather ignore them until their governments grow up and act like adults. But we won't...we'd much rather impose ourselves and continue the ideas that promote hatred for the US and act all surprised when they attack us.

You're fighting a death culture; they will spread if we don't act now. Our presence in the Middle East is to decrease their numbers and furthermore remove it and end its existence. All happens through democratic governments. There are more things to worry about than oil. Oil is a tiny reason of why we are there, and no oil is not why these people kill each other. They kill each other because they are being spoon-fed fallacious anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and anti-American propaganda, not forgetting to add the sectarian hatred they have for each other. Our presence in there revived this, but was not the reason of why it started.

Ignore them all you want, but you can't ignore the fact that they are there and are capable of growing stronger if we don't act.

Physia, if you have any interest in staying on this site as a contributing member, then you need to reconsider your tendencies to drift towards hate speech and logical fallacies.

They are not consistent with our purpose.

Honestly, I do not intend to promote hatred. There is opposition everywhere; opposition on here makes this forum more intense and fun to debate in.

My presence here is not quite much, I come here once in few weeks. However, I don't decide whether I stay or not. Don't warn, just do what you want to do. This is the internet afterall, and each person has his point of view and is entitled to it.

Interesting perspective. I'm sure it'll go along way towards gaining the respect of the rest of the world.

A death culture won't respect you no matter what you do. If you stay out of it and act like a little country boy, they'll disrespect you more.

High school in the United States is a great simple example :wink:.

Other countries like Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, South Africa, Belgium, Finland, Canada, countries like those? They all allow gay marriage or something equivalent. You must be talking about countries like Sudan, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, North Korea, and China. Those countries all think like you do.

They are still countries, and everybody's opinion matters.
Two thumbs up, you are good at geography.

So when you're disrespecting homosexuals at work, school and in public, you're doing so because you want to look good in the eyes of others because their opinions matter more to you?

I don't disrespect people in the first place, unless they disrespect me. Therefore, I can't really reply to you, but to answer your question; I accept everybody's opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to go with it.

I grew up believing the US had the right to lead only if we did so by example. Leaders require followers and a good follower doesn't follow blindly.

You can make conclusions pretty fast, I hope that satisfies you.
A good follower does not take on the internal struggle more than the external one; once you balance the two, you will conclude a good follower.

So you get the idea that man and woman were made to marry each other from a myth that is highly believed to be untrue? Sounds like pretty shaky ground to build an argument that condemns one person in twenty.

This myth is found in the bible, I believe it's true. Everybody is entitled to his opinion, and since all of this is opinion-biased then I guess none of this is a solid argument. That's according to your logic.

A bad picture?! Oh yeah, to those other countries whose opinions matter so much to you. I don't know why you want to be like *them*. I thought you liked the US. Or are you wrapping up your hatred of homosexuals with your love of country and pretending they are the same?

Being like them in which perspective? I do not really "hate" homosexuals, so don't run off to conclusions.

Just watch out when you play the patriotism card. You need to remember that the United States allows dissent against it's leaders, always has and has always been the stronger for it, even envied for it. I call it open-eyed patriotism. Let's leave the blind patriotism to the terrorists, shall we?

You surely love to go into conclusions, and let's leave that to the terrorists, shall we? I play my patriotism card from both point of views, whereas you play it from the internal one.
Does living between such people make a difference? I believe it doesn't, because simply it is open for you to learn about them, rather than listen to some politicians speak. Learn and interpret, then conclude.

Especially since we all know physia isn't going to let a little thing like rebuttal stand in his way.

Maybe a little vacation in Beirut's southern suburb would be good for you to learn. Otherwise, don't speak :wink:.
-----------------------------------------------------

If a law that allows gay marriage was passed and confirmed, then I welcome it with open arms.

I am not going to stand on each two gays marrying each other and slaughter them just for the sake of it. I believe in humanity.

It is my right to oppose and believe differently than most of you or all of you, just as it is your right to believe what you believe in. You should know that you can't force others to believe in what you believe in, because by doing so you are doing what our enemy is doing. They are forcing us to do what they do, but only the educated and the one that knows how to deal with internal and external problems can deal with their force and use it against them.

cheers.

[foodchain]

Quoted from Physia

It is my right to oppose and believe differently than most of you or all of you, just as it is your right to believe what you believe in. You should know that you can't force others to believe in what you believe in, because by doing so you are doing what our enemy is doing. They are forcing us to do what they do, but only the educated and the one that knows how to deal with internal and external problems can deal with their force and use it against them.

cheers.

Well then, you should have nothing against same sex marriage right, unless you feel the need to enforce your beliefs on others and enforce yourself on there actions right?

As for the rest of your post, well the middle east has been around for a very long time, but I guess because of the actions of the Taliban it means a culture of hate and other forms of propaganda. Don’t get me wrong, I could care less for the fundamentalist religious whacko’s that like to kill people over some myth, but its not like we have something of a terribly different here at home, yet we don’t operate global campaigns to wipe it out. Just ask jerry fallwell, the Jews are all going to hell unless they convert, sounds very friendly in my opinion.

Last time I checked, the U.S was attacked by AQ and the taliban. We invaded Iraq on little more then fear mongering really, which shows to date as we have no proof really for why we invaded, save for the mess we have created. Lastly, if we were so loved in Iraq as you would have it, why all the problems, a small group of people must be really intelligent then to thwart the entire U.S military and a nation of people desiring a different means to survival :doh:

[lucaspa]

Gay marriage gives a bad image to our enemy. They're religious; gay marriage does not go along with their religion. You'll bring the point of "so you prefer your image to your enemy than the image to your countrymen," I'm sure, so I'll reply to it right now. It's not that; it's politics.

Physia, al-Qaeda hates so many things about us that you will not give up that hating us for gay marriage isn't going to make a difference. They hate us because we have our daughters go to college! Are you going to tell your daughters they can't go to college just to keep our enemies happy?

They are being killed because they believe that a human being shall live free and not under tyrannical dictators or leaders. They are being killed because they are American.

They are being killed because the civilian leadership put them into a meat grinder. They are being killed by some of the opposition because they are an occupying force.

We have enough freedom, live with it.

:confused: How do you define "enough"? And who gets to decide what is "enough" freedom?

You're fighting a death culture; they will spread if we don't act now. Our presence in the Middle East is to decrease their numbers and furthermore remove it and end its existence.

If that is the case, then we have failed. All the NIEs say that our presence is increasing the memmbership of radical Islamic groups.

Ignore them all you want, but you can't ignore the fact that they are there and are capable of growing stronger if we don't act.

You are ignoring that they are growing stronger because of HOW we have acted. There are actions and then there are actions. The war in Iraq was/is the wrong action.

It is my right to oppose and believe differently than most of you or all of you, just as it is your right to believe what you believe in. You should know that you can't force others to believe in what you believe in, because by doing so you are doing what our enemy is doing. .

But isn't forbidding gay marriage forcing us to believe in what you believe in: that gay marriage is wrong? If gay marriage is really a bad idea, won't it disappear on its own as people just decide not to do it?

What I find SO ironic about your post is that you are doing what our enemy is doing: trying to use force (the physical force of police, courts, and prisons) to force your beliefs on others.

Tell me, how does 2 gay people getting married hurt you? How does it change your life? Does it prevent you from having a happy heterosexual marriage? If so, how? Does it mean you can't get married to a person of the opposite sex? If so, why?

Having gay marriage certainly doesn't mean YOU have to have a gay marriage, does it? Just as having heterosexual marriage means you have get married.

So why are you arguing that we, as a society, should forcibly stop gays from getting married? It's because of your beliefs, isn't it?

[Transdecimal]

10 reasons Gay Marriage is wrong

1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know good people have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in Britain.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

[Severian]

Tell me, how does 2 gay people getting married hurt you?


No matter how much in favour of gay marriage you may be, you must admit that lagalising gay marriage does effect non-gay couples. It changes the way society works and thinks, and since we are all part of that society it changes our lives and the way we interact or feel part of that society.

Now, of course, whether that change is good or bad is a personal opinion. But you should recognize that some people will like their society less because of the change. Indeed, people with very particular strong views will feel alienated from society because they no longer feel that it represents (or condones) their morality. When making a decision like this, one has to ask who we care about less - who are we happier to alienate.

It seems that most people posting on this thread have made up their minds who they would rather alienate. Fair enough, but what makes your choice better than anyone else's? Isn't it time to be honest and say that you don't care about the segment of society that you are alienating?

Personally, I would rather not alienate anyone. As I have said before, our personal relationships shouldn't need the approval of the state.

[MangoChutney]

I'm a live and let live kind of guy, although I lean to the right

What I think will be interesting is when the ideological left have to choose between defending the right of gay people to have a civil ceremony to recognise their commitment to each other and the Muslim community (amongst others) right to denounce the gay lifestyle

Is it possible to support diametrically opposed rights at the same time?

[ParanoiA]

Is it possible to support diametrically opposed rights at the same time?

I think so, as that's exactly my position. I believe no one has a right to interfere with gay marriage, and I believe no one has a right to stop me from making fun of them. That's live and let live.

[MangoChutney]

I think so, as that's exactly my position. I believe no one has a right to interfere with gay marriage, and I believe no one has a right to stop me from making fun of them. That's live and let live.

I am not sure that is actually "diametrically opposed" in the sense that I meant

You seem to be saying that freedom of speech is as important as a persons right to be gay, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but I think their is a world of a difference between having a politically incorrect laugh at somebody else's expense and wanting to hang people because of their sexuality as can happen in several Muslim countries

[ParanoiA]

I am not sure that is actually "diametrically opposed" in the sense that I meant

You seem to be saying that freedom of speech is as important as a persons right to be gay, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but I think their is a world of a difference between having a politically incorrect laugh at somebody else's expense and wanting to hang people because of their sexuality as can happen in several Muslim countries

But you were asking about Muslim's rights to denounce. There are no rights afforded to anyone that provides for hanging gay people, nor do I see any pressure to provide them such rights. That's why I don't see the diametric opposite as you do. They have a right to denounce, verbally, all they want, as long as they're not violating other's rights in doing so. That doesn't seem all that diametrically opposite to the idea of gay rights.

[MangoChutney]

But you were asking about Muslim's rights to denounce. There are no rights afforded to anyone that provides for hanging gay people, nor do I see any pressure to provide them such rights. That's why I don't see the diametric opposite as you do. They have a right to denounce, verbally, all they want, as long as they're not violating other's rights in doing so. That doesn't seem all that diametrically opposite to the idea of gay rights.

:doh:

Good point! And one which I accept.