The shameful gay marriage ban.

[El Santo]

First point I saw on the first page is that if you don't support homosexuality then you must be ignorant and prejudice. That statement, itself, is an ignorant one. Why am I ignorant for believing something different? By definition alone, we are all ignorant because none of us believe exactly alike on every issue. I love how hypocritical gay rights supporters typically are. They have the right to show their pride and you better accept it. But don't you dare speak out against it with your ignorant ways. The hypocrisy is mind-numbing.

You're misusing the term "hypocrisy". Saying that someone has to be tolerant of intolerance is just stupid. One of the biggest lies of the current "PC" era we live in is that all points of view are equally valid. This is pure hogwash. I'm not ignorant for calling you ignorant. I'm just telling the truth, which is that your statements are based on faulty logic, often non-existent facts, and an incomplete understanding of the world around you. That is called ignorance. Yes, the world has shades of grey, but two of those shades are black and white. Right and wrong.

And everyone is prejudice when it comes to our beliefs. We decide who is good and who is bad and who we wanna date,befriend, etc based on our own feelings and beliefs. We are discriminating against those who do not meet that, that is prejudice. But that's ok. Hate is the key here. You can disagree with homosexuality without hating the person. Once you introduce hate, you have crossed the line.

Authorizing the government to interfere in the lives and livelihood of a pair of consenting adults because YOU personally do not like the way they have sex (which is none of your goddamn business) is also crossing the line, whether you're willing to admit that it is an action born of hate or not (and it is). It crosses the line of where the government should be able to go. Put simply, marriage from the government's perspective has nothing to do with the eyes of God. That's for individual churches to decide. The government deals with the legal ramifications of two people declaring their devotion to one another; taxes, health insurance, rights of inheritance, power of attorney, and child custody. It is wrong to destroy a family because they were gay, and one of them died. And yet, this is exactly what a gay marriage ban does. Those children will be torn away from their one remaining parent in their time of greatest need, and put into an uncaring government machine. At best, they will be given to people they don't know. At worst, they'll find their way into an abusive home. Most likely, they will never find a home. Because of people like you.

And the argument over two consenting adults is flawed. If we have no right to interfere in the relationship of 2 consenting adults, why do we have the right to interfere in the relationship of 3 consenting adults or 4 or more? If homosexual marriages are allowed, by allowance of that argument, then polygamy must be legalized as well. Why is 2 guys doing it anymore acceptable than a guy with two wives?

Polygamy and homosexuality are two very different things, both from a moral standpoint (homosexual marriage is still about two people devoting themselves to one another), and from a legal standpoint (our tax laws as they apply to marriage would be a poor fit for a system that allows polygamy). Bottom line, there are a number of issues that relate to our ban on polygamy (including the high incidence of domestic abuse, incest, and rape that occurs in communities which practice it in America currently) that don't apply to homosexuality.

And I don't think marriage is the backbone of society. It goes much deeper than that. The backbone of our society should be ethics and morality.

I couldn't agree more. That's why we should be a nation governed by rule of law, not religious dogma. And this is coming from someone raised to believe in God. The law must apply to all people equally. Once we allow our ethics to be compromised by predjudice, we begin to fall further into depravity.


That will never be the case though. But if more people tried to be moral avoiding drugs, pre-marital sex, dishonesty, violence, etc, we would live in a much better world. Ask your grandma how many partners she had, and it will probably be 1 maybe 2 on average. Ask the average 20-something year old nowadays and it will be in the double digits. Drugs are becoming more prevalent than ever. Kids are shooting up schools more often now. We are a society becoming more and more immoral. And we are paying the consequences as a result of it.

And what, exactly, makes homosexuality the equivalent of drug-use and murder?

Time has shown us as we become more liberal and accept more things we used to not, society suffers as a whole. We now fight with issues such as drug addiction, teen violence, teen pregnancy, unwed mothers, AIDS and other STDs, etc on a much larger scale than ever. And why is that? 80 years ago when people saved themselves for marriage, homosexuality was taboo, and kids were raised with respect and discipline, the above issues were non-existant. But as we started allowing more and more of that over the years, we have had more and more problems. Now things have never been perfect in this country, but it's hard to argue the fact that we deal with more societal problems than ever before.

AIDS exists outside of homosexuality. It can be spread among heterosexuals like you and me just as easily. Also, teen violence, teen pregnancy, unwed mothers, and sexually transmitted diseases were not "non-existent". They were serious problems. The 1950's were teeming with films that dealt with those issues directly and indirectly, because that is what was going on back then. We have those problems in greater numbers now due to a number of factors: growing population, for one. The fact that girls reach sexual maturity at an earlier age now due to better nutrition is another. An instable job market thanks to conservative efforts to de-regulate industry and drive down wages has made the traditional nuclear family all but impossible. Blaming liberals for this is moronic. Liberal thought is what SAVED America during the Depression. And back then, people like you were calling FDR a Communist for wanting to help the poor. Now you people have destroyed everything America had built to keep Big Business honest, and act shocked when all of the jobs head overseas. You want to lower taxes, but because your actions lower wages as well, the middle and working class get no relief at all. You are destroying America, not gays. And you should be stopped.

[thatsmystapler]

Marriage began as a religious-based covenant for heterosexual couples. Therefore I think religions and hertero couples are entitled to make the decision of allowing gays to be "married".(I'm referring to marriages specifically and not civil couplings) If I make a club, I get to decide who is in it.

Now, why does everyone include sexual orientation in the same category as sex, race, and nationality. We are born into those. We don't have the choice of what country we are born into, the color of our skin, or our gender. We do choose who we have sex with. Now I will agree that things during childhood can influence one towards same-gendered relations, but you aren't born gay. There is no definitive proof showing you are. It would actually defy religion AND evolution. There is no logical argument showing why a person would be born gay. Therefore since it is a nurtured/chosen lifestyle and not nature, it cannot be grouped into the same category as the aforementioned.

And I am quite tolerant of homosexuality considering I believe it to be a sin. I am opposed to gay bashing and I am as friendly to a gay person as I am anyone else. And it's not a matter of considering anyone to be inferior, it's a matter of them doing something you consider to be morally wrong. I don't consider felons to be inferior as human beings, but I don't want them having the right to bear arms anymore. I don't think gay people are any less as people. They can get married any time they want, just to people of the opposite gender. The marriage ban defends against the idea of homosexuality NOT the homosexual themself. Many of us disagree with the lifestyle, but not you as a person. There is a difference.

Going down the points made. Gay people have the same rights as heterosexual people. You can marry anyone of age of the opposite gender. Everyone is allowed to do that. Also, while we are on it. Marriage is not a right, but a privelege. That is why churches can turn down people being married in their ceremonies if they go against their doctrine.

Why have restrictions on numbers? The basis of the argument of 2 gay people getting married is that they are CONSENTING ADULTS and therefore no one should be telling them what they can and cannot do. That argument applies to polygamy as well. If it's not ok for us to tell 2 consenting adults of any gender what they can do, who are we to tell 3 consenting adults what they can and cannot do? If we try to aren't we discriminating? Doesn't that go in the face of everything you are trying to say?

And yeah a good ole days argument. I addressed in my original post that I know that some of the problems existed.(ie ew ahve never been perfect) But if you don't think things have worsened since the 1920s, you are the ignorant one. AIDS was non-existant back then(do some research), STDs were at a minimum. Kids were NOT shooting up their schools. There were fewer divorces and teenage pregnancies than now. These have increased as we became a more liberal thinking society. The more we accept something we considered immoral, the more negative consequences we invite upon ourselves.(ie drugs, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc) And it was the prevalence of the drug community and homosexuality that lead to the spread of AIDS. That is how homosexuality ties into things.

As for my kids, they will be raised with a knowledge of right and wrong along with the knowledge of free agency that everyone is entitled to choose their path in life. I accept people's choices, but I don't agree with them at times and will never be silent about it. And we can debate this all day and neither side will budge, such is the basis of controversial topics.

[Noah Johnson]

Marriage began as a religious-based covenant for heterosexual couples. Therefore I think religions and hertero couples are entitled to make the decision of allowing gays to be "married".(I'm referring to marriages specifically and not civil couplings) If I make a club, I get to decide who is in it.

No. No, you actually don't. There is no right to legally discriminate against other people, and you don't get to pretend there is.

In my country, you self-justifying bigot, equal protection under the law MEANS EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. And your excuses for prejudice do not change that.

And yeah a good ole days argument. I addressed in my original post that I know that some of the problems existed.(ie ew ahve never been perfect) But if you don't think things have worsened since the 1920s, you are the ignorant one. AIDS was non-existant back then(do some research), STDs were at a minimum.

False. You are factually wrong.

Kids were NOT shooting up their schools.

Nor are they now. Despite a few well-publicized cases, school violence actually went down during the 90s. If I thought facts mattered to you, I could show you plenty of kids murdering kids back during your imaginary Golden Age.
The more we accept something we considered immoral, the more negative consequences we invite upon ourselves.(ie drugs, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc)
Or desegregation, abolition, democracy, literacy, shellfish... oh, sorry, were we not supposed to actually look at the history of what your religion has considered immoral?

And it was the prevalence of the drug community and homosexuality that lead to the spread of AIDS. That is how homosexuality ties into things.

So, being victims of an epidemic 25 years ago justified legal discrimination against people in the same "category" now?

America really isn't your kind of country, is it?

[Screwtape]

You know, this probably isn't going to solve anything. No one on either side of this argument is going to budge an inch. I don't know anyone who has been shouted down in a public forum for his perspective on gay marriage and thought later, "Gee, I was wrong!" It just polarizes things further. And Noah, AIDS really wasn't around in the 20's.

Happy thanksgiving, everyone.

[Noah Johnson]

You know, this probably isn't going to solve anything. No one on either side of this argument is going to budge an inch. I don't know anyone who has been shouted down in a public forum for his perspective on gay marriage and thought later, "Gee, I was wrong!" It just polarizes things further. And Noah, AIDS really wasn't around in the 20's.

No, but STDs were. Considering how many men routinely paid for sex back then, (it's under 10% now, was much higher in the Good Old Days) they were very widespread.

And I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind. But I've got this stubborn streak that won't let me allow that kind of bigotry to stand unchallenged. I think it's an American thing.

[Gilda Dent]

Marriage began as a religious-based covenant for heterosexual couples. Therefore I think religions and hertero couples are entitled to make the decision of allowing gays to be "married".(I'm referring to marriages specifically and not civil couplings) If I make a club, I get to decide who is in it.

I agree. When it comes to religious marriage, the religion that performs or recognizes the marriage should get to choose who they do or do not want to have married in their church. Absolutely, that makes sense.

This has nothing to do with religious marriage. This is a debate regarding the government recognized legal contract form of marriage. In the US, religion and government are separate entities.

Now, why does everyone include sexual orientation in the same category as sex, race, and nationality. We are born into those. We don't have the choice of what country we are born into, the color of our skin, or our gender. We do choose who we have sex with. Now I will agree that things during childhood can influence one towards same-gendered relations, but you aren't born gay. There is no definitive proof showing you are. It would actually defy religion AND evolution. There is no logical argument showing why a person would be born gay. Therefore since it is a nurtured/chosen lifestyle and not nature, it cannot be grouped into the same category as the aforementioned.

We choose who to have sex with, but we don't choose who we find sexually attractive, and that's what homosexuality is, a sexual or romantic attraction to people of the same sex.

Let's try it this way. It's sex discrimination. I want to marry a woman, but I can't because I'm a woman. A man, however, is allowed to do just that. Sex discrimination on it's face.

Religion is chosen, should we be allowed to discriminate based on religious belief?

And I am quite tolerant of homosexuality considering I believe it to be a sin. I am opposed to gay bashing and I am as friendly to a gay person as I am anyone else. And it's not a matter of considering anyone to be inferior, it's a matter of them doing something you consider to be morally wrong.

So we're not inferior, just less moral? Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds?

I don't consider felons to be inferior as human beings, but I don't want them having the right to bear arms anymore. I don't think gay people are any less as people.

Damn, now we're the same as felons in your eyes. I'm actually a little surprised not to find a comparison to child molestors here.

They can get married any time they want, just to people of the opposite gender. The marriage ban defends against the idea of homosexuality NOT the homosexual themself. Many of us disagree with the lifestyle, but not you as a person. There is a difference.

What lifestyle?

I get up in the morning and get ready for work. I teach public school for seven hours. I come home, read comic books or regular books, watch tv, have supper, and sleep with my wife. A couple of times a week, we go out for dinner, and to a movie about once a week. I go to an amusement part about twice a month, and spend a week long vacation at either Cedar Point or Universal Orlando. I go to church on Sunday.

If that's a lesbian lifestyle, I think a lot of guys will find that they're living a lesbian lifestyle. Maybe you're living a lesbian lifestyle and didn't know it.

Here's a little thought experiment regarding lifestyle. Name one thing I do, one activity or action that is unique to homosexuals, something that I do that men don't also do, and we'll call that part of the homosexual lifestyle. I'll save you some time: There isn't anything.

Going down the points made. Gay people have the same rights as heterosexual people. You can marry anyone of age of the opposite gender. Everyone is allowed to do that. Also, while we are on it. Marriage is not a right, but a privelege. That is why churches can turn down people being married in their ceremonies if they go against their doctrine.

You're wrong. In the US, marriage is a fundamental human right. Loving vs. Virginia (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html): Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,". Loving still stands.

Why have restrictions on numbers? The basis of the argument of 2 gay people getting married is that they are CONSENTING ADULTS and therefore no one should be telling them what they can and cannot do. That argument applies to polygamy as well. If it's not ok for us to tell 2 consenting adults of any gender what they can do, who are we to tell 3 consenting adults what they can and cannot do? If we try to aren't we discriminating? Doesn't that go in the face of everything you are trying to say?

Your side is the only one trying to equate gay marriage with polygamy.

What we want is for two people to be able to marry each other regardless of sex. See that? Two. Number is a separate argument. Changing one man and one woman to two people of either sex would have no effect whatsoever on the limit on the number of people.

Also, maybe you haven't noticed, but polygamy in the US has always been a heterosexual form of marriage. If we allow a man to marry one woman, why not two or four? If you want to argue slippery slope, it applies equally to heterosexual marriage. Which is to say it doesn't at all, because sex and number are separate issues. It's only in your opposition that they become equal.

And yeah a good ole days argument. I addressed in my original post that I know that some of the problems existed.(ie ew ahve never been perfect) But if you don't think things have worsened since the 1920s, you are the ignorant one. AIDS was non-existant back then(do some research), STDs were at a minimum.

Unemployment, Polio and smallpox, and whooping cough were rampant. How is this relevant to gay marriage?

Kids were NOT shooting up their schools.

Hee hee. Gay marriage causes school shootings? Is it married gay teens who are comitting these horrible crimes? Hee hee. Thank you for that, it's given me a big laugh.

There were fewer divorces and teenage pregnancies than now. These have increased as we became a more liberal thinking society. The more we accept something we considered immoral, the more negative consequences we invite upon ourselves.

And gee, those things happened without same-sex marriage. Show me a link between homosexuality and any of the problems you list. You can't, because there aren't any.

(ie drugs, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc) And it was the prevalence of the drug community and homosexuality that lead to the spread of AIDS. That is how homosexuality ties into things.

Ohhh, I've got an idea. Let's try lowering pre-marital sex by allowing gays to marry. Then we'll be having marital sex. Problem solved.

By the way, if gay males being the group most victimized by AIDS indicates a lack of morality on their part, would the converse be true? Lesbians have been one of the least susceptible groups. Does that make us morally superior to heterosexuals?

As for my kids, they will be raised with a knowledge of right and wrong along with the knowledge of free agency that everyone is entitled to choose their path in life. I accept people's choices, but I don't agree with them at times and will never be silent about it.

Everyone should be entitled to choose their path in life, including who to marry.

Gilda

[Cam63]

Nice post, Gilda. :)

[Rosie]

I thought you were Canadian?



By DAMN, I AM proud of my country. People stood up, for hours in freezing rain and were COUNTED.

As much as I might personally find the Defense of Marriage amendments to be wrong-headed, they WERE voted for, via the democratic process. Not all of the people who voted "YES" are hateful barbaric bible-thumping rednecks, it's not possible. With that many votes, you have to concede that a great many were well-educated people, able to think for themselves.

Do I agree with their choice?

Hell no.

Am I going to accede to their wishes?

Damn straight.

Now we can only hope that the Supreme Court of each state rules the amendment unconstitutional. There's where my hopes are pinned.


Um, except "their wishes" were in something that's none of their business. Beliving that Gay Marriage is not right and forcing your view on other people by voting against it are two different things. Most americans can't make that distinction. That's sort of where it falls apart, you see.

[Rosie]

Marriage began as a religious-based covenant for heterosexual couples. Therefore I think religions and hertero couples are entitled to make the decision of allowing gays to be "married".(I'm referring to marriages specifically and not civil couplings) If I make a club, I get to decide who is in it.

Now, why does everyone include sexual orientation in the same category as sex, race, and nationality. We are born into those. We don't have the choice of what country we are born into, the color of our skin, or our gender. We do choose who we have sex with. Now I will agree that things during childhood can influence one towards same-gendered relations, but you aren't born gay. There is no definitive proof showing you are. It would actually defy religion AND evolution. There is no logical argument showing why a person would be born gay. Therefore since it is a nurtured/chosen lifestyle and not nature, it cannot be grouped into the same category as the aforementioned.

And I am quite tolerant of homosexuality considering I believe it to be a sin. I am opposed to gay bashing and I am as friendly to a gay person as I am anyone else. And it's not a matter of considering anyone to be inferior, it's a matter of them doing something you consider to be morally wrong. I don't consider felons to be inferior as human beings, but I don't want them having the right to bear arms anymore. I don't think gay people are any less as people. They can get married any time they want, just to people of the opposite gender. The marriage ban defends against the idea of homosexuality NOT the homosexual themself. Many of us disagree with the lifestyle, but not you as a person. There is a difference.

Going down the points made. Gay people have the same rights as heterosexual people. You can marry anyone of age of the opposite gender. Everyone is allowed to do that. Also, while we are on it. Marriage is not a right, but a privelege. That is why churches can turn down people being married in their ceremonies if they go against their doctrine.

Why have restrictions on numbers? The basis of the argument of 2 gay people getting married is that they are CONSENTING ADULTS and therefore no one should be telling them what they can and cannot do. That argument applies to polygamy as well. If it's not ok for us to tell 2 consenting adults of any gender what they can do, who are we to tell 3 consenting adults what they can and cannot do? If we try to aren't we discriminating? Doesn't that go in the face of everything you are trying to say?

And yeah a good ole days argument. I addressed in my original post that I know that some of the problems existed.(ie ew ahve never been perfect) But if you don't think things have worsened since the 1920s, you are the ignorant one. AIDS was non-existant back then(do some research), STDs were at a minimum. Kids were NOT shooting up their schools. There were fewer divorces and teenage pregnancies than now. These have increased as we became a more liberal thinking society. The more we accept something we considered immoral, the more negative consequences we invite upon ourselves.(ie drugs, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc) And it was the prevalence of the drug community and homosexuality that lead to the spread of AIDS. That is how homosexuality ties into things.

As for my kids, they will be raised with a knowledge of right and wrong along with the knowledge of free agency that everyone is entitled to choose their path in life. I accept people's choices, but I don't agree with them at times and will never be silent about it. And we can debate this all day and neither side will budge, such is the basis of controversial topics.


Bad things happen, therefore gay people are responsible, therefore gay people are bad?

Sure, hun.

Quite frankly sir, you digust me. How you said how great 80 years ago was because homosexuality for you. Great for you, yeah, not great for the homosexuals that had to suffer for your evil motives.

[Cam63]

He's not quite evil, Rosie. Backward and ignorant, sure.

I love how he reckons accepting homosexuality in recent times has contributed to school shootings, drug use and unwed mothers !

[Screwtape]

No, but STDs were. Considering how many men routinely paid for sex back then, (it's under 10% now, was much higher in the Good Old Days) they were very widespread.

And I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind. But I've got this stubborn streak that won't let me allow that kind of bigotry to stand unchallenged. I think it's an American thing.Well, I think "bigotry" is the wrong word. If you think homosexual practice is wrong, you think it's wrong and you're entitled to do so. The arguments for genetic predisposition are no more or less convincing than the arguments for people being genetically predisposed to alcoholism, and we still send people to jail for getting drunk in public. Whether you can find yourself attracted to the opposite sex or not, gay people still CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same sex (hence the distinction between homosexuality and something like race or gender).

But there is a qualitative difference between the two things, I agree (since gay people, like everyone else, engage each other sexually in the privacy of their own home, and between consenting adults). In a normal gay relationship, no one is hurt and most gay couples I know are very happy together.

I think civil unions between gay people are probably inevitable. But it is pretty presumptuous to demand that someone cast a vote for something that they personally believe is immoral. Personal belief ALWAYS informs politics, and to ask people to separate their religious convictions and their personal morality from their voting practices is silly and nonsensical.

I'd also like to point out that the child molester analogy, as clearly flawed as it is, does not originate with people who want to shut down the gay rights movement, but with child molesters themselves. The NAMBLA website has a lot of "We're next!" rhetoric on it that upsets and disturbs people (and it does get passed around in conservative circles as propaganda). I'm not saying it's right, but it's definitely being propagated by people outside of the anti-gay-rights faction of the country.

You guys are a pretty aggressively intolerant bunch, frankly. If someone tries to vet an honest opinion, he gets called all sorts of names and told that he "disgusts" his peers and so on. I'm disgusting, too, by the way. I've been told that I make people physically ill, etc. The internet makes it very easy to gang up on someone with a minority opinion, and I see that happen a lot on this board. The "we don't tolerate intolerance" bullshit means nothing more or less than "we don't tolerate dissent," which is distilled fascism. If a child molester started posting on this board (to borrow Gilda's example), I think we'd all shout him down pretty quickly and be proud of ourselves for doing it. That's fundamentally intolerant, but it is also right and correct. So please spare us conservatives the condescending "tolerance" garbage. It's an easy out, but it basically means that you draw the line somewhere else, and doesn't make you any better than us.

[Gilda Dent]

Well, I think "bigotry" is the wrong word. If you think homosexual practice is wrong, you think it's wrong and you're entitled to do so.

Absolutely, you're entitled to that belief. I personally don't give a damn that some people think that I'm not worthy of being married. It's the actions that cause the problem.

The arguments for genetic predisposition are no more or less convincing than the arguments for people being genetically predisposed to alcoholism, and we still send people to jail for getting drunk in public. Whether you can find yourself attracted to the opposite sex or not, gay people still CHOOSE to sleep with someone of the same sex (hence the distinction between homosexuality and something like race or gender).

You're still not getting it. Homosexuality is status. It is a state of being. I can no more choose not to be attracted to women than I can choose not to be Asian. Homosexuality is being attracted to people of the same sex regardless of whether one acts on that attraction.

I think civil unions between gay people are probably inevitable. But it is pretty presumptuous to demand that someone cast a vote for something that they personally believe is immoral.

Nobody is asking you to. Has there been a pro-gay marriage referendum? No, they've all been anti-gay marriage.

Let the legislatures take care of that part. That's what we put them in there for. All we ask of you is not to interfere. Go about your lives as if this issue doesn't affect you, because it doesn't.

Personal belief ALWAYS informs politics, and to ask people to separate their religious convictions and their personal morality from their voting practices is silly and nonsensical.

Nonsense. I'm religious, and as a part of my religious belief, I believe that a fetus is a human being, a baby. I believe that abortion is the taking of a human life. I believe it is immoral.

However, I don't believe that that is a decision I'm entitled to make for any other person, but only for myself. If I want to be free to lead my life based on my religious beliefs, to be consistent, I must grant that same privilege to all others.

If you think same sex marriage is immoral, don't marry someone the same sex as you. Nobody is trying to make you feel or act differently. All we want is the same freedom you already enjoy, which is to be able to choose your own mate without outside interferance.

I'd also like to point out that the child molester analogy, as clearly flawed as it is, does not originate with people who want to shut down the gay rights movement, but with child molesters themselves. The NAMBLA website has a lot of "We're next!" rhetoric on it that upsets and disturbs people (and it does get passed around in conservative circles as propaganda). I'm not saying it's right, but it's definitely being propagated by people outside of the anti-gay-rights faction of the country.

And the only ones paying any attention to those dirtbags are the people who want to use it as part of their anti-gay agenda. The comparison is false regardless of who is promoting it. Have you heard of Guilt by Association? It's a logical fallacy in which a person's belief is attacked because that belief is shared by someone who is disapproved of.

You guys are a pretty aggressively intolerant bunch, frankly. If someone tries to vet an honest opinion, he gets called all sorts of names and told that he "disgusts" his peers and so on. I'm disgusting, too, by the way. I've been told that I make people physically ill, etc. The internet makes it very easy to gang up on someone with a minority opinion, and I see that happen a lot on this board. The "we don't tolerate intolerance" bullshit means nothing more or less than "we don't tolerate dissent," which is distilled fascism.

We have something in common there. I've been told I make people physically ill and been called a freak to my face more times than I'd care to count. I know for a fact that certain aspects of my being disgust and repulse people.

What does any of that have to do with whether or not homosexuals deserve to be treated the same as heterosexuals? Absolutely nothing.

We want everyone to be treated equally, including heterosexuals. I don't see how people can't understand that. We don't want special rights, and we're not intolerant of heterosexual marriage or religious marriage.

If a child molester started posting on this board (to borrow Gilda's example), I think we'd all shout him down pretty quickly and be proud of ourselves for doing it. That's fundamentally intolerant, but it is also right and correct. So please spare us conservatives the condescending "tolerance" garbage. It's an easy out, but it basically means that you draw the line somewhere else, and doesn't make you any better than us.

Damn. I didn't actually expect anyone to pick up the homosexuals=child molestors comparison and run with it, let alone blame it on me, but damn if it isn't right there. Nicely done. False, but nicely done.

Look at the proposal. We don't want to change where the line is drawn when it comes to the sex of two people getting married. We want to remove it altogether.

Making marriage between two adults regardless of sex includes tolerance for heterosexual marriage and for the idea that same sex marriage is immoral. People who find same sex marriage immoral aren't going to be required to enter into that type of marriage, attend them, endorse them, honor them in their churches or invite gay couples into their homes.

In fact, removing sex from the legal definition has no effect whatsoever on heterosexul marriage or religious marriage. None. Nada. Zippo. Those institutions remain exactly as they are.

Trying to claim that "let's treat everyone the same regardless of gender, gender identity, or orientation" is intolerant is pure doublespeak.

Gilda

[Ian Boothby]

Well, I think "bigotry" is the wrong word. If you think homosexual practice is wrong, you think it's wrong and you're entitled to do so. .


And you're entitled to think green apples are wrong but it's not going to turn them red. If you have a problem with homosexual practice then it's a result of prejudice which is another way of saying bigotry. People don't like being called that but I'm sure gays feel just as bad when their "homosexual practice" is called wrong by these folks.

[Ian Boothby]

Trying to claim that "let's treat everyone the same regardless of gender, gender identity, or orientation" is intolerant is pure doublespeak.

Gilda

Exactly.

Saying that people who try to voice an "honest opinion" are shouted down is bullshit. You're not voicing anything close to honesty. It may be an opinion but it's wrong and when you shout something wrong loudly enough you're going to be corrected. All opinions aren't equal. I'm sure some Flat Earth folks are upset with the intollerance they face but that doesn't mean people shouldn't correct them.

[Noah Johnson]

Well, I think "bigotry" is the wrong word. If you think homosexual practice is wrong, you think it's wrong and you're entitled to do so.
Your second sentence does not follow from your first.

Yes, you're entitled to hold that opinion. You're also entitled to hold the opinion that the children of Ham are forever condemned to be hewers of wood and bearers of water. You're entitled to all kinds of bigoted opinions.

But we're entitled to point out that they're bigoted. It may be a word you don't like, and I don't blame you. But it is not, in fact, the wrong word.

Some opinions are in fact bigoted, and if you hold them, you're a bigot. Is that term unwelcome? Yes. Tough. You don't like the shame, don't earn the name.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

You know what I never quite got?

The claim that homosexuality isn't something they are born with.

I mean unless your bi-sexual there is no option here and you know what most of the people claiming homosexuality would say almost automatically....that they never felt any attraction for people of the same sex.

Which ironically enough contradicts there previous statements that essentially says everyone in existence is bi-sexual.

[Gilda Dent]

You know what I never quite got?

The claim that homosexuality isn't something they are born with.

I mean unless your bi-sexual there is no option here and you know what most of the people claiming homosexuality would say almost automatically....that they never felt any attraction for people of the same sex.

Which ironically enough contradicts there previous statements that essentially says everyone in existence is bi-sexual.

I think it stems from the belief that all people are naturally heterosexual, so anyone who is homosexual must be that way because they chose to be against their natural state.

As to the other, I think orientation is a continuum rather than two or three distinct points, but with most people clustered so close to the two ends that they're in a practical sense indistiguishible from someone who is fully at the end. Women certainly seem to be a little more flexible in this regard, feeling free to express an aesthetic appreciation for other women and engage in pseudo-homosexual behaviors while still retaining their essential heterosexual status. Likewise, being gay doesn't prevent me from being able to appreciate guys on an aesthetic level, while still not wanting sexual contact with them. In that sense, I think most people are at least a little bit bisexual.

Gilda

[Spike-X]

why does everyone include sexual orientation in the same category as sex, race, and nationality. We are born into those. We don't have the choice of what country we are born into, the color of our skin, or our gender.

Nor do we have the choice of which gender(s) we find ourselves sexually attracted to. I could no more choose to be attracted to a man than I could choose to become African-American, or Eskimo.

We do choose who we have sex with.

Yes, but that choice is based on which gender(s) we find ourselves sexually attracted to, which is not something we have a choice about.

...you aren't born gay. There is no definitive proof showing you are.

Why is it only the straight folks, who have no experience of actually being gay, who say this? Every gay person I've ever encountered has told me (when it's come up) that they didn't "choose" to be gay, that it's the way they were born. I'll take this as "definitive proof" over the uninformed opinion of some random hetero, thanks.

And I am quite tolerant of homosexuality considering I believe it to be a sin. I am opposed to gay bashing and I am as friendly to a gay person as I am anyone else.

Yeah, you're tolerant as all get out. Up until the point where gay people actually want the same rights as you do.

And it's not a matter of considering anyone to be inferior, it's a matter of them doing something you consider to be morally wrong.

Do the words "Mind yer own damn business" mean anything to you? What gay people do sexually or romantically affects you not one whit, and is simply none of your concern. Keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms, unless you're prepared to install a webcam in your own so you can open yourself up to the same kind of judgement you seem so happy to inflict on others.

I don't think gay people are any less as people. They can get married any time they want, just to people of the opposite gender.

The sad part is, you don't even realise just how damn insulting that is. "You can marry anyone you want, as long as it's not someone you actually want." That's just bloody cruel.

[Ian Boothby]

Going down the points made. Gay people have the same rights as heterosexual people. You can marry anyone of age of the opposite gender. .

And both the rich and the poor aren't allowed to sleep under bridges. Does this mean they have the same rights?

[EdContradictory]

lol And ironically enough, your post is spewing much more hate than mine.
The difference being that gay people don't deserve your hate, but you and your ignorant rantings are well-deserving of mine.

[SoulOnIce]

As I said before the inexorable progress of time marches on as does the progression of civilization.

Gay marriage is here in a lot of places and it is coming to your neighbourhood folks. You better learn to deal with it or become a sad relic of the past.

[Boldido]

Ah yes, I'll never forget the day I chose to be heterosexual. I was a wee lad of about eight. It was July 16 to be exact, at 9:47 a.m. I was sitting in my room reading an Avengers comic, the one with the Grey Gargoyle. In that issue I remember looking at the enormous bulge in Captain America's costume and thinking to myself, "Hmm...that looks like it would be a great deal of fun to play with." I began looking at the other bulges in other costumes and thinking the same thing. "My, my," I thought, "doesn't the Falcon seem particularly well endowed...I wonder if that's genetic?"

That's when it happened, that's when I saw them...boobies. There she was, Carol Danvers, Ms. Marvel, in all her mammary glory. Whatever spell the bulges in the pants of superheroes held over me was immediately broken by the soft sensuous milk laden orbs of Ms. Marvel.

"You have a choice," I said to myself. "You stand at a crossroad, do you go down the road of the penis...or embrace boobies?"

Marvel Comics had made no decent advertisement for vaginas at that point, so clearly, the decision I made that day was an uninformed one. I would later come to appreciate and love the vagina, but if I am to be honest, I would have to say that the idea of "vaginas" never entered the debate that fateful day. I finally made my decision in the most rational way possible.

"Well...I already have a penis," I said, "but I do not have boobies." "Sure I have nipples, but they are nothing compared to Ms. Marvel's glandular glory." "Would I rather have two Darth Vader action figures or a Darth Vader and a Luke Skywalker?" "Would I rather have two Batman dolls or a Batman and a Joker?" "Would I rather have two penises or a penis and some boobies?"

Based purely on inventory of personal attributes I made my decision. As the years progressed, I was happier and happier with my choice. Imagine my relief when I learned that the choice I made was pleasing to the Lord, while the other choice, and believe me it was tempting, would have cast me into hellfire and damnation. Whew, that was a close one.

So how about you? C'mon straight people. Tell me about the day you chose to be heterosexual. What criteria did you use? What finally tipped the scale for you? Let me hear your stories!!!

[Noah Johnson]

God... I wish I could remember the exact date and time as well as you. I guess it was around fourth or fifth grade. I matured kind of fast for my age, and it was right around the age when all the girls were getting crushes on various boys around the school, and I was starting to think that might be for me. The crush thing, you know. It was just starting to get trendy.

So there I am, observing the girl's crushes, noting that a lot of them have crushes on the same few guys. Not that the guys were particularly good-looking or well-developed, you know, we were like ten. We were all half-formed squishy little creatures. But I figured I didn't want to just be a follower, you know? I didn't want to have a crush on Dan just because an entire pack of girls did.

So I noticed some of the girls had more idiosyncratic crushes. On the teacher's pet, or the troublemaker, or that one kid who belonged to the religion nobody'd ever heard of. So I started thinking maybe that was the way to go. Kind of blaze my own trail, you know? So I'm looking around the less-obvious boys in the class, and then POW, inspiration strikes. Just one of those moments you can never recapture, when an idea bursts fully-formed from your head. I COULD HAVE A CRUSH ON A GIRL. Now that is different, I figured. Totally mix up expectations, take the whole concept in a new direction.

Then, of course, a few years later, all the guys at my school had crushes on girls, and they're all acting like THEY'RE the first one to think of it. Bunch of wannabe-hipster camp followers, those guys.

[howyadoin]

So how about you? C'mon straight people. Tell me about the day you chose to be heterosexual. What criteria did you use? What finally tipped the scale for you? Let me hear your stories!!!Fuck you, heterophobe! I was born this way!

[Cam63]

I was born ornery and with a taste for beer and cheap cigars.

[Boldido]

Fuck you, heterophobe! I was born this way!

I know a lot of you "heteros" think that, but I just don't buy it. I mean, clearly, the first time you put little howy (or not so little howy, I don't want to offend, at least not yet) into the the furburger of some little running amuck canuck, it was a logical choice. You can't expect me to believe that there were things like urges or desires which were not under your complete control. You don't honestly expect me or anyone else here to believe that you were "prewired" with some a priori affinity or attraction to women?! :rolleyes:

Everyone knows that sex and sexual attraction is based on cold logic and reason. It is a conscious, rational, reasonable choice. Get out of denial and share with us Howy, when did you first decide to be a hetero? Noah and I are here to listen. We won't judge you or laugh at you...well, as long as it isn't really sick or funny, otherwise all bets are off. C'mon, let's have it.

[Boldido]

I was born ornery and with a taste for beer and cheap cigars.

So you were born irritable? Like PMS...I see. And you like to put long cylindrical objects in your mouth, like beer bottles and cigars...interesting.

[Cam63]

The only thing we can choose is good over evil.

[Cam63]

So you were born irritable? Like PMS...I see. And you like to put long cylindrical objects in your mouth, like beer bottles and cigars...interesting.

" Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. "

Thanks for the quote, Groucho.

[Screwtape]

Nobody is asking you to. Has there been a pro-gay marriage referendum? No, they've all been anti-gay marriage.

Let the legislatures take care of that part. That's what we put them in there for. All we ask of you is not to interfere. Go about your lives as if this issue doesn't affect you, because it doesn't. Let there be a pro-gay marriage referendum. Let it happen nation-wide. The legislatures have far too much power anyway. Nonsense. I'm religious, and as a part of my religious belief, I believe that a fetus is a human being, a baby. I believe that abortion is the taking of a human life. I believe it is immoral.

However, I don't believe that that is a decision I'm entitled to make for any other person, but only for myself. If I want to be free to lead my life based on my religious beliefs, to be consistent, I must grant that same privilege to all others. That's absurd. You think abortion is murder, but you're willing to let other people do it? How can you live like that?If you think same sex marriage is immoral, don't marry someone the same sex as you. Nobody is trying to make you feel or act differently. All we want is the same freedom you already enjoy, which is to be able to choose your own mate without outside interferance.Nobody in the world can choose their own mate without outside interference. There's the age of consent, there's polygamy, and a number of other (mostly very distasteful) restrictions on marriage. Same-sex unions are not part of the traditional structure of marriage. Gay people DO have the same rights as straight people - they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That may seem cruel or unfeeling to you, but you practice a form of sexuality that falls outside the norm, and you're asking for special provisions to protect it.And the only ones paying any attention to those dirtbags are the people who want to use it as part of their anti-gay agenda. The comparison is false regardless of who is promoting it. Have you heard of Guilt by Association? It's a logical fallacy in which a person's belief is attacked because that belief is shared by someone who is disapproved of.Right, but gay people ignore NAMBLA and like-minded organizations at their peril. I agree that the comparison is false, but the "slippery slope" argument is pretty convincing and I think (since the burden of proof is on the gay community), that gay people should go out of their way to dissociate themselves from actual perverts like those.Damn. I didn't actually expect anyone to pick up the homosexuals=child molestors comparison and run with it, let alone blame it on me, but damn if it isn't right there. Nicely done. False, but nicely done.

Look at the proposal. We don't want to change where the line is drawn when it comes to the sex of two people getting married. We want to remove it altogether.

Making marriage between two adults regardless of sex includes tolerance for heterosexual marriage and for the idea that same sex marriage is immoral. People who find same sex marriage immoral aren't going to be required to enter into that type of marriage, attend them, endorse them, honor them in their churches or invite gay couples into their homes.

In fact, removing sex from the legal definition has no effect whatsoever on heterosexul marriage or religious marriage. None. Nada. Zippo. Those institutions remain exactly as they are.

Trying to claim that "let's treat everyone the same regardless of gender, gender identity, or orientation" is intolerant is pure doublespeak.

Gilda You haven't understood me. The "inclusive" rhetoric can be used to justify pretty much any practice, and it's used by NAMBLA and any number of other groups. You need better logic than that to justify your position. If we say yes to you, how can we say no to people who want to remove ageist lines of discrimination? It's worth thinking about.

Hello, Ian. As usual, you're barely worth acknowledging and certainly not worth responding to.

Noah, even though you rhyme well, you don't understand the word you're using. "Bigot" is wrong, and you're a fool for screaming at the people you have to convince in order to have your views made into public policy.

[Noah Johnson]

You think abortion is murder, but you're willing to let other people do it? How can you live like that?
Because SOME people recognize that in the United States, one's religious beliefs are not allowed to set public policy. EVER.

You don't like it, there's plenty of theocratic states out there. Get packing.

In all seriousness, I recognize that you think homosexuality is a sin and people should be punished for being outside "the norm" as you put it. Tough. Muslims think eating pork is a sin. Catholics think jerking the gherkin is a sin. Jews think working on Saturday is a sin, though they have the decency to confine their concept of sin to their own religion. Taoists... okay, taoists don't really have sin, to speak of.

Point is, you don't get to legislate other people's lives based on your concept of sin. You just don't. Whether you're in the majority or not is completely irrelevant. Marriage is a right, and that includes marriage to a person of your choice. This is established U.S. legal precedent based on our nation's most admirable trait, its respect for human rights. Fifty years ago, would you have been arguing that black people have the same rights as white people, being allowed to marry within their own race? Hell, I don't know, maybe you would have.

Point is, you clearly feel that those not sharing your concept of sin should be compelled by law to comply with it anyway. And that, sonny, is the definition of a bigot. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot) Don't tell an editor what the right word is. You won't win.

[Samurai]

So, is the law against murdering someone "just a religious belief"? "Thou shalt not kill"? Does that mean it shouldn't be a law, because some people may feel it's perfectly fine to murder someone, and we shouldn't force them to obey our moral values instead of their own?

Think about what you are saying here a moment...

[Rosie]

Gay people DO have the same rights as straight people - they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That may seem cruel or unfeeling to you, but you practice a form of sexuality that falls outside the norm, and you're asking for special provisions to protect it.

Rubbish. It's about the same *relative* rights. That's like saying that we shouldn't bother caterring for the disabled, because they can find a way up the stairs like anyone else.

You haven't understood me. The "inclusive" rhetoric can be used to justify pretty much any practice, and it's used by NAMBLA and any number of other groups. You need better logic than that to justify your position. If we say yes to you, how can we say no to people who want to remove ageist lines of discrimination? It's worth thinking about.

Because paedophiles are very often rapists, whereas the same is not true of homosexuals. If Paedophilia was innocent then people wouldn't have so much of a problem with it. But it isn't.

So, is the law against murdering someone "just a religious belief"? "Thou shalt not kill"? Does that mean it shouldn't be a law, because some people may feel it's perfectly fine to murder someone, and we shouldn't force them to obey our moral values instead of their own?

Think about what you are saying here a moment...

This is why moral relativism is a whole load of nonsense. What rights people deserve is something you must work out logically, which is something the U.S. is most certainly not doing.

What was meant on the abortion matter is that it's his opinion that abortion is murder, but it's not a cold hard fact like murdering an adult in cold blood. He doesn't have the right to force that on people, because somehow, he could be wrong.

With things like gay marriage it's not really an opinion or a view, it's pretty blatant discrimination.

[Boldido]

That may seem cruel or unfeeling to you, but you practice a form of sexuality that falls outside the norm, and you're asking for special provisions to protect it.Right, but gay people ignore NAMBLA and like-minded organizations at their peril. I agree that the comparison is false, but the "slippery slope" argument is pretty convincing and I think (since the burden of proof is on the gay community), that gay people should go out of their way to dissociate themselves from actual perverts like those.

Oh boy, its the slippery slope.

I would like to take this opportunity to warn people against using their penis for anything but urinating. I say this while typing with my penis lodged firmly and painfully in a bear trap. How did my penis get in a bear trap you ask? Good question.

When I was a lad, all I used my penis for was urinating. I would pull it out briefly, urinate and put it right back in. Then one day, I took it out and played with it for a while. Well as you can imagine, I enjoyed that thoroughly, and that's when that pesky slippery slope started to creep its way into the picture. First, I would just play with my penis with my own hand, then the hand of some accomodating young lady was used. Then other parts of the young lady were used. I thought that if a young lady was this much fun, then how about other things lady related. (See? See the slippery slope? No? You will.)

First I tried a lady bug, but given the enormous size of my penis and the miniscule size of the lady bug, I found it to be unsatifying. So next I tried a ladyfinger. This was much more pleasant than the lady bug so of course I thought, "If this pastry is so damn sexy, what else would I like?"

Sure I tried the usual, crullers, jelly donuts, pecan rolls (those pecan rolls hurt like the dickens by the way). Then I tried a bear claw. Damn that bear claw was a freak!!! The slipperly slope kicked in again and I thought, "hmm, if a bear claw feels this good, what other bear related things would I enjoy?"

Suffice it to say that I am banned for life from the Toysrus stuffed animal section. I am also saddened to say that I am banned for life from the Lowry Park Zoo, but I do owe them my life for reasons I prefer not to go into on this forum. I just narrowly escaped a mob of angry football players from Chicago and had to flee into the woods to save my life. While there, I came upon a bear trap and you can guess the rest.

The point of all of this is that as Screwtape so correctly pointed out, there is nothing more real, nothing more dangerous, than the slippery slope.

By the way, does anyone here know how to open a bear trap?

[Screwtape]

Because SOME people recognize that in the United States, one's religious beliefs are not allowed to set public policy. EVER.

You don't like it, there's plenty of theocratic states out there. Get packing.Human fetuses have brainwave patterns after less than a month of pregnancy. That's a living organism. As soon as a baby is born, whether it's preamture and has to be incubated or it's a perfectly healthy child, it's a very bad idea to kill it if you want to stay out of jail. Perhaps you can understand how I don't see a discernible difference between murdering a premature baby and aborting an unwanted pregnancy. Religion doesn't enter into it. Perhaps SOME people should stock up on biology courses before they decide that they're listening to a religious argument and go off half-cocked.In all seriousness, I recognize that you think homosexuality is a sin and people should be punished for being outside "the norm" as you put it. Tough. Muslims think eating pork is a sin. Catholics think jerking the gherkin is a sin. Jews think working on Saturday is a sin, though they have the decency to confine their concept of sin to their own religion. Taoists... okay, taoists don't really have sin, to speak of.

Point is, you don't get to legislate other people's lives based on your concept of sin. You just don't. Whether you're in the majority or not is completely irrelevant. Marriage is a right, and that includes marriage to a person of your choice. This is established U.S. legal precedent based on our nation's most admirable trait, its respect for human rights. Fifty years ago, would you have been arguing that black people have the same rights as white people, being allowed to marry within their own race? Hell, I don't know, maybe you would have.Maybe you're an asshole. I don't want to punish gay people. I don't think keeping the marriage laws the same IS a punishment. Pedophiles don't get to marry the person of their choice, Mormons (before the "revelation") don't get to marry the multiple partners of their choice, etc. Marriage is for straight people. That's the point.Point is, you clearly feel that those not sharing your concept of sin should be compelled by law to comply with it anyway. And that, sonny, is the definition of a bigot. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot) Don't tell an editor what the right word is. You won't win.Actually, the definition of a bigot you post here is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Your self-righteous, condescending attitude and your utter contempt for people who try to take issue with you seems to fit in pretty well. Sonny.

[Screwtape]

Oh boy, its the slippery slope.

I would like to take this opportunity to warn people against using their penis for anything but urinating. I say this while typing with my penis lodged firmly and painfully in a bear trap. How did my penis get in a bear trap you ask? Good question.

When I was a lad, all I used my penis for was urinating. I would pull it out briefly, urinate and put it right back in. Then one day, I took it out and played with it for a while. Well as you can imagine, I enjoyed that thoroughly, and that's when that pesky slippery slope started to creep its way into the picture. First, I would just play with my penis with my own hand, then the hand of some accomodating young lady was used. Then other parts of the young lady were used. I thought that if a young lady was this much fun, then how about other things lady related. (See? See the slippery slope? No? You will.)

First I tried a lady bug, but given the enormous size of my penis and the miniscule size of the lady bug, I found it to be unsatifying. So next I tried a ladyfinger. This was much more pleasant than the lady bug so of course I thought, "If this pastry is so damn sexy, what else would I like?"

Sure I tried the usual, crullers, jelly donuts, pecan rolls (those pecan rolls hurt like the dickens by the way). Then I tried a bear claw. Damn that bear claw was a freak!!! The slipperly slope kicked in again and I thought, "hmm, if a bear claw feels this good, what other bear related things would I enjoy?"

Suffice it to say that I am banned for life from the Toysrus stuffed animal section. I am also saddened to say that I am banned for life from the Lowry Park Zoo, but I do owe them my life for reasons I prefer not to go into on this forum. I just narrowly escaped a mob of angry football players from Chicago and had to flee into the woods to save my life. While there, I came upon a bear trap and you can guess the rest.

The point of all of this is that as Screwtape so correctly pointed out, there is nothing more real, nothing more dangerous, than the slippery slope.

By the way, does anyone here know how to open a bear trap?
Yes, yes, and if you let the barber cut your hair too short, soon he'll be cutting off your arms and legs.

Good thing there aren't any REAL examples of the slippery slope argument, like the deregulation of the logging industry in Alabama or the shoddy enforcement of gun control laws or the decline and fall of the Roman fucking Empire. Give me a break.

[Noah Johnson]

Actually, the definition of a bigot you post here is "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Your self-righteous, condescending attitude and your utter contempt for people who try to take issue with you seems to fit in pretty well. Sonny.
I take it this means you acknowledge that you're a bigot, yes?

[Screwtape]

No, but I begin to understand how you can't follow my trains of thought when all of yours are still boarding at the station. I'm perfectly willing to have a civil dialogue, but you don't seem capable of one.

Edit: I sort of promised myself I would never post on this thread ever, ever again, because it always turns ugly. I've gone and done it again, and I'm sorry I did. I think I've made my points, and I'm sure I've heard all the rebuttals you guys can think of. I'm done posting here, honest injun. PM me if you actually want my opinion. Otherwise, please continue discussing how revolting people like me are, but know that you're never going to change our minds by talking down to or insulting us (and Ian and Noah, I mean YOU, my little holy warrior friends). Bye.

[Ian Boothby]

.Maybe you're an asshole. I don't want to punish gay people. I don't think keeping the marriage laws the same IS a punishment. Pedophiles don't get to marry the person of their choice, Mormons (before the "revelation") don't get to marry the multiple partners of their choice, etc. Marriage is for straight people. That's the point

Keeping marriage the way it is denies equal rights to gays. Denial of rights is unfair and punishes them for how they are born (unless they decide to live a lie which often really does hurt the people around them). So yes it's clearly punishment.
Pedophiles can't marry because the other person isn't a consenting adult.
Bringing pedophilia and polygamy into this is a bullshit duck and weave from the topic at hand. Why not bring up that men can't marry their dogs? That's the way this usually goes, polygamy gets brought up, then pedophiles, then beastiality.

[Ian Boothby]

No, but I begin to understand how you can't follow my trains of thought when all of yours are still boarding at the station. I'm perfectly willing to have a civil dialogue, but you don't seem capable of one.

Edit: I sort of promised myself I would never post on this thread ever, ever again, because it always turns ugly. I've gone and done it again, and I'm sorry I did. I think I've made my points, and I'm sure I've heard all the rebuttals you guys can think of. I'm done posting here, honest injun. PM me if you actually want my opinion. Otherwise, please continue discussing how revolting people like me are, but know that you're never going to change our minds by talking down to or insulting us (and Ian and Noah, I mean YOU, my little holy warrior friends). Bye.

And you're never going to win this battle. Your kind never wins. So if you change your mind or not it really doesn't matter. You may as well yell at the sun to try to stop it rising in the morning.

[Rosie]

No, but I begin to understand how you can't follow my trains of thought when all of yours are still boarding at the station. I'm perfectly willing to have a civil dialogue, but you don't seem capable of one.

Edit: I sort of promised myself I would never post on this thread ever, ever again, because it always turns ugly. I've gone and done it again, and I'm sorry I did. I think I've made my points, and I'm sure I've heard all the rebuttals you guys can think of. I'm done posting here, honest injun. PM me if you actually want my opinion. Otherwise, please continue discussing how revolting people like me are, but know that you're never going to change our minds by talking down to or insulting us (and Ian and Noah, I mean YOU, my little holy warrior friends). Bye.

You said Marriage was for straight people. You never exactly backed up why.

[Gilda Dent]

Let there be a pro-gay marriage referendum. Let it happen nation-wide. The legislatures have far too much power anyway.

You are aware that we don't have nation wide referenda here in the US, aren't you? I was responding to this statement:

"But it is pretty presumptuous to demand that someone cast a vote for something that they personally believe is immoral."

I've seen this, "don't ask me to vote for it" a lot lately. It must be a new anti-gay marriage talking point. What you need to realize is that nobody wants you to vote for anything. We're not asking you to support it. Nobody wants you to do anything. You want to know why? Because it doesn't affect you, and it doesn't harm anyone in any way.

That's absurd. You think abortion is murder, but you're willing to let other people do it? How can you live like that?

I didn't say I thought abortion is murder, nor do I wish to debate abortion here. I used that as an example of how I can have personal moral convictions based on my religious beliefs without wanting to force other people to abide by them. I let my religious and moral beliefs guide my life, but don't expect any other person to base their life on them.

Indeed, because diffrent people belong to different religions, and have different religious beliefs within those religions (I'm a Christian, too, by the way, hence the bible passages that I use as a sig), to be consistent, I have to allow other people to live according to their religious beliefs, just as I expect them to allow me to live by mine.

That's an entirely consistent ethical position.

Nobody in the world can choose their own mate without outside interference. There's the age of consent, there's polygamy, and a number of other (mostly very distasteful) restrictions on marriage.

We're not asking for all restrictions to be lifted. Just the one based on sex. You're the only one bringing age and number into the debate.

Same-sex unions are not part of the traditional structure of marriage. Gay people DO have the same rights as straight people - they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Black people have the same rights as white people. They have the right to marry someone of their own race.

This was disingenuous forty years ago, and it's disingenuous now.

That may seem cruel or unfeeling to you, but you practice a form of sexuality that falls outside the norm, and you're asking for special provisions to protect it.

First, we're not asking for special provisions to protect us. We just want the special provisions that discriminate against us lifted. We want to be treated the equally.

Second, damn, that's impressive! Really, that's the first time that I've actually seen someone come right out and say that it's ok to discriminate against us because we're the minority.

Right, but gay people ignore NAMBLA and like-minded organizations at their peril. I agree that the comparison is false, but the "slippery slope" argument is pretty convincing and I think (since the burden of proof is on the gay community), that gay people should go out of their way to dissociate themselves from actual perverts like those.

What burden of proof? Your side is the one making the comparison; if you believe gays to be pedophiles, show us some evidence or admit that it's a false comparison. Oh wait, you already did.

If you agree that the comparison is false, then you've conceeded the slippery slope argument as it relates to pedophilia.

Do you genuinely not see the irony here? I've tried to dissociate gays from NAMBLA, and have been trying to do so in regards to pedophilia and polygamy for pages here and in the political thread, and your side keeps bringing it up again and again.

If you think the comparison is false, stop making it.

You haven't understood me. The "inclusive" rhetoric can be used to justify pretty much any practice, and it's used by NAMBLA and any number of other groups. You need better logic than that to justify your position. If we say yes to you, how can we say no to people who want to remove ageist lines of discrimination? It's worth thinking about.

In response, let me quote something someone said earlier in the thread regarding gays and NAMBLA:

I agree that the comparison is false

Gilda

PS: Ian, I got a bunch of Simpsons trade paperbacks at 90% off at the bookstore this morning. Good stuff, even my wife likes them, and she's not into comic books.

[Ian Boothby]

PS: Ian, I got a bunch of Simpsons trade paperbacks at 90% off at the bookstore this morning. Good stuff, even my wife likes them, and she's not into comic books.

Glad you and your wife liked them. They're as much fun to make as they are to eat (or read).

[the4thpip]

The only thing we can choose is good over evil.
So I could decide if I feel attracted to Gandhi or Hitler? :confused:

[Cam63]

You can be attracted to who or whatever you please.

[the4thpip]

OK, I have a fever and I only quickly scanned the last few posts, but I don't know anybody who wants to marry an aborted fetus.

[Samurai]

OK, I have a fever and I only quickly scanned the last few posts, but I don't know anybody who wants to marry an aborted fetus.
Extreme pedophilia!!! EXTREME, dude!!!!

[the4thpip]

Pedophile necrophilia?

Next on Fox.

[howyadoin]

I know a lot of you "heteros" think that, but I just don't buy it. I mean, clearly, the first time you put little howy (or not so little howy, I don't want to offend, at least not yet) into the the furburger of some little running amuck canuck, it was a logical choice. You can't expect me to believe that there were things like urges or desires which were not under your complete control. You don't honestly expect me or anyone else here to believe that you were "prewired" with some a priori affinity or attraction to women?!Hah. Nice.

But seriously, I always wonder when people talk about thinking that girls (or boys, for that matter) were gross when they were pre-pubescent. I always - and I mean always - noticed women.

[Boldido]

Give me a break.

I have an idea. Instead of me giving you a break, why don't you give me a decent, secular argument instead of a paranoid, homophobic dystopian future fantasy about how gay marraige will lead to the downfall of civilization.

Your arguments are lazy and nonsensical so I have chosen to respond to them in kind.

As for people choosing to legislate their morality and theology, which you seem to enjoy and feel that people who argue against it are absurd, eventually, a theocracy, which you seem to support, will come back and bite you in he ass. There are many aspects of my religion that I would not want to see as law. Catholics feel that masturbation is immoral, yet I don't want the government telling people who can pull their peters. How does my masturbating effect you? It doesn't. Some religions feel that dancing is immoral, yet I don't want the government telling people they can't dance. How does my dancing effect you? It doesn't. Some sects of Judaism mandate food be Kosher, yet I don't want the government outlawing cheeseburgers. How does my eating a Whopper with cheese effect you? It doesn't. How does my friend getting married to her partner who is the other mother of her daughter effect you? It doesn't. There is nothing absurd about keeping your religion out of government, its one of the most American things there is.

If you are so desirious to live in a theocracy, however, head to the middle east, you can find a bunch of them over there. Sure, its not your relgion, and some theocratic morons will be forcing beliefs that you don't agree with on you with the weight and force of law behind them, but that seems to be something that you like and support

[Rosie]

You can be attracted to who or whatever you please.

Okay, so make out with this radiator.

[Screwtape]

OK, Gilda, since you and I haven't actually had this argument I'll be courteous enough to give you the rest of my points and you can decide whether or not you like them (and yes, I am aware that we don't have nation-wide referenda, but you did ask). I've seen this, "don't ask me to vote for it" a lot lately. It must be a new anti-gay marriage talking point. What you need to realize is that nobody wants you to vote for anything. We're not asking you to support it. Nobody wants you to do anything. You want to know why? Because it doesn't affect you, and it doesn't harm anyone in any way.Nor would legalized prostitution, but I'm not in favor of it and won't vote in a politician who favors it. That will continue to be a bad argument. And gay people ARE asking straight people to vote in congressmen, senators, and presidential candidates who want to legalize gay marriage. Keep in mind that I actually voted for John Kerry, but many of my friends and family did not, almost exclusively because they thought that his stance on gay marraige was incompatible with their own. Democracy is about electing the person who represents you best.I didn't say I thought abortion is murder, nor do I wish to debate abortion here. I used that as an example of how I can have personal moral convictions based on my religious beliefs without wanting to force other people to abide by them. I let my religious and moral beliefs guide my life, but don't expect any other person to base their life on them.

Indeed, because diffrent people belong to different religions, and have different religious beliefs within those religions (I'm a Christian, too, by the way, hence the bible passages that I use as a sig), to be consistent, I have to allow other people to live according to their religious beliefs, just as I expect them to allow me to live by mine.

That's an entirely consistent ethical position.Right, but you guys just automatically assume that I'm arguing from a religious perspective here. I'm trying to keep religion out of it (and if you think that abortion would end a human life "for you," how would it not end a human life for someone else? That's not a subjective argument, and the LEAST consistent ethical position I've ever seen, or even imagined).We're not asking for all restrictions to be lifted. Just the one based on sex. You're the only one bringing age and number into the debate.



Black people have the same rights as white people. They have the right to marry someone of their own race.

This was disingenuous forty years ago, and it's disingenuous now.



First, we're not asking for special provisions to protect us. We just want the special provisions that discriminate against us lifted. We want to be treated the equally.Right, except that a black partner and a white partner can actually produce a child. Marriage is about procreation. If you say it's about "love," you instantly invite the comparison to child molesters again.Second, damn, that's impressive! Really, that's the first time that I've actually seen someone come right out and say that it's ok to discriminate against us because we're the minority.There's a built-in biological inequality that has nothing to do with race, gender, or hair color and involves THE INABILITY TO PROCREATE. Families build society, not mutually tolerant adults who accept a rainbow variety of sexual practices. What burden of proof? Your side is the one making the comparison; if you believe gays to be pedophiles, show us some evidence or admit that it's a false comparison. Oh wait, you already did.

If you agree that the comparison is false, then you've conceeded the slippery slope argument as it relates to pedophilia.

Do you genuinely not see the irony here? I've tried to dissociate gays from NAMBLA, and have been trying to do so in regards to pedophilia and polygamy for pages here and in the political thread, and your side keeps bringing it up again and again.

If you think the comparison is false, stop making it.



In response, let me quote something someone said earlier in the thread regarding gays and NAMBLA:You don't understand. The comparison between the two behaviors is false. The slippery slope argument is NOT. At all. Once you completely remove procreation or the potential for it from the argument, you're in uncharted territory and you're left with unquantifiable abstracts like the age of consent, and they are absolutely the next thing to go. The Greeks got rid of them, and so did the Romans. Those were both great cultures and if you want to argue that it wouldn't be a bad thing, we're in new territory. But if (as I think you do) you want to stay in the realm of consenting adulthood, you have to sanctify marriage as a method of joining together two people who, under ideal circumstances, can produce and raise children. We don't penalize couples who can't produce children because that's a physical handicap. Having sex with someone you weren't biologically constructed to have sex with is not a physical handicap. Homosexuality is a phase for some people. It is NOT an inherited trait in the way most people think it is. (http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html) Homosexuality is frankly not a stable enough phenomenon to place under the banner of marriage, which is supposed to be a lifetime commitment (again, under ideal circumstances).

I would really love to be done with this discussion now.

[Michael P]

OK, I have a fever and I only quickly scanned the last few posts, but I don't know anybody who wants to marry an aborted fetus.
DON'T JUDGE OUR LOVE!

[Bradley]

Keep in mind that I actually voted for John Kerry, but many of my friends and family did not, almost exclusively because they thought that his stance on gay marraige was incompatible with their own.

This probably isn't relevant, but I'm a little confused-- John Kerry was against gay marriage. How could this have possibly been an issue in the last presidential election, where the other candidate was also against gay marriage? Do your friends just not pay attention? Why pretend to care about the issues, when you can't even be bothered to find out where a candidate stands on them?

And as an infertile man married to a woman, I find your "marriage is about procreation" argument to be highly offensive. Yes, I realize that you backpedal and say that you don't want to penalize me, but all the same... If you honestly believe that the purpose of marriage is procreation, then you must believe that my marriage lacks legitimacy. After all, we're just two consenting adults who aren't going to procreate-- we might as well be child molesters, right?

Obviously, marriage is about consenting adults committing their lives to each other. Any other definition discriminates against homosexual couples and heterosexual couples alike.

[Samurai]

Obviously, marriage is about consenting adults committing their lives to each other. Any other definition discriminates against homosexual couples and heterosexual couples alike.
Ooops, you forgot to put the also vitally important number "2" in there... simple mistake to make, I guess... Not like you'd want to promote a definition of marriage that'd ever allow polygamy, right?

[Bradley]

Yeah. You're right. I'm not in favor of polygamy. If anyone was confused... sorry.

[Evan Waters]

So, Screwtape, should 80+ year olds and sterile couples be allowed to marry? Should there be some sort of legal obligation that you must produce offspring or else have your benefits revoked?

[Adam Crocker]

Marriage is about procreation. If you say it's about "love," you instantly invite the comparison to child molesters again.

No, how does saying that marriage is about "love" invite comparisons to child molesters again? Especially when the attitude of modern society torwards marriage is that it occurs and should occur between couples who love each other?

The slippery slope argument is NOT. At all. Once you completely remove procreation or the potential for it from the argument, you're in uncharted territory and you're left with unquantifiable abstracts like the age of consent, and they are absolutely the next thing to go. The Greeks got rid of them, and so did the Romans. Those were both great cultures and if you want to argue that it wouldn't be a bad thing, we're in new territory. But if (as I think you do) you want to stay in the realm of consenting adulthood, you have to sanctify marriage as a method of joining together two people who, under ideal circumstances, can produce and raise children.

I think we're still in the realm of the slipperly slope argument here. For one thing you ignore that age of consent laws exist due to the demonstrable harm of adults preying on teenagers and children, so it's not entirely an unquantifiable abstract. Your examples of Greek and Rome fail to establish whether either culture posessed similar taboos about adults having sex with minors in the first place, and whether they lacked such laws because they sanctioned homosexual behaviour. Our current society has done away with laws against homosexual behaviour. In Canada this happened decades before sodomy laws were struck down in the United States yet there hasn't been any noticeable movement to sanctioning pederasty or pedophilia over here. Advocates of gay marriage (barring certain lunatic fringe figures) wouldn't argue against age restrictions either and recognize their necessity. So I don't see how it will necessarily logically follow that these things will be abolished when the harmful nature of pederasty and pedophilia can and has been demonstrated time and time again.

We don't penalize couples who can't produce children because that's a physical handicap.

And what about couples who are able, but choose not to produce children? That isn't a physical handicap. That's a deliberate choice to not to use their capabilities to reproduce, which you state is reason for allowing heterosexual couples to marry. Moreover, what about lesbian couples that choose to have a child through artificial insemination? Or gay couples that choose to have a kid via a surrogate? All of them are physically capable of reproducing and have means to do so that do not necessarily entail both partners contributing genetic material for reproduction. By the logic you use they should be allowed to marry, but heterosexual couples that choose not to should be disallowed from doing so.

Then there are those couples that have kids, but choose not to marry.

Homosexuality is a phase for some people.

For some people? Do you have reliable examples? Does that apply to most gay people for that matter?

It is NOT an inherited trait in the way most people think it is. (http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html) Homosexuality is frankly not a stable enough phenomenon to place under the banner of marriage, which is supposed to be a lifetime commitment (again, under ideal circumstances).

Interestingly enough this is the first time I've heard of people arguing that it was inherited genetic trait. Moreover, how is it "not a stable enough phenomenon" to allow homosexual couples to marry? Last I checked one of the main causes for homosexuality in men according to the scientific community was a change in hormone levels in the womb, with genetic predisposition possibly playing a factor here. Apparently the same such evidence has not been found in women, though as near as I can tell that hasn't stopped lesbians from remaining attracted to other women and not showing sexual interest in men. Taken with the neglible success rate of "curing" gays, I fail to see how being homosexual is any less stable than being heterosexual.

Moreover, you may want to check your sources more carefully. The site in question is the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_and_Therapy_of_H omosexuality) which argues that homosexuality can be cured. Yet none of its research is endorsed by most professional mental health organizations and they have selectively cited invalidated research to back up their claims. Moreover, the method it advocates reparative therapy has pretty much been dropped by most of the professional mental health community as failing to actually change one's sexual orientation and/or shown to be mentally harmful to the person's receiving the therapy.

[Gilda Dent]

Nor would legalized prostitution, but I'm not in favor of it and won't vote in a politician who favors it. That will continue to be a bad argument.

And now a comparison to prostitution.

Prostitution is a separate issue, unrelated to gay marriage. The only way they're equivilent is that in the minds of your side, they're both immoral. It's the same argument you've been making in regards to polygamy and pedophilia, and it's just as false here.

But, hey, let's run with the idea that marriage laws and prostitution laws should be treated the same. I'm with you there. Prostitution laws apply equally to all people regardless of sex, gender identity, or orientation. Straight prostitution is just as illegal as gay prostitution. Let's do the same with marriage laws, make them the same for all people, illegal or legal for any two consenting adults.

And gay people ARE asking straight people to vote in congressmen, senators, and presidential candidates who want to legalize gay marriage. Keep in mind that I actually voted for John Kerry, but many of my friends and family did not, almost exclusively because they thought that his stance on gay marraige was incompatible with their own.

Good for them! It's nice that the other people in your family so strongly support the cause of gay rights that they refuse to vote for Kerry based on his opposition to gay marriage.

By the way, you're still not getting it. We really don't want you support gay marriage or any other form of gay rights. All we want is for you to recognize that this is an issue that doesn't affect you and harms no one, and stop opposing it. You do understand that lack of opposition isn't support, don't you? If there weren't strong, organized, vocal oppostion to gay marriage and other gay rights, we'd have same sex marriage and protection for sex and orientation as a basic right the way it is for race.

Also, keep in mind that this isn't a special right for gays. Equal rights protects you from discrimination as well.

Right, but you guys just automatically assume that I'm arguing from a religious perspective here. I'm trying to keep religion out of it (and if you think that abortion would end a human life "for you," how would it not end a human life for someone else? That's not a subjective argument, and the LEAST consistent ethical position I've ever seen, or even imagined).

I use my moral beliefs to guide my own behavior. Because, based on my religious beliefs, I believe abortion to be the taking of a human life, if I were capable of getting pregnant, and I did find myself with an unwanted pregnancy, I would not abort it. That would be my choice based on my own moral and religious beliefs.

I believe that others should have the same right to make that same choice for themselves. It's about being free to act on your own religious and moral beliefs. You don't try to force your beliefs on me through legislation, I won't try to force mine on you. Perfectly consistent.

Right, except that a black partner and a white partner can actually produce a child.

Not all of them.

Marriage is about procreation.

Not for everyone. Many people are married with no intention or no ability to have children.

If you say it's about "love," you instantly invite the comparison to child molesters again.

Not if I say it's about the love between two consenting adults.

But that's just one factor. There are a dozen other legal protections granted married couples that have nothing to do with love or procreation.

Also, I find it interesting that you put love in quotes. Do you mean to imply that homosexuals don't love their mates? You're simply wrong if you do.

There's a built-in biological inequality that has nothing to do with race, gender, or hair color and involves THE INABILITY TO PROCREATE.

Many couples are unable to procreate because of age or infertility.

Marriage has nothing to do with biology. It's a human invention.

Families build society, not mutually tolerant adults who accept a rainbow variety of sexual practices.

I absolutely agree, the family is one of the foundations of society (not the only one, but an important one to be sure). The family I have, my wife and I, contributes to society. When we have children sometime in the next couple of years, we'll do our best to maintain a strong family unit for the benefit of that child. Denying our children the legal protections that come with having two married parents seems contrary to the your stated goal for marriage here.

You don't understand. The comparison between the two behaviors is false. The slippery slope argument is NOT. At all.

Sure it is. Slippery slope is a legitimate argument only if you can prove a causal link between A and the predicted derivative consequences. You haven't done that.

You know what is a dangerous slippery slope, though? Making marriage dependant upon procreation. If we say gays shouldn't be able to marry because the purpose of marriage is procreation and gays can't procreate (which isn't true anyway), then the logical conclusion from that premise is that any couple not intending to procreate or incapable of procreation should be denied marriage rights.

Notice the difference here. "Marriage is for procreation" as a way to attack gay marriage, without alteration of any kind catches infertile, elderly, and CFBC couples in its net.

Once you completely remove procreation or the potential for it from the argument, you're in uncharted territory and you're left with unquantifiable abstracts like the age of consent, and they are absolutely the next thing to go.

How is age unquantifiable? Age is by definition quantifiable.

Here's the problem with this argument: We're already on that slippery slope because we already allow infertile people to marry. Procreation has already been removed from the argument.

The Greeks got rid of them, and so did the Romans. Those were both great cultures and if you want to argue that it wouldn't be a bad thing, we're in new territory.

You're the one arguing age is equivilent to sex. I keep denying that they're at all relevant.

But if (as I think you do) you want to stay in the realm of consenting adulthood, you have to sanctify marriage as a method of joining together two people who, under ideal circumstances, can produce and raise children.

First, I'm not asking anyone to sanctify my marriage. My marriage already has been sanctifed by the church I attend. Churches are already free to define the sacrament of marriage as they see fit, and changes to the marriage laws would have no effect on that. What we want is legal recognition. I can't understand why you can't see the difference here.

We don't penalize couples who can't produce children because that's a physical handicap.

Copulation between married partners is only one method of producing children. Some families are formed through adoption, through artificial insemination, through children brought over from previous marriages. Don't those families, those children deserve the same protection as children produced the traditional way?

Having sex with someone you weren't biologically constructed to have sex with is not a physical handicap.

Maybe not, but it's a hell of a lot more fun, and more fulfilling that having sex with someone you're not sexually attracted to.

This isn't about sex. It's about marriage.

Homosexuality is a phase for some people. It is NOT an inherited trait in the way most people think it is. (http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html)

NARTH! You actually cited those homophobic/transphobic/misogynistic assholes at narth as support for your side. What's next, Misogyny International? Damn, I was going to send you a link, but they don't appear to be around anymore.

This is an organization that is built on the premise that homosexuality, particularly in males, can be cured, and that it can be prevented by stamping out feminine behavior is little boys. Their entire philosophy is circular reasoning.

Homosexuality is frankly not a stable enough phenomenon to place under the banner of marriage, which is supposed to be a lifetime commitment (again, under ideal circumstances).

Provide evidence that homosexual couples are less stable than heterosexual ones if you're going to make this claim, and from a reputable organization, not an extremist fringe group like narth. The American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html) would be a good example of a reputable mainstream organization that studies homosexuality and it's impact on family structure.

Many homosexuals identify as hetero prior to coming to realize that they are homosexual. Does that make heterosexuality too unstable for marriage?

The stability of a marriage is dependant upon the compatability of the partners. Sexual compatability is one of those factors, but not the only one.

I would really love to be done with this discussion now.

Me, too. Conceed that you're wrong and we'll be done.

Gilda

[Gilda Dent]

Damn, DJ. Here I spend an hour typing up a response, and when I post it, you've already responded and said everything I wanted to say better than I said it. You're making me look bad :).

Also, well said.

Gilda

[Michael P]

I realize this is judgmental and subjective, but anyone who gets married solely for procreation shouldn't be doing either.

[howyadoin]

Marriage is about procreation. If you say it's about "love," you instantly invite the comparison to child molesters again.Let's see if I can wrap my head around this - marriage isn't about love and commitment?

And why the quotation marks? Are you saying love isn't real?

[Michael P]

Let's see if I can wrap my head around this - marriage isn't about love and commitment?

And why the quotation marks? Are you saying love isn't real?
No, he's saying all gays are pedophiles.

[Cam63]

He's certainly got some fucked up notions about love and commitment.

I've never understood how a person being gay was the same as being a pedophile either.

Most child molesters are hetero.

[malephoenix]

[ I'm not sure that I'll be posting here again, so I wrote a lot and split it into two posts. ]

I didn't even know a thread like this existed here. I didn't even know a thread like this *could* exist here. I wanted to read all the posts to catch up on what's been said, but unfortunately, I don't have two years of my life to dedicate to reading three and a half THOUSAND posts. Wow; this has been going for a while, here, huh?

At any rate, I doubt I'll have much to say, and perhaps it may have already been said in the last hundred pages or so, but I want to offer it in case it is of any value to anyone. It seems that, from this page alone, posters are more dedicated to proving themselves right than to actually listening to each other, so I have a feeling that whatever I say would be largely greeted by one side and largely frowned upon by the other, but I can only offer my own experience:

I'm not sure what the posters above mean in reference to religion, but my personal lifestyle is not defined by my opinions, inner desires, or "religion" as it is often referred to. My story-in-a-run-on-sentence is that I was raised in the Christian church, was baptized/saved/whatever'ed at an early age, got serious about my faith toward the end of high school, but graduated and found myself in a lukewarm relationship with God, a sexually sinful relationship with a person I cared very deeply for, but ended up being convicted by the Holy Spirit and friends who sincerely cared about me into getting my life right and getting into a healthier state of living, period.

I admit that I don't know all of the research that's been done, whether psychological, family-study-based, or simply statistics. But for my personal experience, I've had several homosexual (and a few bisexual and even, a couple...to protect their identities, I'll call them "othersexual" friends and acqaintances. And in my short time on earth, I've grown to understand a limited number of things; among which are:

-Non-heterosexuals can often live heterosexual lives, and overcome the same temptations that I overcame, albeit mine were hetero. I have several friends who used to be homo- or bisexual, etc., and now are genuinely grateful for having a different life. Sometimes, it was new to them, as they had never had such relationships before. I say this because so many people seem to offer the reasoning of "Why would a God create me with desires He doesn't want me to have?" And the long-and-short of it is that even though God created us, we're all given to temptation, although some of it is "easier" to face down than others.

-The Bible (I know many others may use a different book, and still others, nothing at all, but like I said, this is my limited experience) does indeed have a firm stance on not only homosexuality, but also sexual purity and selflessness, among other related issues. I know also, that anyone can read anything they want into the text of any book, if that is their intention. However, there is a difference between {wanting to know if the Bible says anything about something I'm interested in knowing} and {wanting to live my life by the Bible, so if it says something I don't like, I'll do what I can to change or not change, and trust God to do His part}.

-Marriage is not only about procreation, just like it is not only about love. Love being a word that has been stretched in many different ways from its meaning in the Biblical cannon, let alone that the word agape was largely unused by its Greek society.

-Not all homosexuals are child molesters, but there are many child molesters that are homo- or bi-sexual.

-Most of the people I personally know didn't just "realize" they were homo- or bisexual. This astounded me when I first noticed the pattern, and maybe it's different in cities that have a higher population of non-heterosexuals, but most of the friends I've had that have lived a homosexual life were sexually abused at a young age. I know this is a very sensitive subject, and I say it not with accusation (and I wish I could apologize for those people in the world who do), but with respect. There aren't words to express how sucky of a position that is to have landed in, in someone's life.

-The media doesn't accurately portray anything, including the homosexual lifestyle. Some of my homosexual friends have actually made fun of shows like Will and Grace that show homosexuality as being a fun, carefree way of life that's all laughs, and without repercussions. One individual I know said it best when she stated that "gay" was an ironic term to have been adapted to mean homosexual, because she never knew any of her homo- or bisexual friends to be "happy" in life. (Maybe this doesn't apply to you. Maybe she was friends with the only homosexuals in the continental USA for whom this is true; again - it's only my experience.)

-The statistics I have seen for homosexuality are sobering. Though these are a few years old, it numbered the partners of many homosexuals in extremely high numbers, and listed the death rate at an average of age 42 for men and 47 for women. Ironically, most of the deaths were not due to STDs like many conservatives would like to claim, but the majority was related to driving under the influence of substance/alcohol. That does *not* mean that all homosexuals are drunks, and it shouldn't be used as such.

-Often, the conservative anti-homosexual speaker and the outspoken pro-homosexual speaker don't even listen to each other. Watching countless (and I mean *countless*) debates in a variety of forms, it's been my personal observation - making sure to throw that in, there - that the anti is stuck on a soapbox of moral superiority and the pro has closed themselves into an arena where they have embraced the lifestyle so much that it has lead them to shut out whatever the other says, whether it's true or not. An example of speaking and not listening seems to have been happening in this thread at some points - though who's really surprised? Screwtape (interesting name, by the way; I appreciate the allusion) has been so dedicated that marriage is about procreation, and has largely ignored that marriage is a place for love. Gilda Dent, on the other hand, has been as brash as to say literally "[concede] that you're wrong and we'll be done." I'm not attacking either of you. I honestly and humbly ask - are you trying to offer some insight to each other about the issue? Or are you just so dedicated to your stances that you want to make sure you make your stand no matter what? If that's the case, then do you really think that when you both make a statement, you're going to change the others' mind??? I know that everyone knows this when others are arguing, but it's hard to keep in mind when we're the ones doing it - but when in a discussion, debate, or argument, being condescending like these posts have been not only doesn't convince the other of your points, but it makes each other even more upset with each other. At this point, all that happens is that the people who already agreed with each of you feel like you said something great.

[malephoenix]

Maybe no one will care about this post. If that happens, that's cool. But maybe someone will get something out of it, and if so, then I hope that it's of value. A few things are weird about some of the things that've been mentioned in various ways. For example, someone brought up the idea of a black and white partner. I found that ironic because of my black girlfriend and I and how we ended up dating. We were both raised to not date people of each others' cultures, and we believed firmly in what we weren't doing. However, we both had the experience of looking at what the Bible leads in such matters, and found that we were in the wrong for having such - call it what it is - racist beliefs. (I know people can have those beliefs without them being racist per se, but ours were racist.) At any rate, it happened for me about six years ago, and she's still in some of hers, but it's another example of reading the Word for what we want it to say or reading it and wanting it to be our guide instead of our emotions/urges/whatever. I'm not at all saying I'm perfect because I was willing to do that, just that I believed firmly in not dating black women and I wasn't attracted to them, but after seeking out what the Bible said, I controlled my desires more and have ended up in a wonderful relationship with a very respectable, intelligent, funny, (and yes, it doesn't hurt that she's hot) woman. (Hey even though looks aren't everything, the one thing everybody of any preference can agree on is that they sure are nice. ;)

This one's kinda different - it's weird to me that so many want to take the stance that you can't include age with gender. Or for that matter, species with gender. Because one of my "othersexual" friends (whom has given me permission to share his story) is of another experience. He's been almost every-sexual. And now, he has an inner desire to have sex with trees. Yes; seriously. It's called dendrophilia and it's real, albeit very rare for such extreme cases, and he feels that if a man can be in love with a woman, and a man can be in love with a man, then a man can be in love with a tree. That might be frustrating to hear. But someone IS taking that argument and going further with it. And though he's the only person I personally know who has made that argument, I'd wager that there are more out there. So be careful in saying that those are unreasonable comparisons, because just as they make perfect sense to you, that one makes perfect sense to him.

Finally, I have something that I want to say to anyone who is against homosexuality based on a Biblical foundation. Watch your tone and what you're saying. Christ is our savior. That's a thing of greatness, gloriousness, and Selfless Love. Christ NEVER spoke down to someone who He didn't agree with. He LOVED them. How dare any of you think that you'll condemn someone into changing their lifestyle. Maybe you don't feel like you've been the one doing this. And maybe you're not. But chances are, if you're outspoken against homo- or bisexuality, then you're probably NOT "speaking the truth in love." "Outspoken" hardly ever equals "spoken in Love."

I'm done. Stick a fork in me.

[Spike-X]

Okay, so make out with this radiator.

That's hot.











Ha!! Geddit?!?!?!

[Ian Boothby]

.

Edit: I sort of promised myself I would never post on this thread ever, ever again, because it always turns ugly. I've gone and done it again, and I'm sorry I did. I think I've made my points, and I'm sure I've heard all the rebuttals you guys can think of. I'm done posting here, honest injun. PM me if you actually want my opinion. Otherwise, please continue discussing how revolting people like me are, but know that you're never going to change our minds by talking down to or insulting us (and Ian and Noah, I mean YOU, my little holy warrior friends). Bye.


Whenever someone says something like this expect at least a dozen more posts.

[Ian Boothby]

OK, Gilda, since you and I haven't actually had this argument I'll be courteous enough to give you the rest of my points and you can decide whether or not you like them...

And here we go...

[Noah Johnson]

Whenever someone says something like this expect at least a dozen more posts.
Oh, c'mon, that was a cheap shot. You want to lay into Screwtape, maybe lay into him for wearing a name taken from one of the greatest Christian intellectuals of the 20th century as he posts this retarded circular reasoning and outright bigotry.

[Ian Boothby]

Oh, c'mon, that was a cheap shot. You want to lay into Screwtape, maybe lay into him for wearing a name taken from one of the greatest Christian intellectuals of the 20th century as he posts this retarded circular reasoning and outright bigotry.

Okay, hey Screwtape, way to wear a name taken from one of the greatest Christian intellectuals of the 20th century but posting retarded circular reasoning and outright bigotry!

You're right that is better.

[Cam63]

Screwtape, just realise gay folk can be just as good, medium OK or fucked up just like the rest of us. Most are decent and just want a fair deal from society.

That stuff about marriage and/or having sex only for procreation is just ludicrous.

[Boldido]

Oh, c'mon, that was a cheap shot. You want to lay into Screwtape, maybe lay into him for wearing a name taken from one of the greatest Christian intellectuals of the 20th century as he posts this retarded circular reasoning and outright bigotry.

But wasn't Screwtape actually Satan or one of Satan's minions in Lewis' book? Doesn't that make his position of prejudice and cruel bigotry apropos?

[Adam Crocker]

Whenever someone says something like this expect at least a dozen more posts.

I went back, but I didn't see this with his last post. Did he put this in and then edit it out?

Edit: Nevermind. Found the post that Ian was referring to. And for the record, I agree with Ian.

[Adam Crocker]

Oh, and I forgot to add...Boldido's satirical posts on the previous page were BRILLIANT.

And hilarious. :)

[Tadhg]

So, is the law against murdering someone "just a religious belief"? "Thou shalt not kill"? Does that mean it shouldn't be a law, because some people may feel it's perfectly fine to murder someone, and we shouldn't force them to obey our moral values instead of their o