Gays Ya or Na

Originally posted by specialasianX

Originally posted by elitewolverine
you mean you want us to try homosexuallity and put us at risk of catching a disease that is laying the arse of a man.

Dude you can get diseases from a chicks pussy too... does that stop you from beign atracted to them? I dont think so... hell you can diseases eating... i bet you still do that? everything you do can cause you a disease... so why discriminate against something gays do just because you 'could' get a disease from it... and as the infinately wise JOHNsmith has stated... use a #ing condom! (for sex not eating) if your not already using one when (or if) you have sex with a female your a moron!

*correction* your not a moron for having inprotected sex if you are married, or your long time partner is on the pill or have other contraceptives (and has no wierd ailments), or are planning on knocking someone up


[Edited on 5-4-2004 by specialasianX]

and where do you think those diseases came from? read back and you will see, that they did not start in the straight department...

and its sad that straights have gotten the diseases that nature had orginally intended to stop homosexual acts...

i can get sick from eating rotten bread, but i dont do that...

and your right i dont use a condom...why? because i am married by heart and by god, not the state, and have a child. once you have a child you realize something special, something that a gay will never have, never experience and for that i once again feel pain, for them choosing a life where they will not enjoy such pleasures for nature dictates man and man will never have a child together and woman and woman the same.....i pleed that they will see it, but i have a child and ever since my life has never been the same, but i can this, the worse days with a child are better than the best days without....

Originally posted by J0HNSmith

Originally posted by Faisca
JOHNSmith I really don't understand why you can't fathom what we mean by not enjoying watching gays kiss, or heteros having PDAs, or anything along those lines. I really don't. But whatever...

Who are you to ask where he got the idea that seeing PDA's is gross?

People's personal preferences can not be so easily explained. Just as a homosexual can't explain why he is attracted to the same sex, and I on the other hand can't really explain why I like girls rather than guys.

I honestly don't see why you can't get that point...

Oh don't get me wrong I do understand what you are saying.

Who am I to ask? Who are you not to ask yourself and find the answers within your self. They are there, you do hold the reasons and the answers within your self to the things you say and the things you believe. If you aren't comfortable to explore or state your reasoning behind your beliefs because you don't think they will stand up to reason or you simply don't want to than maybe you should keep those particular ideas to yourself.

I can tell you why I am attracted to women and not men. But I don't think that will tell us why you are.

so you are testing God, what a devils response that is, and actually quite interesting, challenging man to the very morals just to prove something, sounds like the devils play when Jesus was fasting and the devil temted Jesus to make a rock into bread or jump off a cliff because the Angels of heaven will never let harm come to him....

hmmm testing God shall we? if i go before you i fear the day i watch you be judge, hell i fear the day i am judge, and im the more moral right in my eyes and my opinion...

First point, if you voted for bush you took part in a cold calculated murder of thousands of innocent people. So you have had a part in such an activity, even though you might not have seen it that way when you voted. I can tell you why a needless cold murder doesn't appeal to myself, and I could give you quite a few reasons behind that that make sense and have a very valid point and line of thinking.
No, I did not vote for bush, actually. I wasn't even old enough to vote when he was elected (I'm 19, almost 20 now) Even if I did, that's a bad example. Anyone who voted for Bush had no idea that he would go to war with Iraq. Nor did they have any say in what he did after Bush was elected. But let's not turn this into a discussion of war, this is about homosexuality.
EDIT: If you were talking about Bush being behind 9/11, I also feel bad for you. I may not agree with the Bush administration in any way shape or form, but I don't think that he was behind 9/11 aat all.

point 2 Are you psychic? You know you'll never be attracted to a guy? I know you make that statement with the knowledge you never have been attracted to a guy but things change, the world changes, and you change. You can't tell me what the weather is going to be next month, and unless you have some supernatural power you can't truthfully tell me you will never be attracted to another guy.
No, I'm not psychic. But I can say with let's assume 90% accuracy that I won't have homosexual tendencies in my life. I know myself quite well, I have afterall had to live with me for the past 19 years.

point 3. Have you ever seen this mythical stone? Did it really exist? Could it be something someone just put in a book and you were raised to believed it was true? You need to get a better sense of what's going on around you and why you think the things you think because you seem to have a lot of ideas that are based on air.
No, I've never seen the stone tablets on which the 10 Commandments were inscribed. But are you saying that they do not provide a good way to live life? Disregard the things about God, because if you don't have faith you won't agree with those anyway. But look at the ones that deal with morals, 5-10.

Honor thy father and thy mother, Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife...

These are not simply religious laws. These are laws that any man of reason can agree to live by. To quote Boondock Saints (one of the sweetest movies ever) "Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace." Reason shows you that murder is bad, God didn't have to write it down.

I have no ideas that are based on air. All of my ideas are based on reason and/or what Jesus preached that we should believe. There is really no God involved, like I said, the 10 Commandments are based on reason, but in the religious view it takes a divine understanding to fully realize the morals.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Faisca]

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Faisca]

Originally posted by elitewolverine

but since you believe that bush actually ordered 911 i feel for you even further, but that is off the point and should have never been brought in this forum.

2) i know for a fact that im not gay, how? i have seen gays kiss, and i thought could i be gay, then i realized hell no, to dcks do not go together...

thats like trying to put a square inside a cirlce, it doesnt fit, but since we are ignorant to natures diseases and warnings, we forced ie went the back way, the deseased arse, and go figure nature fought back with black pleagues and aids and anything else you might catch....

if it was natures way, why would these horrible deseases exhist because of nature and the horrible things people do?

but plz humor me futher into trying to say how do i know im not gay, believe me i know, but since you try to force that single idea i have to believe you are either bi or gay yourself....and for that im sorry

I don't believe Bush ordered 9/11. You're taking something I said to mean something it didn't, and than twisting what you think it means.

You can love a man the same way you can love a women, the feeling is the same ask any homosexual. So when you say people of the same sex don't belong together what is that based on?

Saying nature or "god" made aids and other diseases to kill sinners or homosexuals is ummm, it's out there. A lot of innocent men women and children have died from pledges and diseases. Are you saying that god (if that's who you were talking about) murdered these people in cold blood who had done nothing wrong?

I'm not bi or gay. If I was though there would be no reason to be sorry because that's who I would be.

You seem smug and uninformed, misinformed and you have a habit of twisting things I say to mean things they weren't intended to mean without asking their meaning first. I don't see you as a being happy with who you are or competent to make the kind of statements you're making. It's not a judgment I'm making here it's an observation.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by J0HNSmith]

Originally posted by elitewolverine

and where do you think those diseases came from? read back and you will see, that they did not start in the straight department...

and its sad that straights have gotten the diseases that nature had orginally intended to stop homosexual acts...

i can get sick from eating rotten bread, but i dont do that...

and your right i dont use a condom...why? because i am married by heart and by god, not the state, and have a child. once you have a child you realize something special, something that a gay will never have, never experience and for that i once again feel pain, for them choosing a life where they will not enjoy such pleasures for nature dictates man and man will never have a child together and woman and woman the same.....i pleed that they will see it, but i have a child and ever since my life has never been the same, but i can this, the worse days with a child are better than the best days without....

Firstly congratulations on having a kid, and being married and finding happiness (and yes i sincerely mean that)...

But your happiness at having a child isnt always reflected by others... All those parents who leave their families because they cant cope, i dont think they were happy at having a kid for very long... some people have no desire to reproduce and that is a good thing considering we are over populating the planet, personally i dont know if i will ever have kids... if i dont will that put me the level of pity you reserve for gays?

As for the disease remark, they weren't all started by gays... AIDS may have been but the others have been problems well before homosexuality became accepted (thus less gay people)... by others i mean things like hep (a, b and c) syphilus, genetal warts, herpes etc etc... and even if they did come from the gays, whats done is done and now we can all get them

Anyone who voted for Bush had no idea that he would go to war with Iraq. Nor did they have any say in what he did after Bush was elected. But let's not turn this into a discussion of war, this is about homosexuality.


No, I'm not psychic. But I can say with let's assume 90% accuracy that I won't have homosexual tendencies in my life. I know myself quite well, I have afterall had to live with me for the past 19 years.


No, I've never seen the stone tablets on which the 10 Commandments were inscribed.

You are right they had no idea that Bush would invade Iraq, but he did and they had a part in that mass murder of innocent people even though they were a unknowing accomplice.

first it was 100% now it's 90%, and even though you can't tell me or yourself why something disgusts you you claim to know yourself very well. You know what you've been taught in life, you know what people have told you to be true. But do you really know anything?

oh, and the 10 commandments. I'm not saying they are good, bad or indifferent. But I am saying if the story happened the way it is written than show me the stone.

JOHNSmith don't tell me what I do and do not know. I don't try to tell you what you know or don't know, so don't try it with me.

As for people being responsible for the deaths of Iraqis because they elected Bush. That's like holding a parent responsible if their child murders someone. I don't think anyone would hold a parent responsible (unless of course there were some kind of extenuating circumstances, but for the most part there isnt) The parents did not realize their child would commit murder when they were giving birth.

I suppose there's always the chance that I MIGHT be attracted to a guy sometime, but I know that it won't happen. I can honestly say this, because I know myself. No, I can't describe why something disgusts me. I don't know how to put it into words, that doesn't mean I know myself any less. It's like being in love. I can't exactly explain why I love my girlfriend so much, I know the things she does that make me love her, but it's hard to put into words just the way I feel.

Whether or not the 10 Commandments were written down or not is irrelevant. It is the message that counts in my eyes. The message that is acquirable through reason.

These debates are getting cyclical and no-one has yet answered why marriage ensures the survival of the race... but hey i guess thats how people work... dont know the answer? ignore the question... #ed up but its the way this thread is going... i would like to point out though i can see so many budding homosexuals here and none of them realise that they are displaying the signs of denial and well i'd love to see how many of you gay bashers aremt in bed with george michaels this time next decade

Before everything else, a hypothetical question to the proponents of the "unnaturalness" of homosexuality: would you advocate outlawing marraige for sterile men/women or those with no intention to reproduce? They're not furtherting the human race any more than a homosexual union would. Also, I don't understand the religious significance attatched to marraige. Atheists marry, too. Wouldn't that undermine the "sanctity" of marraige as a bond with god more than two men or two women marrying?

Originally posted by elitewolverineand there is something right in gay relations? you know what the arse of man holds? you mean there is no health risk to sticking you rod in the rear of man? wow i guess its cleaner than we thought, considering the body doesnt want it but i guess anothers mans rod is accepting of the vile stuff that comes out of it.

aids is first thought to come from a monkey that had practiced homosexuality with another monkey, and in tern a pilot who was flying internationally got the disease (the story there is blury for me) but the pilot was a Bi-man, he was thought to be the orginal carrier, but hey go figure that such a vile and terrible desease would come from where? the most vile and disgusting part of the body, where the solid waste is disposed of. hmmm, the black pleague even came from solid waste....

i wonder if nature is trying to tell us something? stay out of the solid waste rear, aids is natures way of controlling the population of people, how ever harsh that may seem its true, natures way of saying what the hell are you sticking that there for, ill show you, and its just sad that it also transfered the other way because of bi's, i feel for people that have gotten aids no matter straight or gay, but i also believe however cold hearted it may seem that in a sense nature is telling the gays something, and somehow i see it right for them to get it, i struggle with that thought, how could i wish hard will on another and to this date the only thing i have come up with is, they had it coming

You're hilarious. AIDS is the gay disease

Right, except more heterosexual women than gays have it now. I wonder how that happened if God sent it as a plague upon the unrighteous

Originally posted by elitewolverine
no in nature there is gay acts because the lack of females in a enviorment, which has led to many deseasis in a species of that part where it has taken place over and over, the most horrible being aids....but total gay animals do not exist, in fact the animal that committs a gay act, when given a choice from female to male will choose the female? why because that is their nature, the female releases a scent that the male does not, a scent that the male strives for.....you gay animal theory holds little to no water

This is just an outright lie. There are many documented cases of homosexual unions in the animal kingdom, NOT related solely to circumstances. Read up on it. You obviously need to.

Special: you're cracking me up man.

Deleuze: you can't tell the truth or make reasonable suggestions to people who make up facts as they go. They have already made up their mind and no matter what the case is they will always see them selves as being right. Tunnel vision at its best.

Ok, for those that say this has been discussed in depth on other threads, i say guess what? This issue seems to be important enough that its got multiple threads, so i guess this needs more discussion not less.

GAZROCK....Tolerance is a 2 way street...i agree that its not fair that gays can call those opposed to gay marriage "haters or bigots" but those in opposition cant say that gay activities are "immoral or deviant".
Why cant the pro gays understand that THEY must first be tolerant of the society they wish to gain accomodations from, otherwise, what type of reaction do they expect to get with their list of demmands (and with nothing in return)?

WEBDEVIL
Anti-gay or pro culture? a lable is a lable, but look at the difference in spin my 2 examples of "naming the same group" show....saying anti instead of pro shows bias at a basic level.


this is from me, brought from another post on this idea.

I've read about 11 pages of this running debate, here is my take on the overall line of discussions here
No to gay marriage. (use of term gay is to save space, not to disrespect)

1. Discrimination is LEGAL! A given society must discriminate in order to define itself. All freedoms and no rules/responsabillity = ANARCHY.
We have laws that descrimate based on age, (Retirement, child labor)....The right to association (yes you can legally have a black only scholorship, or a men's only golf club, no gays/girls in the boy scouts ect)...this is related to the right to be left alone.....or not to be forced by others that do not share in your groups core beliefs. We discriminate based on immigration status. If you are not a citizen, you dont have the same rights as citizens do. Some pay more/less/no taxes based on their income...Bottom line on #1...

a culture has the right to set its "boundaries" in order to define itself. This being a democratic republic, on most things the majority rule is in effect. Anyone ever say "life isnt fair" before? Lots of things arent fair or balanced in the world, deal with it. (within the appropriate channels....hint hint judges trying to legislate) This is not to say things dont change, but why are gays suprised that theve met resistance on an issue that hit near the core of how America has been defined for 250 yrs?

2. Several people on the pro-gay marriage side have erroniously lumped all christians together, as well as republicans. If youve ever studied the science of logic, then you know that "all are" or "none are" statements are very often wrong...also...never assume...stick to facts that can be documented, please do not generalize...thats the sign of a weak argument. If your gonna convince me, give me substance not rhetoric.

3. Marriage is not always for/about love...plenty of people get married for reasons other than love. Now we should open this abuse of marriage to even more people? If so, then whom? Brother to brother? (this is the slick slope that brings NAMBLA into the fray, or people and animals or any other such ideas, basically when is enough altering of the idea enough?)

4. Religion....to those that say why arent we enforcing the bibles take on the list of things they had in their post? Because christians use the old testimat as a referance....the new testimate is what guides christians.
While it is true that our govenrment does have provisions to seperate church/state....the history of why we created certain laws is based (loosley) on the judeo-christian belief system....not that religon is mandated, rather that its values are represtnted within the law in a non religious supposedly blind manner. we cannot forget or erase history/where weve been, or we will be doomed to repeate it.

5. sociology....examine the thousands of years of human history, YES, gays have been around for as long as then, but NO...why havent "gay cultures" been legitimized before very recently? Dont blame christians..they havnt been around for even the majority of the history of man's time. I do not have a difinitive answer, but this is a good question. This relates to #6

6. zoology....while homosexual behaivior is observed in the animal kingdom in many species...it is not, and has never been predominate, else reproduction of the species would not have occured, hence no continuation of the species....as far as "well animals do it so it must be natrural for man as well" idea....animals sometimes eat their own young...should we? We are a higher order of being than the animals, and we should act like it. Giving in to ones "animal self" is an excuse of a weak will to control ones actions, or total disreguard of the existance of others (should i steal food if im hungry? defficate on the street because i have to go? Rape a woman ((person)) because i feel the need to?) Relates to #1 as to why rules/boundaries/laws are nessisary.

7. "give us a non religious legal reason to ban gay marriage"
The first legal reason would be my #1 point...a society has the rights to say what is and is not acceptable for itself....How do we as a nation distinguish (discriminate) ourselves from other nations? AND How do other nations react to us as we do? (rights and responsibilities)

I hear alot of talk about making this change, but none on the rammifications that will be nessisary to revamp the legal system to make this change functional. I cannot support blind change...ever hear the road to hell is paved with good intentions? I saw one post where a person listed some of the things being married affects, and i think thats a short list. Its not just about what rights to get, but also what protections from abuse ect that have to go into a working law, as well as its ties to other laws that are not directly tied to marriage.

To the idea that the president shouldnt be trying to set policy....WHAT PLANET ARE YOU FROM? STUDY YOUR CIVICS....The basics are...Executive....Legislative...and Judicial branches of government...i wont bother to explain their jobs, you can look up the differences in those branches of gov.....This is why it is wrong for judges on the west coast to violate the law in order to change it...its not their job, its congresses....(as citizens they have the right to protest/revolt...heck the usa is here from a revolution, but to use their judicial positions for this purpose is ethically questionable for impartial judges to exhibit this behaivior as well as a violation of the law.) If you wnat change, do it thru the established means.

8. gay choice/born gay
I think the official jury is still out on this...lots of studies on both sides have been done, but so far there has not been ONE major theory that has become accepted as the overall basis. If its a choice, then the gays are up a creek...choose another place to live that is more to your liking.....If they find a "gay gene"....is that a defect? a minority deviance in the dna? should it be "corrected?" this is a thread of its own so i wont dwell on the tangent. Either way, in a democratic/repbulic....the majority opinion is going to carry far more weight than minority views should.

9. Who does this hurt?
without more discussions on the rammifications of how this COULD work...its way too early to tell how this will affect our overall culture...but if history is an example...many cultures have gone bye bye because of "moral decay" or "decadence"....(IM NOT SAYING GAY IS DECADENT.) what i mean is, that these societies strayed from what it was(ideals) that made them what they were.....then they "lost their way" and collapsed from within....America is divided too much already...do we really need to splinter over more and more things, gay marriage and other ideas? Islamic Terrorists dont like jews or gays and blame the rest of the people they burried on 9-11 in the towers for ALLOWING your behaiviours to permiate our culture....so other cultures outside of ours have taken a hostile action against the USA, in PART (REPETE IN PART) because they've judged us the great satan because of thier stated dislike of gays and jews here, and how they then percieve the rest of our culture...anyone hurt yet? how about 3k people? And thats comming from outside the USA...I think if you say who will this hurt? you have not examined this with enough detail. thats just the obvious overt extreme example of "HURT"...

What is your definition of hurt? A splinter in my finger might annoy me, but to a young girl might be tramatic pain...how to you guage when someone/thing is hurt? When is a culture Hurt?

Im excited to be part of this debate now here, and look forward to the blasts im about to recieve...Yeah open intelligent debate.

Weather or not to get married is a choice not a right. I as a hetero have no right to be married/have a spouse...and can choose NOT to marry as its not being FORCED upon me, nor is it nessisary for me to function as a productive citizen. Oppression is forced upon a person, how is marriage being forced on anyone?
The gay rights movement is not being silenced or repressed. It is activly engaging the overall society to make adjustments to its core system. The society wasnt going around trying to push an adgenda or surpress gay rights....again, where is the oppression? How is it that the gay rights people blame the society their asking for acceptance...you get angry when you beat on the door to the house and say let us in on our terms, and the door doesnt open for you.
whos ideal would really be being repressed if a majority of a society was forced to submit their ideals to a vocal minority viewpoint? wouldnt that be reverse discrimination?

from earlier also:

the "gay oppression" and "discrimination" arguments are some of the most common and simplest arguments i hear from the pro gay crowd. but when one actually looks at those issues, those ideas lack a lot of substance.

where is the oppression? and If we already discriminate here for x,y,z, reasons, then why is is NOT ok to have other similarly based restrictions?

who does this hurt? (a weak argument as the definition of hurt is a relative scale) well how about the majority of a society that is being asked (forced) to change parts of their cultural base for a minority? How much change does a society have to go thru till its not that society anymore?

If The majority opinion on this holds, the majority will be labled "haters" or "bigots" not because they are activly trying to cause gays any harms, but because they didnt give in to the gay demmands for change on an issue of choice. Dont you really hate being blamed for something you didnt do?

HOW ABOUT THESE NON BIBLE THUMPING REASONS?

while i respect the christians opinions and understand their arguments, this cannot be the sole basis for my opposition to gay marriage, NOT OPPOSED TO GAYS.

I think nature made man and woman to be dual and be two parts of a whole. I disagree with their lifestyle, but it is their choice. What i don't like is when they hit on me either at the beach or on the streets, I fricken hate that, and I think they are wrong trying to impose their lifestyle on others.

I was going to accuse some of the pro gay crowd of jumping threads when the heat was turned up on arguments against them, but i see this one was started by someone else...but i never did get to see my NON RELIGIOUS POINTS addressed....why? I have an idea there but i'll let someone try to explain away my points

heres the last one from former threads,
i just felt the need to have to step in over the religious zeal to clear that idea out of the way for reasonable and logical arguments in the defense of American cultural values. (As the religion thing was creeping even me out)

Gays only care about their hurt, not others

WHO DOES GAY MARRIAGE HURT?

It hurts me as a person when the sanctity of my beliefs and basic religious tennants are stripped away against my wishes to fit a minority view.
It is insulting for the pro gay crowd to say its ok for them to trample on a culture's belief system...that "no one will be hurt" by being forced to accecpt someone elses alterations to the existing laws/social situation.
in essence..."we dont care if your hurt because we want our way" This thinking is basic lack of respect for the culture that they are trying to gain acceptance/accomodations from.

It hurts my overall culture when it becomes more and more seperated into smaller and smaller niche groups....what hapened to UNITED WE STAND? It seems like we as a nation are becomming more fragmented, not less, and this WILL lead to the downfall of the USA. We will fight ourselves or make things so watred down, that being a citizen here would become like being a country club member.

it hurts because this issue has been put forth as a RIGHT...an ENTITLEMENT....instead of what it really is, wich is a voluntary CHOICE.....being married is promised to NO ONE!!!! a person might never meet the person of their dreams and marry...Marriage is not nessisary to be a productive person.... the abillity to choose to become married already has boundaries to it...so the fact that one of them is that its only for a man/woman is just another one of them....big deal...take CIVIL UNIONS and be happy...stop trying to change my relationship, its definitions or responsibillities, and be happy you get anything!!!

there is a thread going here somewhere about "starting a white club" most people on there agree that it would be ok for this to occur as other groups have "exclusive" clubs.....well marriage is a partially religious/legal exclusive club too....why isnt a civil union acceptable to the gay adgenda? why is it that JAMES THE LESSER thinks that joining an exclusive group based or race is ok, but one based on a sexual/religious basis is not?
why do these groups exist as the do? seperate based on some kind of DISCRIMINATION...the answer is because its part of how those groups DEFINE THEMSELVES. They have the legal protections to assemble as they choose (like the boy scouts) without having to accept people into the group that do not subscribe to the same ideals. Why is marriage any different of an issue then? no one forces me to join the scouts, its not nessisary to my life....the same with marriage...i could be married, but dont have to for a sucessful life.

2) i know for a fact that im not gay, how? i have seen gays kiss, and i thought could i be gay, then i realized hell no, to dcks do not go together...

This explains things

He saw two gays, liked what he saw and it scared him into this rabid anti-gay stance. Its OK guy no-one will force you to come out of the closet......LOL

AMUCK
forget that religious zealot, he means well but is too wrapped up in doctrine to be able to defend himself...

if you want to test your debate skills, come get a piece of me...ive certantly given enough on this that you CAN come up with something valid to dispute my points...CANT YOU?

sociology, zoology, choice not right, respect going both ways,
youve got several of my points to try and attack...

i await something valid and new from the pro gay folks
to convince me to give in to their demmands.

Originally posted by CazMedia
1. Discrimination is LEGAL!.

Not really. Discrimination is legal only in the private sphere (as all your examples indicate). Discrimination in the public sphere is anything BUT legal. It is constitutionally forbidden, in fact. I don't know why you think it's allowed.

Originally posted by CazMedia
a culture has the right to set its "boundaries" in order to define itself. This being a democratic republic, on most things the majority rule is in effect. Anyone ever say "life isnt fair" before? Lots of things arent fair or balanced in the world, deal with it. (within the appropriate channels....hint hint judges trying to legislate) This is not to say things dont change, but why are gays suprised that theve met resistance on an issue that hit near the core of how America has been defined for 250 yrs?

America has been defined as straight for 250 years, right

Originally posted by CazMedia
3. Marriage is not always for/about love...plenty of people get married for reasons other than love. Now we should open this abuse of marriage to even more people? If so, then whom? Brother to brother? (this is the slick slope that brings NAMBLA into the fray, or people and animals or any other such ideas, basically when is enough altering of the idea enough?)

That's silly. Since when can dogs sign marraige contracts or hold legal standing? And since when have minors been deemed capable of consenting to sexual relations with adults? Never, that's when. Besides, what do you think they said about allowing mixed raced marraiges? Should they have not been allowed?

Originally posted by CazMedia
4. Religion....to those that say why arent we enforcing the bibles take on the list of things they had in their post? Because christians use the old testimat as a referance....the new testimate is what guides christians.
While it is true that our govenrment does have provisions to seperate church/state....the history of why we created certain laws is based (loosley) on the judeo-christian belief system....not that religon is mandated, rather that its values are represtnted within the law in a non religious supposedly blind manner. we cannot forget or erase history/where weve been, or we will be doomed to repeate it.

You're just cloaking a theocratic outlook. Religion and politics are dangerous bedmates. Besides, most of the founding fathers weren't even Christian. Many of them were Deists.

Originally posted by CazMedia
5. sociology....examine the thousands of years of human history, YES, gays have been around for as long as then, but NO...why havent "gay cultures" been legitimized before very recently? Dont blame christians..they havnt been around for even the majority of the history of man's time. I do not have a difinitive answer, but this is a good question. This relates to #6

They have been legitimized in the past. Quite frequently, in fact. It would actually seem that only in the past several hundred years has the classification and segregation of homosexuals come about.

Originally posted by CazMedia
6. zoology....while homosexual behaivior is observed in the animal kingdom in many species...it is not, and has never been predominate, else reproduction of the species would not have occured, hence no continuation of the species....as far as "well animals do it so it must be natrural for man as well" idea....animals sometimes eat their own young...should we? We are a higher order of being than the animals, and we should act like it. Giving in to ones "animal self" is an excuse of a weak will to control ones actions, or total disreguard of the existance of others (should i steal food if im hungry? defficate on the street because i have to go? Rape a woman ((person)) because i feel the need to?) Relates to #1 as to why rules/boundaries/laws are nessisary.

You're contradicting yourself. "Homosexuality is unnatural." "Humans shouldn't obey nature." Besides, I would ask you, would you ban marraiges between heterosexual couples unable to bear children? Still, you're only playing defense here. Why does this mean homosexuals shouldn't marry?

Originally posted by CazMedia
7. "give us a non religious legal reason to ban gay marriage"
The first legal reason would be my #1 point...a society has the rights to say what is and is not acceptable for itself....How do we as a nation distinguish (discriminate) ourselves from other nations? AND How do other nations react to us as we do? (rights and responsibilities)

Hopefully, they'll react to as as something other than a bigoted discriminatory state. Besides, you're only saying "we can" (which we really can't, look to #1), and not saying why.

Originally posted by CazMedia
I hear alot of talk about making this change, but none on the rammifications that will be nessisary to revamp the legal system to make this change functional. I cannot support blind change...ever hear the road to hell is paved with good intentions? I saw one post where a person listed some of the things being married affects, and i think thats a short list. Its not just about what rights to get, but also what protections from abuse ect that have to go into a working law, as well as its ties to other laws that are not directly tied to marriage.

Come on, at least try. How will allowing gay marraige lead to "revamping the legal system"? You have no internal link. These are all poor reasons for keeping the status quo, anyway.

Originally posted by CazMedia
8. gay choice/born gay
I think the official jury is still out on this...lots of studies on both sides have been done, but so far there has not been ONE major theory that has become accepted as the overall basis. If its a choice, then the gays are up a creek...choose another place to live that is more to your liking.....If they find a "gay gene"....is that a defect? a minority deviance in the dna? should it be "corrected?" this is a thread of its own so i wont dwell on the tangent. Either way, in a democratic/repbulic....the majority opinion is going to carry far more weight than minority views should.

Unfortunately, you completely miss the point of having a republic. Namely, to protect the rights of minorities. Majorities often make really bad decisions about minorities (blacks, for example), and the point of having a republic is to restric the tyranny of the majority.

Originally posted by CazMedia
9. Who does this hurt?
without more discussions on the rammifications of how this COULD work...its way too early to tell how this will affect our overall culture...but if history is an example...many cultures have gone bye bye because of "moral decay" or "decadence"....(IM NOT SAYING GAY IS DECADENT.) what i mean is, that these societies strayed from what it was(ideals) that made them what they were.....then they "lost their way" and collapsed from within....America is divided too much already...do we really need to splinter over more and more things, gay marriage and other ideas? Islamic Terrorists dont like jews or gays and blame the rest of the people they burried on 9-11 in the towers for ALLOWING your behaiviours to permiate our culture....so other cultures outside of ours have taken a hostile action against the USA, in PART (REPETE IN PART) because they've judged us the great satan because of thier stated dislike of gays and jews here, and how they then percieve the rest of our culture...anyone hurt yet? how about 3k people? And thats comming from outside the USA...I think if you say who will this hurt? you have not examined this with enough detail. thats just the obvious overt extreme example of "HURT"...

Oh man, I get it, you're a nut. Maybe we should kick out the jews along with the gays, huh? After that we'll all just think alike, won't we. Way to localize social antagonism in one figure there

Originally posted by CazMedia
Weather or not to get married is a choice not a right. I as a hetero have no right to be married/have a spouse...and can choose NOT to marry as its not being FORCED upon me, nor is it nessisary for me to function as a productive citizen. Oppression is forced upon a person, how is marriage being forced on anyone?
The gay rights movement is not being silenced or repressed. It is activly engaging the overall society to make adjustments to its core system. The society wasnt going around trying to push an adgenda or surpress gay rights....again, where is the oppression? How is it that the gay rights people blame the society their asking for acceptance...you get angry when you beat on the door to the house and say let us in on our terms, and the door doesnt open for you.
whos ideal would really be being repressed if a majority of a society was forced to submit their ideals to a vocal minority viewpoint? wouldnt that be reverse discrimination?

Oh, right, heterosexuals are completely accepting of gays, except they can't marry, are looked down on, and told to "go to a different country" if that's what they like to do. Makes sense.

[Edited on 6-4-2004 by Deleuze]

Welcome to the debate DELEUZE

ok then, lets go down the line

#1
You are incorrect that discrimination is only in the private sector....both immigration and tax discriminations are federal programs as well as is medicare (age based) welfare (economic) student loans (race/sex/economic) indeed there is MORE of these types of discriminatory "only these type" programs out there....The supreme court has upheld our rights to associate with like kind....hence no girls in the boy scouts, or all male golf clubs, or womens only health programs....if all these groups can have their "members only" status, then why is marriage any different? why cant it be only for a man/woman? especially as this is a mostly religious choice that has some legal (hence state) interests and reccognitions.

#3
Why do people always fixate on the EXAMPLE and not the real argument....i dont care what man/man...man/boy...man/beast example you want to try and use...it is irrelavent to the slippery slope argument for not chainging the definition of marriage.
when is enough change to an idea enough? thats the point....at what point is this idea no longer "that idea"...
if i take a glass of soda, and add water to it, how long until its considered no longer soda, but becomes water instead? this is the idea, how many changes to the definition (and hence resulting operational mechanics) of marriage is enough until its no longer marriage? (and who decides whom gets the change and where the limits are there)

4 I said LOOSLEY based on a judeo christian belief system....not entirely....Explain to me how this is not the case...(most agree this is the basis of "western" laws evolution) as we have 200+ yrears of case history to our laws, they were made and changed thru time...they will indeed change again, but almost NEVER are they removed from the laws before them or the process that brought those laws into being. How can you justpluck something out of the timeline without understanding its historical significance?

#5
Id really love some examples of "legitimized cultural homosexuality" Not just examples showing there were gays around? Im talking about specific examples of institutionalized homosexuality?

#6
I never said humans were seperate from nature or humans shouldnt obey nature....should i steal food if im hungry? defficate on the street because i have to go? Rape a woman ((person)) because i feel the need to? These examples are of basic natural human needs...(feeding, excreteing, reproduction) Are you saying i should do those things because animals do? There are ways of doing things things that are considered acceptable by humans that we wouldnt expect from animals, and vice versa, behaivior exibited by animals we do not condone from humans...or when did this change too? We are part of nature, but obviously an entirely seperate form of life from even the highest order animals.

#7
im not exactly sure what your point was here...are you saying society does NOT have the right to self determination/definition? IF SO, how can you tell the diff between us and afganistan?
also, WHY CANT WE/SOCIETY make this decision?

#8
The abillity to choose, weather the choice was right or wrong does not negate the societies right to make that decision for themselves....people/societies often make the "wrong" choice...that does not take away the right to get to choose.
REPUBLIC
A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
A nation that has such a political order.

1 - A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
2 - A nation that has such a political order.
often Republic
3 - A specific republican government of a nation: the Fourth Republic of France.
4 - An autonomous or partially autonomous political and territorial unit belonging to a sovereign federation.
5 - A group of people working as equals in the same sphere or field: the republic of letters.
thats from WEBSTERS, i dont see anything about protecting anyone from ther majority there...in faxct it indicates THE BODY OF THE PEOPLE, inferring the majority...

you said - - Come on, at least try. How will allowing gay marraige lead to "revamping the legal system"? You have no internal link. These are all poor reasons for keeping the status quo, anyway.

I dont need a link,...look at all the legal things that a marriage entails, then tell me it doesnt affect things, thousands of laws on everything from access to records, financial responsibillities, property rights ect....
i said, show me the plans for implementing this change, what laws are going to need adjusting, what are the effects of these proposed changes..ect....dont just walk up with a list of demmands and no strategy to work it out....this is a complex legal issue with many tenderals and unseen circumstances...i havnt seen anyone atempt to adress this.

#9 Im the wacko? (name calling always the best debate tactic) Who missed the point?
I gave an extreme example where a group outside of the USA, has judged our culture based in part on the way they have percieved our society...They took hostile actions against us and killed 3K people based on their beliefes that were the "great satan"


i never said kick anyone out, you mis interpreted my EXMPLE...it was supposed to show that we as a culture, as a nation, are judged by our lifestyles and actions.


your point on marriage being a choice, not a right for anyone is what? some rambling about vauge levels of acceptance or not?

emmigration/immigration happens between countries every day, for many reasons.
why? If you dont like things here (or in your country) you do have the choice to go where your ideals are more being supported, (LIKE FRANCE) Im not saying you must get out, only that if you stay, stop your whining...
didnt tim robbins say if we attacked iraq he'd leave the usa? All talk eh? or just too lazy to stand up for his beliefs? Mabey staying in a place with somethings he didnt like wasnt as bad as going to a place he didnt like more?