Views on President Bush's New Decision.

[Scejntjynahl]

I realize I may be opening a can of worms, but it is essential. Try and keep comments clean, please no flaming if possible. Moderators, if this gets out of hand, feel free to lock it.

Topic: Bush's idea of an amendment to the Constitution.

My opinion: It is ludicrous to spend so much time and effort on this issue (same sex marriage), when we (USA) can't even finish with foreign affairs. I doubt that out founding fathers ever imagined that the Constitution would be facing so many changes. Granted some were just an evolutionary needs of a growing nation.

But come on Mr. President, first clean the economy, and then let the people make a decision on "same sex marriages"

This is in image I present to you guys in psow. In no way am I implying or endorsing homsexuality bashing. The image is just to show the absurdness of it all.

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0903/Furankunichan/homos.gif

[Armok]

You know bush used to do all kinds of drugs back in the day and is more spaced out than ozzy osbourne. Yet strangely made it to president.

[undevil]

I believe homo marriage should not be legalized.

[undevil]

On 2004-02-27 08:22, Armok wrote:
You know bush used to do all kinds of drugs back in the day and is more spaced out than ozzy osbourne. Yet strangely made it to president.



So? Who cares what people did 20 years ago? He quit didn't he?

[Hrith]

Foreign and home affairs are not dealt with by the same office.

Same sex marriages is a good idea, IMO.
In France, we have something like that (not really marriage, but it gives any couple -- het ot homo -- the same social advantages as marriage).

[undevil]

Just let the homosexuals have their civil unions. But marriage has been between a man and a woman for a long time now and I don't see why we should change this. Civil unions should be good enough.

[Hrith]

Because something has been "for log enough" does not make it the least a good thind.

*slave trade lasted for centuries, and was considered a 'good thing'*

[undevil]

Well in this case I think it is a good thing to let marriage stay the way it is. And a lot more people didn't want slave trade than did. And that is a totally differant issue.

[Armok]

On 2004-02-27 08:24, undevil wrote:


On 2004-02-27 08:22, Armok wrote:
You know bush used to do all kinds of drugs back in the day and is more spaced out than ozzy osbourne. Yet strangely made it to president.



So? Who cares what people did 20 years ago? He quit didn't he?



He is the same person who now want drug dealers all given life sentences.

Oh and not to ignore the point. Same sex marriages are fine in my book.

[undevil]

All people do stupid stuff when they are kids. I am sure some of you here have at least egged one house in your life time. Maybe drivin drunk. And I think drug dealers should be put to jail for life.

[Hrith]

On 2004-02-27 08:34, undevil wrote:
Well in this case I think it is a good thing to let marriage stay the way it is. And a lot more people didn't want slave trade than did. And that is a totally differant issue.
It looks like I know the history of your country better than you do.

[Armok]

Basically I'm sorry but you canot lock ppl up for life for taking up a very profitable illegal trade. IF they push drugs and are violent far enough but if they just sell then fair play

[ABDUR101]

The topic is homosexual marriages, not drug sellers. Stay on topic please.

And yeah, just because something "has been done for such a long time" doesn't make it the way it always has to be, nor does it make it necesserily "right". Things change, because times change.

Really, marriage between a man and a woman only is a religious viewpoint, and America is supposedly the melting pot of the world, where people come from every culture, nationality, and religion, to a free land where they can live as they wish.

You can't run a country on a set religious standard and then expect it to work when the country is touted for "freedom for all", when you don't allow the same freedoms to everyone.

I'll move this to Off-topic, as it is discussion, not a rant.

[Scejntjynahl]

Sorry Abdur, I wasnt sure where to post this. And yes, this is not about drugs. And a side personal note: Someone told me we had to save the "purity" of marriage. HAH, purity, shees if it were so pure their would be no divorces (where are we now at, 70 percent of marriages end in divorce?), and spouses wouldnt cheat on each other, and their would be no domestic violence. "Purity", shees, I havent seen any "pure" clean marriage as of yet (not even on tv).

[Armok]

Sorry for the off point but gay marriage is fine. Wats wrong with it. Ppl should stop being so homophobic.

In a country 'saying' it has freedom for all ppl should be allowed to do watever they want (within reason of coarse) and marry whomever they want.

[Hrith]

I feel comfortable on the topic, but a little bad about discussing so freely a country that is not mine http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/anime2.gif

But I have studied US civilisation for 3 years from 1776 to W.Bush =/

I just wanted to add that Church and State are separated in the US, well supposedly.

[undevil]

On 2004-02-27 09:28, Armok wrote:
Sorry for the off point but gay marriage is fine. Wats wrong with it. Ppl should stop being so homophobic.

In a country 'saying' it has freedom for all ppl should be allowed to do watever they want (within reason of coarse) and marry whomever they want.



Many people who don't support gay marriage aren't homophobic, they just believe that marriage should only be for a man and a woman. I could care less if someone I knew was gay, as long as he wasn't pulling nothing funny on me.

Whatever, people will think it is right and that it isn't. I think the who concept of being gay is pretty disturbing myself, but that is just how I feel.

[Armok]

Many people who don't support gay marriage aren't homophobic, they just believe that marriage should only be for a man and a woman. I could care less if someone I knew was gay, as long as he wasn't pulling nothing funny on me.

Whatever, people will think it is right and that it isn't. I think the who concept of being gay is pretty disturbing myself, but that is just how I feel.



I'm sorry but if they are happy it no longer makes a difference what their sexual preference is. Jesus never mentioned gay ppl being evil at all in the bible. Most guy men I know are really nice ppl who don't act like violent or anything around others unlike many blokes.

[LollipopLolita]

maybe then people should consider these points:

1. separation of church and state

if so then:

2. what is the basis of making same sex marriages illegal and one that is not based on morals and religion and solely on legal aspects?

and

3. what legal right as a president does Bush have to declare this a law for everyone of the US if he represents the US.

and

4. all citizens are equal and no one should be treated as a 2nd class citizen

5. civil unions does not carry the same legal rights as a legal marriage

6. laws and documents thereof such as the constitution are old and require frequent updates and additions.

7. who are you to determine the rights of other people? and what have they done? and if you are, are they based on a legal or a moral standpoint?

8. separate stereotypes and misconceptions on gays and same sex marriages and focus just purely on legalities and what do you have?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-02-27 09:57 ]</font>

[ABDUR101]

On 2004-02-27 09:39, undevil wrote:
I could care less if someone I knew was gay, as long as he wasn't pulling nothing funny on me.


What is it with people saying this? They don't mind homosexuals as long as they don't "pull anything" with you? That makes it sound as if a homosexual doesn't have self control nor respect for those who aren't homosexual. =

[LollipopLolita]

why can't you take it as a form of flattery or a boost to your ego? or does the fact that a same sex come on to you might imply that the person might have mistaken you of being gay and as such is a perceived threat to your manhood or projected machismo?

funny fact, most homophobics are in fact closet homosexuals in the first place.


That makes it sound as if a homosexual doesn't have self control nor respect for those who aren't homosexual. =

probably goes back to the notion that homosexuals are the way they are because of a lack of control. that sexuality is merely a choice and they made the wrong one. though, one who thinks that would imply that they have no clear understanding of homosexuals in the first place.

and to think that in the olden times, having a gay lover is a boost to your manhood.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-02-27 10:06 ]</font>

[undevil]

On 2004-02-27 09:57, ABDUR101 wrote:

What is it with people saying this? They don't mind homosexuals as long as they don't "pull anything" with you? That makes it sound as if a homosexual doesn't have self control nor respect for those who aren't homosexual. =



Do you watch Survivor? Maybe you didn't know about the gay guy on there named Rich, but he seems to think it is okay to run around naked for everyone to see his other half. And I have seen plenty of gay kids at my school hitting on straight kids. Yes, most schools have them.

Doesn't matter if you are gay or straight. You can still be immature about it. Like how I see guys grabbing on girls a lot, same goes for guys grabbing on guys.

[LollipopLolita]

you are stereotyping all gays based on one gay guy who is an exhibitionist?

there are more heterosexual exhibitionist and nudist camps and beaches across the country than there are gay ones. including swingers clubs, parties and events.

who lacks control and morals now?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-02-27 10:24 ]</font>

[Guntz348]

Do the terms "playing to the camera" and "creative editing" mean anything to you? You realize 98% of reality shows are manipulated so the producer can make it look like what he wants right? And the other 2% is just the varible from having no script.

[Hrith]

Yeah, the constitution of the US being the oldest in the world is more a problem than anything else. Most people in power would rather not change it, and make amendments. Oh well.

And about the gays "pulling anything" it happened to me once in a night club, and yeah I was flattered, I just politely said I was not interested. I found it amusing afterwards, but not at all bothering.

[navci]

On 2004-02-27 10:18, undevil wrote:
Do you watch Survivor? Maybe you didn't know about the gay guy on there named Rich, but he seems to think it is okay to run around naked for everyone to see his other half.


So are you quoting one men's behaviour and judging the entire group of people with it? Also, I hope you have learned something in your lifetime that there is something called "gimmick" on TV, if you are thinking TV producers will pick normal people for "Reality TV" you better think again. Of course they pick the weirdest and most absurd kinda people to be on their show, or else who else would wanna watch a bunch of practical people who actually wanna work together?


edit:

I remember this very good phrase from a sociology class my professor told us.

He said, "Don't claimed to be open-minded if you're the one who claimed 'homosexual is okay, as long as they don't hit on you'"

You are only truely okay with it if you are like Kef.


And about the gays "pulling anything" it happened to me once in a night club, and yeah I was flattered, I just politely said I was not interested. I found it amusing afterwards, but not at all bothering.


So what if someone hit on you. You can always tell them you're not interested. It is not like they are going to force you to like them. Homosexual men, women you're not interested, same tactic. The only problem is yourself.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: navi on 2004-02-27 10:32 ]</font>

[ABDUR101]

On 2004-02-27 10:18, undevil wrote:
Do you watch Survivor? Maybe you didn't know about the gay guy on there named Rich, but he seems to think it is okay to run around naked for everyone to see his other half. And I have seen plenty of gay kids at my school hitting on straight kids. Yes, most schools have them.

Do all homosexuals run around naked? He was a nudist/exhibitionist, running around naked isn't something specific to being homosexual. Heh, thought that would have been appearant, GUESS NOT!

And with what lolita said, does being hit on by a homosexual offend you? Can't say thanks but no thanks? What if it was a girl hitting on you, and you were gay? Honestly, it's just abit petty to be offended.

I get my ass grabbed at work often, and it's mostly by women who are old enough to be my mother. Offended? Whats the point? Getting my ass grabbed by anyone is a compliment.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ABDUR101 on 2004-02-27 10:33 ]</font>

[LollipopLolita]

Most people in power would rather not change it, and make amendments.

avoiding an issue instead of facing it is sometimes the easiest and most convenient solution, and if you're a politician, then it's a good way to have a positive image and appeal to the public.


I found it amusing afterwards, but not at all bothering.

way to go for you being content and secured in your image, manhood and sexuality

[Hrith]

On 2004-02-27 10:30, LollipopLolita wrote:
Avoiding an issue instead of facing it is sometimes the easiest and most convenient solution, and if you're a politician, then it's a good way to have a positive image and appeal to the public.
Yeah I was being philosophical, but I think US needs a new constitution =/ or 20 new amendments http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif
but I'm French and this is off topic http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

[Para]

Its still debated in Canada but I think gay marriages are fine. They don't affect me really but I think its nice to treat everyone as equals instead of discriminating others.

A lot of Americans come north of the border to Toronto here and get married which is nice.

[undevil]

Never said all homosexuals are like him. I was just picking out an example for the person above me.

Also, all groups of people have obnoxious people in them, including straight people. Like I stated, plenty of straight guys hit on girls just as plenty of gay guys hit on guys.

[KaFKa]

note to everyone: this post is made with no direction twoards anyone whatsoever...

I think gay marriage is just fine and dandy. what is your problem with someone else's personal life? as long as they arent copiously groping each other in public (that goes for any couple. i just find that immature) i have no problem with them.

i dont have a problem with 'gay guys' as long as they dont 'push the issue'. like kef, if a guy were to walk up to me and try to hit on me, he would get the usual "Uhh, yeah, i dont swing that way, man"-type answer. but if they push the issue like an idiot and keep trying to hit on me, then i have an issue with them.

now to direct this post twoards someone: undevil, whats the point of arguing a moral standard when its just your opinion, as opposed to everyone else's? what makes their opinion errorous? The Fact That Its Juxtapose tp Yours...think about it

[undevil]

I never said it was. I am just stating that I think homosexual marriage is wrong. If people have a problem with my opinion, then they can cry all they want, because I really could care less, and I mean that with a passion.

[KaFKa]

*lloks at undevil's past posts* oh yeah, i can feel the uncaring-ness http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

[LollipopLolita]

and yet if one was to not care, one wouldn't respond. the nature of a public message forum is that there is an exchange of ideas and opinions. and that if you were to post your opinion, people will post theirs or their opinions of your opinions. posting arguments with fallacies, stereotypes and biased samples will just lead people to form opinions about your logic. but since it's your choice to, feel welcomed to do so! ^_^

[anwserman]

OK, undevil I'm gonna have to debate this one with you. Lets say there were these four people (two separate couples) that were together for 5 years or so, and that they love each other immensely. And that both couples want to get married.

Couple 1 is straight.
Couple 2 is gay.

So, its OK to tell couple 1 they can marry but not to couple 2, due to the fact that the couple consists of two men/women? Hogwash.

Deny a gay couple the rights to marry, even though they've been together for um, 51 years (the first 'married' couple in SF) and rather give it to Britney whose marriage lasted 55 hours. Brilliant.

[darthsaber9x9]

On 2004-02-27 07:46, Furankunichan wrote:
My opinion: It is ludicrous to spend so much time and effort on this issue (same sex marriage), when we (USA) can't even finish with foreign affairs. I doubt that out founding fathers ever imagined that the Constitution would be facing so many changes. Granted some were just an evolutionary needs of a growing nation.

But come on Mr. President, first clean the economy, and then let the people make a decision on "same sex marriages"

This is in image I present to you guys in psow. In no way am I implying or endorsing homsexuality bashing. The image is just to show the absurdness of it all.




i assume that you are hetrosexual yes? well to you its ludricas, but to the gay people its a huge issue. besides this issue would never have come to debate if bush had decided to "clean the economy" as you put it as that would take many years. how long has this issue taken? months?( i dunno lol im english)

you cant keep pushing issues like this back because there is something more important in your opinion. can you see where i am comming from?

o by the way im straight....i think lol

[Reenee]

I believe that making an amendment prohibiting same sex marriages violates the part of the constitution that says ...THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-27 14:54, Reenee wrote:
I believe that making an amendment prohibiting same sex marriages violates the part of the constitution that says ...THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.



Agreed. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2004-02-27 14:42, darthsaber9x9 wrote:


On 2004-02-27 07:46, Furankunichan wrote:
My opinion: It is ludicrous to spend so much time and effort on this issue (same sex marriage), when we (USA) can't even finish with foreign affairs. I doubt that out founding fathers ever imagined that the Constitution would be facing so many changes. Granted some were just an evolutionary needs of a growing nation.

But come on Mr. President, first clean the economy, and then let the people make a decision on "same sex marriages"

This is in image I present to you guys in psow. In no way am I implying or endorsing homsexuality bashing. The image is just to show the absurdness of it all.




i assume that you are hetrosexual yes? well to you its ludricas, but to the gay people its a huge issue. besides this issue would never have come to debate if bush had decided to "clean the economy" as you put it as that would take many years. how long has this issue taken? months?( i dunno lol im english)

you cant keep pushing issues like this back because there is something more important in your opinion. can you see where i am comming from?

o by the way im straight....i think lol




Ok, I mean, the president is only changing the constitution to STOP same sex marriage. I am saying, deal with economy first, and let the "people" decide on the same sex marriage issue. I am not either for or against same sex marriage. I just dont like the idea of one person deciding over such an important decision in our society.

Btw, it is not important for me to be classified in any way about my sexuality, I merely wish to point this out us an idea that should be dealt with by "us" not a single person.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Furankunichan on 2004-02-27 15:08 ]</font>

[darthsaber9x9]

On 2004-02-27 15:00, Furankunichan wrote:


On 2004-02-27 14:42, darthsaber9x9 wrote:


On 2004-02-27 07:46, Furankunichan wrote:
My opinion: It is ludicrous to spend so much time and effort on this issue (same sex marriage), when we (USA) can't even finish with foreign affairs. I doubt that out founding fathers ever imagined that the Constitution would be facing so many changes. Granted some were just an evolutionary needs of a growing nation.

But come on Mr. President, first clean the economy, and then let the people make a decision on "same sex marriages"

This is in image I present to you guys in psow. In no way am I implying or endorsing homsexuality bashing. The image is just to show the absurdness of it all.




i assume that you are hetrosexual yes? well to you its ludricas, but to the gay people its a huge issue. besides this issue would never have come to debate if bush had decided to "clean the economy" as you put it as that would take many years. how long has this issue taken? months?( i dunno lol im english)

you cant keep pushing issues like this back because there is something more important in your opinion. can you see where i am comming from?

o by the way im straight....i think lol




Ok, I mean, the president is only changing the constitution to STOP same sex marriage. I am saying, deal with economy first, and let the "people" decide on the same sex marriage issue. I am not either for or against same sex marriage. I just dont like the idea of one person deciding over such an important decision in our society.



ok so now im confused...has bush moved FOR or AGAINST gay marriage??

i do agree that such things shouldnt be made by one man, but i think (judging by what i learned in history about your consitituion) that they should be allowed and im sure most people in america would think that.

at the very least gay people should have civil unions , and these unions carry the same rights and benefits of marriage without the religious hassle.

[Zebulan7]

Everyone has good points, but I'm confused on this "focus on the economy" stuff your telling us.

Imagine how many ways Married couples would have to pay if same-sex marriages were allowed? I'm sorry that marriage is already being washed down the tube by our own problems, but bringing same-sex marriages would causes even more problems.

Married couples gain certain benefits for being married, all sorts of things to make such a union easier. There are tax breaks, and transfers of money, etc. Allowing same-sex marriages would cause the need to change this to conform to these marriages. It would take even more time to fix the changes that would have to occur.

I'll get to more later, but I have to go now. Enjoy what I've fed you, and you'll understand later.

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-27 15:07, Zebulan7 wrote:
Everyone has good points, but I'm confused on this "focus on the economy" stuff your telling us.

Imagine how many ways Married couples would have to pay if same-sex marriages were allowed? I'm sorry that marriage is already being washed down the tube by our own problems, but bringing same-sex marriages would causes even more problems.

Married couples gain certain benefits for being married, all sorts of things to make such a union easier. There are tax breaks, and transfers of money, etc. Allowing same-sex marriages would cause the need to change this to conform to these marriages. It would take even more time to fix the changes that would have to occur.

I'll get to more later, but I have to go now. Enjoy what I've fed you, and you'll understand later.



What the hell are you talking about? All it would do would EXTEND the current rights to same-sex couples. Nothing about conforming. All it would do is give gay couples the same rights as straight couples. Nothing more, nothing less.

No conforming. Now, please explain what you mean by "causing extra problems" before I get pissed....

[darthsaber9x9]

On 2004-02-27 15:07, Zebulan7 wrote:
Everyone has good points, but I'm confused on this "focus on the economy" stuff your telling us.

Imagine how many ways Married couples would have to pay if same-sex marriages were allowed? I'm sorry that marriage is already being washed down the tube by our own problems, but bringing same-sex marriages would causes even more problems.

Married couples gain certain benefits for being married, all sorts of things to make such a union easier. There are tax breaks, and transfers of money, etc. Allowing same-sex marriages would cause the need to change this to conform to these marriages. It would take even more time to fix the changes that would have to occur.

I'll get to more later, but I have to go now. Enjoy what I've fed you, and you'll understand later.



sorry but that seems a bit of a selfish attitude really. think of it the other way round: why should people wishing to partake in same-sex marriage be refused because it would change the way "regular" marriage works?

why should same-sex couples NOT be allowed these benefits?

the way youre talking about this is as if same-sex couples are a different race. marriage between same-sex couples wont "ruin" other types of marriage and what changes will be needed?

[undevil]

On 2004-02-27 12:11, anwserman wrote:
OK, undevil I'm gonna have to debate this one with you. Lets say there were these four people (two separate couples) that were together for 5 years or so, and that they love each other immensely. And that both couples want to get married.

Couple 1 is straight.
Couple 2 is gay.

So, its OK to tell couple 1 they can marry but not to couple 2, due to the fact that the couple consists of two men/women?


Yes


On 2004-02-27 12:11, anwserman wrote:
Deny a gay couple the rights to marry, even though they've been together for um, 51 years (the first 'married' couple in SF) and rather give it to Britney whose marriage lasted 55 hours.



Well Britney married a guy didn't she?

[darthsaber9x9]

On 2004-02-27 15:22, undevil wrote:


On 2004-02-27 12:11, anwserman wrote:
OK, undevil I'm gonna have to debate this one with you. Lets say there were these four people (two separate couples) that were together for 5 years or so, and that they love each other immensely. And that both couples want to get married.

Couple 1 is straight.
Couple 2 is gay.

So, its OK to tell couple 1 they can marry but not to couple 2, due to the fact that the couple consists of two men/women?


Yes


On 2004-02-27 12:11, anwserman wrote:
Deny a gay couple the rights to marry, even though they've been together for um, 51 years (the first 'married' couple in SF) and rather give it to Britney whose marriage lasted 55 hours.



Well Britney married a guy didn't she?



yes but the fact is, the "purity" of marriage which everyone keeps talking about wel...isnt present in that marriage. im sure the gay couple would have a better marriage then britney and her pimp

[undevil]

On 2004-02-27 15:24, darthsaber9x9 wrote:

yes but the fact is, the "purity" of marriage which everyone keeps talking about wel...isnt present in that marriage. im sure the gay couple would have a better marriage then britney and her pimp



Well it doesn't have to be pure does it? Her pimp was a male.

[Ketchup345]

On 2004-02-27 15:26, undevil wrote:


On 2004-02-27 15:24, darthsaber9x9 wrote:
yes but the fact is, the "purity" of marriage which everyone keeps talking about wel...isnt present in that marriage. im sure the gay couple would have a better marriage then britney and her pimp

Well it doesn't have to be pure does it? Her pimp was a male.


What is the difference besides that?

I just hope that if there is a new admendment passed, the Supreme Court decides it is unConstitutional and they laugh in Bush's face. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif

I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to marry, and think that the main arguments of the opposition don't really have many strong points (if any at all).

[undevil]

On 2004-02-27 15:33, Ketchup345 wrote:

What is the difference besides that?

I just hope that if there is a new admendment passed, the Supreme Court decides it is unConstitutional and they laugh in Bush's face. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif

I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to marry, and think that the main arguments of the opposition don't really have many strong points (if any at all).



Which is why even though I disagree with it, I support it. Gay marriage is inevitable whether people like it or not. It is only a matter of time before they are allowed to be married. I just want them to get it done with and let them get married. Sick of seeing it on the news when I don't give a darn about it.

[Hrith]

On 2004-02-27 15:26, undevil wrote:


On 2004-02-27 15:24, darthsaber9x9 wrote:

yes but the fact is, the "purity" of marriage which everyone keeps talking about wel...isnt present in that marriage. im sure the gay couple would have a better marriage then britney and her pimp



Well it doesn't have to be pure does it? Her pimp was a male.


Such variation in your replies !
listening to others is definitely not your strong point

[Kiara]

I really don't get why this has become an issue about it "being in the bible." I mean there are so many arguements like taking out "one nation under god" from the PoA. Wasn't there an issue, like last month, about removing a holy scripture from outside a government building (I'm not exactly sure, I listen to most of the news with a deaf ear.).

Ah yes, the infamous "I think gays are cool and all unless they hit on me." But it's all fine if you were to make a pass at some girl you didn't even know, right? I'm not pointing the finger finger at anyone.

Most people are homophobic because they don't actually have any gay people that are close to them. If say... your best friend or one of your siblings were gay, would you really want them to be discriminated against, or have less rights than you do just because they so happen to have a different oppinion about their own gender than a hetero does?

[Zebulan7]

I believe someone asked how same-sex marriages would affect different sex marriages.

The reason is, look at everything married couples are able to do. They get a tax break because of children they might have, or the fact that most of the time one person is bringing in the money. If children are envolved, one parent often stays home to be a child reaer.

In a same-sex marriage, most of the time both partners can work, they don't have to worry about children, if I can say "worry."

They're are other such things that would have to be changed to conform to the different enviroment that same-sex mariages bring.

People often use "separation of church and state" as an argument why we can't bring in the Bible into our arguments. I'm not part of the state, so my decision can be based off scripture, scripture which states the practice of Homosexuality is wrong. This sep of church and state more applies to keep the state out of the chruch now, when it used to keep the church out of the state. The president can make decisions that he has gained from his moral positions, it is up to congress, and the American people to then decide the final verdict.

What are Gays really trying to get out of a marriage anyway? They are already being sexually immoral by participating in homosexual activities, what would marriage bring them? Do they just want an official paper that could call them Mrs and Mrs? Who gets who's last name, which is a tradition of marriage.

Marriage between a man and a woman has brought about many great things in the USA, and is a tradition that we must uphold. The only problem is we must fix this tradition before it is our country's shame.

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-27 17:35, Zebulan7 wrote:
I believe someone asked how same-sex marriages would affect different sex marriages.

The reason is, look at everything married couples are able to do. They get a tax break because of children they might have, or the fact that most of the time one person is bringing in the money. If children are envolved, one parent often stays home to be a child reaer.

In a same-sex marriage, most of the time both partners can work, they don't have to worry about children, if I can say "worry."

They're are other such things that would have to be changed to conform to the different enviroment that same-sex mariages bring.

People often use "separation of church and state" as an argument why we can't bring in the Bible into our arguments. I'm not part of the state, so my decision can be based off scripture, scripture which states the practice of Homosexuality is wrong. This sep of church and state more applies to keep the state out of the chruch now, when it used to keep the church out of the state. The president can make decisions that he has gained from his moral positions, it is up to congress, and the American people to then decide the final verdict.

What are Gays really trying to get out of a marriage anyway? They are already being sexually immoral by participating in homosexual activities, what would marriage bring them? Do they just want an official paper that could call them Mrs and Mrs? Who gets who's last name, which is a tradition of marriage.

Marriage between a man and a woman has brought about many great things in the USA, and is a tradition that we must uphold. The only problem is we must fix this tradition before it is our country's shame.



When did you become the authoritative figure on deciding what is moral and immoral? Its immoral to love somebody, and to express our love through physical contact, much like how straight couples do?

Complete hogwash.... give me a reason other then "its immoral" and then maybe I'll think about the logic behind it. Also, gay couples (though not able to make children themselves) can adopt children. See, we can raise children made out of wedlock that some straight couple made. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I mean, better in a gay couple's household (even if they didn't make the child) then in a dumpster at prom night. And I'm using extreme examples here to make my point. Not all straight couples are horrible, not all gay ones are perfect. But, I'm bringing up a point that will make you realize that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the quality of the relationship... so don't think that marriage is a straight insitution right now that it is all high-and-mighty.

I just want my future loved one to be next to me in the hospital if I get injured, and not threatened possible legal action by my family (though I don't think they'd ever do that though)... or vice versa, me being able to see my loved one in the hospital if something happens to him. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_frown.gif For instance.

[Zebulan7]

With me calling homosexuals immoral, I meant those that practice homosexual offenses. Such as "lying with another man, like you do with a woman." That is immoral, and I get this from The Bible, which I already posted my view on this.

I believe I did state that Gays could adopt, which is all but rare. The adoption system is a hard one for Gays to penetrate, even straight couples have a hard time adopting. That would be one thing that would have to conform so that married Gays would be treated the same as other married couples.

I believe I stated that marriage is quite corrupt right now. There is devorce left and right, and many are jumping to get married. I agree that our marriage right now is pretty bad. Just as much as I think Homosexuality is immoral, so is adultry, and premarital sex. Devorce is also wrong, as well as abortion (which is another topic all together). There are a million other things I think is wrong, the purpose of this forum is only to discuss one issue: Gay marriage, not what we feel about marriage between a traditional couple.

[anwserman]

OK, then here lies the problem. You're willing to pass laws, or restrict rights to somebody, based off of a religion? Although you might think that we are "sinners" per say, its not your decision in regards to what we do and what we don't do.

[Zebulan7]

You're right, I only have one vote. Unless there are other votes, there is nothing I can do.

My ideals regarding Gay Marriage is not solely based on my religion, but it adds another angle to my belief. Whether others base their opinion off of religion or not, that is them.

I think Gay Marriage is wrong. I think Marriage is not exactly what Gays need, nor civil unions either. Marriage was made for a man and a woman, and two men or women trying to use the institution of marriage to prove they love one another eternally is not what it is for. Marriage is for love, but the love for that of the other gender. It is really hard to put into words what I am trying to say, but I hope you understand it.

At the same time, I don't want to descriminate. Yet marriage isn't what Gays need (I don't know what other word to use). I don't know what it is, but there is something else there. I don't think Gays should be brought together in "holy matromony."

The Bible says Homosexuality is a sin, but Jesus hung around the sinners. I'm not calling all Gays sinners, only those who "practice" (which I have said over and over again). This is an extreme example, but a child molester is only "evil" if they molest a child. Before that, they are innocent, after the crime, they are guilty and must pay the consequences (as in what the law requires).

God has it in his heart to forgive, but even a dog returns to its vomit.

[Solstis]

On 2004-02-27 18:14, Zebulan7 wrote:
You're right, I only have one vote. Unless there are other votes, there is nothing I can do.

My ideals regarding Gay Marriage is not solely based on my religion, but it adds another angle to my belief. Whether others base their opinion off of religion or not, that is them.

I think Gay Marriage is wrong. I think Marriage is not exactly what Gays need, nor civil unions either. Marriage was made for a man and a woman, and two men or women trying to use the institution of marriage to prove they love one another eternally is not what it is for. Marriage is for love, but the love for that of the other gender. It is really hard to put into words what I am trying to say, but I hope you understand it.

At the same time, I don't want to descriminate. Yet marriage isn't what Gays need (I don't know what other word to use). I don't know what it is, but there is something else there. I don't think Gays should be brought together in "holy matromony."

The Bible says Homosexuality is a sin, but Jesus hung around the sinners. I'm not calling all Gays sinners, only those who "practice" (which I have said over and over again). This is an extreme example, but a child molester is only "evil" if they molest a child. Before that, they are innocent, after the crime, they are guilty and must pay the consequences (as in what the law requires).

God has it in his heart to forgive, but even a dog returns to its vomit.





Did you read any of Meira's post in anwserman's topic?

And anyway, even if it is an "evil", I'm sure God considers it the BIGGEST, MOST EVILEST SIN OF ALL!

Wait, no.

And you obviosuly know what's best for gays, huh?

Ugh, *shrugs*, why bother? I give up.

[Edit]: just realized how off-topic we are. GAH!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2004-02-27 19:42 ]</font>

[LollipopLolita]

the law is not based on opinion

[Soukosa]

On 2004-02-27 17:56, Zebulan7 wrote:
With me calling homosexuals immoral, I meant those that practice homosexual offenses. Such as "lying with another man, like you do with a woman." That is immoral, and I get this from The Bible, which I already posted my view on this.

Who said all homosexual couples are going to have sexual intercourse with each other? I surely have no desire to ever do so. What about all the heterosexual couples that do it for the sake of pleasure? There's plenty of those people around, why not bang on them? As I stated in another post, the Bible condemns having sexual intercourse for reasons other than for procreation. So, why would it be any larger of a sin for a homosexual couple to have sex than it would be a hetereosexual couple to have sex purely for pleasure? A sexual sin is a sexual sin, despite the orientation of the people involved.

[BogusKun]

On 2004-02-27 08:23, undevil wrote:
I believe homo marriage should not be legalized.



My question is, is it legal to bring your gay partner to the U.S. after you married somwhere else? Because if it is... then that's god damn ridiculous

[LollipopLolita]

i'm sorry, this has been hilariously sideplitting funny, and i don't even want to reply on most of the viewpoints here but i have to say


This is an extreme example, but a child molester is only "evil" if they molest a child. Before that, they are innocent, after the crime, they are guilty and must pay the consequences (as in what the law requires).

what about when the would be child molester thinks, fantasizes and plans it in his or her head. innocent since they haven't done it?


God has it in his heart to forgive, but even a dog returns to its vomit.

my dogs don't...

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-27 20:27, LollipopLolita wrote:
i'm sorry, this has been hilariously sideplitting funny, and i don't even want to reply on most of the viewpoints here but i have to say


This is an extreme example, but a child molester is only "evil" if they molest a child. Before that, they are innocent, after the crime, they are guilty and must pay the consequences (as in what the law requires).

what about when the would be child molester thinks, fantasizes and plans it in his or her head. innocent since they haven't done it?


God has it in his heart to forgive, but even a dog returns to its vomit.

my dogs don't...



Last time you said that phrase Lollipop, I think somebody got banned... http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Ontopic: To simplify things, whats so wrong with two people confessing their love for each other, e.g. marriage? Remove the sexes and you'll see what I'm talking about.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT... so stop making stupid restrictions... "sacred" and "religion". Dude, the Bible says its OK to own slaves, from what I've heard of anyway. Not confirming it, not saying its true, I just heard of it. >_<

[LollipopLolita]

does this mean i get to ban someone? ooooo? now that's worth thinking about.

[Kiara]

What? No premarital? You're no fun Zeb *frown*. Unless "god" changes the rules a lil bit, most people will be in the ring of fire.

Anyways, what you're saying is that gays should have their rights stripped from them just because the bible so comdemeth it? If that's the case maybe I should be able to strip you of your right to go to school and get a job just because I disagree with something you do and it being my belief to do so? Would you like that at all?

What gives you the right to take away another's rights? You see, in America there's a thing we all are granted, it's called freedom of choice. We can choose what we want to do without someone big brother telling us we can't just because they say it so. Marriage is a commitment and a choice made by people, not the government, not the bible, but people. This isn't the middle ages where people are betrothed because their parents decided to do so. We can marry whoever we want for whatever reason we want as long as our spouse accepts. To take away a right like marriage just because you disagree is not just, it's just something a dictator would do.

You aren't gay, and so you have no right to tell a gay person what they can and can't do. End of story.

[Saladwood]

You know, there are good points here in lolli's post everyone should consider since it's all summarized instead of bringing them up over and over and over and over again



On 2004-02-27 09:56, LollipopLolita wrote:
maybe then people should consider these points:

1. separation of church and state

if so then:

2. what is the basis of making same sex marriages illegal and one that is not based on morals and religion and solely on legal aspects?

and

3. what legal right as a president does Bush have to declare this a law for everyone of the US if he represents the US.

and

4. all citizens are equal and no one should be treated as a 2nd class citizen

5. civil unions does not carry the same legal rights as a legal marriage

6. laws and documents thereof such as the constitution are old and require frequent updates and additions.

7. who are you to determine the rights of other people? and what have they done? and if you are, are they based on a legal or a moral standpoint?

8. separate stereotypes and misconceptions on gays and same sex marriages and focus just purely on legalities and what do you have?

[undevil]

I just disagree with homosexuality altogether in males because the idea of sticking a certain object into another object sort of grosses me out. As for female homosexuality, I really don't see nothing wrong with it only because they don't have a certain organ on their bodies.

Whatever, this view point may sound stupid, but it is how I feel.

[LollipopLolita]

wait wait wait, you don't think lesbians do the same, only gays? oh my...

whatever they lack, they compensate

[Saladwood]

a funny thing is that there are a lot of guys out there that LOVE lesbian porn, but HOW DARE THEY GET MARRIED!!!

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-27 20:57, undevil wrote:
I just disagree with homosexuality altogether in males because the idea of sticking a certain object into another object sort of grosses me out. As for female homosexuality, I really don't see nothing wrong with it only because they don't have a certain organ on their bodies.

Whatever, this view point may sound stupid, but it is how I feel.



Nah, its not a stupid view at all actually... whatever you believe is fine. And Lollipop is correct, what people lack, they compensate for it. Kitchen utensils... need I go on?

And undevil, not to be mean or anything, but just from surfing the net and reading about this subject - straight people who "experiment" have the most exciting sex lives since everything is new and interesting.

(I'll leave that definition of experiment up to you, make what you want from it but I mean trying anything.)

[LollipopLolita]

you don't need to invade your kitchen and look for tools there when you have hands. i volunteer to take undevil to a BDSM club and videotape the results. anyhow, how can you have fun just sticking to the norm?

anyhow, back on topic.

same sex marriages sure is profitable for the florists around SF city hall. Honk to show support!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-02-27 21:37 ]</font>

[Nai_Calus]

Heterosexual couples engage in anal intercourse as well, what the hell is your point? And that is the worst possible excuse of all, 'it grosses me out'. Gods. -_-;;; Oral sex of any sort disgusts me, but you don't see me decrying lesbians because of it... -_-;

What truly irks me the most in the whole debate is the idea of 'civil unions'. Hmm, seperate but 'equal'... Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah. Hey, what month is it, folks? Black History Month! Hmm. Gee, wonder what I'm getting at...

Oh yeah, those whites and blacks only schools were real equal, weren't they? Man, segregation was such a good idea. I wish it were still in effect!

...Crazy and offensive, isn't it? This is EXACTLY what you're saying about homosexuals if you wave about the idea of 'civil unions'. Seperate is never equal. Ever.

Why do I want to be able to marry another man if I someday find the right person and it turns out to be a guy? I dunno. Maybe I want to be able to put him on my health insurance through my job if mine's better than his without worrying if my employer is one of the more progressive companies that actually allows this sort of thing. Maybe I don't want to be held in the waiting room while he dies alone in a hospital bed and I'm not allowed to see him because I'm not married to him and thus don't qualify for the priveledge of being there to hold his hand. Maybe I want to have the same exact boring mundane rights that heterosexual couples have. Maybe I want to have a husband, and not just a domestic partner. What the hell is the latter? It sounds like just some stupid legal thing, and doesn't say to people "This is the person I love. This is the person that whatever forces in the universe there may be willing, I will spend the rest of my life with. This is the person I wake up next to in the morning. This is the person I argue with, I cry with, I laugh with, I kiss goodnight and still makes me laugh years later."

Why do I want gay marriage? Because I'm some heartless, soulless, immoral freak out to corrupt your children, hit on you against your will and destroy society? Nope. I just want the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. And I want everyone else to be able to have them, too.

*sigh* But nobody cares about this sort of thing, do they?

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-27 21:36, LollipopLolita wrote:
you don't need to invade your kitchen and look for tools there when you have hands. i volunteer to take undevil to a BDSM club and videotape the results. anyhow, how can you have fun just sticking to the norm?

anyhow, back on topic.

same sex marriages sure is profitable for the florists around SF city hall. Honk to show support!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-02-27 21:37 ]</font>


And for the California Lumber Industry since the spike in paper useage for marriage licenses! Down come those redwoods! http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

I'm hyper right now.
Bush, fuck off. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif Sums of my feelings PERFECTLY.

EDIT: Applauds Ian-Knux.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anwserman on 2004-02-27 21:45 ]</font>

[LollipopLolita]

on a positive note, my two real close friends got married last tuesday at city hall and they took the day off and they're both as happy as can be. they've been together for a bit, got their civil unions last summer and are now married, blushing brides and all, and i'm happy for both my daddies.

the argument has a completely different feel and impact when it hits that close to home but people won't understand until it does.

now to wait til it's recognized state wise and they get the same legal benefits as everyone does!

[Hrith]

yeah, there have been some hilarious posts (female homo is ok, not male O__o), marriage was made for love and therefore it's not what homos need (funny part is "therefore"), but yeah, I do not perfectly understand homos, I have a female homosexual friend and a male homosexual friend, but there are things I admit I fail to understand, but I really CANNOT see why they should be denied any right, that bitterly reminds me of segregation, sometimes.

[navci]

I was going to post something when I was reading posts on the third page, but I see Ian got every of my points covered. Kudos Ian. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Some of the opposing posts are ridiculously funny, and ignorant (as Kef has already pointed out).

And to answer Boguskun's question a bit earlier about if you married someone outside of U.S. can you bring them back in. Well. This is how it has been like in Alberta. Say, B.C. where I lived in, gay marriage is legal; when this was a hot topic to debate, the nice, thoughtful Alberta Premier said, "even if they are married in other province, we will NOT recognize them in Alberta."

And I believe this is how the U.S. is going to treat gay couples that got married elsewhere. They will be denied the rights to do all the things Ian mentioned above.

I am very glad I moved out of Alberta now.

[undevil]

Well I disagree with anal sex between male and female couples as well.

[Ketchup345]

I don't see why people even use The Bible as an argument in the US.

THE US DOES NOT HAVE ONLY ONE RELIGION!
There are millions of people in the US who do not read or follow The Bible. What about their beliefs? What if their beliefs support this marrage?

[Solstis]

On 2004-02-28 05:46, undevil wrote:
Well I disagree with anal sex between male and female couples as well.



Do you disagree because of religious reasons, or just because you find it odd?

Nevermind... as I said before... why bother?

[derBauer]

I believe this is an issue for people to decide on by voting at the state level. This is not something a liberal judge should suddenly make legal, nor should a conservative judge rule it illegal. I would vote against gay marriage if I had the chance. I do not think Bush should have said he backs a Constitutional Amendment because I think there are important things to worry about (note, I don't even consider this issue important).
Gay marriage won't hurt anyone, I just personally believe it is for a man and a woman.
Also, as far as IANs post which you all thought was so brilliant, much of his post was comparing gay rights to the fight for rights blacks have had which is actually degrading and offensive. There is no reasonable comparison between the two, and to imply there is only diminishes the struggle blacks had. He also said that gays can't visit their partner in the hospital, that applies to everyone, not just gays. There are times when a patient cannot have visitors due to the nature of the illness. At all other times, it is the patients right to decide who can visit.
Concerning insurance, civil unions require insurance companies to insure the partner just as a husband would insure the wife.

[undevil]

I disagree because I find it disgusting. No need to explain why.

[Hrith]

Yeah, but then it is your opinion, and as Lolita said, Law is not affected by opinions.

[LollipopLolita]

much of his post was comparing gay rights to the fight for rights blacks have had which is actually degrading and offensive.

not so much if they're second class citizens.


There are times when a patient cannot have visitors due to the nature of the illness. At all other times, it is the patients right to decide who can visit.

no, let's say in an emergency situation. only immediate family members can be there. and so the partner for 50 years cannot be.


Concerning insurance, civil unions require insurance companies to insure the partner just as a husband would insure the wife.

nope again. it depends on the company and the state. happened to both my friends.

[undevil]

On 2004-02-28 08:35, Kef wrote:
Yeah, but then it is your opinion, and as Lolita said, Law is not affected by opinions.



Actually some laws are. It isn't right, but they are.

Then again, in order for a law to be or not be passed, the people will vote on some based on their opinions, in which case the law is affected by opinion.

[Ness]

That amendment wouldn't pass if his life depended on it. Also, the creator mentioned foreign affairs and I think Bush should worry aobut the probelms we have here beofre he interferes with other countries.

[LollipopLolita]

undevil, the point is to make it right. the interpretation of it might be affected, but down to its fundamental core, it should not be based on it but on legalities.

step forward or backward?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/28/MNG1Q5ALUN1.DTL

[Ketchup345]

From that Article:
"The job of the president is to drive policy toward the ideal.''

And passing an admendment about this would be ideal how?

And I don't think many of his policies are anywhere near Ideal.

[Zebulan7]

I didn't say I was saying these things about Gays, only what I got from the Bible. I didn't say all Gays would commit sexual offenses in marriage, but I did express my opinion.

Laws are voted by people's opinions. It is our opinion that makes the decision of how we vote for things. It is just laws are not made on opinion.

[anwserman]

To refresh our memory:

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0903/Furankunichan/homos.gif

Courtesy of Furankuichan. Oh yes, I do think Bush needs to realize that he wasn't put into office by a sweeping majority. He was put into office by the judicial system essentially... and look here, now he says the judicial system is crazy and nutso.

Good way to thank the system that put you in office in the first place.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anwserman on 2004-02-28 11:39 ]</font>

[Zebulan7]

just one example:

Gays have a right to bear arms, just as much as anyone else. A loose example, but good enough for the moment. There are some people who shouldn't have guns, but thats different.

I'm not sure whether an ammendenment is exactly the right move. I may not agree with it, but making an ammendment is a big thing.

[Hrith]

yeah, but the thing is, Bush has been made famous and popular by the international events, and is most likely to get re-elected.

Bush is a good example of a man that thinks of his career first.

[Solstis]

On 2004-02-28 12:02, Zebulan7 wrote:
just one example:

Gays have a right to bear arms, just as much as anyone else. A loose example, but good enough for the moment. There are some people who shouldn't have guns, but thats different.

I'm not sure whether an ammendenment is exactly the right move. I may not agree with it, but making an ammendment is a big thing.



Um... what? I find your loose example to be... irrelevant.

But anyway, making an amendent is a WEE bit extreme.

[Zebulan7]

I said the gun thing because of the picture. The picture was stating that the constitution did not apply to Gays. The constitution was made for the people to protect us from the state.

I also would like to state that marriage was a religious institution. That is why priest and stuff do the cerimonies. State stepped in to make it "official" in some ways.

[Hrith]

On 2004-02-28 12:15, Zebulan7 wrote:
I also would like to state that marriage was a religious institution.
Stop living with the past, this has just been said : "step forward or step backward?"

I do not think homos are interested in a religious marriage altogether, I'm not saying they're not religious, I know one who is deeply religious.
But I think their aim is the social advantages of the union and the social recognition of their couple.

[LollipopLolita]

that is why priest and stuff do the cerimonies. State stepped in to make it "official" in some ways.

then, then there is two kinds of marriages:.

1. the kind that the priest presides over, making it more of a religious faith based one.

and

2. the kind that is for legalities, and has nothing to do with faith.

wouldn't it be better to analyze why you condemn gay marriages so? and what is at the root of the problem? and what your notions are based on? and why the failure to try to understand another's viewpoint? what causes the fear and lack of understanding? and why are you projecting your notions onto others? at the root of the problem, why do you look down upon gays as having less rights or being inferior?

you guys do realize this argument is going nowhere? those who are already decided that gay maariages should not be legal will remain to think that way. meanwhile, hundreds of citizens, who just so happens to be gay, will continue to fight for fair treatment (and it just so happens to include marriage) and will line up to be married.

and everyone discussing it here arguing it against one another, well, you guys ain't going anywhere... at the end of the day, people like zeb will still disagree.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-02-28 12:44 ]</font>

[undevil]

On 2004-02-28 12:05, Kef wrote:
yeah, but the thing is, Bush has been made famous and popular by the international events, and is most likely to get re-elected.

Bush is a good example of a man that thinks of his career first.



That was a dumb comment. If he thought about his career, he wouldn't have gone to war knowing that a lot of people would be against him. Also, he wouldn't speak his mind about gay marriage if he was worried about his career. Of course he wants to stay as president, but he does what he thinks is best for America, even if it always isn't.

[LollipopLolita]

the majority of americans is for war (especially at the height of 9-11 terror and anger) and a bigger majority are against gay marriages, and bush, thinking of his career, will go with the majority.

[Hrith]

And I come here to get opinions, not flames.

It's not like I threw that comment out of the blue ¬_¬

[anwserman]

And with the whole war thing, yes I do agree that the majority of the public were in favor for it at the time. But this has died down since then (thankfully time heals and eases pain), and the support for war has fallen (so Bush "dugged up" evidence for the war of Iraq*).

But please do realize, that the public supported the war, some of the public thought it was applicable to go out and beat random Muslims/Islamic US citizens. So yeah. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_eek.gif

*I still support the war in Iraq... the world is still a safer place when we remove a dictator who kills his own citizens. His methods to gain support for the war, however, I do not agree with.

[Shattered_weasel]

All of you who are gay raise your hands. Now all who didn't raise thier hands. Why are you argueing about this topic when it has nothing to do with you.


Damn whiney teenagers..........

[Orange_Coconut]

On 2004-02-28 21:28, Shattered_weasel wrote:
All of you who are gay raise your hands. Now all who didn't raise thier hands. Why are you argueing about this topic when it has nothing to do with you.


Damn whiney teenagers..........



When people think something is wrong, then they tend to defend their beliefs. Just because someone is not a homosexual does not mean they cannot defend their rights.

For example, if this were a racial debate and someone was to say an offensive word about one's ethnicity, I would say something to defend the person who was offended from a comment that was made out of hatred.

I find that trying to ban marriage between two men or two women is not right. Just because I am not a homosexual does not mean I cannot think that this is wrong, nor does it mean I cannot defend the belief that anyone should be able to marry regardless of their sexual preference.

As for whining, this is a serious issue - of course people are going to try to make their point across whether it seems like whining or not. While you may not like that subject nor people responding to it and trying to express how they feel, it does not give you the right to tell those who cannot relate to the issue personally that they should stop what they are saying/what they believe in.

Also, you have to consider the fact that maybe some of the people arguing for gay marriages have good friends or relatives that are homosexual or bisexual. So it might have to do something with someone close to them.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orange_Coconut on 2004-02-28 21:40 ]</font>

[Hrith]

err, I agree with you, Orange_Coconut, but you miss one point : what about the hets that are against those marriages ? what is their business here ? how are they concerned ? afaik, gay couples are allowed to publicly appear together in the US (well, may not be always the case in practice), so whether they are married or not won't change a thing to those people (the hets that are against those marriages).
So why are they whining ? because it's wrong ? I think it was made clear that no one can say what is right or what is wrong.

[Shattered_weasel]

Now all of you who have any idea why I said that raise your hands. Not many. I said it stop this pointless arguement. It is getting no where.

[Kiara]

On 2004-02-28 21:28, Shattered_weasel wrote:
All of you who are gay raise your hands. Now all who didn't raise thier hands. Why are you argueing about this topic when it has nothing to do with you.


Damn whiney teenagers..........



Does being bi count?

Shouldn't this be in the rants section anyway? Or is that not for debates?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kiara on 2004-02-28 23:23 ]</font>

[Ness]

"I may not agree with what you do, but I will defend your right to do it until the day I die."

Good quote, I forgot who said it though.

Anyway....

Homosexaul marriages don't affect you in anyway so why argue against them?

[_Sinue_]

On 2004-02-27 14:54, Reenee wrote:
I believe that making an amendment prohibiting same sex marriages violates the part of the constitution that says ...THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

That was worded perfectly. The constitution was drafted with the purpose, even if it wasn't practiced, of protecting your freedom to do whatever the hell it is you want so long as it doesn't infringe on another's right to do whatever the hell they want.

Gay marrages infringe on 0% of mine, or anybody else's, rights. IMO, this is a new-age civil right's movement which pushes America to actually acknowladge and adhear to that document we consider so sacred to us. The purest essence of American spirit.

I was watching a show on late night MSNBC where they were debating same-sex marrages.. and really the only real argument I heard against it, is that violates the "Mother-Father" roles a child "needs" in his life to develop fully and properly. He posed the question - "How can a child develop fully with two father or two mother figures".

Now, it's been awhile since the last census I know, but I doubt there's been a significant decrease in the amount of SINGLE mothers out there in the past few years. The divorce rate in America is through the roof, and custody battles/visitation rights are on every courthouse's daily docet. If you're going to make an amendment on such inane pretenses, you may as well make an amendment that forces all child-bearing women into a forced marrage for the childs sake. That's just stupid.

However, on the side supporting same-sex marrages, a very important point was brought up. Aside from the immenently important issue of giving homosexuals basic, you know, HUMAN DIGNITY.. there's the issue of benefits. By keeping same-sex couples out of wedlock, you're only huring their children and spouses even more as they cannot recieve any form of government aid dispersed through marrage - including Social Security and Insurance.

How in the hell is that fair that someone can bust their ass on the job and pay into social security for all those years.. only to have it denyed to their life-mate after his death because of some close-minded BS double standard.

[_Sinue_]

Goddamn it Ian, if I had read one more page in.. I wouldn't have even really had to reply. I'd jus copy-paste that and be like.. "Ditto". Anyhow.. you did say one other thing I wanted to comment on.


Heterosexual couples engage in anal intercourse as well

I just want to say on record, that I'm a mild fan of butt. It's not the best, but it's a nice change of pace once in a while if you can find a partner that will actually let you do it. I don't think I'd particularly enjoy being on the recieving end.. for the same reason like 90% of girls (from my experience) don't want it - cause it probably hurts like %*$@#$* hell.

But then again.. Being gay isn't about the intercourse. It's often, unfairly, defined by that.. but it's the attraction to same sex, not the sensation of the intercourse, that defines weither or not you're Homo or Bi sexual right? It's who you are.. not the action what you do. Sides, I've been in those adult shops.. I know they sell butt toys for streight couples too.. a nice chunk of the Kama Sutra I believe is devoted to the butt (for both partners).. and that was written expresly for a male-female partnership.

[-Luke-]

On 2004-02-27 08:34, undevil wrote:
Well in this case I think it is a good thing to let marriage stay the way it is. And a lot more people didn't want slave trade than did. And that is a totally differant issue.



No its not genius. Denial of rights.

[Hrith]

That quote, Ness, is from Voltaire (French http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif )

and, Sinue, don't make the topic slip on a nasty side, you can probably keep it clean, but not all can, and anyway very few people here have enough experience to reply.

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-29 07:41, _Sinue_ wrote:
Goddamn it Ian, if I had read one more page in.. I wouldn't have even really had to reply. I'd jus copy-paste that and be like.. "Ditto". Anyhow.. you did say one other thing I wanted to comment on.


Heterosexual couples engage in anal intercourse as well

I just want to say on record, that I'm a mild fan of butt. It's not the best, but it's a nice change of pace once in a while if you can find a partner that will actually let you do it. I don't think I'd particularly enjoy being on the recieving end.. for the same reason like 90% of girls (from my experience) don't want it - cause it probably hurts like %*$@#$* hell.

But then again.. Being gay isn't about the intercourse. It's often, unfairly, defined by that.. but it's the attraction to same sex, not the sensation of the intercourse, that defines weither or not you're Homo or Bi sexual right? It's who you are.. not the action what you do. Sides, I've been in those adult shops.. I know they sell butt toys for streight couples too.. a nice chunk of the Kama Sutra I believe is devoted to the butt (for both partners).. and that was written expresly for a male-female partnership.


Damn you're wise beyond your years Sinue. One of the more intelligent posts I've read recently, with some actual thought thrown in. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Oh, and about whole "butt" thing, try it. Honestly, I dare you. Guys have one thing that girls don't, and that my friend is the prostate gland. Not going into detail... but from what I've heard, it makes things a whole lot more enjoyable down the road....

Not to change topics or anything. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

On-topic: People love to classify gay relationships as "in it for the sex" and "promiscous since there is no worry for a baby." Its quite unfair, especially when straight people are promiscous with no regard to the possibilty of getting a child. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_eek.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anwserman on 2004-02-29 09:51 ]</font>

[navci]

On 2004-02-29 09:48, anwserman wrote:

On-topic: People love to classify gay relationships as "in it for the sex" and "promiscous since there is no worry for a baby." Its quite unfair, especially when straight people are promiscous with no regard to the possibilty of getting a child. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_eek.gif



Now now. I think we can have a clean dicussion of butt somewhere else. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif Let's don't drag this off topic and be open to the attackers.

On topic, and it is ironic that how badly many homosexual couple want a child. :/

[Daikarin]

On 2004-02-27 08:41, Armok wrote:


On 2004-02-27 08:24, undevil wrote:


On 2004-02-27 08:22, Armok wrote:
You know bush used to do all kinds of drugs back in the day and is more spaced out than ozzy osbourne. Yet strangely made it to president.



So? Who cares what people did 20 years ago? He quit didn't he?



He is the same person who now want drug dealers all given life sentences.

Oh and not to ignore the point. Same sex marriages are fine in my book.



So you believe that a person never learns and always makes the same mistakes?

Geez, everybody's a kid sometime. Everybody learns what's wrong and evolves to become a better person.

Heck, I had the worse grades in writing in my high-school, but I'm here writing fanfictions I never thought I could do so easily.

Back to the point.

[LollipopLolita]

_Sinue_ and everyone, clean it up in here. i mean it. and no the kama sutra isn't mostly about that. seriously people, clean it up and you guys are not getting anywhere.

[ABDUR101]

Mother/Father Roles.
With the arguement that the child needs mother/father roles filled. As already said, what about all the children to divorced parents, or who don't see their father/mother because they just up and left(or don't even know who the father is, or there are "boyfriends" in and out of the mother's life, and vice versa).

There are people to fill the roles, but the roles are not properly being filled. Obviously, two stable male or female parents are by far better than uneven and uneasy mother/father roles trying to be filled.

Stability is the issue when it comes to that arguement.

Should this be in Rants? No. This isn't really a rant anymore, it's more of a discussion.

Overall
There are no concrete reasons why homosexual marriages should'nt be allowed. We're all human, there are no sub-species, we all feel the same emotions and we all work to better ourselves.

Denying marriage to someone based on a preference is absurd, and it breaks more "pillars of society" just in it being refused, the same pillars which everyone holds in such high regards and stature for America and it's citizens.

*edit*
And yes, the discussion is really over. No one's mind is going to be changed, certainly no one is going to go from agreeing with homosexual marriages to going "Hey, you're right, they should'nt be allowed to marry", so it's more or less trying to get others to understand why it's so important and why it should be allowed. But, some people would rather ignore it because it doesn't effect them directly, and thats fine. Everyone who wants to can ignore it and refuse it and if that makes them feel ok, it's ok, but it's not helping anyone nor themselves to just disagree with something that is just so obviously fair.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ABDUR101 on 2004-02-29 11:03 ]</font>

[Zebulan7]

Sorry I'm not really being swayed by what everyone is bringing to the floor.

I do try to see where everyone is coming from, but I feel my own reasons against Gay Marriage are strong enough for me.

There are ways Gay Marriage will effect everyone, but I've already described it. Don't want to go into it again.

I still really don't know what is different about marriage for Gays. Do they just want to be recognised as a couple? For Hets, marrigae symbolizes many things, but what about for Gays? Do they only want the benefits? The money, or for it to be socially accepted that they are living together? Marriage for Gays is not exactly a liscense for them to have marriage, as it use to be for Hets.

You must understand that there are many other things that I also disagree with. Many things people are using as examples for Gay marriage (like bad marriages/ lots of divorce) I see as bad too. Just wanted to clear that up.

[LollipopLolita]

what about this idea, it symbolizes the same exact thing and they want the same exact things and equality?

[-Luke-]

Yeah, but I think most people arguing for homosexual marriages want the anti people to at least understand their view, or at least realise their ignorance in regard to certain matters.

Buuuut.....as far as I am concerned with marriages, what I learned from my parents, what I have seen in others, and I have formulated my own personal view of what marriage should be, and I think it coincides pretty well with the way it was intended to be.
The holy (not neccessarily if you aren't religious) union of two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together. This hasn't really worked, but for some it does. I don't think there is a difference between a heterosexual couple getting married or a homosexual couple. They love each other, and if they want to express it through something corporeal and tangible like matrimony, woot, let em.
Luke

[Saladwood]

there's NOTHING DIFFERENT about why gay couples want to get married besides equality. they want to get married for all the same reasons a man and woman want to get married and there is simply no basis to stop them except for thinking they're doing the wrong thing, in which case, you are prejudice to the same extent that native american indians or the blacks have faced in the past. So, yeah, you're prejudice regardless of your reasons for not wanting them to get married.

[Hrith]

I have read through your posts anew, and couldn't find a good reason to ban same-sex marriages.
If, like you said, the reason is good for you, well, what's your point ?

And do not sound like homos are different from hets, THEY ARE NOT, I thought Abdur was clear about it, maybe you just did not read his post http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Saladwood]

BTW, the prejudice against homosexuals stems from the same ignorance and fear similar to those at the root of rasism.

yay for you prejudice people!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saladwood on 2004-02-29 11:27 ]</font>

[Zebulan7]

Sorry you are not really understanding my reasons.

To put it simply I am:

Religious
I understand the effects Gay marriage would have on me
I understand why Gays say they want to be married
I understand you think I am simply "hating" gays because I think they are "different"
I really don't want to actually pay ($) for the sudden increases in marriage that would occur from Gay marriage (more tax breaks, health care, etc)
Who isn't to say that certain practices by Gays ease the spread of STDs
Who keeps the child in the divorce
How are they going to get the child
What will we have to change, practice wise, to make Gay marriage a mirror of Het marriage
If one partner dies, can the other get money from their health care
Aren't both partners able to work and make a profit without having to raise a child
What would be "socially acceptable" for a Gay marriage


That is the majority of the problems I have. No, I'm not saying all Gays are this way, and remember what I have to say on Het marriage.

[ABDUR101]

What the hell, answer all of those questions the same way you would for a heterosexual couple. When it comes to kids, isn't adoption the obvious answer? Who would get the kid? Well who gets the kid in heterosexual divorces? The most capable parent able to take care of the child.

And Dear God, you don't want to pay money for the sudden increases in marriages? What kind of shit answer is that? Fine then, all of you straight people can stop getting married too, I'm sick of paying for all of YOUR happiness.

STD's and homosexuals..heh. Yeah, of course, homosexuals are all dirty and don't have good hygiene. It's obviously their fault.

If one partner dies and healthcare, well gee, seems like it'd be the fair thing to do, huh?

Both partners working, making profit with out a child. I know quite alot of heterosexual couples who do that! They make a shitload of cash. I think I'll do the same.

And everyone can stop playing the religious card. Not everyone attunes to a single religion, and even then, some people are strict with what they do and some aren't. Religion is only an issue if you make it one. What about all the athiests who get married?

[LollipopLolita]

Religious

- so are some gays, point being?

I understand the effects Gay marriage would have on me

- do you understand the effects of gay marriages on gays?

I understand why Gays say they want to be married

- same reason why straight people would want to?

I understand you think I am simply "hating" gays because I think they are "different"

- no you're not understanding

I really don't want to actually pay ($) for the sudden increases in marriage that would occur from Gay marriage (more tax breaks, health care, etc)

- actually it's been predicted to boost the economy. what if they tax paying gay people want you to stop having straight marriages because they don't want to pay for something they can't benefit from?

Who isn't to say that certain practices by Gays ease the spread of STDs

- who isn't to say that straight people spread std's? because they do, and a majority of std carriers are married men. what kind of negative stereotype are you implying? that only homosexuals have std's. that there is a prevalence? or shall we stop sex all together to prevent std's?

Who keeps the child in the divorce

- who keeps the child in divorce of a straight marriage?

How are they going to get the child

- adoption? surrogates? how do infertile straight couples get children?

What will we have to change, practice wise, to make Gay marriage a mirror of Het marriage

- nothing personal for you? why should it be a mirror and not the same thing? in SF, they started allowing gay marriages, and trust me thousands of people have not had to change their way of life

If one partner dies, can the other get money from their health care

- no for a vast majority of providers. even if they're alive, they can't. you also have to remember a lot of other fundamental legal rights that partners cannot have

Aren't both partners able to work and make a profit without having to raise a child

- wait what's the point? wouldn't a straight couple want a child too? you're going to deny a person the right of having a child based on sexuality? profit from life is one thing. a child is another. some people want that experience regardless of their sexuality. it's human nature.

What would be "socially acceptable" for a Gay marriage

- the same thing as a heterosexual marriage? like in SF? and then getting the same legal rights as straight couples? equality? not 2nd class citizens? been mentioned several times already? i mean, it's people like you that have a social problem with it, so what do you think it's socially acceptable? since the gays and their supporters don't see a social problem with it? and it's not just about being socially acceptable. it's about equality and freedom. two fundamental rights the US was built upon?

exactly why do you have so much stereotypes about gays and why you look at them at being second class or inferior? why all the ignorance? i asked before...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-02-29 11:55 ]</font>

[Saladwood]

On 2004-02-29 11:39, Zebulan7 wrote:
Sorry you are not really understanding my reasons.

To put it simply I am:

Religious
I understand the effects Gay marriage would have on me
I understand why Gays say they want to be married
I understand you think I am simply "hating" gays because I think they are "different"
I really don't want to actually pay ($) for the sudden increases in marriage that would occur from Gay marriage (more tax breaks, health care, etc)
Who isn't to say that certain practices by Gays ease the spread of STDs
Who keeps the child in the divorce
How are they going to get the child
What will we have to change, practice wise, to make Gay marriage a mirror of Het marriage
If one partner dies, can the other get money from their health care
Aren't both partners able to work and make a profit without having to raise a child
What would be "socially acceptable" for a Gay marriage


That is the majority of the problems I have. No, I'm not saying all Gays are this way, and remember what I have to say on Het marriage.



yeah, alright, but that doesn't mean you're NOT prejudice against homosexuals.

[Ness]

*EDIT*

Darn double post!

Delete this.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ness on 2004-02-29 11:57 ]</font>

[Zebulan7]

You did not exactly answer my questions, but you certainly made a strong, aggrivated response.

I don't think you are really looking at what I'm saying. You are also taking what I'm saying and making it seem like I'm the biggest hater in this world, when I really just stated my opinion. I don't think people should be descriminated against, but there are certain things that we do because what everyone wants is not neccassairly what everyone needs.

With the statments you made, it seems like you thought I was targeting you, when I wasn't. And about STD, I even said that I was not saying all Gays would spread them. I just showed it was a possibility, just with anyother practice that even Hets can do.

About the children, just because one person is a more capable parent, doesn't mean the other person sees it that way. This is a problem with Het divorces as well. It is a tradition that the birth mother keeps the child, but that wouldn't work in such a marriage.

I still feel that Marriage is traditionally an institution of the church, and the State stepped in only to record such a process.

I don't twist your words, so don't twist mine.

[LollipopLolita]

hey with the 60% divorce rate straight marriages have, let's just not allow marriages at all! it's only a 40% chance you'd be together! then again imagine all the fees and profit generated from that. who wants to be a divorce lawyer?


You are also taking what I'm saying and making it seem like I'm the biggest hater in this world, when I really just stated my opinion.

actually we're just stating the truth. you asked, we answered.


And about STD, I even said that I was not saying all Gays would spread them. I just showed it was a possibility, just with anyother practice that even Hets can do.

that's a fallacy in your argument. anyone can spread std's. even monkeys. so? most std's are in heterosexual people.


About the children, just because one person is a more capable parent, doesn't mean the other person sees it that way. This is a problem with Het divorces as well. It is a tradition that the birth mother keeps the child, but that wouldn't work in such a marriage.

with the law, that tradition has changed for some time. that isn't how it's judged, and the more capable parent is judged by the judge, not the other person. and why can't you chose the more capable parent out of parents that are two females or two males, why should sexuality matter. and using your birth mother logic, then the birth mother out of two lesbian couples would keep the child, no?


I still feel that Marriage is traditionally an institution of the church, and the State stepped in only to record such a process.

and the marriage that is discussed here is the state legal one, not the faith based church one.

[anwserman]

And to simply put it, since marriage is now a government and religious institution - the definition of marriage is slowly changing in the eyes of the government and thus will eventually have to change in the eyes of religion too.

Don't fight it. Accept it. You know, we're the land of the free... not the land of the majority and the second-class citizens!

EDIT: Agreed with what the mods above said. No need to repeat it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anwserman on 2004-02-29 12:05 ]</font>

[Ness]

Since the mods here deleted the wrong one, I'll have to type my post over again.

*starts cursing like a mad hound*

Anyway....

I noticed that several people here are against gay marriages because of the taxes they will have to pay. If money was a valid reason to keep two people that love each other from coming together in a legal commitment then we should ban all marriages. I mean, we have to pay taxes for straight marriages too and outlawing them will require us to pay even less.

[Saladwood]

i do read what you say, it's just that it really still is prejudice against homosexuals wether you realize it or not.

and there are many many different types of churches and religions for marriage, you can't just say it's a religious thing when there are so many different types of churches to get married at, for anything.

there is a separation of religion and law specifically for reasons like this, and religion shouldn't be ANY basis to stop homosexuals from marrying one another. Especially since most religious people clash if they are from different faiths.

[ABDUR101]

On 2004-02-29 11:59, Zebulan7 wrote:
With the statments you made, it seems like you thought I was targeting you, when I wasn't.


Oh, I'm sorry. I thought since you were labeling and giving such absurd "points" targeted at homosexuals that, you know, me being a bisexual was sort of included.

[LollipopLolita]

so people don't have to keep bringing up the same damn things and repeating themselves

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

really it isn't getting anywhere

[_Sinue_]

If money was a valid reason to keep two people that love each other from coming together in a legal commitment then we should ban all marriages.

No way. That would never happen. Do you have any idea just how many lawyers that would put out of work?

[Zebulan7]

Well, I didn't see what you said as I was writing my argument while your's was posted.

Well, I'm not predudice against Gays. I don't treat them any differently than anyone else. I just have my own opinion that I don't let affect my interaction with Gays. I don't think I'm better than them.

About me being religious, I was reffering to past post where I showed that the God disproves of Homosexual behavior. That noted, God also does not like some things Hets do as well.

Again with STDs. I stated in my post that Hets can carry STDs as well, which I think is also bad. It comes from practices which I also believe is bad.

For the divorce, woman traditionally get the child. Said that before.

I was talking about all the changes that we would have to make in the system. Wordings would have to change, look at everything that marriage brings, and change it to partners.

I really don't have the energy, or the will to really show my reasons against Gay marriage. I don't feel it is my mission to "convert" everyone to my viewpoints. Of course, with my religious beliefs we don't have problems with divorce, and other such things.

I'm really tired of discussing this. This has become more of an attack on me than a discussion. Especially with a few of your comments. I'll just take it that none of you see where I'm going with what I'm saying. I'll leave you to complaining about the admentdement. I really don't think this is going any where anyways.

In some ways I would like Gay marriage to be OK so everyone can see what I can't tell you, what I can't explain. But then I would be suffering.

Enjoy your discussion.

[Solstis]

Poor Zebby is discriminatory towards gays and doesn't know it.

You still have that "them" or "those people" sort of attitude.

Yeah, those people spread STDs, "those" people will make taxes higher.

I tire of your petty arguments!

I challenge you to a duel!

(topic was getting a little too edgy)

[Saladwood]

On 2004-02-29 12:24, Zebulan7 wrote:

Well, I'm not predudice against Gays. I don't treat them any differently than anyone else. I just have my own opinion that I don't let affect my interaction with Gays. I don't think I'm better than them.



you are treating them differently, you don't think they should be allowed to be married. THAT'S A BIG THING! it's treating them differently.

your posts, even though you don't realize it, are an attack on all homosexuals. and you're the one playing the victim card here.

[anwserman]

Putting aside religion, remember the huge controversy that came up when interracial couples tried marrying? That the end of the world was coming and that the fabric of society was un-ravelling at the edges?

That hasn't happened yet, and the same tired excuses are being thrown around again.

Get over it people!

[LollipopLolita]

God disproves of Homosexual behavior. That noted, God also does not like some things Hets do as well.

-let's stop everything that god disapproves of then. first on the list, let's get rid of alcohol and cigarettes.

Again with STDs. I stated in my post that Hets can carry STDs as well, which I think is also bad. It comes from practices which I also believe is bad.

-right. but your point was that homosexuality brings about std's and is therefore bad. so gay marriages will spread std's, let's stop that then. but straight people have std's too. so let's stop all marriages since everyone can have std's? stop sex? and touching and kissing too?

For the divorce, woman traditionally get the child. Said that before.

-lots of fathers have custody now btw. lesbian birth mom can have the child then right?

Wordings would have to change, look at everything that marriage brings, and change it to partners.

-partner and husband or wife means completely different things.

Of course, with my religious beliefs we don't have problems with divorce, and other such things.

-60% divorce rate isn't a problem with divorce?

This has become more of an attack on me than a discussion. Especially with a few of your comments

-some of your comments have been an attack on homosexuality.

how would you be suffering?

if you want to join a discussion, make sure you can back it up.

it's an irony isn't it that there was actually a church started to enable divorce.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-02-29 12:38 ]</font>

[Saladwood]

Put it this way Zebby

Suppose you come to live in a country, country X

Suppose that there is god Z of country X

People in country do not believe in straight marriages because our god Z says that is wrong and he disapproves of it. So straight marriages are illegal in country X.

Suppose you like a man in country X and want to marry him there, but you can't because it's wrong, illegal and immoral since god Z said so. And in country X, we don't acknowledge that at all and feel that a straight marriage is unnecessary. Suppose in country X marriage is defined by man and man or woman and woman and nothing else.

Suppose people of country X will say that you're doing a bad and wrong thing and want you to be homosexual or will condemn you for it.

Suppose people of country X says that a child from a straight marriage isn't brought up in the right environment because of your loose morals based on the religious and moral teachings of God Z.

Suppose people of country X feel that they don't want to legally and financially support straight marriages.

Suppose people of country X feel that they are right and can dictate so in their country because of God Z.

How would it feel then?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saladwood on 2004-02-29 13:03 ]</font>

[Scejntjynahl]

On 2004-02-29 13:01, Saladwood wrote:
Put it this way Zebby

Suppose you come to live in a country, country X

Suppose that there is god Z of country X

People in country do not believe in straight marriages because our god Z says that is wrong and he disapproves of it. So straight marriages are illegal in country X.

Suppose you like a man in country X and want to marry him there, but you can't because it's wrong, illegal and immoral since god Z said so. And in country X, we don't acknowledge that at all and feel that a straight marriage is unnecessary. Suppose in country X marriage is defined by man and man or woman and woman and nothing else.

Suppose people of country X will say that you're doing a bad and wrong thing and want you to be homosexual or will condemn you for it.

Suppose people of country X says that a child from a straight marriage isn't brought up in the right environment because of your loose morals based on the religious and moral teachings of God Z.

Suppose people of country X feel that they don't want to legally and financially support straight marriages.

Suppose people of country X feel that they are right and can dictate so in their country because of God Z.

How would it feel then?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saladwood on 2004-02-29 13:03 ]</font>


Personally, you have brought back all of my fears in Algebra *shivers*

But seriously, you make a good point. Now I am beggining to think that perhaps I shouldnt have posted this thread, in no way did I intend or hoped this to be so emotionally charged and filled with religious overtones.

Simply, me personally, hate telling ppl how they should lead their lives, and I hate it more when I'm told how to lead mine.

We are all people, we all hurt, we all bleed, we all desire the best for ourselves. The problem is when you (general term) force your "views" onto me. If one is true to themselves nothing can ever change who we are. Forget the "sanctity" of marriage. That definition is personal and always will be. It doenst come from any BOOK or LAW in any time or nation. It comes from within, from our hearts and minds. If a same sex couple has found peace and happiness, why must we destroy it and ridicule it? Why? To make ourselves be happy, to be unique, because we conform to the majority? What ever happened to individuality, to self respect, to been neighborly and accept all others as they are. As we wish them to accept us. This is ridiculuos, this is not about religion, government, laws, its about HUMANITY. Who we are as a person, to we extend our hand to help the ones that need to be helped, or do we push them to their demise? At this point my mind is blank, I have no idea what else to say. But this, I am a person, you are a person, and we all want the same thing, to belong, to be loved and to be happy.

[Hrith]

It feels really good to read some posts, I mean it.

But something has been bothering me, Zeb, how can you personally talk about gays ? (and you have : "practices I disapprove of", for instance)
Were you raped by a homo ?
I'm not even trying to flame you, but how can you deem those "practices" you do not even know of except by stereotypes, bad ?
oh, wait, Salad's got the answer to that : prejudice.

I really think Lolli, Salad and some other members are being objective about the subject.

Agreeing only with yourself will not allow for a rich social life.

[Ness]

On 2004-02-29 12:24, _Sinue_ wrote:

If money was a valid reason to keep two people that love each other from coming together in a legal commitment then we should ban all marriages.

No way. That would never happen. Do you have any idea just how many lawyers that would put out of work?



All the better. If there's one thing this world needs lees of it's lawyers.

On a more serious note, I can see what you mean when one considers all the divorce lawsuits that occur.

[_Sinue_]

You know.. I'm not sure. I've read my bible.. and no-where in it is the verse "If a man layeth down with another man in passion, he should be put to death". I have seen that verse in other bibles.. but not in mine.

I look back on the story of Sodom and Gramorah and wonder what that story was actually about. Alot of people seem to believe it's about god destorying icons and dens of perversion. The act of, you know, is even named after the city of Sodom to connect that act with the disproval of god. But personally, I don't really think that's what it was about. When the townspeople came to Lot's house to "Greet" his guests.. they were intending to rape and beat them. That screams loss of control to me, not any particular act of the flesh. The people of Sodom let their desire for pleasure - their gluttony for lust - take control of their actions. I think THAT'S what god was really against.

It's just loss of control, and giving in to the temptation of sin (sin of the spirit, not of the flesh) that destroyed them. After all, if you want to talk about sins of the flesh.. Lot threw his own two virgin daughters into the sex hungry croud in order to protect his guests. I know that the culture of how you treat guests has changed a lot over the years.. but doesn't that seem like an act that God would condemn to you? If someone did that in today's society, religeon wouldn't take a kind view of him.. but it was OK for Lot to do so? Does god change his mind on a whim like that? Even later into the story, when hiding in the cave - his daughters (thinking they were the last females left on earth) got their father drunk, seduced him, and commited incest. Now is THAT ok by the lord? They're actually glorified as hero's by some scripture.

The entire story is a metaphore - weither you believe it to be the truth or not - it's a metaphore. Lot's wife looking back and turning to a pillar of salt. You might think she litterally turned around and turned to a block of salt. That's fine, but it's also a metaphore.. since once they left sin, they were not allowed to look back. As in, don't miss or regret your sinning ways, because that just brings you back into sin - and ultimately destruction.

Honestly.. I can't see a prejudice god. I can't see a god who would judge someone by the physicality of their action, and not by the content of their heart and souls. But that's just me. What do I know about god.

[LollipopLolita]

if you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, look at the ridiculously high divorce rate. then start with getting rid of divorces. and then murder rates will go up. ok kidding.

seriously. if you really do want to protect it, go to the root of the matter and back to the drawing board. teach about the importance of values and respect and morals. the significance of marriage. respect for each other, yourself and your significant other. about important aspects of relationships such as communication and friendship and trust and loyalty. and the right healthy views of sex in a relationship (instead of emphasizing just sex) and how to foster the right kind of relationship. a lot of children's model of marriage comes from their parents, now if people had better relationships, their kids would learn better examples. gays are not causing the breakdown of the family system. if all kids have are broken families and a revolving door of mom's boyfriends for examples, what good is it? keep in mind that a marriage affects everyone in the family and has long lasting effects on children. if popular culture today would show better examples and moral values, it would be a better example instead of mtv cramming sex and sexual overtones in 13 year old's throats. the breakdown of marriages is not because gays are allowed to marry, why are family values all across the country decomposing at such speeds? why is marriage trashed with no regard? it's more because anyone can and will marry withouth a second thought or care, because in today's popular culture there is no longer a held respect or value placed in the significance of a marriage. the value of marriage right now has been cheapened. whereas before it would be more serious, treated seriously and with a lot more respect and value, right now, you can be married tonight in a drunken stupor to the stranger you met at the blackjack table 15 minutes earlier. and just change your mind and anull it tomorrow when you're sober. the irony in this is that while straight couples are getting married and then divorced or annulled at an alarming rate because they're taking it for granted, it is the gays that understand the value and importance of marriage as a symbol of eternal love.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-02-29 16:16 ]</font>

[derBauer]

You people supporting gay marriage should stop calling those against it ignorant and prejudiced. I personally feel marriage is for a man and a woman, I have my own reasons for it, and nobody should be calling me ignorant because of it. If being against gay marriage makes me prejudiced against gays, I guess I also am prejudiced against women because I don't think they should be on the front lines in war. One issue does not define me, just like how gays don't want to be defined as a gay person.

I don't accept the idea of gay marriage, but I don't disrespect those who do. The people on the other side of this argument seem to not accept the other idea, and treat us like shit. It would have been nice for this argument to stay at a respectable level, but now that a few mods have voiced their opinion that I am ignorant and prejudiced for having my own opinion, I guess that is no longer a possibility.

[Saladwood]

Now, don't be accusing us mods of things like that when we were just here voicing our own opinions. Mods or not, we're allowed to do that, just like any other member. And we were saying that the viewpoint zeb's prejudiced. And it is when it treats another person as a 2nd class citizen. If a viewpoint is misinformed, then it is. We never said anything about yours. And there is no need to accuse the staffers of that when other people have expressed similar views as well. You're just skewing the discussion.

[Kiara]

On 2004-02-29 17:57, derBauer wrote:
You people supporting gay marriage should stop calling those against it ignorant and prejudiced. I personally feel marriage is for a man and a woman, I have my own reasons for it, and nobody should be calling me ignorant because of it. If being against gay marriage makes me prejudiced against gays, I guess I also am prejudiced against women because I don't think they should be on the front lines in war. One issue does not define me, just like how gays don't want to be defined as a gay person.

I don't accept the idea of gay marriage, but I don't disrespect those who do. The people on the other side of this argument seem to not accept the other idea, and treat us like shit. It would have been nice for this argument to stay at a respectable level, but now that a few mods have voiced their opinion that I am ignorant and prejudiced for having my own opinion, I guess that is no longer a possibility.




There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but when you flaunt that opinion around and try to pass laws to restrict others from having the same rights as you, based on that opinion, that's being prejudice.

[undevil]

There are good and bad things that will come with allowing gay marriage. Probably more good then bad.

The religious nutballs will be upset of course. I just disagree with gay marriage, but I am not going to go as far as protest it because I really could care less if they are married.

As I think god doesn't exist, using religion as a scapegoat for the reason why we shouldn't have gay marriage seems silly. If god really does exist, and s/he condemns people for being gay, then let them get married anyways. They are choosing to go to hell, which I don't think happens anyways but whatever.

I just disagree with gay marriage because I disagree with homosexuality altogether. Maybe more in males in females for other reasons. And I know someone talked about how females have their own little toys, but there is a differance between toys and an actual penis. I think my view sounds stupid when I read it, but I still agree with it.

This doesn't mean I don't like homosexuals though. I just don't agree with their lifestyles. Just like how I don't believe in god, I don't treat those who do any differantly then those who don't.

You are who you are. Let people be who they want to be. Just let gay people get married already. If they love eachother, that is good enough for me. I know if I was gay, I would want to get married to a guy I loved.

I know I sound contradictory, but I have two differant opinions on this.

[shinto_kuji]

Wow, it's hard for me to post on this. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/anime2.gif

Please people, stop saying Zeb is prejudiced. Despite the other "reasons" he gives, the main underlining reason for him of disapproving of homosexual marriage is his religion. He even stated that. I'm guessing he believes strongly in his religion, so those of you who ganged up on him weren't really being fair.

I guess I'm religious, to some extent. I believe in a God, and some other things. But meh, I also smoke, drink sometimes, have premarital sex and lie. So, yeah. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

I can see why Bush is trying to do this. He's religious. But, seriously, what the hell is he trying to pull? In my eyes, he's making himself look like a complete moron.

He's trying to make an ammendment to the very article that declares seperation of church and state. Silly man.

Make the pie higher. Make... the pie higher...

[ABDUR101]

I'm guessing he believes strongly in his religion, so those of you who ganged up on him weren't really being fair.

It's not ganging up just because we all have the same viewpoint. Obviously.

And being prejudice is being prejudice, there is no other way to put it.

[LollipopLolita]

If you believe strongly in your religion, good for you. No one said it was bad for you to. But what makes you have the right to project your values onto other people when it infringes on their right and equality as a human and citizen of the U.S.? That's where the discussion is. It has nothing to do with people saying that the religion is negative. No one said drop your religion and your god. There are people arguing for gay marriages who are as deeply or if not more religious than you are. You don't like other people telling you that your view is wrong, well the gays don't like being told they are wrong for wanting to be married or for simply being gay when it's not a choice. This is why, when bringing religion into the picture, the arguement becomes weak. Also, being religious does not entitle you to stereotype people and be ignorant and say unfair things and make a biased attack on homosexuality. Rather, it should make you more compassionate and understanding, which actually are the root of Jesus's teachings. Granted, there have been a lot of good that comes from your faith or your belief in your religion. But why subject other people to your beliefs?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-02-29 20:45 ]</font>

[derBauer]

On 2004-02-29 20:24, ABDUR101 wrote:

And being prejudice is being prejudice, there is no other way to put it.



Nobody here is prejudice against gays though, you only say they are.

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-29 20:37, LollipopLolita wrote:
If you believe strongly in your religion, good for you. No one said it was bad for you to. But what makes you have the right to project your values onto other people when it infringes on their right and equality as a human and citizen of the U.S.? That's where the discussion is. It has nothing to do with people saying that the religion is negative. No one said drop your religion and your god. There are people arguing for gay marriages who are as deeply or if not more religious than you are. You don't like other people telling you that your view is wrong, well the gays don't like being told they are wrong for wanting to be married. This is why, when bringing religion into the picture, the arguement becomes weak. Also, being religious does not entitle you to stereotype people and be ignorant. Rather, it should make you more compassionate and understanding, which actually are the root of Jesus's teachings. Granted, there have been a lot of good that comes from your faith or your belief in your religion. But why subject other people to your beliefs?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LollipopLolita on 2004-02-29 20:40 ]</font>


Well, its not even that Lollipop... if you use religion as a belief, people are gonna have issues with your belief but not necessairly you. Most (sane) people won't hate you because of your belief. However, it seems like people seem to disagree with gay people AND hate dislike them for being gay, which opens up a whole new can of worms.

Oh, and being scapegoated for Sept. 11. That was another fine moment I'll never forget brought up by "Reverend Falwell". Now, he is one seriously screwed up person. (I think I got his name correct.)



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anwserman on 2004-02-29 20:48 ]</font>

[LollipopLolita]

prejudice:

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

A preconceived preference or idea.

as such this would be an example


Who isn't to say that certain practices by Gays ease the spread of STDs

If one partner dies, can the other get money from their health care

Aren't both partners able to work and make a profit without having to raise a child

[derBauer]

marriage:

the state in which a man and a woman are formally united for the purpose of living together
----
I guess if posting defnitions of words meant anything, this argument woudl be over.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: derBauer on 2004-02-29 20:56 ]</font>

[Saladwood]

Well, its not even that Lollipop... if you use religion as a belief, people are gonna have issues with your belief but not necessairly you.

that issue we have right now is why people project their beliefs onto other people. it's not because you believe the religion. but people feel attacked anyhow.


However, it seems like people seem to disagree with gay people AND hate dislike them for being gay, which opens up a whole new can of worms

and that's because of ignorance

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saladwood on 2004-02-29 20:56 ]</font>

[ABDUR101]

Oh God, thats funny. Pathetically funny.

You're trying to use the idea that since gays want to be married, that the definition will have to be changed, and your arguement will be "oh well you used a definition".

Thats a shit arguement, really.

[LollipopLolita]

yeah especially when it's the definition we're discussing and is in the process of being changed...

[Saladwood]

On 2004-02-29 20:54, derBauer wrote:
marriage:

the state in which a man and a woman are formally united for the purpose of living together
----
I guess if posting defnitions of words meant anything, this argument woudl be over.





you're really just grasping at straws there

and if you actually even thought to say that, and thought it meant anything, you don't understand the point of this conversation at all.

Ok, since you brought it up, give me a LEGAL basis for that definition that has NOTHING to do with morals or religious beliefs.



Oooo, lets look at more dictionary definitions:

The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Saladwood on 2004-02-29 21:07 ]</font>

[derBauer]

On 2004-02-29 20:58, ABDUR101 wrote:


Thats a shit arguement, really.



No, my point is that if by posting the defninition of prejudice, that suddenly proves us prejudice, then posting the definition of marriage would prove marriage is only for a man and a woman.

Now, if you would have read the whole goddam thing, which you obviously didn't or are unable to, you could have seen I said in my post "IF" posting definitions meant anything, this would be over. But, I know posting defnitions is stupid and I was making a mockery of the first defnition posted.

[ABDUR101]

On 2004-02-29 21:06, derBauer wrote:
Now, if you would have read the whole goddam thing, which you obviously didn't or are unable to, you could have seen I said in my post "IF" posting definitions meant anything, this would be over. But, I know posting defnitions is stupid and I was making a mockery of the first defnition posted.


Excuse me? You editted the post. Hur Hur.

[Saladwood]

the defintion for prejudice isn't changing at all

BUT

the definition for marriage IS.

I guess you don't see that, either. OH WELL

[RuneLateralus]

Gay marriages are on page 96 of the "Things We Need to Worry About List." Meaning, that the fact this issue is so big, it is a joke. It is no big deal that gays get married. They are humans. They deserve the same rights. Love is love, no matter what it is. Lewis Black said it best with something that is close to (but not a full direct quote as I can't seem to find it):

It really doesn't matter on who you can marry. Hell, you could marry a fucking horse and it shouldn't really matter in this country!

Yes, it is true Bush is trying to protect the sanctity, the meaning, and the purpose of marriage. But in order really help show that is your view, he should really try to ban divorces more. Those are more destroying to the idea of marriages than gay marriages will ever be.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RuneLateralus on 2004-02-29 21:20 ]</font>

[Kiara]

On 2004-02-29 20:45, derBauer wrote:
Nobody here is prejudice against gays though, you only say they are.



Did you skip all the anti-gay marriage posts saying "i agree" and only read the pro-gay marriage posts? Seriously a lot of things she said were prejudice on many levels.

[anwserman]

It really doesn't matter on who you can marry. Hell, you could marry a fucking horse and it shouldn't really matter in this country!


I know you didn't say that (its a quote from somebody else), but some people love to compare gay marriage to marrying a dog or your sibling. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_frown.gif

[RuneLateralus]

On 2004-02-29 21:25, anwserman wrote:


It really doesn't matter on who you can marry. Hell, you could marry a fucking horse and it shouldn't really matter in this country!


I know you didn't say that (its a quote from somebody else), but some people love to compare gay marriage to marrying a dog or your sibling. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_frown.gif

I don't think that was what Lewis Black was going for. For me, it wasn't really a comparison. It was more of an analogy of how that this issue is so overblown when it shouldn't. The right should be there, but it isn't for the wrong reasons.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RuneLateralus on 2004-02-29 21:30 ]</font>

[derBauer]

On 2004-02-29 21:08, ABDUR101 wrote:


Excuse me? You editted the post. Hur Hur.



I edited my post before you had posted.

I have nothing more to say on this issue (at least tonight) because as I think you said earlier, it will not change anyones mind. And i have homework to do.

I would like to share an example from tonight of what does make someone hateful toward gays. The Oscars were on tognight and from best short animated film a man who won thanked his loving boyfriend for inspiration etc.. Anyway, I thought to myself, good he should be able to do that and feel ok, because any straight person would thank their girlfriend. However, a good friend of mine watching somewhere else saw the same thing and thought differently. She (yes girls can hate gay men) said something along the line of "I saw this guy thank his bf and was f'in sick". I explained to her that thanking your lover is perfectly normal. She still disagreed and we went on to talk about something else.

The reason I say that, is because I think it is important for everyone to realize that there people out there who really do hate gays and wished they never had to see or hear from any of them. I honestly do not think anyone that frequents this website is like that, yet the blanjet accusations of "prejudiced" and "ignorant" are thrown out anyway. Sometimes, people are prejudiced and ignorant, and other times they people have different tolerance levels that appear extreme when you believe with all your heart one way or another. I just hope that we can all learn something from each other and not call each other names because it does kind of hurt peoples feelings even though it is just on this message board.

[anwserman]

On 2004-02-29 21:27, RuneLateralus wrote:


On 2004-02-29 21:25, anwserman wrote:


It really doesn't matter on who you can marry. Hell, you could marry a fucking horse and it shouldn't really matter in this country!


I know you didn't say that (its a quote from somebody else), but some people love to compare gay marriage to marrying a dog or your sibling. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_frown.gif

I don't think that was what Lewis Black was going for. For me, it wasn't really a comparison. It was more of an analogy of how that this issue is so overblown when it shouldn't. The right should be there, but it isn't for the wrong reasons.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RuneLateralus on 2004-02-29 21:30 ]</font>


I'm completely aware that you didn't use it as a comparison... http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif But honestly, people DO use it as a comparison, and I brought that up because it is extremely sad that people stoop to such lows.

At least they make themselves look ignorant in the process.

[ABDUR101]

On 2004-02-29 21:27, derBauer wrote:
I edited my post before you had posted.

You can't use the exact times, because I obviously have to type up what I'm saying, and if I'm doing other things I'm not going to refresh and look for edits.




I honestly do not think anyone that frequents this website is like that, yet the blanjet accusations of "prejudiced" and "ignorant" are thrown out anyway. Sometimes, people are prejudiced and ignorant, and other times they people have different tolerance levels that appear extreme when you believe with all your heart one way or another. I just hope that we can all learn something from each other and not call each other names because it does kind of hurt peoples feelings even though it is just on this message board.

Just as hurtful as someone saying they don't think homosexuals should be given equal rights?

Really, I hope everyone becomes more tolerant of others ways to live their own lives, and more open. Thats really the purpose of the discussion, to open some eyes.

And afew words defining how someone is acting isn't really in comparison to someone saying they don't think equal rights should be given(thus the reason for the usage of "prejudice")

[_Sinue_]

It really doesn't matter on who you can marry. Hell, you could marry a fucking horse and it shouldn't really matter in this country! - RuneLaterus quoting someone else.

Heh, that reminds me of a Redd Foxx (Old guy from Sampson & Sons) comedy bit. He was on stage talking about racism.. and he was going on about his friends giving him shit because he married a Chineese girl.

"They ask.. Why'd you marry, outside of your race? I said, What Mother****er you think I married a DUCK?? I married a WOMAN.. from the HUMAN race."

Pretty much the same point.. but I love his comedy so I jus had to put that up there. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif


I know you didn't say that (its a quote from somebody else), but some people love to compare gay marriage to marrying a dog or your sibling. - answerman

It's pretty much the same thing as redneck A-holes saying that if you marry a black woman, it's the same as grabbing a monkey out of the jungle and trying to teach it to cook breakfast for you.

It's all ignorance.. plain and simple. I dunno if people should feel offended by those kind of comments, or feel pitty for the poor stupid SOB that says em.

[Hrith]

Seeing anti-same sex marriages people trying to play the victim part is funny ^__^

I do not see anywhere in this thread any of us (pro-same sex marriages) truing to prevent the other side from expressing their views and opinions, we are simply expecting good arguments on their behalf and have not found any.

[shinto_kuji]

Meh, outside of religion, there is absolutely no argument against homosexual marriages. I find it ridiculous it has become such a very large issue, because it seems to me like one of those things that just seems simple to allow.

I'm all for it. And people who aren't (and aren't religious) are both ignorant and prejudiced. But those with religious backing don't deserve to be called ignorant or prejudiced. That's like just bashing their faith. They don't need any other reason other than "God says it's wrong."

Now if people were to go and vote, or (like Bush) make decisions that affect millions and millions of people based on religion, then yeah. That's very wrong. But all I saw that Zeb (not sure who else) did was voice his opinion, and he got jumped on by quite a few people.

But yes, people should be able to marry whoever, or whatever they want. http://www.pso-world.com/psoworld/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif Anyone wanna get married to their hand? -grins-

[Hrith]

On 2004-03-01 11:12, shinto_kuji wrote:
They don't need any other reason other than "God says it's wrong."
But they need to prove it.
And there is no point in casting your personal beliefs onto someone else.

[shinto_kuji]

Yes, casting your beliefs onto someone else is wrong. I think the Bible even says that somewhere in there.

But, the thread asked for people's opinions, and everyone who was against it got bashed. Even those who were basing it on their religion (nothing needs to be proven with a person's faith) instead of "it's gross".

"Because I think it's gross"

Oh yeah, that was rich. -smirk-

[Zebulan7]

I don't think I every casted my religious beliefs on anyone. If I did, I'm sorry. I only stated my religion as a reason I don't agree with Gay Marriage. I never said anyone else should accept it too, I just backed up mine.

I think it was you, Lolli, who said that STDs can also happen in Het marriage. I agree with you, I think STDs should not be a problem, but it is. STDs come from more practices that I believe immoral. There are lots of things out there that I also feel are immoral, and people are using them as arguments against me. I stated that marriage has become a problem, yet those who also have my same faith don't have those problems.


Poor Zebby is discriminatory towards gays and doesn't know it.

No, I'm not. By the definition stated, I am certainly not. I knew the issues around Gay marriage before I got into this. I have friends who are Gay, Bi, and such. They are not of my religion, but I see where they come from. For me, religion is why I disagree with Gay marriage, but I have stated other concerns as well.

As for nothing in the Bible. The lying with another man part is in Leviticus, which for Chrisitans doesn't matter any more. Jesus said homosexual offenders would be condemned to hell (as well as a number of other sinners like liers, cheaters, adulterers, etc). That affects Christians.

I really am not trying to be mean, if you think I am, I'm not. I think some of you thought I was being very mean, though I never used strong language, as I never have throughout my entire life.

I posted in defence of me being called prejudice (sp?). I hope you understand I am not. This is not like a phone conversation, so responces take time.

[Ness]

Personally, I think all of you guys need to calm down. While I am for gay marriages, I think some of you guys are being a little too harsh with those that don't. Also, I think those ont he other side need to stop being overzealous in their beliefs.

That's why people listen to me; I can display my opinion without jumping on my soapbox. This constant screaming at each other won't get anyone anywhere. That's how most of these topics get locked. Like I said, both sides are guilty of this.

[Zebulan7]

OK, but I don't think I was really overly zealous. I think the discussion is going fine, if you count getting nowhere as progress. Its fine, I'm sort of tired of discussing it though. Where ever I go people ask me what I feel about it. I mean EVERYWHERE, it is a big topic on people's mind.

[BogusKun]

On 2004-02-29 20:54, derBauer wrote:
marriage:

the state in which a man and a woman are formally united for the purpose of living together
----
I guess if posting defnitions of words meant anything, this argument woudl be over.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: derBauer on 2004-02-29 20:56 ]</font>


Well what should the new name be?
Maybe it will be legal if we change the definition.

[Saladwood]

I think it was you, Lolli, who said that STDs can also happen in Het marriage. I agree with you, I think STDs should not be a problem, but it is. STDs come from more practices that I believe immoral.

then you're going to have everyone stop kissing and touching all together.


I knew the issues around Gay marriage before I got into this.

then why were you asking all the questions?

[Saladwood]

On 2004-03-01 13:28, Ness wrote:
That's why people listen to me; I can display my opinion without jumping on my soapbox. This constant screaming at each other won't get anyone anywhere. That's how most of these topics get locked. Like I said, both sides are guilty of this.



no one was screaming, it was a discussion.

not everyone listens to you.

[Zebulan7]

Um, still on the STDs? It is possible to avoid STDs while still kissing and touching, but it still depends on what you are kissing and touching. Some think it is OK to do lots of things while dating, while I dissaprove. They are just ruining it for themselves.

All my questions? Well, those were the affects that Gay Marriage would bring. I just wanted to see what everyone else had to say about my questions. I'll admit that it didn't seem that way.

I always assume when someone uses a curse word, they are yelling. I've never heard someone curse without emphasis on the word. Not that I said EVERYONE was screaming.

[anwserman]

He was talking about sinning, in reference to the hugging/kissing part.

And you know what, all this thread turned into is an endless debate on who is for and who is against gay marriage. Yes, thats what it was supposed to be, but in all reality its turning into who can suckerpunch the other side better with cheap shots.

Almost everything that could have been discussed has been discussed, so lets just let this thread die... please.

[Solstis]

On 2004-03-01 16:22, Ketchup345 wrote:


On 2004-03-01 13:20, Zebulan7 wrote:
1) I don't think I every casted my religious beliefs on anyone. If I did, I'm sorry. I only stated my religion as a reason I don't agree with Gay Marriage. I never said anyone else should accept it too, I just backed up mine.

2) I stated that marriage has become a problem, yet those who also have my same faith don't have those problems.


1) It is okay not to agree because of religion, but that doesn't matter when it comes to the decision of the government. Also, a specific quote from your holy transcripts would be nice (along with a few Translations, since the way it is read depends on who/who it was translated).

2) How does your one faith not have problems with marriage? Why does no one else have something like this? What religion? I'm actually curious how this is done...



*Whips out a gun*

Everyone... please back away from the thread and no one will get hurt.

*Kills the thread*

There.

[LollipopLolita]

locked upon request of original poster