Homosexual Marriage

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Pilgrim How liberal do you have to be in order to not recognize that man, apparently, is the only life species that chooses to mate with the same sex.

This is incorrect. Homosexuality occurs among many species.

Certainly history has shown that homosexuality has been rampant in the past but that does not make it right.

Its prevalence does not make it right or wrong.

The only reason that a person would choose a member of his/her sex is that they were scared by the opposite sex and found it easier to choose their sex rather than cope with the challenges that nature has provided.

Another reason would be if they find themselves naturally attracted to the same sex.

Why do homosexuals hide behind a nice word like "gay" rather than blatantly admit that they are homosexual?

Homosexual is not an offensive term. I know plenty of gay folk, and they do not hide behind the term. They have no problem with homosexual.

Simple, they cannot face the truth that they have been lying to themselves.

If it turns out that the things you believe to be facts are proven wrong, will you have the courage to stop lying to yourself?

If homosexuality were a natural way of life then how would the genus survive?

This is only a concern if all people turn gay and stop reproducing. The probability of this occuring is zero. Homosexuality is not a threat to the survival of our species.

In all of my research into the subject I can only discover a cowardice to the accept the natural sexual behavior since it has scared them for whatever reason and they determine that they are safer with their own sex.

Perhaps your research could benefit from reading something besides the ranting of religious fruitcakes, or wherever you get your nonfacts from.

However, if that is so acceptable then why is it not fully accepted by them rather than either hide from the rest of society or blatantly exploit themselves in such ridiculous manners as they do in public?

Many do fully accept it. Others are affected by hateful attitudes from bigots.

The human society is so frustrated and befuddled that certain segments have missed the entire point of existence; and it is not homosexuality!

What do you believe is the entire point of existence?

[RickSp]

Quote by: pilgrim1776 How liberal do you have to be in order to not recognize that man, apparently, is the only life species that chooses to mate with the same sex.

How uniformed do you have to be to be unaware that homosexuality can be observed in nature in a variety of species? Given that you start off with such an uniformed statement the rest of your post doesn't warrant a response.

Gay animals out of the closet? - First-ever museum display shows 51 species exhibiting homosexuality

Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition. The argument that a homosexual way of living cannot be accepted because it is against the "laws of nature" can now be rejected scientifically, said Geir Soli, project leader for the exhibition. "A main target for this project was to get museums involved in current debate; to show that museums are more than just a gallery for the past."

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Many do fully accept it. Others are affected by hateful attitudes from bigots.

And still others (who think for themselves) are ambivalent or conflicted about it, especially the marriage angle.

[Gabe2007]

Homosexuality occurs among many species.

could you please tell which animals are homosexual manner?? are they monkeys ?? how about elephants?? or maybe dolphins?? probably even ants?? :rolleyes:
come on ...get real....animals dont even know right from wrong...how are they going to decide if they are going to be gay or not?

[RickSp]

Read the link two posts up.

[Jack]

animals dont even know right from wrong...how are they going to decide if they are going to be gay or not?

What does knowing right from wrong have to do with sexual orientation?
And who decides to be gay or straight? Did you get to choose?

[bob60292]

Quote by: crayola Black/white marriages, "unions" if you will, are still considered "abnormal" or should I say "frowned upon" by the racist whites. Same-sex unions is just to much for some people to handle. I've tried to figure out what the religious fundamentalists fear the most, gays or dark skinned people. If black people were seen daily on Evangelical TV stations as repsentatives of Israel, would the "White-Is-Right" Right Wing zealots continue their donations for a black Israel to co-exist? Why do we only see a white Nutenyahoo, Sharon, and maybe Pinkus speaking to their "good friends" in the evangelical Kingdom of Entertainment ? When was the last time Nutenyahoo made a good friend visit to Jesse Jacksons Rainbow Coalition? And what does this have to do with anything homosexual? Falwell is geared up to amend the Constitution with a ban on homosexual same-sex marriages and "other specific things" he sees unfit within that lifestyle. Will this mean a ban on gays adopting children? Eating in the same resturants as "Christians"? Being employed with "Christians?" Isn't this the same thing black people had to endure before MLK knocked some sense into the "White-Is-Right" religious party? What's at the root of this problem other than a "I'm a better human than you are" mentality?

I think the real issue is whether or not gay marriage would be an extra financial burden for the public. What people do in their own homes or behind closed doors is between each other and God. Whether I think it is right or not is neither here nor there. They can bone each orther, just enjoy non sexual companionship, or whatever else they prefer as long as they don't harm anyone or violate the rights of others. Because of the fact that citizens of the US are already overtaxed to the point of slavery however, I would be against anything that adds to the financial abuse that we suffer.
I think civil unions might be a "decent" compromise.( no pun intended).Financial provisions can be provided for by the 2 partners privately.

[italiangm]

Quote by: bob60292 I think the real issue is whether or not gay marriage would be an extra financial burden for the public. [...] Because of the fact that citizens of the US are already overtaxed to the point of slavery however, I would be against anything that adds to the financial abuse that we suffer.

So, if evangelicals managed to convince millions of unmarried opposite sex couples to marry, you'd be against it? After all, such an event would initiate tax credits that would decrease tax revenue and increase tax burden.

Quote by: bob60292 I think civil unions might be a "decent" compromise.(no pun intended).Financial provisions can be provided for by the 2 partners privately.

Have you actually investigated these so-called private provisions? My same sex household of almost 11 years duration will be paying $14,100 more in insurance premiums and taxes than a heterosexual married couple with no children under otherwise identical conditions.

[jamesbdunn]

Quote by: PatrickHenry It seems that America, by and large, doesn't favor the concept. I think there is a very wide acceptance of homos generally in the US. They get a few swats, but overall I don't think most Americans want them treated as pariahs. Euros are likely even more tolerant. But allowing a homosexual union to labeled "marriage" apparently goes against the grain. All eleven states where the question was presented on 11/2/2004 voted to disallow homosexual marriage. Where do you stand?

Children are bound legally to their parents and/or guardians without the formal title of marriage and recieve tax breaks, social services, and other benefits. Elderly and the handicapped receive similar benefits and binding between willing persons. Corporations are even given financial benefits for merging, and strictly speaking they aren't even human.

We empathize with all people and even animals of all species and feel awe when we see loving relationships. The wolf playing with its mate. Whales sliding upon one another. Eagles diving towards their death in an embrace with their mate, only to separate at the last moment.

Any combination of persons including multiple men and/or women should be allowed to experience life together and be afforded the same financial benefits to support such union. As for church marriages, that is up to the church; afterall, a church represents a union of people with a similar system of beliefs and the Government excludes them from having to pay ANY taxes.

How can churches be allowed a marrage between all deciples and afforded tax benefits, while a same sex couple (which may have been selected at birth by the physician) is penalized unfairly?

[bob60292]

Quote by: italiangm So, if evangelicals managed to convince millions of unmarried opposite sex couples to marry, you'd be against it? After all, such an event would initiate tax credits that would decrease tax revenue and increase tax burden. Have you actually investigated these so-called private provisions? My same sex household of almost 11 years duration will be paying $14,100 more in insurance premiums and taxes than a heterosexual married couple with no children under otherwise identical conditions.

DASTINKA!!!!!!!

[bob60292]

Quote by: italiangm So, if evangelicals managed to convince millions of unmarried opposite sex couples to marry, you'd be against it? After all, such an event would initiate tax credits that would decrease tax revenue and increase tax burdin Have you actually investigated these so-called private provisions? My same sex household of almost 11 years duration will be paying $14,100 more in insurance premiums and taxes than a heterosexual married couple with no children under otherwise identical conditions.

DASTINKA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pahl]

DASTINKA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Errr... what?

[bob60292]

Quote by: pahl Errr... what?

STINKA!!!!!!! STINKA!!!!!!!!!!! DASTINKA ITALIANGM SPEAKA BULLESHEETA

[italiangm]

Quote by: bob60292 STINKA!!!!!!! STINKA!!!!!!!!!!! DASTINKA ITALIANGM SPEAKA BULLESHEETA

Look. This is a debate forum. If that's the best you can do, you don't belong here.

But beyond your 6 year old babling tirade, I can prove the additional taxes and insurance premiums I've paid over the years because I keep copies of it all.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: jamesbdunn;322096 [quote Any combination of persons including multiple men and/or women should be allowed to experience life together and be afforded the same financial benefits to support such union. As for church marriages, that is up to the church; afterall, a church represents a union of people with a similar system of beliefs and the Government excludes them from having to pay ANY taxes.

They can still experience life together, they just don't get the tax breaks. Single people don't get the supposed tax breaks, either. Actually in some cases it's better to be single tax-wise. Many lower income people stay single for that very reason. People with children can get quite a hefty sum back tax-wise, if they are under $30,000, with the earned income credit.

Many polygamous marriages do take advantage of the system because only wife number one is recognized, so the others many times get welfare, and all that goes with it for their too many children. Personally, I think polygamy is very unrewarding for the women involved, and it stinks. We don't need it to survive as a society.

Basically in MO we don't have to change anything to survive as a society and that's the reason this is an uphill battle.

It's true we could offer gays civil unions, but this is an intrusion into our system of one man, one woman unions that is family-oriented. True, true gays can and do make good parents, and add many great things to society, and many of us love them dearly, but it seems we don't want our family structure tampered with hardly at all.

[Matt W]

Who is this 'we'? I'd say it very much depends on what country you live in....

[Praxius]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution, so the only one having authority to grant "marriage" to ANY couple, is the head of the religious institution. Last time I checked, the U.S. Government was not the head of the Christian religions.

Not really. Marriages between two people have been dated long before Christianity and many other religions.... and has been in place in some societies that had no real religion at all.

Religions just took it over and claimed it as their own.

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ As mentioned here, there are many religions which perform marriages, so to just allow the rules of Christianity to be the norm, isn't right.

And there are plenty of people who are not of any religion, yet still want to be married, and it's not always about money and tax breaks. Sometimes it's just to make the statement that you love the person you are with and you wish to spend your life with them.

Added:

I think I grabbed that as an old quote.... I thought I was on the last page.... my bad if I brought up a dead quote.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Matt W Who is this 'we'? I'd say it very much depends on what country you live in....

The original poster mentioned America. I guess he meant the US.

[kpow]

erm hi eberyone.
this is my first post....im scared

anyway, i read the first post and last few posts of this debate....i think it would take me about a week to read every post

so please forgive if what i say has been said 100 times befor :)

so my opinion on gay marriage.
i am myself a lesbian and the main thing i think about gay marriage is why
would anyone want to buy into something which as a whole discriminates
against them....however marriage has been embedded in the law.
civial partenerships for gay men and lesbians YES fantastic idea!
finally the same rights are straight couples......

ok so sorry just wanted to write my piece....also sorry if it makes no sense...
carry on with the debate :)

[Jack]

Welcome to Volconvo, kpow.
I, too, have wondered what it is about marriage that attracts so many people, gay and straight. In reading back through the thread, you may notice there are those who argue it's not the institution that appeals to them but rather the rights associated with it. In that case I can agree that the playing field should be level for all.

My partner and I have been together 30 years. As with many long-term relationships, ours is no longer sexual but instead we act like any other old married couple. The glaring exception is that the law does not recognize him as my legal partner for benefits and such.