Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

**Jack** · Jun 2, 2007, 01:21 pm

So it does just because you say it does? Insufficient. Please provide evidence or support for your conjecture.

italiangm · Jun 2, 2007, 02:27 pm

Quote:

Quote by: texasdave

Which person loves you more? The one who tells you to wear a setbelt when you drive too fast or the one who tells you to wear a seatbelt AND drive slower? If the behavior is the main risk then it is the source of the danger and it is the behavior that must be changed. Wearing a seat belt or a condom may make it safer to do dangerous behavior but it does not mitigate the risk until the behavior is changed. Slow down when you drive and stay away from homosexual behavior. THAT is loving someone.

I can't believe you consider this dreck to represent the real world, much less an indictment against homosexual marriage.

My homosexual 'behavior' with my partner of 11 years is safer than driving with any seatbelt at any speed. Why? Because we're both HIV-negative and monogamous.

If either of us were HIV+, we still wouldn't be spreading HIV because we'd be keeping it to ourselves.

Your logic escapes me. I suspect it even escapes you.

Dirty Name · Jun 3, 2007, 03:45 pm

Quote:

As a single female entering the dating scene, I have more of a chance of contracting a social disease than a committed, monogamous gay couple.

Apples and oranges.

Compare you, as a single female entering the dating scene against a single male entering the gay dating scene.

megadeth425 · Jun 3, 2007, 03:55 pm

Most anti-gay marriage arguments reference the Bible and Jesus. However, the real issue is whether or not the laws bear on a reason other than religion. Most people I've met who're against it reference the bible, but no longer do we live in a social theocracy, nor is there a single religion that has a great amount of social bearing. Different religions and ideals are converging, so if the best argument is that the Bible says it's not good, then it should be legalised simply on that ground.If the Bible's right and gay people burn in Hell for what they've done, then they burn. But Jesus doesn't run the government.

Dirty Name · Jun 3, 2007, 03:57 pm

Quote:

But Jesus doesn't run the government.

Just click the link below, genius.

megadeth425 · Jun 3, 2007, 04:10 pm

Well, in a society where marriages fail, many children are born ut of "wedlock", and many more couples are having less children, this aim is becoming far les important. Also, you mention women "sacricficing their careers and health to fraise well-adjusted children". I can safle say that my parents were not married, I've seen my father only once, and I am wll-adjusted, in contrast to people whose parents stayed togetehr only for the child and fought constantly.
Many countries require that you be married to adopt a child. In a society where gay marriage isn't allowed, it becomes at times impossible or two people perfectly capable of raising a child well to do so. If you were given the choice between a loving family and to sped your life an orphan or jugglded through the foster system, what would you pick? And countless children don't get that oppurtunity based purely on the fact that two people in lovde can't get married.
I can go out and get a woman pregnant without any need for an expensive ceremony or a piece of paper legally calling me married. Marriage is simply a document that, in modern society, has lost most of its meaning.

Maryjane · Jun 3, 2007, 11:16 pm

Quote:

I can't believe you consider this dreck to represent the real world, much less an indictment against homosexual marriage.

Italiangm,

I wasn't going to dignify that absurd comparison with a reply.

I don't have to tell you, homophobes think they have every right to be concerned what you in the privacy of your bedroom but God forbid anyone question them on what they do in theirs. To them you are just disease spreading sinners, you have no rights for it's GODS LAW. I'd have more respect for them if they just came out and said "gay sex creeps me out." At least they are being honest.

Here's another one, but I can't resist being sarcastic.

Quote:

Compare you, as a single female entering the dating scene against a single male entering the gay dating scene.

And your point is? Ah, that's right, homophobia. I already sited the various stigmas surrounding homosexuality. :rolleyes:

I guess if I were homophobic, as a female, I'd be more inclined to worry about the statistics of single gay females entering the dating scene. I mean, after all, I can always "switch teams." Homosexuality is a choice right? :rolleyes:

And if it's the gay men spreading disease people are fixated on, is it OK if the lesbians marry? I'm willing to bet their STD statistics are lower than gays males and heretosexual couples. Besides, we all know how hot girl on girl sex is.

:rolleyes:

Vivid · Jun 4, 2007, 12:05 am

Legalize it.

Churches should not be obligated to perform homosexual marriage or to honor it in their religious ideology the same way that they honor hetero marriage.

But the church should be separate from the government. And, in a place that claims freedom of religion, no one church or type of church has the right to dominate the laws in such a way. There are many many many kinds of churches. Some churches, such as Unitarian churches, would probably perform gay marriages. Obviously, many Christian / Catholic churches would not. The government should not favor the beliefs of any religion just because it is the belief of a religion, especially not over the beliefs of other religions. So the government should not forbid homosexual marriage to churches that will perform it.

Everyone should always have the right to their own opinion on whether the homosexual marriages were frowned or smiled upon by God, and whether the churches performing them are truly holy or not, but the government doesn't belong in the fray making rules against "abominations" that are defined as such only by religious ideologies, not science or ethics.

megadeth425 · Jun 4, 2007, 05:39 am

And on the subject raised earlier about gay couples unable to reproduce, surrogates and, if it's two women, artificial insemination make it possible.

texasdave · Jun 4, 2007, 11:28 am

Unless you can get sperm from a lesbian then surrogates and artificial insemination are not valid arguments. No matter what dream-world scenerio you come up with only one homosexual person in a relationship is going to be a biological parent to any one child. Homosexual "parents" cannot be natural parents. They can only be parent( singular) and "other". Only by artificial means can you pound that square peg into a round hole. It does not harm homosexuals to be denied marriage, it does not benefit society for homosexuals to get marriage. Therefore, they do not need it and the government sure doesn't need the expense or headache of dealing with it.

italiangm · Jun 4, 2007, 11:41 am

Quote:

Quote by: texasdave

It does not harm homosexuals to be denied marriage, it does not benefit society for homosexuals to get marriage. Therefore, they do not need it and the government sure doesn't need the expense or headache of dealing with it.

You keep repeating this statement as if it will somehow become true. Many posters here have clearly stated both the harm done to homosexuals by not granting gay marriage, and the benefits to society by granting gay marriage.

Unless you can come up with better support, you have done nothing to advance or your side's argument, nor bested the pro-gay marriage argument. You're simply regurgitating the same old stuff that's been addressed and dismissed long ago in these pages.

texasdave · Jun 4, 2007, 01:48 pm

In what way does not getting married harm homosexuals?

italiangm · Jun 4, 2007, 04:39 pm

Quote:

Quote by: texasdave

In what way does not getting married harm homosexuals?

Many folks, including myself, detailed these issues within this discussion thread many times. Use the search feature.

megadeth425 · Jun 4, 2007, 05:24 pm

Quote:

Unless you can get sperm from a lesbian then surrogates and artificial insemination are not valid arguments. No matter what dream-world scenerio you come up with only one homosexual person in a relationship is going to be a biological parent to any one child. Homosexual "parents" cannot be natural parents. They can only be parent( singular) and "other". Only by artificial means can you pound that square peg into a round hole. It does not harm homosexuals to be denied marriage, it does not benefit society for homosexuals to get marriage. Therefore, they do not need it and the government sure doesn't need the expense or headache of dealing with it.

But surrogacy/articificial insemination make one a parent, and marriage would allow the other as a step-parent. Two people don't need different genitals to function as capable parents.

Hmm · Jun 4, 2007, 05:56 pm

Quote:

Quote by: texasdave

Unless you can get sperm from a lesbian then surrogates and artificial insemination are not valid arguments. No matter what dream-world scenerio you come up with only one homosexual person in a relationship is going to be a biological parent to any one child. Homosexual "parents" cannot be natural parents. They can only be parent( singular) and "other". Only by artificial means can you pound that square peg into a round hole. It does not harm homosexuals to be denied marriage, it does not benefit society for homosexuals to get marriage. Therefore, they do not need it and the government sure doesn't need the expense or headache of dealing with it.

Homosexual couples could adopt, y'know...

Jubloz · Jun 5, 2007, 03:55 am

I clicked 'a celebration of diversity'. I realize I'm just being picky, but 'anyone should be able to marry anyone' could include an elderly woman marrying a newborn child. I really don't see an issue between the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Matts · Jun 5, 2007, 11:11 am

Quote:

Quote by: Dirty Name

Apples and oranges.

Compare you, as a single female entering the dating scene against a single male entering the gay dating scene.

Who said anything about entering the gay scene? Entering a steady relationship with another man does not require any contact with any aspect of the gay scene whatsoever. The gay scene is a creature of heterosexism which has emerged from the total lack of marriage-like social, cultural and institutional structures for homosexuality in society. You know, the same structures that societies have carefully refined to their present form in order to prevent heterosexuality from being completely rampant.

texasdave · Jun 5, 2007, 02:57 pm

matts,
Put a plus at the beginning of what you last posted and a minus at the other end and you'd have nothing in between.

**Matt W** · Jun 5, 2007, 04:55 pm

And that's a serious debate point how, exactly? :rolleyes:

texasdave · Jun 5, 2007, 06:09 pm

It's a little jab. Not a real point. Keeps things fun.
Hmm,
Homosexual couples should not adopt. That is just a way for them to convert straights into gays. They are sometimes quite aggressive about that.

View Poll Results: In my opinion, homosexual marriage is
A civil rights issue. Anyone should be able to marry anyone	328	44.09%
A distraction from the real issues of government	91	12.23%
An unacceptable redefinition of a traditional concept	77	10.35%
Morally wrong since homosexuality is morally wrong	99	13.31%
A private matter between the couple and their minister	64	8.60%
Other-I will explain below	60	8.06%
A celebration of diversity	25	3.36%
Voters: 744. You may not vote

Jun 2, 2007, 01:21 pm	#4401 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 13,732	So it does just because you say it does? Insufficient. Please provide evidence or support for your conjecture. The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)

Jun 3, 2007, 03:55 pm	#4404 (permalink) (top)
megadeth425 Air Guitar Hero Location: Canada Posts: 99	Most anti-gay marriage arguments reference the Bible and Jesus. However, the real issue is whether or not the laws bear on a reason other than religion. Most people I've met who're against it reference the bible, but no longer do we live in a social theocracy, nor is there a single religion that has a great amount of social bearing. Different religions and ideals are converging, so if the best argument is that the Bible says it's not good, then it should be legalised simply on that ground.If the Bible's right and gay people burn in Hell for what they've done, then they burn. But Jesus doesn't run the government. "People always associate long hair with drug use. I wish long hair was associated with something other than drug use, like an extreme longing for cake." ~Mitch Hedberg

Jun 3, 2007, 04:10 pm	#4406 (permalink) (top)
megadeth425 Air Guitar Hero Location: Canada Posts: 99	Well, in a society where marriages fail, many children are born ut of "wedlock", and many more couples are having less children, this aim is becoming far les important. Also, you mention women "sacricficing their careers and health to fraise well-adjusted children". I can safle say that my parents were not married, I've seen my father only once, and I am wll-adjusted, in contrast to people whose parents stayed togetehr only for the child and fought constantly. Many countries require that you be married to adopt a child. In a society where gay marriage isn't allowed, it becomes at times impossible or two people perfectly capable of raising a child well to do so. If you were given the choice between a loving family and to sped your life an orphan or jugglded through the foster system, what would you pick? And countless children don't get that oppurtunity based purely on the fact that two people in lovde can't get married. I can go out and get a woman pregnant without any need for an expensive ceremony or a piece of paper legally calling me married. Marriage is simply a document that, in modern society, has lost most of its meaning. "People always associate long hair with drug use. I wish long hair was associated with something other than drug use, like an extreme longing for cake." ~Mitch Hedberg

Jun 4, 2007, 05:39 am	#4409 (permalink) (top)
megadeth425 Air Guitar Hero Location: Canada Posts: 99	And on the subject raised earlier about gay couples unable to reproduce, surrogates and, if it's two women, artificial insemination make it possible. "People always associate long hair with drug use. I wish long hair was associated with something other than drug use, like an extreme longing for cake." ~Mitch Hedberg

Jun 4, 2007, 12:05 am	#4408 (permalink) (top)
Vivid Molten Ash Posts: 38	Legalize it. Churches should not be obligated to perform homosexual marriage or to honor it in their religious ideology the same way that they honor hetero marriage. But the church should be separate from the government. And, in a place that claims freedom of religion, no one church or type of church has the right to dominate the laws in such a way. There are many many many kinds of churches. Some churches, such as Unitarian churches, would probably perform gay marriages. Obviously, many Christian / Catholic churches would not. The government should not favor the beliefs of any religion just because it is the belief of a religion, especially not over the beliefs of other religions. So the government should not forbid homosexual marriage to churches that will perform it. Everyone should always have the right to their own opinion on whether the homosexual marriages were frowned or smiled upon by God, and whether the churches performing them are truly holy or not, but the government doesn't belong in the fray making rules against "abominations" that are defined as such only by religious ideologies, not science or ethics.

Jun 4, 2007, 11:28 am	#4410 (permalink) (top)
texasdave BANNED Location: Texas Posts: 731	Unless you can get sperm from a lesbian then surrogates and artificial insemination are not valid arguments. No matter what dream-world scenerio you come up with only one homosexual person in a relationship is going to be a biological parent to any one child. Homosexual "parents" cannot be natural parents. They can only be parent( singular) and "other". Only by artificial means can you pound that square peg into a round hole. It does not harm homosexuals to be denied marriage, it does not benefit society for homosexuals to get marriage. Therefore, they do not need it and the government sure doesn't need the expense or headache of dealing with it.

Jun 4, 2007, 01:48 pm	#4412 (permalink) (top)
texasdave BANNED Location: Texas Posts: 731	In what way does not getting married harm homosexuals?

Jun 5, 2007, 03:55 am	#4416 (permalink) (top)
Jubloz Zolbuj Location: California Posts: 1,267	I clicked 'a celebration of diversity'. I realize I'm just being picky, but 'anyone should be able to marry anyone' could include an elderly woman marrying a newborn child. I really don't see an issue between the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

Jun 5, 2007, 02:57 pm	#4418 (permalink) (top)
texasdave BANNED Location: Texas Posts: 731	matts, Put a plus at the beginning of what you last posted and a minus at the other end and you'd have nothing in between.

Jun 5, 2007, 04:55 pm	#4419 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,763	And that's a serious debate point how, exactly? :rolleyes: I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Jun 5, 2007, 06:09 pm	#4420 (permalink) (top)
texasdave BANNED Location: Texas Posts: 731	It's a little jab. Not a real point. Keeps things fun. Hmm, Homosexual couples should not adopt. That is just a way for them to convert straights into gays. They are sometimes quite aggressive about that.