Homosexual Marriage

[trixmix]

Quote by: Starboy gay couples already adopt

I know they do, that really chaps my hide!!!

They are already foster parents.

I don't know about that...

They already have gay sex. They have been doing this for some time now. Now here is something that may not have occured to you. It is not all that likely that your daughter would come across it because gays self segregate.They know most males can't handle it. They know that a person such as yourself just freaks out. They live in their own neigborhoods. They self seggregate .

What in the hell are you saying? They do not...They live amoungst us...and sometimes flamboyantly at that. But, thats not the point, I never said they should segregate anyways...

But I gotta tell you. As much as you think you are a sensitive twentyfirst century guy you are acting like a bigot.

Boy, do you have me all wrong...Nice judging of character...you are right, I am not a 'sensitive twentyfirst century guy' - I happen to be a logical, intelligent, thought-provoked WOMAN-AND, if I were acting like a bigot, I would be saying that I hate gays, which I specifically said that I did not...I also said that I really have no problem with them, as long as they don't flaunt things in my face...which they do...And the issue here is not whether or not we think being gay is acceptable or not, which I actually do not...And it's not about whether we think being gay is okay, which I actually do not, but to each his own...And it's not about if we like them or not, which incidentally - I have really good friends whom are gay, and I like them a lot, they are my friends...
The issue here is whether or not we feel as though they should be allowed to be married, which I absolutely do NOT!

Ahhhhhh! You are conflating so many unrelated issues. Gays do not want to get married because they seek society’s endorsement for their sexual practices. They could give a shit about that. They no more seek your approval for their practices then you seek their approval for your sexual practices. So get over the sex. You have such a dirty mind for a person who is creeped out so easily.

That is something you perceived, I never said anything of the sort, let's not talk about dirty minds, because I never even approched the topic of how they have sex...

Some people want to be with other people to be a family. It is not about kids, although it might be. But gnarly old people get married all the time. Some of them want sex. To many that is very creepy. They are not going to have children. Yet we allow them to get married. We allow them to be a family together and to have all the rights of a family. These rights have nothing to do with sex. A marriage license is not a sex license. It is a license to be a family. If you have a narrow view of what a family should be then that is your problem. My bet is that you should be more concerned about the sexual practices of hetero parents of your daughter’s class mates than from the very rare gay couple that may have adopted a child.

My issue with them not adopting kids is a far cry from the way they have sex. With any luck, most people do that behind closed doors, and not right in front of their kids, so that's not the issue, the main point of that is the normalacy of it, kids need to be accepted by their peers, and not teased...and as they are growing up, they need mommy's for certain things and daddy's for other things-they can't possibly have all those things if they are growing up with a gay couple for parents...bottom line.

You do not have to have a license to have sex. It doesn’t matter how kinky or strange the sex is. The marriage license is not about sex. It is about being a family.

Even without gay people, there is definitely a lot of kinky & strange going on in this world...As a matter of fact, I never even said gay people practice 'kinky & strange' sex...YOU did!

Also gays parading through streets is something they will do no matter what. However are you creeped out by gays dancing through your streets or by the pictures of gays that prance through the streets in their neighborhoods? Because you must not be so naive to think that broadcasters expect you to watch it like a car wreck? There is far worse done during carnival in Rio but that doesn’t seem to bother you. If they are prancing on their own streets and the media shows it to you and you watch then who has the problem here? You or the gays? Your aversion to gays is starting to look like a perversion regarding gays.

I suggest you stop speculating, because you have been wrong about me thus far...My issue, with this whole topic, is that I do not feel that gay people should be married...It just doesn't match the definition of marriage...which as I stated before is 'the practice of joining into a union together as husband (man) & wife (woman). PERIOD!
If you read my previous posts you will see that I did say that, fine...if they want the 'inheritance, insurance and legal aspects' that marrige brings...fine, give it to them...but, that apparently wont cut it...It's not about all that only, they are on the 'unfair pitypot' and want to be given the same rights as heterosexuals, and to be treated like they are the same as us, but, in all actuality they are not...because they are going against the grain of nature...So, be different...that's fine...But don't push it on everyone else. They don't want to be allowed to be married, just to have a family, they want to be on the same playing field as us...it's not our fault they are different...If I died my hair blue, I wouldn't sit around and get mad everytime I noticed that someone thought my hair was 'different', and get mad if they didn't include a check box for blue hair on applications asking for hair color. When someone is different, they are usually the ones who treat themselves different and then expect others to not see them that way...

[Starboy]

Quote by: trixmix What in the hell are you saying? They do not...They live amoungst us...and sometimes flamboyantly at that. But, thats not the point, I never said they should segregate anyways...

Gays work among the straits but they prefer to live in gay communities. They self segregate because they prefer to be comfortable when they are home in their communities and do not care to deal with the stares and comments of bigots. You see bigots usually don’t want to live there.

Boy, do you have me all wrong...Nice judging of character...you are right, I am not a 'sensitive twentyfirst century guy' - I happen to be a logical, intelligent, thought-provoked WOMAN-AND, if I were acting like a bigot, I would be saying that I hate gays, which I specifically said that I did not...I also said that I really have no problem with them, as long as they don't flaunt things in my face...which they do...And the issue here is not whether or not we think being gay is acceptable or not, which I actually do not...And it's not about whether we think being gay is okay, which I actually do not, but to each his own...And it's not about if we like them or not, which incidentally - I have really good friends whom are gay, and I like them a lot, they are my friends... The issue here is whether or not we feel as though they should be allowed to be married, which I absolutely do NOT!

Sorry for mistaking your gender. Say anything you like. Gays are not seeking your approval. They already live as they wish. What they want is their rights. They already have families. They live in their own communities and they have their own culture. What you think about that just doesn't matter to them. They just want their families to have the same rights as any other family. By denying marriage to gays you are relegating their families to second class families. No different to relegating blacks to second class citizens because of their color.

My issue with them not adopting kids is a far cry from the way they have sex. With any luck, most people do that behind closed doors, and not right in front of their kids, so that's not the issue, the main point of that is the normalacy of it, kids need to be accepted by their peers, and not teased...and as they are growing up, they need mommy's for certain things and daddy's for other things-they can't possibly have all those things if they are growing up with a gay couple for parents...bottom line.

Good luck on that. Kids do not need an excuse to be cruel little monsters. A kid can be tormented for the color of their hair just as much as who or what their parents are. The best thing for any child is to have loving parents. There are far too many heteros that take their ability to be parents for granted. Gays have to fight to be parents. They have to overcome the bigotry of people like you. But any two stupid, thoughtless, bigoted hetero couple can have a child and completely neglect it and as long as they stay within the law that is just peachy keen. You need to get over your irrational feelings and start thinking with your head.

My issue, with this whole topic, is that I do not feel that gay people should be married...It just doesn't match the definition of marriage...which as I stated before is 'the practice of joining into a union together as husband (man) & wife (woman). PERIOD! If you read my previous posts you will see that I did say that, fine...if they want the 'inheritance, insurance and legal aspects' that marrige brings...fine, give it to them...but, that apparently wont cut it...It's not about all that only, they are on the 'unfair pitypot' and want to be given the same rights as heterosexuals, and to be treated like they are the same as us, but, in all actuality they are not...because they are going against the grain of nature...

Like I said, they already have families. They are not asking for your permission to make a life long commitment to another person. They are already doing that. They just don’t want their families to be treated as second class families. They don’t want segregated marriage just as blacks didn’t want segregated schools. The fact that people like yourself do not want to recognize their families to be equivalent to hetero families and their life long commitments to be the same as hetero commitments just means that you are very much like a lot of other bigots. It is no different than saying that blacks should not be allowed the same social treatment as whites. It is bigotry.

So, be different...that's fine...But don't push it on everyone else. They don't want to be allowed to be married, just to have a family, they want to be on the same playing field as us...it's not our fault they are different...If I died my hair blue, I wouldn't sit around and get mad everytime I noticed that someone thought my hair was 'different', and get mad if they didn't include a check box for blue hair on applications asking for hair color. When someone is different, they are usually the ones who treat themselves different and then expect others to not see them that way...

They don’t care what you think. Isn’t that obvious to you? To them it is not about them getting you to accept them. They don’t care. All they want is their rights. In this country every one gets equal treatment. There are no second class citizens even if they do have blue hair. People are not supposed to be denied equal treatment because they are different. The problem is all yours. You find it creepy and that is all you see and it clouds your judgment. These people want their rights and you think that they are pushing it into your face. The gays are just like the suffragettes and the blacks that were in the face of people that thought that women or blacks shouldn’t get equal treatment. Why the idea of those uppity people demanding equal treatment!

You are such a bigot.

Starboy

[Sean]

Starboy, do not call people names like that. It only turns this discussion into a waste.

[Starboy]

Sean, sorry about that. But when it comes to equal rights, as an atheist, I am also a bigot. I am uncompromising about that.

Starboy

[caspian88]

I don't believe it's a civil rights issue, but I do think it should be allowed. However, I object to the word "marriage" as it is, so I'd be more comfortable with civil unions, for everyone. No legal "marriages." But that's just me being rabidly anti-religious.

[Osborn F Enready]

Caspian88 said:
I don't believe it's a civil rights issue, but I do think it should be allowed. However, I object to the word "marriage" as it is, so I'd be more comfortable with civil unions, for everyone. No legal "marriages." But that's just me being rabidly anti-religious.

I say:
Well, if the government is involved, it should not be called marriage then. It should not be called a marriage license either. All unions should be civil-unions to the government, since marriage is a religious term. All people who apply for a civil-union should get the same tax-friendly benefits as "married" couples do already. Then everyone is happy, right?

[Starboy]

Quote by: caspian88 I don't believe it's a civil rights issue, but I do think it should be allowed. However, I object to the word "marriage" as it is, so I'd be more comfortable with civil unions, for everyone. No legal "marriages." But that's just me being rabidly anti-religious.

I understand the church state issues but it is also a civil rights issue as well. Just as 'under god' in the pledge is a religious issue but the entire pledged is forced political speech and is unconstitutional as well. I don't see what the problem is here. When the religious have screwed up it doesn't have to be restricted to religious infractions. I would contend that the more that can be shown to be wrong with a practice the better the case that everyone would find cause to see it abolished.

Starboy

[tman_ndsu08]

Here's what I don't get: why do homosexuasl insist on having their relationships certified by the very institutions that are forsaking them in the first place?!

Why not just live together and call yourselves husband and husband or whatever you want?

[Starboy]

If you looked at all those gay marriages that were in the news they were not taking place in churches. It was city hall. There are all sorts of licenses, permits and certificates that one gets at city hall. All gays are asking is that they be allowed to get the same licenses that heteros get.

What people do not seem to get is that the lack of a marriage license has not stopped gays from acting married in every way. All it does it keep them from getting equal treatment under the law.

What the religious have done is conflate a civil license with a sacred ceremony performed in a church. Gays can already get married in churches; they just can’t get a marriage license from city hall. And without that license the state does not recognize them as a family.

The marriage license is not a sex license. It is not a children license. It is not a holy sacrament. All it is is the formal recognition from the state of a new family.

In every other way gays are already forming families and all they lack is that recognition from the state. They are being denied that recognition because of their sexual preference even though one or both of the members of the union my not be able to have sex at all. However hetero couples in the same boat have no trouble getting married. It is discriminatory.

But for some reason people have been blinded by the religious propaganda and do not understand what is actually being prohibited to gays.

Starboy

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Starboy If you looked at all those gay marriages that were in the news they were not taking place in churches. It was city hall. There are all sorts of licenses, permits and certificates that one gets at city hall. All gays are asking is that they be allowed to get the same licenses that heteros get. What people do not seem to get is that the lack of a marriage license has not stopped gays from acting married in every way. All it does it keep them from getting equal treatment under the law. What the religious have done is conflate a civil license with a sacred ceremony performed in a church. Gays can already get married in churches; they just can’t get a marriage license from city hall. And without that license the state does not recognize them as a family. The marriage license is not a sex license. It is not a children license. It is not a holy sacrament. All it is is the formal recognition from the state of a new family. In every other way gays are already forming families and all they lack is that recognition from the state. They are being denied that recognition because of their sexual preference even though one or both of the members of the union my not be able to have sex at all. However hetero couples in the same boat have no trouble getting married. It is discriminatory. But for some reason people have been blinded by the religious propaganda and do not understand what is actually being prohibited to gays. Starboy

I agree, but even so, why do they want to be formally recognized by the state? Screw the state! I say homos should give the state a huge middle finger and not let the state how to live their lives.

[trixmix]

Well, Starboy...
Whatever reasoning you want to come up with is just fine with me...Or better yet...call me a bigot, and that ends this conversation...A bigot is someone who has NO tolerance whatsoever...I never said that I could not even tolerate Gay people...
I just don't think that they should be married, and definitely do not think they should adopt kids...whatever 'other' rights that they are seeking, ie; inheritance & tax purposes & insurance, so be it, let them have them, those are their rights...But NO one can tell me that they have 'rights' to be married...judging by the definition of the word marriage, not by any religious spin, or government mumbo jumbo...they just shouldn't be married and raising kids as mommy & mommy or daddy & daddy...It will happen anyways so, I will be out numbered eventually...but is it so wrong to want to stick to traditional values? So what if they are old-fashioned?

[Starboy]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I agree, but even so, why do they want to be formally recognized by the state? Screw the state! I say homos should give the state a huge middle finger and not let the state how to live their lives.

Because there are a great number of rights that are granted to family members that are not available to non-family members. If you work for a company with a health plan they will only extend it to family members. If your spouse is ill and cannot make their own medical decisions then the hospital looks only to family members. When you retire and you die, your retirement benefits are only extended to family members. There are thousands of such cases where unless you are a family member you have no say even though you live in the same household, contribute equally to that household and have a life long commitment to the other person. And yes it is possible to use other instruments to try to extend these various rights to the other spouse but it can cost a lot of money, you may have to sue constantly and in many cases the institutions ignore it anyway because it is so out of the ordinary.

The state already has a mechanism to recognize the life long commitment of two people as a family. It is called a marriage license. The fact that it is deliberately denied to two people of the same sex that in every other way are married is just plain old discrimination.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: trixmix Well, Starboy... Whatever reasoning you want to come up with is just fine with me...Or better yet...call me a bigot, and that ends this conversation...A bigot is someone who has NO tolerance whatsoever...I never said that I could not even tolerate Gay people... I just don't think that they should be married, and definitely do not think they should adopt kids...whatever 'other' rights that they are seeking, ie; inheritance & tax purposes & insurance, so be it, let them have them, those are their rights...But NO one can tell me that they have 'rights' to be married...judging by the definition of the word marriage, not by any religious spin, or government mumbo jumbo...they just shouldn't be married and raising kids as mommy & mommy or daddy & daddy...It will happen anyways so, I will be out numbered eventually...but is it so wrong to want to stick to traditional values? So what if they are old-fashioned?

There is nothing wrong with traditional values. The question is whose traditions? And why should everyone follow your traditions? As long as you are free to follow your own traditions then what is the problem? Nobody is saying that you have to marry the same sex.

Starboy

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Starboy Because there are a great number of rights that are granted to family members that are not available to non-family members. If you work for a company with a health plan they will only extend it to family members. If your spouse is ill and cannot make their own medical decisions then the hospital looks only to family members. When you retire and you die, your retirement benefits are only extended to family members. There are thousands of such cases where unless you are a family member you have no say even though you live in the same household, contribute equally to that household and have a life long commitment to the other person. And yes it is possible to use other instruments to try to extend these various rights to the other spouse but it can cost a lot of money, you may have to sue constantly and in many cases the institutions ignore it anyway because it is so out of the ordinary. The state already has a mechanism to recognize the life long commitment of two people as a family. It is called a marriage license. The fact that it is deliberately denied to two people of the same sex that in every other way are married is just plain old discrimination. Starboy

Ah, that makes sense.

Well I can tell you one thing for sure: religion has pretty much infiltrated the morals of not only the politicos but the majority of citizens. They don't want it so pretty much there is nothing that can be done about it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Ah, that makes sense. Well I can tell you one thing for sure: religion has pretty much infiltrated the morals of not only the politicos but the majority of citizens. They don't want it so pretty much there is nothing that can be done about it.

I am afraid you are right. And do you know what the very sad thing about it is? All those smug traditionalists think that they stand for values. What they ignore is that there is more than one tradition in this country. There are the traditions that this country was built on, freedom, liberty and equal justice under the law. These values are not in the bible. They are not Christian values. What has happened is that religious values have usurped American values and the religious leaders of this country are actually working to destroy America and turn it into god's country. If there is freedom for all then this country is for all, not just the Christians but for everyone. All of us, gays, Christians, Hindus, atheists, young, old, black, white whatever. No matter how this turns out, history will look back on this time as the time America lost its values and was tricked by the bible thumpers.

Starboy

[samuel]

Hi everyone. Sorry for chiming in so late in the discussion. I'm new to this forum (in fact, this is my first post), so please forgive me any stylistic errors that I may have committed.

Quote by: trixmix What gay people are not understanding is, the more we push this lifestyle, the more we are stifling population growth...Not that it's even come close to making a dent in the population yet, but just think...The more gay couples there are, the less procreation that is going on...And let's face it, God designed us with the ability to have sexual relations-for what? For fun? Or wasn't there another purpose behind it? Oh yes, procreation, or basically, survival of the species. Just think of the extinction issues we'd have if the animal kingdom decided to follow 'gay lifestyles'...They would wipe themselves off the face of the earth...And we'd never be able to slowly bring back the condors or the pandas or whatever other animal that we've saved from being known only in museums and science textbooks.

The animal kingdom is full of homosexuality. For some reason this is not known to the educated public, but zoologists have been aware of it for centuries. More than 400 species have been noted to engage in homosexual activities. I could dig up references if I wanted to, but you should be fine with a simple Google search if you don't believe me.

As for homosexuality being a lifestyle, one that you're afraid your children might opt for if you told them it was OK rather than morally wrong, I suggest you start following the ongoing scientific discussion of the causes of homosexuality. Though there is still controversy surrounding the matter, it appears as if homosexuality has a genetic component, and it's pretty well established that it has a biological substratum. However, even if it were to be discovered that homosexuality was primarily a result of environmental factors, that it is somehow "chosen" will probably remain a very simplistic take on the matter.

Finally, the population problems we might face in the future are in all likelihood enormous, but they have little to do with gays. Substantially prolonged aging, improved treatment of diseases, reduced risks of infant deaths and miscarriages, and other factors, are likely to make population increase dramatically in all industrialized nations during the coming century. The human species dying out because of people "choosing" to be homosexual should be the least of your concerns. In fact, it should be a reason to welcome homosexuals, if you can find none better.

[trixmix]

Quote by: samuel Hi everyone. Sorry for chiming in so late in the discussion. I'm new to this forum (in fact, this is my first post), so please forgive me any stylistic errors that I may have committed. The animal kingdom is full of homosexuality. For some reason this is not known to the educated public, but zoologists have been aware of it for centuries. More than 400 species have been noted to engage in homosexual activities. I could dig up references if I wanted to, but you should be fine with a simple Google search if you don't believe me. As for homosexuality being a lifestyle, one that you're afraid your children might opt for if you told them it was OK rather than morally wrong, I suggest you start following the ongoing scientific discussion of the causes of homosexuality. Though there is still controversy surrounding the matter, it appears as if homosexuality has a genetic component, and it's pretty well established that it has a biological substratum. However, even if it were to be discovered that homosexuality was primarily a result of environmental factors, that it is somehow "chosen" will probably remain a very simplistic take on the matter. Finally, the population problems we might face in the future are in all likelihood enormous, but they have little to do with gays. Substantially prolonged aging, improved treatment of diseases, reduced risks of infant deaths and miscarriages, and other factors, are likely to make population increase dramatically in all industrialized nations during the coming century. The human species dying out because of people "choosing" to be homosexual should be the least of your concerns. In fact, it should be a reason to welcome homosexuals, if you can find none better.

I was going to shorten the quote from you to save space, but I think it deserves to be entire...Bravo! A valid argument for a change! Well, I wont even call it that, because I can't argue with you...scientific mumbo jumbo that I can't quote or site directly from, is the ONLY reason that I can even tolerate the fact that homosexuals exist...I too have heard that there is a biological reason for homosexuality, I tend to think it is more like a biological mishap...But nonetheless, there has been proven scientific studies that shows that this is something the person is born with, and not hereditary...so really I needn't worry about some gay couple-using their eggs/sperm for creating a baby, because I don't think they've proven that it can run in families...And when I say that by 'putting it out there' so to speak, and allowing them to marry-making the whole thing more prevelent in society-could cause my children to 'chose' to be gay, I admit I was speaking from my head, and not my brain. Deep down I know that these scientific facts exist, but my 'old-fashioned' mind & soul, wants me to believe otherwise...so, I do tend to forget that people have told me about the biological aspect of this issue. In defense of myself, I will say that I have never really researched the entire thing out myself, so a lot of my explaination here is based on 2nd hand information, but from very smart people.

At this point, to some, it may look as though I am quite ignorant for knowing other aspects of the subject at hand, and still arguing the whole thing out in here, but...like I said, I myself have not researched much into it.

So with that said, I guess that we can deduct. That maybe in the bigger scheme of things-God, if you chose to believe in such a being, actually created homosexuality. Or perhaps it was meshed into his design somehow, to slowly but surely gain prevelence...as it has been doing, so that it could catch up to the human race as it advances-medically and technologically. In the fact that, as Samuel stated, population is bound to increase...as it has been doing, as mankind continues to advance in many aspects of health and science. Homosexuality is a nifty little way to keep population down. I stated before that it would take a Hell of a lot more homosexuality to even make a dent in the present population, but...if it continues to gain acceptance in society, perhaps it will be substantial enough to keep us safe from overpopulating to the point of 'no more room'.

When Samuel stated it should be a reason to welcome homosexuals, if you can find none better It kind of opens my eyes to a reason for gays, and gives me a little bit of comfort, knowing that - now God has at least given me an answer to all this. It makes a little bit more sense to me now. I apologize to the nonbelievers that I proceed to tie in the GOD thing, but it is something I kind of need in life to help me understand. Because when something troubles me, I always want to find a reason in the 'big scheme of things' why...and usually, if I have faith that he will show me, he always does.

[tman_ndsu08]

Please keep church and state separate!

God's morals have no place in determining our country's laws.

[trixmix]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Please keep church and state separate! God's morals have no place in determining our country's laws.

Sure, great TMan...Don't spout off quotes that have no relevance here...
I'll give you that, God's Morals have no place in determining laws, but, I don't think that my personal revelation has any influence on the law, nor did I include God when I spoke about what or what not the law should be...

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Suburbanite You're getting far too wrapped up in the suffix "phobe". It isn't like fear of falling or fear of spiders. It is a fear of social changes from sexual deviance. Someone who fears the definition change of Marriage is being homophobic. It doesn't lock anyone into debate whatsoever. It isn't used in a way any different than you have called people liberals. Remember Political Correctness is a bipartisan affair. Liberals have their words, sure, but Conservatives are not without their own either. As for the design of Politically Correct language it is actually based off the philosophy of post-modernism by Richard Rorty who explains that how we describe the world is with language, and what that language is will change our outlook. If instead of saying retarded we say mentally challenged than society as a whole will feel obligated to empathize. That said, homophobia is not a politically correct word, it does not fit within the philosophy of political correctness whatsoever. Homophobia is a defensive labeling of those who disrupt the would-be rights of homosexuals.

Let's break it (homophobia) down into its component parts:

Homo = same (the Greek word "homo") or any of a genus of hominids (the Latin "homo")

+ Phobia = fear of
Fear of the same or fear of hominids


Hence, "homophobe" is a person who fears the same or fears other hominids.