Homosexual Marriage

[Chancellor]

Quote by: marco_funk In my opinion, as far as I can say from what I know, is that government should not be in the marriage business. Let local communities/religious/culture groups make these types of decisions. The government should be in the business of keeping order within its borders; that is, order between the diverse groups that live there, whether they permit homosexual marriages or not. The government is not there to push morality but rather to keep the peace as the people work out there problems and enjoy life.

If government gets out of the marriage business then it cannot grant any benefits on the basis of marriage, e.g., legal recognition as next of kin, a lesser tax rate than singles (discriminating against singles), rights regarding children, inheritance rights, etc. Let's just cut all of it and save billions of dollars.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: trixmix That is a concept I will never grasp, nor do I think that it should even be an issue...Frankly, I am getting quite sick & tired of hearing about it...Marriage is a union between a man & a woman...PERIOD...If the gays want their 'domestic partner' arrangements to be able to include death benefits, inheritance issues, insurance etc. etc. so be it...I can deal with that, and do feel that they are entitled to these things if they are in a long term relationship, I suppose. But, let's not take the sanctity of marriage and rewrite it's definition and what it stands for...True, lately 'marriage' has become a term for combining two things together, as in restaurants-when they combine 1/2 ketchup bottles together, they call it 'marrying the ketchup'...which is all fine & dandy...When I am in a hurry I describe it to others that I was flying, it doesn't mean that I grew wings & actually 'flew'. But, when we are talking about 'marriage'...the true definition is 'to join as a union as husband & wife' (husband being defined as the 'male' partner in a marriage, and wife - the 'female' partner in a marriage)...There is no bending that! We don't classify grown people as adults, and youth as minors and have a third classification of minors that are acting as adults, or vice versa. It's cut & dry...a marriage is a union of 'husband' and 'wife' or man & woman...bottom line. They can't have their cake & eat it too...They are in a lifestyle that takes them out of the norm...They cannot be 'married' nor should they be allowed to adopt children. (which I might add, is one of the main reasons that I definitely don't advocate gay marriage) 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. Unless, of course we started artificially inseminating them, or even more macabe-we could allow them the right to 'same sex-same species' marriage, then perhaps they would be allowed to adopt offspring...and continue on with their existance....before being extinct.

I don't want them to have any kind of rights or benefits (except for some of what we give to people who are disabled): homosexuality is contrary to nature and, thus, is something to be treated not celebrated. It's basic biology: the natural order of things is that male and female mate; male and male do not mate, nor do female and female.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Thanks for your opinion Trix, check out the law, and who defines it. (the government) Check out the word marriage.(its religious) Who defines it? (The church) It is up to the church to define marriage, it is not the auspice of the Federal Government, nor is it within the bounds of authority granted to it by the Constitution.

And who is the government? WE the PEOPLE!

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Sandy I was going to post something here but when faced with homophobia, I decided to let it go. I feel sorry for so many of you who were trained with hatred in your hearts for others who are different. Shakespeare had a wonderful quote for you people. "In nature there's no blemish but the mind, none can be called deformed but the unkind." I fear that you will pass on your phobias to your children and America will stay over in the corner of ignorance.

There you go being a typical liberal! Get this through your liberal brain: DISAGREEMENT IS NOT HATE! Now, go sit in the corner and say that to yourself until it sinks in: DISAGREEMENT IS NOT HATE!

Further, phobia means FEAR OF: none of us here have a fear of "homo" (defined as either "the same," based on the Greek, or "any genus of hominids," based on the Latin). If you can't even use the right terminology (right as in what the word actually means and not the liberals' wrong application of it).

Do I hate homosexuals? No. Do I pity them? Yes. Why? Because so many of them are deceived into believing the lie that their unnatural condition (with which they were NOT born but, rather, was caused during childhood, though embracing and acting on it was entirely their choice) is actually natural, normal and something to be embraced and celebrated; I pity them because, so long as they remain homosexual, they can never inherit the kingdom of God.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Chancellor There you go being a typical liberal! Get this through your liberal brain: DISAGREEMENT IS NOT HATE! Now, go sit in the corner and say that to yourself until it sinks in: DISAGREEMENT IS NOT HATE! Further, phobia means FEAR OF: none of us here have a fear of "homo" (defined as either "the same," based on the Greek, or "any genus of hominids," based on the Latin). If you can't even use the right terminology (right as in what the word actually means and not the liberals' wrong application of it). Do I hate homosexuals? No. Do I pity them? Yes. Why? Because so many of them are deceived into believing the lie that their unnatural condition (with which they were NOT born but, rather, was caused during childhood, though embracing and acting on it was entirely their choice) is actually natural, normal and something to be embraced and celebrated; I pity them because, so long as they remain homosexual, they can never inherit the kingdom of God.

God told me he hates you.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Matt W Trixmix:- Who says gays are not morally right? They're just different, surely. Stressing to your kids that it's a wrong choice...well. If one of them turns out to be gay, then you've guilt-tripped them about their sexual preferences, and they will probably feel unable to talk to you about it, as you've condemned them from day 1. Is that a particularly good approach?

First of all, while sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) is not something with which anyone is born, neither is it chosen. Rather, it is something that develops during childhood. However, what it really comes down to is basic human biology: mating is between male and female ONLY and not between males or between females. That is what you teach the kids. If they happen to start developing an unnatural attraction, you have it treated.

[Chancellor]

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.

It still doesn't make it natural or normal. It is an abberration and should be treated as such. Further, I find your comparison of humans to mere animals to be offensive: we humans are NOT animals: we are superior to animals! Further, in humans the BEHAVIOR is chosen (though the underlying unnatural attraction is caused).

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Chancellor First of all, while sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual or otherwise) is not something with which anyone is born, neither is it chosen. Rather, it is something that develops during childhood. However, what it really comes down to is basic human biology: mating is between male and female ONLY and not between males or between females. That is what you teach the kids. If they happen to start developing an unnatural attraction, you have it treated.

God sure didn't help "treat" those pastors who molested little boys, did he?

[Osborn F Enready]

Chancellor said:
And who is the government? WE the PEOPLE!

I say:
Ahhhhh yes, reflecting back on the good old days again. If only it were true today, eh?

[PDJane]

Frankly, homosexuality has remained a constant percentage of the population since the beginning of man. There is a saint in the orthodox tradition who had a male partner, and the union was blessed by the church. In fact, such unions weren't seen as "wrong" until the sixteenth century.

You can decry it, you can call it warped, you can name it whatever you please. It will not change the facts, and the fact is that you cannot stamp out homosexuality any more than you can stamp out left-handedness.

Allowing same sex unions merely allows two committed people to provide for one another. No, that cannot be done entirely through legal documents, as the courts can overturn the same as long as there is no marriage. For example, the family may succeed in overturning the wishes of the partners in court, especially when it concerns powers of attorney.

I do not believe that the government should simply bow out of any and all things to do with marriage, taxes, and succession rights. In that way lies anarchy. Taxes .....and the governments they support...are the price one pays for living in a civilized society.

I also have a problem with religious dogma (any religion, yours, mine or theirs) becoming the law of the land. There is a good and fine reason that church and state should be separate.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: PDJane Frankly, homosexuality has remained a constant percentage of the population since the beginning of man. There is a saint in the orthodox tradition who had a male partner, and the union was blessed by the church. In fact, such unions weren't seen as "wrong" until the sixteenth century. You can decry it, you can call it warped, you can name it whatever you please. It will not change the facts, and the fact is that you cannot stamp out homosexuality any more than you can stamp out left-handedness. Allowing same sex unions merely allows two committed people to provide for one another. No, that cannot be done entirely through legal documents, as the courts can overturn the same as long as there is no marriage. For example, the family may succeed in overturning the wishes of the partners in court, especially when it concerns powers of attorney. I do not believe that the government should simply bow out of any and all things to do with marriage, taxes, and succession rights. In that way lies anarchy. Taxes .....and the governments they support...are the price one pays for living in a civilized society. I also have a problem with religious dogma (any religion, yours, mine or theirs) becoming the law of the land. There is a good and fine reason that church and state should be separate.

Before I respond, let my just list some of the assumptions I'm making concerning your thoughts. Please correct me if I am wrong.

1. You are not God. (and, therefore, you don't know everything. I have no proof that you are not God, but, of course, if you are I apologize.)

2. You are not thousands of years old (and, therefore, you do not have first hand knowledge of what you are speaking about.)

3. You do not have a time machine (and, therefore, no way of collecting data that might bolster your case.)

Having said that, so what? For that matter, who cares if there has been a homosexual on the earth every moment of its existence?

No one reasonable expects to stamp out sin. Any more than any sensible person expects to eliminate war, or poverty, or murder, or foul language, or cannibalism, or pollution, or racism, or government corruption, or pedophilia, or theft, or any of the other human evils that exist. The fact remains that wrong is not right. And whatever excuse persons commiting those acts may offer changes nothing at all.

[PDJane]

Back up. What I am saying is that the written record says that same-sex unions have been around for a long time. I am telling you that, according to the written record, the approximate percentages of gay and lesbians has remained pretty much constant over time. According to the written record, such unions were 'normal' in civilizations as disparate as the First Nations peoples of North America and the Asian culture of the Japanese.

I am telling you that homosexuality is no more a sin than left-handedness. It just is.

Whether you wish to consider it a sin, of course, is your prerogative. It's a ridiculous and anachronistic approach, but still your prerogative!

However, that isn't the issue at hand. You cannot outlaw same gender sexual unions. It's simply not possible. You can shove it in the closet, you can (if you stretch your morals in the way that some of the evangelists do) murder these people, you can do whatever you wish........but you cannot stamp out homosexuality. Nor will murder solve the problem; the same number of homosexuals/lesbians will come in each generation, will ye, nill ye.

Nor can you equate homosexuality with murder. Murder, rapine, and mayhem are aberrations which wax and wane with the tolerance of the civilization involved......and the percentages of offenders differ from culture to culture.

That simply is not so with homosexuality and lesbianism.

[Waychel]

I am against the federal recognition of gay marriage because I see it bringing more abuse than benefit to the legal institution of marriage as a whole. The fact of the matter is that nobody is denying homosexuals the right to get married; we are only denying them federal recognition as a married couple. Rights to property, control of assets in the event of incapacitation, inheritance among many other things are benefits to marriage that can be established within a living trust for a homosexual couple. What are homosexuals being denied in the end? The social security benefits of their spouse.

Considering that every sociological study ever conducted upon the homosexual community substantiates the conclusion that they are both promiscuous as much as they are at the highest chance of any social group to contract AIDs, the risk is exceptionally high that homosexuals would marry other homosexuals to benefit from the event of their death. Similarly, the social roles in homosexual relationships are far different from the social roles in heterosexual relationships, which the regulation of entitlement to community property and alimony were formulated in consideration to. The entire legal process in this regard would come into question.

Most damning of all to me however, is the grounds in which homosexuals argue that they be allowed the right to marry. If we place no descrimination upon the legal institution of marriage regarding gender, then how may we continue to descriminate upon it regarding the issue of numbers? The Mormons were arguing the issue of marriage long before the Homosexual community ever became widely established in the country. If we were to give federal recognition to gay marriage under the pretenses of "equality", then we would then need to relinquish this same right to polygamist groups. Once again, the issue of alimony and community property becomes of greater issue. Similarly, how could we continue to argue the issues of adultery and bigomy in relation to divorce?

Marriage as recognized by law essentially comes down to being about law. If homosexuals are going to argue against it, then they need to address the issue of how marriage law protects people and how the submission of their social group may infringe upon that. Just my two cents...

[tinybear]

"Considering that every sociological study ever conducted upon the homosexual community substantiates the conclusion that they are both promiscuous as much as they are at the highest chance of any social group to contract AIDs"?

Is this true though? Name one or two of these studies please?

Personally, I'm not for homosexual relationships, but as long as they don't affect me, they can do whatever they like.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: PDJane Back up. What I am saying is that the written record says that same-sex unions have been around for a long time. I am telling you that, according to the written record, the approximate percentages of gay and lesbians has remained pretty much constant over time. According to the written record, such unions were 'normal' in civilizations as disparate as the First Nations peoples of North America and the Asian culture of the Japanese.

Academicians are really arrogant SOBs. Since there is no possible way for any historian to have figured out the pre-historical ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals (as explained above,) any claim made on the subject must, of neccessity, be a guess. An "educated" guess is still a guess.

:eek:

Even considering that, I have never read anywhere that "being a homosexual" was considered normal. Many pagan cultures treated exclusively homosexual persons with hostility and scorn.

I am telling you that homosexuality is no more a sin than left-handedness. It just is. Whether you wish to consider it a sin, of course, is your prerogative. It's a ridiculous and anachronistic approach, but still your prerogative!

I don't decide something is a sin just because I want it to be one. In fact, I don't claim to decide what is a sin or what is not.

However, that isn't the issue at hand. You cannot outlaw same gender sexual unions. It's simply not possible. You can shove it in the closet, you can (if you stretch your morals in the way that some of the evangelists do) murder these people, you can do whatever you wish........but you cannot stamp out homosexuality. Nor will murder solve the problem; the same number of homosexuals/lesbians will come in each generation, will ye, nill ye Nor can you equate homosexuality with murder. Murder, rapine, and mayhem are aberrations which wax and wane with the tolerance of the civilization involved......and the percentages of offenders differ from culture to culture. That simply is not so with homosexuality and lesbianism.

PDJane, it seems I didn't fully make my point. I no more expect that homosexuality will be erradicated than I expect for war, poverty, murder, etc. to be erradicated.

And, frankly, I feel that raising such a point is a dishonest and misleading debate tactic. No one has suggested that homosexuality be outlawed (although it would save us a lot of trouble.) Nor does anyone sensible think that the law can eliminate whatever evil is under discussion (obviously socialists/progressives are excluded from this category of persons.)

Homosexuality can be equated with murder as it is just one of a number of such acts that deny that human beings are not animals, but are above them. Which is why every justification of it stems from some supposed inability to chose who to have sex with. Defending such actions based on the primitive, canabilistic, tribal warfare, pagan dominated past isn't helpful. Neither is embracing the bad and calling it tolerance.

[tinybear]

High Court Sidesteps Gay Adoption


THE NEWS: The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by four men who challenged Florida's ban on adoption by gay couples, avoiding another contentious fight over gay rights.

OPPOSING SIDES: Supporters contend the state has the power to promote traditional father-mother families. Opponents argued the law was irrational because it excluded potential parents for thousands of abandoned children.

BY THE NUMBERS: Florida had more than 8,000 children awaiting adoption in fiscal 2002, while there were 126,000 nationwide, the Child Welfare League of America's attorney Stuart Delery said.

[Morpheus]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Even considering that, I have never read anywhere that "being a homosexual" was considered normal

IIRC, homosexuality was an accepted practice in ancient Greece. Your'e right though that the claim that the percentage of population which is homosexual has remained constant throughout time is a claim that cannot be substantiated as most societies didn't keep that detailed of a census. You would think that random chance would produce at least small variations.

Homosexuality can be equated with murder as it is just one of a number of such acts that deny that human beings are not animals, but are above them.

I don't see how that "equates" it with murder or even shows that homosexuality is in any sense immoral.

Which is why every justification of it stems from some supposed inability to chose who to have sex with.

Not in my case. I see no reason to condemn homosexuality whether it is genetic, voluntary or otherwise. So long as such relations are consensual there's no problem with it - they're not harming anyone. Ethically speaking, it's no different from relations between people of opposite sexes.

This applies to gay marriage, too. The state shouldn't be regulating who can or cannot get married or otherwise micromanaging our private parts. It would be better to remove marriage from the realm of the law altogether, but short of that legalizing gay marriage is a step in the right direction.

[tinybear]

What about gay adoption? How important is it for a kid to grow up in a traditional mom-dad family?

[samuel]

Quote by: Chancellor 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.

I'm not going to weigh in on this debate with a precise definition of the word "homophobe", but I think it should be noted that you cannot "derive" the meaning of a word from the meaning its component parts (once) had. For example, a "fag" was once a bunch of sticks, and a bunch of sticks only. Now it has an additional meaning. Etymology can certainly be used to gain insights about how the present meaning of a certain word evolved, but the kind of brute force analysis you're using is naive at best, grossly misleading at worst. There's a reason linguists differentiate between synchronic and diachronic approaches.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: tinybear What about gay adoption? How important is it for a kid to grow up in a traditional mom-dad family?

How important is it for a kid to grow up with food, a roof, loving parents?