Why is society, especially.....

[kingjust]

the religious so scared of homosexuality, and allowing them to get married. They dress better than a better part of society, the are well groomed.....so what's the big deal. There is nothing written in law that states marraige is between a man and a women. Now I know that it says that somewhere in the bible, but the bible doesn't dictate our laws and if it does isn't that a violation of the 1st amendment?

They don't bother me at all, they are funny at times but they are all humans and americans. It disgusts me because it's another form of racism and segregation in our society. Next thing you know we are going to have water fountaines that say "Straights" and on the other "Gays"!!!

[SoccerfreakAB2]

It's because God is a homophobe and because many other straight humans feel intimidated by their welcomed presence because we don't know enough about them.

[kingjust]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 It's because God is a homophobe and because many other straight humans feel intimidated by their welcomed presence because we don't know enough about them.

Finally a response and a good one. Why is this such a hard topic to discuss. This is why......... people will start to reveal their hatred, bias, and prejudice views while painting themselves as holier than thow humans. They do not want to be walking hypocrites from what they say to what they really think and feel. It's just pathetic!!

[YourTokah]

It's not a hard topic to discuss - check out all of the replies on the homosexual marriage thread.

This is sorta like the whole debate about god and religion. So many people believe conflicting things, think conflicting things, and the political waters are very murky, although decidedly in favor of it not being legal. It'll go on (the debate, I mean) for quite a while, yet. The moral majority are, unfortunately, the MAJORITY.

[PDJane]

It's legal in Canada, and except for a comment from the Pope, it's been business as usual......and no one is marrying their sister or their dog.

Frankly, I have to believe that the whole debate should be a non starter. it's solely a human rights issue (by the way, New Zealand has joined the enlightened ones, along with Spain.)

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: kingjust There is nothing written in law that states marraige is between a man and a women.

I don't think you have checked the accuracy of this statement.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPa...ontentId=15576

Since Massachusetts began allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed last May, 13 states have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. This number includes Missouri, which approved such a measure in August. The amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon refer only to marrriage, specifying that it should be limited to unions of one man and one woman. The measures in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah call for a ban on civil unions or other partnership benefits as well. <snip> Thirty-nine states already prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying with laws modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Passed by Congress in 1996, the federal DOMA bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to ignore gay marriages performed elsewhere. Four states (Maryland, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Wyoming) have laws or court rulings prohibiting same-sex marriage that predate the federal DOMA.

You might want to remove your foot from your keyboard, kj.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Why does it matter what the law says anyways? We have the power to amend the "law." Slavery existed at the beginning of our government, and we changed that. We can do the same for the allowance of marriage. People need to stop avoiding the argument by hiding behind what the current law is. We can change it!

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 People need to stop avoiding the argument by hiding behind what the current law is. We can change it!

Apparently America doesn't want to change it.

[mr.perfecto]

Well, it is really quite simple. We placed a couple of gays under survelliance and followed them on their way to the semiannual GLBT meeting. After listening in on the conversations that took place there and finding out how stupid they think the rest of us are, we drew a line in the sand.


What exactly is the meaning of homophobe?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Well, it is really quite simple. We placed a couple of gays under survelliance and followed them on their way to the semiannual GLBT meeting. After listening in on the conversations that took place there and finding out how stupid they think the rest of us are, we drew a line in the sand. What exactly is the meaning of homophobe?

Someone who hates gays for reasons of others?

[Mr.Vicchio]

"homophobe" real definition is anyone that has an irrationale fer of homosexuals, homosexuality.

The current "trendy" definition is anyone that opposed anything related to the GLBT alliance position.

I am not a homophobe, but am labeled one by some here because I am agaist Gay Marriage and feel the Gay Lifestyle is a sinful and erroneous life to live. I would never support a law banning homosexuals, or to force them to register or any bullshit like that. But none the less, I am called a homophobe. Go figure.

[Prometheus]

I was once told by a psycology teacher that I was a homophobe because if given a choice, I would prefer to have a straight doctor examine me. I agree that homophobia exists, but I think it is a term that is overused.

We fear what we don't understand. I don't understand homosexuality, so it kind of freaks me out. That said, I interact with gays just fine, but I still am a little uncomfortable. I hide it though, so no one gets offended.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 reasons of others?

What does that mean? It is a bit vague.

[lsbskins1]

People react the way they do to homosexuals because of the power of taboo.

ta·boo or ta·bu (t-b, t-)
n. pl. ta·boos or ta·bus

A ban or an inhibition resulting from social custom or emotional aversion.

As you can see from the definition, taboo need not be rational, it need only be social custom (true in this case) or based on emtional reaction (also true, therefore a double whammy). This becomes less of an issue as time and humans progress, and our problems and persecutions are definitly less severe today than they were even 20 years ago. But there is still plenty of homophobia to go around. Witness a previous statement of a member who believes it is enough to not favor a law banning homosexuals, as if you could apply that statement to anyone else and not be wrong. I mean, if you said, "I don't support banning Christians, but I believe they are immoral and should not be allowed to marry" what do you think Christians would think about you? I do not claim that these people do not have the right to their belief system, because they do. I would not attempt to stop a priest or preacher from teaching the willing members of his congregation any religious tenent that is a part of their faith, but if that tenent is biggoted, I will not be prevented from calling it just that. Would you tell me that I could not call a member of a church who teaches that black people are the carriers of the "mark of Cain" and that they are less,a racist just because their church endorses that position. I doubt it. You may not like to think of yourself as homophobic if you believe gay people are immoral simply because they are true to who they are, but you are.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio "homophobe" real definition is anyone that has an irrationale fer of homosexuals, homosexuality. The current "trendy" definition is anyone that opposed anything related to the GLBT alliance position. I am not a homophobe, but am labeled one by some here because I am agaist Gay Marriage and feel the Gay Lifestyle is a sinful and erroneous life to live. I would never support a law banning homosexuals, or to force them to register or any bullshit like that. But none the less, I am called a homophobe. Go figure.

Since your the religious buff, why would God create homosexuals, if their entire lifestyle was a sinful one? (keep in mind we've already had the science majors come in and tell us that homosexuality was in fact a part of the brain, and rarely has anything to do with a choice to be gay).

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: mr.perfecto What does that mean? It is a bit vague.

Religious people don't like Homos because the Bible doesn't like homos. Does the Bible give a reason? Nope. Little out of date? Yup. But that doesn't bother them!

I think a lot of Gays have a good sense of humor, like some on Volconvo.

[Jack]

I think a lot of Gays have a good sense of humor, like some on Volconvo.

Why does that phrase remind me of many post-date reviews I've suffered in my life; "Does he have a cute butt...is he really hung...is he rich?"
"Well, he's got a great sense of humor."

[Mr.Vicchio]

God created Man. Gave man a "how to live" guide, the Bible, and free will.

What we choose to do with our time on Earth is what is important. If you choose to ignore God, and his way to live.. it's YOUR choice. God didn't "create" homosexuals, for were that true, you would have to accept that God lied about free will and we are all tied to a destiny handed to us. I refuse to believe that.

So your question is.. completely and utterly flawed.

[Autolykos]

This issue is all about the money.

Married (in the eyes of the "law") couples currently receive federal tax benefits, among other things. Homosexuals see this and want to be legally married too, in order to reap the benefits. Plus, some of them may feel that they inherently deserve the benefits purely by "virtue" of being homosexual.

It seems to be true that most homosexuals would not wish to get married, ceteris paribus. After all, since they are excluded from the three major religions of the world, it is natural to expect that many (if not most) of them are rather hostile towards the traditions embraced by those religions. One of the foremost of these traditions is marriage. So why would homosexuals want to embrace a pinnacle of the religions that disdain them unless there was a good reason to do so? Apparently, tax breaks and other benefits provide the motivation here.

In my opinion, those of the State should consider marriage to be outside of their jurisdiction. The reason why marriage has become politicized in the first place is because of the problem of handling the married couple's property. If the State were not the sole arbiter of property disputes, there would be no issue here, and marriage could be safely outside of the State's influence. Then it would not matter whether anyone wanted to wed homosexuals.

- Rob

[Jack]

The bible says god created man in his own image.
So obviously god is a male/female/straight/gay/bi/black/white/yellow/blue-gray-green-brown eyed/saint/sinner/believer/non-believer.
That's not so hard to understand, now is it?

Mr.V, no one is asking you to like us or accept us. We know most people don't. And it doesn't really matter much to us, as long as we're just discussing personal opinions.