Proposition 8 same sex marriage ban poll

[BigT]

You don't give kids enough credit. It's not a hard concept to understand. Using the retarded excuse that kids won't get it is like saying we shouldn't teach long division because some might have a hard time grasping it. :roll:

By your answer, you imply that you would want the concept gay marriage taught in schools... :applause:

I'll stick with Christian private schools, thank you...

[lilboo]

Coming from one of those schools that BigT is talking about, I can honestly say: "No, they actually make everything more confusing."

Next?

[MSI Magus]

By your answer, you imply that you would want the concept gay marriage taught in schools... :applause:

I'll stick with Christian private schools, thank you...

So your kid can end up like Sara Palins. Good job.

[BigT]

No, so they can end up like me... ;)

But private schools are getting up there in price: ~$4K/yr for K-8 and ~10K/yr for high school... there should be a tax credit for that!

[MSI Magus]

No, so they can end up like me... ;)

But private schools are getting up there in price: ~$4K/yr for K-8 and ~10K/yr for high school... there should be a tax credit for that!

Ok so are you at least going to teach them sex ed and safe sex? It seems like as a Doctor you would know that an abstinence only approach which is what Christian schools teach is far inferior to the public school method.

[The Crotch]

Now the banner ad wants me to meet gay couples. What the fuck? Is it telling me to have a threesome or something?

[lilboo]

Now the banner ad wants me to meet gay couples. What the fuck? Is it telling me to have a threesome or something?

PM Sent

[BigT]

Ok so are you at least going to teach them sex ed and safe sex? It seems like as a Doctor you would know that an abstinence only approach which is what Christian schools teach is far inferior to the public school method.

I've seen more STDs than a shot of ceftriaxone or a pill of azithromycin can fix... not to mention HIV/AIDS cases with horrible consequences (hey, it turns out our immune system is actually important!)... the prototypical patient is a homosexual male with h/o IV meth use coming in with poor HAART compliance and a nasty infection (take your pick: endocarditis, disseminated fungal infection, sepsis, etc...)

I believe the official teaching should be the ideal of abstinence... at least as a counterbalance to the messages set forth by pop culture... unfortunately, our society has degenerated into hedonism, homosexuality, and instant gratification... (few people have any sort of discipline because it is rarely rewarded)... it's OK to indulge in such vices, but one has to be ready to suffer the consequences... and I've seen a lot of them...

[Kirin Lemon]

II believe the official teaching should be the ideal of abstinence... at least as a counterbalance to the messages set forth by pop culture... unfortunately, our society has degenerated into hedonism, homosexuality, and instant gratification... (few people have any sort of discipline because it is rarely rewarded)... it's OK to indulge in such vices, but one has to be ready to suffer the consequences... and I've seen a lot of them...

It could also be argued that you're seeing these things *because* of abstinence-only education. Jesus kills.

[Hex]

By your answer, you imply that you would want the concept gay marriage taught in schools... :applause:

I'll stick with Christian private schools, thank you...

If you're gonna teach kids about hetero marriage, fucking -a right. You can't just stick you head in the sand and pretend we don't exist. :lol:

Sure, stick with private schools that teach illogical, non-pragmatic methods to sex education, and that a big man in the sky rules over everything. Good luck with that. :rofl: The rest of the world will move on around you.

[MSI Magus]

I've seen more STDs than a shot of ceftriaxone or a pill of azithromycin can fix... not to mention HIV/AIDS cases with horrible consequences (hey, it turns out our immune system is actually important!)... the prototypical patient is a homosexual male with h/o IV meth use coming in with poor HAART compliance and a nasty infection (take your pick: endocarditis, disseminated fungal infection, sepsis, etc...)

I believe the official teaching should be the ideal of abstinence... at least as a counterbalance to the messages set forth by pop culture... unfortunately, our society has degenerated into hedonism, homosexuality, and instant gratification... (few people have any sort of discipline because it is rarely rewarded)... it's OK to indulge in such vices, but one has to be ready to suffer the consequences... and I've seen a lot of them...

Ok in other words you believe that kids should be taught what public schools teach. That sex can cause all sorts of nasty stuff and thus you probably shouldn't do it till your in a seriously committed relationship....but if you must then at least use protection.

Also you can indulge in these vices if you do it in a smart way. For instance have a threesome but screen the people you sleep with. I am a freak and will openly admit it....but I am a smart freak!

[docvinh]

Yeah, from what I remember, abstinence was taught when I was in public school, but we were also taught how to use condoms. I honestly don't think abstinence only education works anyway.

[Hex]

Yeah, from what I remember, abstinence was taught when I was in public school, but we were also taught how to use condoms. I honestly don't think abstinence only education works anyway.

Anyone who thinks abstinence-only education works is, and yes I will go there, fucking stupid. They're burying their heads in the sand and ignoring human nature. Yes, even in those precious catholic schools, those hallowed halls of divinity.. the kids are still having sex.

[HumanSnatcher]

Anyone who thinks abstinence-only education works is, and yes I will go there, fucking stupid. They're burying their heads in the sand and ignoring human nature. Yes, even in those precious catholic schools, those hallowed halls of divinity.. the kids are still having sex.

"worship thy rod and thy staff"

[HumanSnatcher]

My ex and my current partner will agree, both being brought up strict Roman Catholic, that Catholicism is the S&M of Xianity...

Ironically, my ex love his MCC church, and my partner who is only 4 years younger than my ex, hates organized religion

[Koggit]

I've seen more STDs than a shot of ceftriaxone or a pill of azithromycin can fix... not to mention HIV/AIDS cases with horrible consequences (hey, it turns out our immune system is actually important!)... the prototypical patient is a homosexual male with h/o IV meth use coming in with poor HAART compliance and a nasty infection (take your pick: endocarditis, disseminated fungal infection, sepsis, etc...)

I believe the official teaching should be the ideal of abstinence... at least as a counterbalance to the messages set forth by pop culture... unfortunately, our society has degenerated into hedonism, homosexuality, and instant gratification... (few people have any sort of discipline because it is rarely rewarded)... it's OK to indulge in such vices, but one has to be ready to suffer the consequences... and I've seen a lot of them...

You sound so bitter and jaded.

Really, I just feel sorry for you.

What you condescendingly claim our "society has degenerated into" is really just a pessimistic view of our primal instincts. We're wired to survive, and we're wired to enjoy it.

Though that's a rather abstract point, your support of abstinence is pretty baseless. Countless studies have denounced abstinence-only sex ed and they've shown safer sex ed has a far greater effect. The very, very few studies supporting abstinence-only are rather biased groups that take data out of context (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/factsfigures/precede.htm) to further their agenda. It's really no wonder teen pregnancy rates are highest in abstinence-only school districts after you look at the figures, yet people (especially people of faith) continue to look the other way and claim it's working. It's pretty ridiculous.

But yeah, your big problem is just that you sound painfully negative. Cheer the fuck up.

[Sarang01]

My ex and my current partner will agree, both being brought up strict Roman Catholic, that Catholicism is the S&M of Xianity...

Ironically, my ex love his MCC church, and my partner who is only 4 years younger than my ex, hates organized religion

Hell is bunk imo. I mean the concept of Hell more then anything smacks of trying to keep obedience of your citizens. Put a law in place and they break it...BAM! you're going to Hell.

[HumanSnatcher]

Hell is bunk imo. I mean the concept of Hell more then anything smacks of trying to keep obedience of your citizens. Put a law in place and they break it...BAM! you're going to Hell.

I agree. I forget who said it but "hell is other people"

[Hex]

Funny thing is, if I believed in heaven, it would consist of lots of sex and techno.

Doesn't match up with Ned Flander's/Nintendouche/Von's idea of heaven though. Oh well, the concept is a fallacy to me anyway. :lol:

[Sarang01]

Funny thing is, if I believed in heaven, it would consist of lots of sex and techno.

Doesn't match up with Ned Flander's/Nintendouche/Von's idea of heaven though. Oh well, the concept is a fallacy to me anyway. :lol:

I remember once thinking of Heaven as a 24 hour video store.

[MSI Magus]

The best three things in life.

1. Woman
2. Food
3. Video games

That said my idea of heaven is having hot naked women feeding me the tastiest of foods which never causes me to gain weight while I play video games and several more naked woman blow me.

[looploop]

The best three things in life.

1. Woman
2. Food
3. Video games

That said my idea of heaven is having hot naked women feeding me the tastiest of foods which never causes me to gain weight while I play video games and several more naked woman blow me.

WRONG!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo9buo9Mtos

[Synergy]

I've seen more STDs than a shot of ceftriaxone or a pill of azithromycin can fix... not to mention HIV/AIDS cases with horrible consequences (hey, it turns out our immune system is actually important!)... the prototypical patient is a homosexual male with h/o IV meth use coming in with poor HAART compliance and a nasty infection (take your pick: endocarditis, disseminated fungal infection, sepsis, etc...)

I believe the official teaching should be the ideal of abstinence... at least as a counterbalance to the messages set forth by pop culture... unfortunately, our society has degenerated into hedonism, homosexuality, and instant gratification... (few people have any sort of discipline because it is rarely rewarded)... it's OK to indulge in such vices, but one has to be ready to suffer the consequences... and I've seen a lot of them...

You're an idiot. Sorry, it had to be said. Teaching abstinence has been proven over and over to be ineffective and in actuality handicaps young people when they inevitably become sexually active anyway. Teen pregnancy is widespread - even amongst privileged ass private school kids. Not to mention STI's. It makes no sense to teach the extreme (which doesn't work) to counterbalance the dreaded media and pop culture. It's about finding a responsible middle ground and getting some kind of uniform education out there.

Of course, that'll never happen because out of touch assholes think telling teenagers not to have sex will work. How about this for some of my own "observations" (aka, unsupported generalizations) - when I was in college, the worst sluts (male and female), coke heads and fuck ups were the private school kids. The prototypical private school kid is a white male with an ego disproportionate to his actual intelligence.

Calling homosexuality a vice is offensive, asshole.

[MSI Magus]

You're an idiot. Sorry, it had to be said. Teaching abstinence has been proven over and over to be ineffective and in actuality handicaps young people when they inevitably become sexually active anyway. Teen pregnancy is widespread - even amongst privileged ass private school kids. Not to mention STI's. It makes no sense to teach the extreme (which doesn't work) to counterbalance the dreaded media and pop culture. It's about finding a responsible middle ground and getting some kind of uniform education out there.

Of course, that'll never happen because out of touch assholes think telling teenagers not to have sex will work. How about this for some of my own "observations" (aka, unsupported generalizations) - when I was in college, the worst sluts (male and female), coke heads and fuck ups were the private school kids. The prototypical private school kid is a white male with an ego disproportionate to his actual intelligence.

Calling homosexuality a vice is offensive, asshole.

Favorite study that I ever saw was one that showed that kids taught abstinence had about the same rate of vaginal sex as those taught safe sex methods........but when you got into other forms of sex it was off the charts. The abstinence kids were having like 60% more oral sex and like 40% more anal sex or something crazy like that because they thought it kept them virgins. I remember just laughing and thinking great, when all their ultra conservatives only want butt sex because they are closet case homos the girls will already be trained! Second thought was if abstinence programs turn girls into butt freaks who love to give blow jobs im happy with that too! 9/10 times I would rather have a BJ anyways, and anal is o so sweet(calm down lilboo I am talking about with woman!).

[mykevermin]

No, so they can end up like me... ;)

But private schools are getting up there in price: ~$4K/yr for K-8 and ~10K/yr for high school... there should be a tax credit for that!

No there shouldn't be, as a matter of fact. If you want to cover your kids' ears to the way the real world works, be prepared to shell out some money. Earplugs would be cheaper than private education, FWIW.

Favorite study that I ever saw was one that showed that kids taught abstinence had about the same rate of vaginal sex as those taught safe sex methods........but when you got into other forms of sex it was off the charts. The abstinence kids were having like 60% more oral sex and like 40% more anal sex or something crazy like that because they thought it kept them virgins. I remember just laughing and thinking great, when all their ultra conservatives only want butt sex because they are closet case homos the girls will already be trained! Second thought was if abstinence programs turn girls into butt freaks who love to give blow jobs im happy with that too! 9/10 times I would rather have a BJ anyways, and anal is o so sweet(calm down lilboo I am talking about with woman!).

The two studies of abstinence-only education I've read had two findings: (1) there was a *delay* in the onset of first intercourse (gotta love the way academic journals phrase things) - about 18 months, in fact - so abstinence-only education delayed intercourse, but there were no differences in the % of each group having premarital sex. That said, 18 months is a long time when considering adolescence. The other was (2) an evaluation of beliefs about sex in FL abstinence-only education students, who thought drinking mountain dew, a capful of bleach, or smoking weed would terminate their pregnancy. So they are delaying sex, but they're also *dangerously* (and not metaphorically dangerously, dangerously dangerously!) misinformed about their risks.

What you condescendingly claim our "society has degenerated into" is really just a pessimistic view of our primal instincts.

More than anything else, "society has degenerated into" is the kind of phrase an undergraduate sociology student would use in a paper if they never read their textbook or attended class. I really wish BigT would have the guts to read this book (http://www.amazon.com/Way-We-Never-Were-Nostalgia/dp/0465090974/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227705720&sr=8-1) before continuing to have the silly opinions he does. But I'm sure he's not up to the challenge, and will reply with something about being so busy - because he's a doctor and all. Gotta make those golf outings!

But, anyway, the whole "society has degenerated" crap is just an empty phrase people use to describe patterns of change they don't like. You have seen it coincide with culture at every step along the 20th century (and surely before that): Jazz was barbaric, simplistic negro music that lacked the sophistication and refinement of big bands, and it would render all blacks shiftless and lazy - that was the stereotype about how Jazz would ruin society.

See the beginning of this video for that in action - with satchmo, no less!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3CcAD_seww

It was the same mentality people had about only showing Elvis from the waist up on the Ed Sullivan show, because his hip swiveling was too lascivious to show on television. The same mentality that saw Little Richard violating race and gender at the same time - and so on down the line; every generation has had a slew of cultural enemies, whether Louis Armstrong or Marilyn Manson. In retrospect, nobody's ruined society. We're still breathing, we're still eating, we're still fucking.

You know who the real enemy is? Whoever put bacon in a box and sells it at room temperature in grocery stores. That shit ain't natural, man. Creeps me the hell out.

[MSI Magus]

Well hopefully this is a sign of what is to come in California.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/26florida.html?ref=us

The ban on letting gays adopt in Florida has been declared Unconstitutional by a judge.

[SpazX]

Well hopefully this is a sign of what is to come in California.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/26florida.html?ref=us

The ban on letting gays adopt in Florida has been declared Unconstitutional by a judge.

Damn activist judges interpreting law. The people are supposed to interpret the law!

[lilboo]

Well hopefully this is a sign of what is to come in California.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/26florida.html?ref=us

The ban on letting gays adopt in Florida has been declared Unconstitutional by a judge.

<3

[lordwow]

“It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent,” she wrote.

That's going to be tough for an upper court to overturn without some new evidence. It sounds like the state got it's ass handed to it by the judge.

[Strell]

Something smart happened in Florida.

Wow.

[nintendokid]

You cannot deny that there are prevalent biological and social factors that create the separate entities of "man" and "woman". That said, only a father can teach a child certain things a mother would not be able to teach, vice versa.

[lilboo]

You cannot deny that there are prevalent biological and social factors that create the separate entities of "man" and "woman". That said, only a father can teach a child certain things a mother would not be able to teach, vice versa.

Once, we called a plumber, and when we answered the door...
It..
was..
a...
WOMAN!!!

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

[Friend of Sonic]

Women can't unclog poopies. :(

[Hex]

You cannot deny that there are prevalent biological and social factors that create the separate entities of "man" and "woman". That said, only a father can teach a child certain things a mother would not be able to teach, vice versa.

Sure there are biological factors. Like having testicles. But societal factors are moronic- and I haven't a clue what you're talking about. There's nothing seperating gender from what one can teach a child- other than how to breastfeed a kid, or use a tampon. Two guys/Two girls can raise a kid to be just as happy and healthy as a straight couple, despite your desperate clinging to paleolithic, outdated, irrational concepts of parenting.

:roll:

[Friend of Sonic]

You both bring up a good point. A mother cannot teach a daughter what it is like to have testicles.

[nintendokid]

I'm sure lesbian couples can raise boys to be fine enough soldiers to defend our country and your damn right to free speech. When he becomes 18 and wants to join the USMC the lesbian couple will indeed support their son to join. Yes. They will tell him that human beings are created in God's image and that all life is precious and he will be needed in the fight against enemies who try to take life from others. Yeah, good luck explaining that one.

[Layziebones]

I'm sure lesbian couples can raise boys to be fine enough soldiers to defend our country and your damn right to free speech. When he becomes 18 and wants to join the USMC the lesbian couple will indeed support their son to join. Yes. They will tell him that human beings are created in God's image and that all life is precious and he will be needed in the fight against enemies who try to take life from others. Yeah, good luck explaining that one.

So, do you just hit the keyboard several times with your small fist and just post whatever comes out? You just come off as immature, ridiculously stupid person.

[HumanSnatcher]

So, do you just hit the keyboard several times with your small fist and just post whatever comes out? You just come off as immature, ridiculously stupid person.

Hes probably pissed because his teacher gave him homework over the break. Tough break little tyke...now do us grown ups a favor and go back to playing in the sandbox

[Hex]

I'm sure lesbian couples can raise boys to be fine enough soldiers to defend our country and your damn right to free speech. When he becomes 18 and wants to join the USMC the lesbian couple will indeed support their son to join. Yes. They will tell him that human beings are created in God's image and that all life is precious and he will be needed in the fight against enemies who try to take life from others. Yeah, good luck explaining that one.

:rofl:

You hit the nail on the head. I know you aren't serious- and it's probably too much to wrap your mind around, since it hasn't been sp00n-fed to you by an uptight pastor. My condolences to your ignorance.

[Kirin Lemon]

I'm sure lesbian couples can raise boys to be fine enough soldiers to defend our country and your damn right to free speech. When he becomes 18 and wants to join the USMC the lesbian couple will indeed support their son to join. Yes. They will tell him that human beings are created in God's image and that all life is precious and he will be needed in the fight against enemies who try to take life from others. Yeah, good luck explaining that one.

Poor ignorant thing. I'd pity you if you weren't so fucking retarded.

[paddlefoot]

Well hopefully this is a sign of what is to come in California.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/26florida.html?ref=us

The ban on letting gays adopt in Florida has been declared Unconstitutional by a judge.

This smacks in the face of why it would be great if I was gay. No kids from sex, not now, not ever. More money for myself and not having to worry about the misses telling me she's late.


Fake Edit: Damn gays and lesbians pay a shit load of taxes. You would think they would be the treated like kings by our government. They file single and for the most part have no dependents. They take so little from our socialized programs, yet they seemingly get fucked by the government at ever turn.

[lilboo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29526736

:bouncy:

[doctorfaustus]

Sigh. So embarrassed to be a Californian sometimes. I hope it's declared unconstitutional.

[RAMSTORIA]

im sure theyll over turn it... again.

[KingBroly]

How many times have voter approved ballot initiatives been overturned by the courts in California thus far?

[SpazX]

How many times have voter approved ballot initiatives been overturned by the courts in California thus far?

I imagine as many times as the initiatives were unconstitutional and the court knew about them...

[MSI Magus]

I imagine as many times as the initiatives were unconstitutional and the court knew about them...

*whip crack* pwned

Edit - Just noticed Nintendokids sig and thing under his avatar. Pretty funny that the guy is almost banned for insulting others and talking about curb stomping gays then comes back and adds that.

[thrustbucket]

Here is your law school quiz of the day:

Can something be "bad" and be constitutional? Can something be good and be unconstitutional?



I'm afraid the answer is "Yes" and that's what the court will decide. Even though the court is likely mostly pro gay-marriage, they can't usurp the peoples power to amend their own constitution.

Dread Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott) anyone?

[HotShotX]

Here is your law school quiz of the day:

Can something be "bad" and be constitutional? Can something be good and be unconstitutional?



I'm afraid the answer is "Yes" and that's what the court will decide. Even though the court is likely mostly pro gay-marriage, they can't usurp the peoples power to amend their own constitution.

Dread Scott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott) anyone?

The point behind a constitution is to spell out the freedoms of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority.

Just because the majority wants one thing does not mean that it should/will become law. If the majority of the state wanted all men named Howard egged on every Tuesday, it would be declared unconstitutional.

As far as I know, the case being heard by the state Supreme Court is not directly about whether the ban on gay marriage should or should not become law, but rather whether it was a valid initiative to be placed on the ballot and voted on by the people in the first place.

If deemed so, the law will remain in place and gay marriage will be banned, if not, then the law will be repealed and revert back to gay marriage being legal in California.

So when you follow the news feed on the case, keep in mind what the justices are really making a decision on. California might be a liberal state, and the judges certainly understand the impact of their decisions, but at the end of the day they are still determining the legality of allowing the people to vote on such an initiative, not the initiative itself.

~HotShotX

[RAMSTORIA]

If the majority of the state wanted all men named Howard egged on every Tuesday, it would be declared unconstitutional.

well now youre being ridiculous.

[The Crotch]

Careful, now. That's Howard talk there, friend.

[MSI Magus]

well now youre being ridiculous.

Any stealing others rights isnt ridiculous?

[XxFuRy2Xx]

The point behind a constitution is to spell out the freedoms of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority.

Just because the majority wants one thing does not mean that it should/will become law. If the majority of the state wanted all men named Howard egged on every Tuesday, it would be declared unconstitutional.

As far as I know, the case being heard by the state Supreme Court is not directly about whether the ban on gay marriage should or should not become law, but rather whether it was a valid initiative to be placed on the ballot and voted on by the people in the first place.

If deemed so, the law will remain in place and gay marriage will be banned, if not, then the law will be repealed and revert back to gay marriage being legal in California.

So when you follow the news feed on the case, keep in mind what the justices are really making a decision on. California might be a liberal state, and the judges certainly understand the impact of their decisions, but at the end of the day they are still determining the legality of allowing the people to vote on such an initiative, not the initiative itself.

~HotShotXAren't they also voting on whether or not the people can vote to amend the constitution at all?

If so, couldn't the other measure that animals have certain right to move around (I think) also be overturned? Because the will of the majority is being forced on the minority (the people who raise animals for others to eat).

Just curious.

[speedracer]

If so, couldn't the other measure that animals have certain right to move around (I think) also be overturned? Because the will of the majority is being forced on the minority (the people who raise animals for others to eat).
That's some tortured logic there, Lou.

[Freemason]

god forbid ( ironic and sarcastic tones used here ) we all have the same rights waiving under the " we are all human beings " flag. ignornace, intolerance, social, cultural, religious, bias, and propagated views or beliefs by anyone but God himself, or nobody if you choose not to believe in him/her, give you no right to say jack about what anyone else does with their life or whom they love no matter how much you think you are right, or associated stats of " experts " and witchhunters....

the irony that " religious centers " would have anything to say about whom THEY feel GOD feels is approved to bond in marriage shows only the unadulterated fallacy and stupidity we all go to to isolate, alienate, and persecute someone elses lives. a great saying goes, " one persons idea of sanity is often discarded as lunacy if surounded a majority of those more insane. "

i vote no - screw anyone wanting to shove their lifestyle and belief of right and wrong into the matters of someones personal love, no matter which way you swing, screw up your own life like the rest of us and let others live theirs how they want.

[Freemason]

Sigh. So embarrassed to be a Californian sometimes. I hope it's declared unconstitutional.

as soon as ignorance and intolerance are. hold yer breath til then, it's embarrasing to think some people are human sometimes.

[BigT]

Sigh. So embarrassed to be a Californian sometimes. I hope it's declared unconstitutional.

No one cares anymore... in case you haven't noticed, our state is broke and our state assembly and senate is made up of incompetent buffoons.

Let's focus on getting out of debt... once that's achieved we can focus on tangential issues, such as the environment, gay rights, etc...

[MSI Magus]

No one cares anymore... in case you haven't noticed, our state is broke and our state assembly and senate is made up of incompetent buffoons.

Let's focus on getting out of debt... once that's achieved we can focus on tangential issues, such as the environment, gay rights, etc...

So focus on money over the rights of others. Well sir to you I say I would rather be financially bankrupt then morally bankrupt. Sadly this isn't a common feeling nowadays.

[mykevermin]

"It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

That's a battle cry, man. And the truth.

Whether you like it or not.

[XxFuRy2Xx]

That's some tortured logic there, Lou.It's a legitimate question, and I was just using that one situation as an example.

I'm no law expert, so I was just wondering what the ramifications would be of them overturning this, other than the fact that gay people can get married. That's all.

[thrustbucket]

"It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

That's a battle cry, man. And the truth.

Whether you like it or not.

I firmly believe that as well. It WILL eventually happen. In fact, it will very much likely happen on a Federal level (if our country as we know it survives long enough).

But I still do not think that in this particular instance the Supreme Court is going to overturn shit.

[mykevermin]

CA SC or federal SC?

[BigT]

"It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

That's a battle cry, man. And the truth.

Whether you like it or not.

That battle cry worked so well during the last election... why not try it again???... ;) The more Newsom speaks, the lower chance any bill like this has of passing (my suggestion to the other side would be to tell Gavin to take a sabbatical during the next time this comes up for a vote).

On a tangent, our next gubernatorial race may involve Gavin Newsom and Tony Villar (aka, Antonio Villaraigosa... which he uses to make himself sound more latino)... even if the only oposition was composed of Nazis and Stalinists, I still wouldn't be able to bring myself to vote for these jokers! :D
California is so totally screwed! Now the Republicans are even voting for tax increases... Fucking traitors... they should all be recalled!

[doctorfaustus]

No one cares anymore... in case you haven't noticed, our state is broke and our state assembly and senate is made up of incompetent buffoons.

Let's focus on getting out of debt... once that's achieved we can focus on tangential issues, such as the environment, gay rights, etc...

It obviously does matter to a significant number of Californians. Also, I don't think the rights of any group are a "tangential" issue.

[BigT]

It obviously does matter to a significant number of Californians. Also, I don't think the rights of any group are a "tangential" issue.

Dude, with people losing their jobs left and right and others being forced to take pay cuts, while the gov't is increasing taxation... I really doubt that this issue will be at the forefront for many people in the near future (I'm just being realistic).

[homeland]

Dude, with people losing their jobs left and right and others being forced to take pay cuts, while the gov't is increasing taxation... I really doubt that this issue will be at the forefront for many people in the near future (I'm just being realistic).

While it may be realistic, It just another shitty example of a minority's fight to get equal rights being marginalized. Gotta love this world.

[SpazX]

BigT thinks it's irrelevant as long as gay people can't get married anyway, regardless of the economic situation.

[RAMSTORIA]

On a tangent, our next gubernatorial race may involve Gavin Newsom and Tony Villar (aka, Antonio Villaraigosa... which he uses to make himself sound more latino)... even if the only oposition was composed of Nazis and Stalinists, I still wouldn't be able to bring myself to vote for these jokers! :D
California is so totally screwed! Now the Republicans are even voting for tax increases... Fucking traitors... they should all be recalled!

if newsom one i think it might be the last straw, id have to move.

[blandstalker]

The worst thing about this is that BigT can no longer marry Gavin Newsom.

[homeland]

The worst thing about this is that BigT can no longer marry Gavin Newsom.


Which is a shame, they'd probably make a cute couple.

[BigT]

I don't think I'm his type... ;)
http://www.ovahere.com/Uploads/News/Gavin_Newsom_Oggling.jpg

The feeling is also mutual... :D
My man-love is reserved for heroes like Jesus, Pope John Paul II, and Kurt Warner! :D

[lilboo]

others being forced to take pay cuts


It's a sad day when someone who makes 10 million a year now only makes 3 million :cry: :cry: :cry:

[JJSP]

Still hasn't noticed. :)

[RAMSTORIA]

in about 1 hour the california courts are going to step in.

prop 8 could be overturned or it could be upheld. if it is upheld then the court has to rule on the marriages performed before prop 8 passed as to whether or not they are valid.

seems like a good time to bump the vs forums most popular thread ever.

[mykevermin]

a good idea indeed.

[RAMSTORIA]

a good idea indeed.

hopefully after the court hands down its ruling we can argue the same things over and over for another 50 pages



the court has announced that they are upholding prop 8 and the marriages performed prior to prop 8 passing are still valid.

[KingBroly]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E24380&show_article=1

Upheld, existing marriages to stand. Nothing you could do about those I suppose.

[seanr1221]

#-o

[perdition(troy]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E24380&show_article=1

Upheld, existing marriages to stand. Nothing you could do about those I suppose.

finally a court decision i can agree with :applause:

[lilboo]

:rofl: California.

What a shame. Oh well, at least the Northeast (and Iowa!) seem to get it.

[DJSteel]

People are fucking morons to care about Same Sex Marriage enough to ban it..

[lilboo]

Yes they are. It's even better when they validate the reasons with the BIBLE.

[DJSteel]

Yes they are. It's even better when they validate the reasons with the BIBLE.

yep, I have yet to hear a good reason why it should be banned.

[perdition(troy]

:'(

[lilboo]

:'(

So, go ahead. Give a valid reason? I am completely open minded..but, there has never been a valid reason. The Bible does NOT count.

[DJSteel]

since when did separation between church and state get reversed?

[perdition(troy]

It didn't. The state is still staying out of church affairs, and no religion was endorsed by this decision. :'(

[DJSteel]

You are wrong about that, because there is no reason that this should be banned.

[perdition(troy]

You have the greatest reasoning skills that I have ever seen.

[DJSteel]

layout your reasoning. teach me oh smart one.

[lordwow]

so perdition, since the state is staying out of church affairs, you would argue then that no marriages should be recognized?

[spmahn]

since when did separation between church and state get reversed?

When did separation between church and state ever exist?

[lilboo]

Why does the church even exist?

[DJSteel]

When did separation between church and state ever exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_State s

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state" is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

[perdition(troy]

layout your reasoning. teach me oh smart one.

Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution. The people of California voted to change their constitution, the change was put into effect, and the court did their job by upholding their state's constitution. The California Supreme Court's job is to interpret their state's constitution, not to change it.

[lilboo]

But what we are asking you is WHY banning it matters to people? Who do people care so much about it, they need to ban it? That is what we are asking. THAT is what no one can ever give a good, solid, and valid answer as to why.

[lordwow]

The problem with majority rule is that there's always a minority. The court's job isn't to legislate, but they need to enforce equality for all. Unfortunately, I think in this case the complainants were simply making the wrong argument

[DJSteel]

it's either that or the people on the Court are outdated and need to be replaced.

[perdition(troy]

The problem with majority rule is that there's always a minority. The court's job isn't to legislate, but they need to enforce equality for all. Unfortunately, I think in this case the complainants were simply making the wrong argument

The problem with majority rule is that there is to much emphasis on a large central government. If issues (such as abortion, homosexual marriages, welfare, etc) were left to individual communities (allowing them to make decisions that are better for their individual needs) instead of having decisions that are made on a large scale that leave large pockets of minorities groups feeling slighted.

it's either that or the people on the Court are outdated and need to be replaced.

Now thats the spirit! If we don't like people's opinions, lets just get rid of them and replace them. You honestly don't understand how a court works. Their job isn't to change the constitution, it's to uphold it.

[lilboo]

But banning 2 people from being married.. like.. isn't a big deal. It's not an issue. I can see abortion as an issue. But 2 people who want to.. live together and have a legal bond? Like..really?? Really? People actually have REASONS behind it?

[lordwow]

it's either that or the people on the Court are outdated and need to be replaced.

They can only rule on the argument brought before them, and again, I don't agree with the result of their decision, but I think they ruled correctly based upon the argument that was brought before them regarding constitutional amendment.

They should have argued that it was discriminatory, and they probably would have won.

[perdition(troy]

But banning 2 people from being married.. like.. isn't a big deal. It's not an issue. I can see abortion as an issue. But 2 people who want to.. live together and have a legal bond? Like..really?? Really? People actually have REASONS behind it?

Your opinion is that it's fine, and another person's opinion is that it is wrong. Are either of you right or wrong? Well of course in your own head you both despise one another. The majority of people in California voted to make an amendment to their constitution to not allow same-sex marriage in their state. Obviously people are going to be upset if they are for same-sex marriage, but no one is making them stay in California. It's not like the only place they can get married is in California, no one is stopping them from getting married in Iowa. I don't understand why it's so hard to just be ok with an issue not going the way you want it and moving on. You don't always get what you want in life.

[RAMSTORIA]

you just dont get it lilboo... if the gays marry theyll starting teaching kids evolution in school, people will marry sheeps, everyone will drive hybrids and well switch to communism.

[lilboo]

You seem to be missing what I'm asking.
No one can give a VALID reason to why they are against it. It's not about an opinion. There HAS to be a reason behind it.

EDIT: :rofl: Ramstoria.. i know i know.. :cry:

[DJSteel]

The problem with majority rule is that there is to much emphasis on a large central government. If issues (such as abortion, homosexual marriages, welfare, etc) were left to individual communities (allowing them to make decisions that are better for their individual needs) instead of having decisions that are made on a large scale that leave large pockets of minorities groups feeling slighted.



Now thats the spirit! If we don't like people's opinions, lets just get rid of them and replace them. You honestly don't understand how a court works. Their job isn't to change the constitution, it's to uphold it.

they uphold the laws. I understand how it works. I think there should term limits for all these gov't positions.. you can become complacent.

[lordwow]

Your opinion is that it's fine, and another person's opinion is that it is wrong. Are either of you right or wrong? Well of course in your own head you both despise one another. The majority of people in California voted to make an amendment to their constitution to not allow interracial marriage in their state. Obviously people are going to be upset if they are for interracial marriage, but no one is making them stay in California. It's not like the only place they can get married is in California, no one is stopping them from getting married in Iowa. I don't understand why it's so hard to just be ok with an issue not going the way you want it and moving on. You don't always get what you want in life.

Read that again how I edited it, and tell me what you think.

[perdition(troy]

they uphold the laws. I understand how it works. I think there should term limits for all these gov't positions.. you can become complacent.

It's the Constitution. How in the world do you become complacent in regards to interpreting and upholding the Constitution.

Read that again how I edited it, and tell me what you think.

I honestly do not care. I'm not taking either side in this entire argument, because it doesn't affect me at all.

[Strell]

How in the world do you become complacent in regards to interpreting and upholding the Constitution.

You were president for the last eight years. That's how.

[RAMSTORIA]

You seem to be missing what I'm asking.
No one can give a VALID reason to why they are against it. It's not about an opinion. There HAS to be a reason behind it.

EDIT: :rofl: Ramstoria.. i know i know.. :cry:

ok, really though. the reason is the bible, even though you say thats not a reason. people dont want the "sanctity of marriage" to be sullied by a marriage their religion doesnt condone. no common sense (and most people on this board) would say there should be a seperation of church and state and that it shouldnt be an issue. but it is an issue because when it comes to marriage and marriage licenses that line has been blurred for three centuries.

[perdition(troy]

You were president for the last eight years. That's how.
The President has nothing to do with a Court's interpretation of the Constitution. The President's job isn't to sit in the White House and decide if something is Constitutional or not.

[lilboo]

I can understand that..but don't understand how people can think the Bible is a good reason. It's not about walking down the aisle in a church.. It's about getting a piece of paper that says "These 2 people are idiots and are spending the rest of their lives together. LOL Them."

Do they all think that marriage has to take place in a church?

[Strell]

The President has nothing to do with a Court's interpretation of the Constitution. The President's job isn't to sit in the White House and decide if something is Constitutional or not.

Yeah. That's what I used to think too.

Lilboo, we've been over this: Originally marriage had nothing to do with religion, didn't take place in churches, and was little more than a business proposition. Literally. And then priests said I'M BORED and took over the whole thing, ushering in theistic imagery and pomp.

So, you know. They could get bored again and try that on something else. Like baking potatoes or some shit. Soon we will have to determine the gender of potatoes before dousing them in cheese and bacon bits, and sour cream will be outlawed because that'll look too fruity.

[lordwow]

Do they all think that marriage has to take place in a church?

Only 52% of them.

[homeland]

ok, really though. the reason is the bible, even though you say thats not a reason..


I think we should ban all clothing made from more than 1 fabric. Its just a sin. No matter how you look at it. This is a christian nation. God clearly states its a sin. The new Testament is for the weak.

[RAMSTORIA]

I can understand that..but don't understand how people can think the Bible is a good reason. It's not about walking down the aisle in a church.. It's about getting a piece of paper that says "These 2 people are idiots and are spending the rest of their lives together. LOL Them."

Do they all think that marriage has to take place in a church?

i know i know. but you want the reason. THAT IS the reason. no matter how absurd it seems to you, that is the reason that people get so uptight about this and the reason california shot it down twice in the last 10 years.

I think we should ban all clothing made from more than 1 fabric. Its just a sin. No matter how you look at it. This is a christian nation. God clearly states its a sin. The new Testament is for the weak.

i see what you did there :roll:

[DJSteel]

It's the Constitution. How in the world do you become complacent in regards to interpreting and upholding the Constitution.

Because much like the Bible, the Constitution can become outdated in certain respects. If that is the case, I know it's not the Court's place to change it or make note of it, but the Senators and HOR's that have been there for 30-40 years are responsible and they have no term limits either.

[Strell]

*Sigh.* And once again, even the Bible had evidence for marriage being a transaction, as I've mentioned before. I think it was Jacob and Rachel? Hard to remember. Point being is that he worked for a wife, her father tricks him with her sister, so he works for the other and gets 'em both.

Seriously. Granted it's OT and that was originally Jewish-written, and Lewis Black will tell you that you need to talk to HIS people about those books instead of viewing it through a Christians "we didn't write the OT and instead did the Jesus Buddy chapters" lens, but still.

Point being is that if you're one of those thumpers that proudly swaggers around about how the whole thing is golden truth and infallible, then you'd recognize a drastic counterpoint to your entire argument right there in black and white. And that's not even the one I wrote in myself, where I stated that goat tastes like crap, and anyone who eats it is a heathen and must cleanse themselves with eighty punches to their genitals delivered by a kangaroo wearing boxing gloves.

[spmahn]

You seem to be missing what I'm asking.
No one can give a VALID reason to why they are against it. It's not about an opinion. There HAS to be a reason behind it.

EDIT: :rofl: Ramstoria.. i know i know.. :cry:

Outside of the religious based arguments, the most common arguments against gay marriage are usually slippery slope arguments relating to the potential of the impact that it may have on our society and culture as a whole. Sure, maybe gay marriage isn't so bad, but people do argue that it's the first step towards acceptance of things which actually are bad.

There's also the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice or not. I don't want an argument, and don't have a stance either way, but to the best of my knowledge there haven't been any conclusive evidence to support either viewpoint, it's still up in the air.

Another argument is the psycho and sociological effect not having a strong mother and / or father figure has on a developing child. There actually have been studies and thesis done on this, and while the idea of two fathers or two mothers is still too new for us to have any idea about the long term effects, I think this might be the argument that holds up the most.

Finally you can make the argument that homosexuals end up with more health problems than heterosexuals. We have studies here: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf

and here:

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/products-page/scientific-articles/the-longevity-of-homosexuals-before-and-after-the-aids-epidemic/

and here:

http://www.aegis.org/files/cdc/nchs/CDC_report-0427c.pdf

and here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2242700

and here:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00016243.htm

To sum this argument up, according to these studies homosexuals die younger and are more prone to STD's and other diseases.

The other argument that people make, one which I'm not going to touch with a 10 foot pole, is the idea of child molesters and pedophiles being more likely to be homosexual. I think this argument is a little too radical and offensive to be honest, but there have been studies on this too if you would like me to find them.

Again, I'm not taking any sides here, I don't care about this issue anymore, I'm just playing devils advocate more or less and just answering your question.

[lilboo]

:rofl:
I'm going to take my AIDS to a church to get married, after I molest several children. Also, when I get gay marriaged to my husband, we are going to be horrible parents because we are both men, and not 1 strong woman!

[jputahraptor]

Only 52% of them.

Majority rules. How many times are they going to bitch about this in California? We should start having votes for abortion and other things then.

[spmahn]

:rofl:
I'm going to take my AIDS to a church to get married, after I molest several children. Also, when I get gay marriaged to my husband, we are going to be horrible parents because we are both men, and not 1 strong woman!

Is it possible for you to EVER make a reasonable argument without resorting to sarcasm or trolling? I post a well reasoned counter point, backed up with evidence to support my claims, and all you do is resort to childish behavior. Why do you even bother to post on here, you clearly seem to lack the ability to hold up in a debate.

[lilboo]

If I didn't like black people, I can post links about how bad they are. I can find studies and stories about minorities to scare people.

[spmahn]

If I didn't like black people, I can post links about how bad they are. I can find studies and stories about minorities to scare people.

So you also don't understand the difference between facts and opinions either? Isn't that a basic concept we all learn in second grade or so? Please, refute my argument, tell me why I'm wrong, that's how a debate works. All I am asking is that you think critically, and stop resorting to red herrings and appeals to emotion, two fallacies of logic which seem to be your only tactic in this debate.

[GuilewasNK]

I still don't see why taxpayer dollars need to be wasted on this. Let gay people marry and be done with it. California is looking stupider by the moment.

[Koggit]

instead of movements for gay marriage there should be movements for no marriage.. at least on the government level. states wanna pretend marriage is religious? then marriage can gtfo of our legislation, let it be (and die) as a religious tradition which The Church™ can control as they wish and let another type of government two-person union be exclusively recognized by the state which does not discriminate, as our constitution demands, based on how a person was born.

what bothers me most about gay in america is kids using "you're gay" as a less harsh version of "fuck you", to me that's far more offensive than any prop 8 bullshit and if i were all about gay rights i'd be leading campaigns against that sort of thing, shaming any media outlet that perpetuates it just like the NAACP did with $$$$er

[Magus8472]

Though I appreciate the irony in being so ready to marginalize "bible-thumping" in this context, the real issue is one of popular morality. The old literal biblical interpretation strawman can be trotted out for laughs and beat like the dead horse that it is but noone is seriously falling back on it as the foundation of their argument. It's a rare soul who isn't willing to admit that the Bible is, at best, antiquated.

But, unsurprisingly, people tend to construct their moral sense around the framework that religion provides. And present popular notions of marriage are just that: present and popular. They're not on the level of stoning disobedient children. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021:18-21&version=9;) Ethics and morals have always been in the discussion when laws get crafted; the only question here is whether or not they need to change.

To that end, acting as though everyone who is/votes against gay marriage is some bible-thumping, gun-toting redneck hatemongering idiot is delusional. And in so doing you guys make it rather easy for those who would be otherwise willing to change their minds to go ahead and refuse to do so.

[Koggit]

everyone who is/votes against gay marriage is some bible-thumping, gun-toting redneck hatemongering idiot

was short on time so this is the only part i read -- good post.

[GuilewasNK]

All I know is that "morals" evolve.

Is wasn't that long ago I wouldn't have been allowed to marry a white woman if if I chose to.

There is just no logical reason to deny gays the right to marry. They can already live under the same roof, adopt, do most everything a heterosexual couple can do except marry (and don't put the childbirth argument in there because lots of straight couples can't have kids).

There just is no rational reason to disallow it. Not everyone is Christian so you cant deny based on religion or the church. The only reason to deny it is based off of blatant discrimnation and to argue any other reason is insulting. People can't stomach the thought of two men or two women having a piece of paper that gives them eternal union. Gay marriage doesn't affect us straight people in the slightest way.

The thing that irritates me is that despite the fact citizens have the "right to happiness" (especially when NO ONE GETS HURT IN YOUR HAPPINESS), it is being suppressed for a specific group of people. Frankly, in the land of the "free" that is a shameful thing.

[ninju D]

I'm so disappointed in CA today.

What bothers me is the CA state gov, by way of the state supreme court has said, its ok to make laws that deny a group of people rights as long as the law passes popular vote. Awesome, CA. Just awesome.

[Dead of Knight]

California is officially the worst state in the Union right now. First the deficit bullshit, now this. Not even Michigan can beat it.

[jlew]

Are gay people born gay or do they choose to be gay? How is it discrimination if this is a lifestyle choice someone makes? If they are born that way then I guess it would be a different story, like race or gender.

Anyway, aren't there other states that allow gay marriage?

[spmahn]

Are gay people born gay or do they choose to be gay? How is it discrimination if this is a lifestyle choice someone makes? If they are born that way then I guess it would be a different story, like race or gender.

Anyway, aren't there other states that allow gay marriage?

Many homosexuals claim that they absolutely did not choose to be gay, and if it WAS a choice, they would probably choose to be straight just to avoid the social stigmas. Anecdotal evidence like this however doesn't hold up for a variety of reasons. Empirical research on the subject is up to this point inconclusive, it hasn't been proven that it is a choice, but there not certain it isn't either.

Gay marriage is currently legal in three states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, and will be legal in Maine and Vermont later this year.

[lordwow]

the APA:

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

[spmahn]

So on the one hand they admit that there's insufficient evidence to say for sure either way, but on the other hand they are saying that "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation". So which is it? Those are two completely contradictory statements.

[lordwow]

That's not what it says at all. It says the cause of development is unknown BUT people in most cases have no choice in the matter.

[spmahn]

...but how can they say that if they say they can't prove it? Anecdotal Evidence is meaningless.

[lordwow]

I know, they could ask people "Did you choose to be gay?"

I would imagine most of them would say "No, I did not"

[spmahn]

Even though the correct answer to the "Did you choose to be gay" question should be "I don't know....did I?"

[lilboo]

I did not choose to be gay. I saw a man one day with tight jeans. The buldge was quite nice. His wife had nice titties. However, I found myself more interested in his buldge.

^ All the scientific proof needed.

[Msut77]

...but how can they say that if they say they can't prove it? Anecdotal Evidence is meaningless.

So every gay person who says that (and there are many) is lying?

[lordwow]

Did I choose to be straight? No I did not. I didn't have the agency to choose. I am attracted to females. I didn't choose to be attracted to females.

[spmahn]

So every gay person who says that (and there are many) is lying?

I'm not saying that they are lying, but there is certainly enough bias in that method to render the results useless. Everyone has an agenda which is why you need to be skeptical and open minded about EVERYTHING, even matters which science claims to be able to explain with "absolute certainty". Whether it's true or not, answering Yes to the "Did you chose to be gay" question helps homosexuals in their cause, so it thereby benefits them to say yes, even if they know the answer is no, or if they are unsure about it.

[lordwow]

Oh, so gayness is a conspiracy?

[spmahn]

Oh, so gayness is a conspiracy?

Who said it's a conspiracy? It's an agenda, please, look up the word if you don't know what it means. We all have them, even if you aren't aware of it.

[lordwow]

You're claiming that they may all be lying about the fact that they don't choose to be gay in order to further their cause. That my friend, is a conspiracy:

con·spir·a·cy (kn-spîr-s)
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design

[docvinh]

I don't get why it matters if they choose to be gay or not, if they want to be married, they should be allowed to. I'm with Koggit on this one, just get rid of marriage all together and just call it a domestic union for everyone, gay or not.

[lilboo]

:rofl: Agenda

[spmahn]

If you poll 100 Catholics about whether Abortion should be made illegal, and 90 of them say yes. is it fair to claim "9 our of 10 people agree, Abortion should be made illegal!",. Does that necessarily make the statement true? Of course not, because you had a biased sample. That is why anecdotal evidence doesn't work.

[lordwow]

I don't think you understand the word anecdote.

[lilboo]

OK, but who knows gay people better than gay people? Gay people.
No one would choose to live a way where people look down on them. Who would CHOOSE to be a second class citizen???

[spmahn]

I don't think you understand the word anecdote.

Ok, you're right bad example. Let me revise it:

If you poll 100 Catholics and ask them if they can feel god inside of them , and 90 of them say yes. is it fair to claim that god exists because lots of people claim they feel him inside of themselves. Does that necessarily make the statement true? Of course not, because you had a biased sample. That is why anecdotal evidence doesn't work.

[seanr1221]

If you poll 100 Catholics about whether Abortion should be made illegal, and 90 of them say yes. is it fair to claim "9 our of 10 people agree, Abortion should be made illegal!",. Does that necessarily make the statement true? Of course not, because you had a biased sample. That is why anecdotal evidence doesn't work.

....

You do realize animals can be gay, right?

I remember reading a story where 2 gay penguins treated a rock like an egg every year. One night, the zoo replaced the rock with a real egg, and the 2 gay penguins raised a healthy baby.

Look, I'm just as much against anecdotal evidence as the next guy, but there's more than stories to indicate that homosexuality isn't a choice.

[lilboo]

So believing a religion and God aren't choices, right? :roll:
I will never understand how people ACTUALLY think gay people choose this. HOW?!

[lordwow]

And that's where your argument falls apart.

If you ask 100 people if a wild animal runs at them threateningly, would their adrenaline increase, 100 people would say yes.

If you asked those 100 people how many of you chose to have your adrenaline pump? How many do you think would say yes?

[spmahn]

OK, but who knows gay people better than gay people? Gay people.
No one would choose to live a way where people look down on them. Who would CHOOSE to be a second class citizen???

Look at it like people who choose to practice certain religions. Why would someone choose to be a Jehovah's Witness or a Scientologist, or belong to some wacky cult, when they know that mainstream society does not accept their views, and will ridicule and shun them. Why would someone choose to be treated like some kind of moron because of their beliefs. Some people follow their religion not because they choose to, but because they absolutely believe to feel god deep down inside of them, with no other rational explanation given. How is that any different than saying you had no choice in being gay, it's just a feeling you have deep down inside of you?

[lordwow]

spmahn, which sexual preference did you choose?

[lilboo]

Because when it comes to religious/cult shit people get BRAINWASHED. There's no gay magician that's going around brain washing people. OH WAIT. THIS is why we can't have gay marriage!! THIS will only make OTHER people gayer, right!!?

[FallMoon]

Well, you can't choose your sexuality, but you can choose how you display your sexuality. I guess that's what you mean when you say you choose to be gay?

[lordwow]

No, he's talking about being attracted to men.

[lilboo]

So it's OK to be gay as long as no one notices? :lol:
Expressing yourself is a whole other issue..because that goes with lots of people kinds of people.

[lordwow]

You know, some days I'm glad I decided to be a white straight male.

[spmahn]

spmahn, which sexual preference did you choose?

I'm heterosexual. Could I choose to live a homosexual lifestyle and engage in a relationship with someone of the same sex? I suppose so, but I really wouldn't want to, I love my wife very much.

[lilboo]

:-k

[lordwow]

That's not what I asked. Did you choose to be heterosexual?

[spmahn]

Because when it comes to religious/cult shit people get BRAINWASHED. There's no gay magician that's going around brain washing people. OH WAIT. THIS is why we can't have gay marriage!! THIS will only make OTHER people gayer, right!!?

Who are you to say that they are brainwashed anymore then I am to say that gay people are brainwashed into being gay? That's absurd.

[spmahn]

That's not what I asked. Did you choose to be heterosexual?

I don't know. Maybe at some deep subconscious level I might have. I can't really say for sure.

[lilboo]

:rofl:

Dude, I went to Catholic school for 8 years. I did not buy into ANY of that shit. Religion and Religious people DO try and convert others to be their religion.

What happens when someone is gay, like myself, and they grow up not knowing anyone gay in real life, like myself? Who brain washed ME?

[Dead of Knight]

What the fuck just happened to this thread?

[lordwow]

I don't know. Maybe at some deep subconscious level I might have. I can't really say for sure.

So it's fair to say you may be homosexual and choosing to live as a heterosexual in order to avoid being persecuted?

[seanr1221]

Spmahn, why did you completely ignore my example of homosexuality being natural?

[spmahn]

So it's fair to say you may be homosexual and choosing to live as a heterosexual in order to avoid being persecuted?

Maybe? If that's the case, I'm not aware of it. I'm not a psychoanalyst, what may exist in my subconscious, or anyones for that matter is a mystery.

[lilboo]

So it's fair to say you may be homosexual and choosing to live as a heterosexual in order to avoid being persecuted?

:-k
This is quite common, especially in people who are are against it too. :-#

[lordwow]

Fair enough, spmahn.

[von551]

Many homosexuals claim that they absolutely did not choose to be gay, and if it WAS a choice, they would probably choose to be straight just to avoid the social stigmas. Anecdotal evidence like this however doesn't hold up for a variety of reasons. Empirical research on the subject is up to this point inconclusive, it hasn't been proven that it is a choice, but there not certain it isn't either.

Gay marriage is currently legal in three states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, and will be legal in Maine and Vermont later this year.

There's no doubt homosexuals have a right to claim "gay from birth". Science proves otherwise so far (despite the gay lobby's privately funding of numerous studies to try to prove it), but is it any different than an alcoholic claiming he was born that way? Or any other strong personality/trait we may have for that fact? I just don't see much difference between the two. I think we all have our issues we can use the "I was born that way" cop out with, I know I do.

We recently had a county wide ban on public alcohol consumption at all our beaches in san diego county last year. You don't see all the drinkers or alcoholics taking THAT to the supreme court do you? Shouldn't they have the same "right" to do what they feel they were born as? It'd be no different if alcohol advocates started protesting and rallying and boycotting companies that supported the ban. Isn't that crazy to you?

On the flip side there are alot of people who have defected from the gay lifestyle, so that makes me wonder how strong do "genes" or will play a part. My good friend is one of those, she claims to be a lesbian, but will go through "boy phases". That's like saying a guy goes through "girl" phases, right? I do believe this is something that gays cannot fight on their own and the successful defects of the lifestyle site God as their strength for leaving the lifestyle. Maybe that's what it takes, I know that's what it took for me to give up alcohol, I couldn't do it on my own.

ALL the states that currently allow gay marriage have ALL been done so by the courts. They are the ones who overturned the people's vote, no state has ever had the people vote in favor of gay marriage. I think it says alot that even a state as liberal as California can get the majority (albeit slim) to vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage.

I have pretty liberal views, much more than most democrats seem to have lately with turning our country into a socialist government run fallasy. I don't believe the government should tell us what we can't do (to an extent of course). And that goes both ways, why is the government even involved in marriage, Something from ancient times that never needed a piece of paper? Some in this thread are trying to spread this lie that the church got involved to make a buck. Really? History shows Justinian lawyers in the 6th century drawing up the first legal documents for marriage. That sounds like the government, not church, trying to own the right of marriage. Not until the 9th century did the church get involved to give their blessing to the couple and no legal documents were required. Even in Europe in the 16th century the church was used as a blessing on the couple, and still no legal docs required. So when did the government become involved in marriages? "In Colonial times in North America the customs of the old countries were followed. There were some who only wanted a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony. The Colonists who wanted civil marriages passed laws to this effect." Wow, sounds like the government again is involved in trying to own what was never it's own.

God created marriage as a symbol of his love for us, Him being the groom, the church (people, not buildings) being the bride. I know most don't believe that, but that's the truth and the government trying to own that is ridiculous.

[Koggit]

spmahn, have you ever spoken to an older gay person? especially from rural areas, no rational person can claim homosexuality's a choice after hearing the story of a rural pre-internet gay.

it's different in modern society, not only online but gays can find info in libraries, magazines, tv, etc. there used to be basically no discussion of it anywhere, and being openly gay was much less common than it is now, so most gays had absolutely no information about it... i've heard older gays speak with such envy of our information age, how they so wish they would've had this sort of info when they were younger, instead of trying to hide it and wonder whether or not something was wrong with them.



to honestly believe it's a choice.. it shows such ignorance. nothing's really wrong with being ignorant, so long as you remain open-minded enough to get informed.


edit: rofl.. can't believe von just compared being gay to being alcoholic.. i literally lol'd.

[Dead of Knight]

There's no doubt homosexuals have a right to claim "gay from birth". Science proves otherwise so far (despite the gay lobby's privately funding of numerous studies to try to prove it), but is it any different than an alcoholic claiming he was born that way? Or any other strong personality/trait we may have for that fact? I just don't see much difference between the two. I think we all have our issues we can use the "I was born that way" cop out with, I know I do.

We recently had a county wide ban on public alcohol consumption at all our beaches in san diego county last year. You don't see all the drinkers or alcoholics taking THAT to the supreme court do you? Shouldn't they have the same "right" to do what they feel they were born as? It'd be no different if alcohol advocates started protesting and rallying and boycotting companies that supported the ban. Isn't that crazy to you?

On the flip side there are alot of people who have defected from the gay lifestyle, so that makes me wonder how strong do "genes" or will play a part. My good friend is one of those, she claims to be a lesbian, but will go through "boy phases". That's like saying a guy goes through "girl" phases, right? I do believe this is something that gays cannot fight on their own and the successful defects of the lifestyle site God as their strength for leaving the lifestyle. Maybe that's what it takes, I know that's what it took for me to give up alcohol, I couldn't do it on my own.

ALL the states that currently allow gay marriage have ALL been done so by the courts. They are the ones who overturned the people's vote, no state has ever had the people vote in favor of gay marriage. I think it says alot that even a state as liberal as California can get the majority (albeit slim) to vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage.

I have pretty liberal views, much more than most democrats seem to have lately with turning our country into a socialist government run fallasy. I don't believe the government should tell us what we can't do (to an extent of course). And that goes both ways, why is the government even involved in marriage, Something from ancient times that never needed a piece of paper? Some in this thread are trying to spread this lie that the church got involved to make a buck. Really? History shows Justinian lawyers in the 6th century drawing up the first legal documents for marriage. That sounds like the government, not church, trying to own the right of marriage. Not until the 9th century did the church get involved to give their blessing to the couple and no legal documents were required. Even in Europe in the 16th century the church was used as a blessing on the couple, and still no legal docs required. So when did the government become involved in marriages? "In Colonial times in North America the customs of the old countries were followed. There were some who only wanted a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony. The Colonists who wanted civil marriages passed laws to this effect." Wow, sounds like the government again is involved in trying to own what was never it's own.

God created marriage as a symbol of his love for us, Him being the groom, the church (people, not buildings) being the bride. I know most don't believe that, but that's the truth and the government trying to own that is ridiculous.


^^:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[lordwow]

There's no doubt homosexuals have a right to claim "gay from birth". Science proves otherwise so far (despite the gay lobby's privately funding of numerous studies to try to prove it), but is it any different than an alcoholic claiming he was born that way? Or any other strong personality/trait we may have for that fact? I just don't see much difference between the two. I think we all have our issues we can use the "I was born that way" cop out with, I know I do.

We recently had a county wide ban on public alcohol consumption at all our beaches in san diego county last year. You don't see all the drinkers or alcoholics taking THAT to the supreme court do you? Shouldn't they have the same "right" to do what they feel they were born as? It'd be no different if alcohol advocates started protesting and rallying and boycotting companies that supported the ban. Isn't that crazy to you?

On the flip side there are alot of people who have defected from the gay lifestyle, so that makes me wonder how strong do "genes" or will play a part. My good friend is one of those, she claims to be a lesbian, but will go through "boy phases". That's like saying a guy goes through "girl" phases, right? I do believe this is something that gays cannot fight on their own and the successful defects of the lifestyle site God as their strength for leaving the lifestyle. Maybe that's what it takes, I know that's what it took for me to give up alcohol, I couldn't do it on my own.

ALL the states that currently allow gay marriage have ALL been done so by the courts. They are the ones who overturned the people's vote, no state has ever had the people vote in favor of gay marriage. I think it says alot that even a state as liberal as California can get the majority (albeit slim) to vote in favor of banning same-sex marriage.

I have pretty liberal views, much more than most democrats seem to have lately with turning our country into a socialist government run fallasy. I don't believe the government should tell us what we can't do (to an extent of course). And that goes both ways, why is the government even involved in marriage, Something from ancient times that never needed a piece of paper? Some in this thread are trying to spread this lie that the church got involved to make a buck. Really? History shows Justinian lawyers in the 6th century drawing up the first legal documents for marriage. That sounds like the government, not church, trying to own the right of marriage. Not until the 9th century did the church get involved to give their blessing to the couple and no legal documents were required. Even in Europe in the 16th century the church was used as a blessing on the couple, and still no legal docs required. So when did the government become involved in marriages? "In Colonial times in North America the customs of the old countries were followed. There were some who only wanted a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony. The Colonists who wanted civil marriages passed laws to this effect." Wow, sounds like the government again is involved in trying to own what was never it's own.

God created marriage as a symbol of his love for us, Him being the groom, the church (people, not buildings) being the bride. I know most don't believe that, but that's the truth and the government trying to own that is ridiculous.

God is, oddly enough, anecdotal.

[GuilewasNK]

Spmahn, why did you completely ignore my example of homosexuality being natural?


Even if that point is ignored it doesn't matter. Marriage itself isn't a natural act, it is a societal construct. Therefore, whether some one considers homosexuality to be natural or not doesn't even factor into the marriage question IMO.

[UncleBob]

Let me begin this post by saying that I have no problems allowing homosexuals the right to enter into a legal contract with one another.

Here's a question someone posed to be in regards to Nature vs. Nurture that I was completely unable to answer and it made me question a bit of things regarding the idea of "being gay" being a choice.

Those who push that it's not a choice, that it's the nature of the individual, tell us that a man is sexually attracted to men because something inside of him makes him like men. He shouldn't be judged for that. He shouldn't be condemned for that. He shouldn't be denied rights for that. It's not his "fault" that he is sexually attracted to men.

Now, let's take a man who is attracted to underage children because something inside of him makes him like children - mentally and physically. Should society accept this man because he's sexually attracted to children through no fault of his own?

Now - I'm not saying that someone who is gay is a horrible, disgusting pervert like someone who is a pedophile. Don't try to go there.

Should we, as a society, just shrug our shoulders and say "Well, it's their nature - can't blame 'em." and walk on by? At what point do we, as a society, get to say "Your nature is wrong. Stop that."?

[ninju D]

What the fuck just happened to this thread?

Agreed!

The real question that should be discussed here is, when did it become ok for the government allow rights to be taken away from a group of people just because it passed a popular vote. I'm pretty sure the constitution is about protecting all rights, not just those of the popular majority.

[UncleBob]

Agreed!

The real question that should be discussed here is, when did it become ok for the government allow rights to be taken away from a group of people just because it passed a popular vote. I'm pretty sure the constitution is about protecting all rights, not just those of the popular majority.

lol. That went out the window when the government decided it was okay to seize the private property of individuals for the "welfare" of the majority. If the government can trample all over private property rights, what's to stop them from trampling over whatever rights get in their way?

[Msut77]

lol. That went out the window when the government decided it was okay to seize the private property of individuals for the "welfare" of the majority. If the government can trample all over private property rights, what's to stop them from trampling over whatever rights get in their way?

You mean it went out the window before or after the Constitution was enacted?

Now, let's take a man who is attracted to underage children because something inside of him makes him like children - mentally and physically. Should society accept this man because he's sexually attracted to children through no fault of his own?

Have you ever had consensual sex? Do you understand what the word consent means?

[SpazX]

I hate you so much right now RAMSTORIA

[lordwow]

Now, let's take a man who is attracted to underage children because something inside of him makes him like children - mentally and physically. Should society accept this man because he's sexually attracted to children through no fault of his own?

Now - I'm not saying that someone who is gay is a horrible, disgusting pervert like someone who is a pedophile. Don't try to go there.

Should we, as a society, just shrug our shoulders and say "Well, it's their nature - can't blame 'em." and walk on by? At what point do we, as a society, get to say "Your nature is wrong. Stop that."?

What's the difference?

consent

[UncleBob]

Consent is a funny thing though. A 14 year old girl could consent to have sexual relations with her 40 year old father. A 17 year old boy could consent to have sexual relations with his 45 year old teacher.

The younger children could, naturally, be attracted to older individuals. Should they be persecuted (by being told they can't be with the ones they love) because of something within them that they cannot control?

[Hex]

Meh, a temporary setback. Bullshit like Prop 8 and DOMAs are just houses of cards, waiting for a stiff breeze.

[Strell]

Did Gay Tony (http://ir.take2games.com/releaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=385949) choose to be gay, or did his creator?

I know, let's debate about it!

[Dead of Knight]

Consent is a funny thing though. A 14 year old girl could consent to have sexual relations with her 40 year old father. A 17 year old boy could consent to have sexual relations with his 45 year old teacher.

The younger children could, naturally, be attracted to older individuals. Should they be persecuted (by being told they can't be with the ones they love) because of something within them that they cannot control?

Younger children just don't have the right mindset to make those types of decisions. The current cutoffs for legal consent are at least partially arbitrary (they vary by country/jurisdiction, for example), but I think at least young children do not have the mental capacity to really make those kinds of decisions. Two consenting adult males or adult females most definitely do have the mental capacity to make those kinds of decisions.

[RAMSTORIA]

I hate you so much right now RAMSTORIA

msut? howd you get spaz' password...

[UncleBob]

Younger children just don't have the right mindset to make those types of decisions. The current cutoffs for legal consent are at least partially arbitrary (they vary by country/jurisdiction, for example), but I think at least young children do not have the mental capacity to really make those kinds of decisions.

Good point - at what "age" does an individual have the right to consent - morally, not legally?
But that's another topic.

To the topic at hand - my point (which kinda got lost) - was that the idea of "well, it's not one's choice to be gay, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it." is a dangerous idea. One who is attracted to those of the same sex has the exact same ability and reasoning to choose to act or not act on their feelings just as one who is attracted to underage individuals.

NOW - before someone takes this the wrong way - I'm not, by any means, saying that someone who is homosexual shouldn't be allowed to act on his/her feelings with a consenting adult. I am merely pointing out that this particular line of logic is very flawed.

Likewise the "gay found in nature" logic is very flawed. Dogs rape dogs in the street. Infant male hamsters will impregnate their mother before they can be weened from the teat. Nature has some funny ways of doing things - and the idea that because it's in nature, it should be okay, isn't going to set well with anyone who looks at it logically.

[lordwow]

It's very dangerous to replace gay with anything in your example.

"well, it's not one's choice to be black, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it."
"well, it's not one's choice to be a woman, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it."

I guess we should roll back everyone's rights.

[seanr1221]

Guile, my point was that sexuality is not a choice.

Unclebob, you're a fucking idiot. In your other examples, people would get hurt. Are they found in nature? Sure. But are they harmless like homosexuality? No.

[UncleBob]

Sean: I think you're missing my point.

I agree that Homosexuality is harmless (between two consenting individuals of sound mind).

However - there are those who don't.

To try and convince them otherwise with faulty logic helps no one and nothing.

"It's not my fault I'm sexually attracted to men - it's something inside of me!"
"It's not my fault I'm sexually attracted to young women - it's something inside of me!"

Instead of giving NAMBLA something to feed off of, the Homosexual community should stick with the facts - two consenting individuals of sound mind should be able to enter into a legal contract with one another so long as they agree and their intent is not to defraud anyone. To forbid to males or two females from entering into a contract is sexual discrimination - something the government should *not* be doing.

It's very dangerous to replace gay with anything in your example.

"well, it's not one's choice to be black, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it."
"well, it's not one's choice to be a woman, so they shouldn't be denied rights because of it."


Except that you can't "choose" to act on being black or female. You can choose to act on your sexual tendencies toward men or underage children.

One thing that is suppose to set us apart from the animals is that we humans don't always act on our basic instincts. We've evolved beyond that point - where we can determine for ourselves how we want to respond instead of giving in to our animalistic urges. You can make the choice how you respond to the feelings inside of you.

[lordwow]

So people who have homosexual feelings should repress them while people who have heterosexual feelings should be allowed to act upon them?

[UncleBob]

So people who have homosexual feelings should repress them while people who have heterosexual feelings should be allowed to act upon them?

I did not say that. At all.

But, to counter: "People who like 17 year olds should have to repress their feelings while people who like 18 year olds should be allowed to act on their feelings?"

[lordwow]

I don't think that's true at all, and here in MA, there's no legal issue with that. You can date a 17 year old or an 18 year old.

So, I don't think that in either case people should be forced to repress their feelings.

[lilboo]

See this is what I mean. Everytime the "gay debate" comes up people need to compare it to EVERYTHING else instead of dealing with the issue.

Can't compare homosexuality to:
-Polygamy (Shut UP, Thrust ;))
-Pedophilia
-Bestiality
-E.T.C.

Homosexuality needs to be debated for what it IS, not for what ELSE it could be or "welllll if you replace these words...". You can replace any word with ANY word and still say the same shit.

"Lordwow ate pancakes for breakfast"
"Lordwow ate pancakes for dinner"
"Lordwow cooked pancakes for breakfast"
"Lordwow had sex with pancakes for Passover Easter"

[lordwow]

I don't celebrate Passover, for the record.

[lilboo]

Fixed 8-)

[lordwow]

... fair enough boo.

[UncleBob]

I don't think that's true at all, and here in MA, there's no legal issue with that. You can date a 17 year old or an 18 year old.

So, I don't think that in either case people should be forced to repress their feelings.

Okay, then let's say 16 year old and 17 year old.


Can't compare homosexuality to:

Why not? If the argument from the pro-homosexual side is that homosexuality is something from within, that it's not a choice, then why can't we look at other sexual feelings that come from within and claim that they're not a choice as well?

Hell, I would argue that it's more likely for individuals to be sexually attracted to younger individuals - they make better breeding stock to help promote the species.

[UncleBob]

Again, I completely agree that there is nothing wrong in regards to the sexual activities of two consenting individuals of sound mind. Not the government's place to make the calls here.

[lordwow]

There is very little difference developmentally between a 16 and a 17 year old, and the differences are individual. So there's no difference.

[lilboo]

But WHY doe we have to compare homosexuality WITH other stuff? WHY can't people just look at "2 consenting adults of the same gender who want to spend their lives together" (of course that's a marriage reference, as well :lol: )

[UncleBob]

There is very little difference developmentally between a 16 and a 17 year old, and the differences are individual. So there's no difference.

So, then, let's say 15 and 16.

But WHY doe we have to compare homosexuality WITH other stuff? WHY can't people just look at "2 consenting adults of the same gender who want to spend their lives together" (of course that's a marriage reference, as well :lol: )

Two reasons.

One, it's what the homosexual community is doing themselves. See:
"So people who have homosexual feelings should repress them while people who have heterosexual feelings should be allowed to act upon them?"

All that's being done here is replacing one word with another. WHY do we have to compare homosexuality with heterosexuality.

Second, the homosexual community is trying to set legal precedence. While I agree with the cause, the reason behind the cause needs to be clear. If you try to argue that homosexual marriage should be legal because homosexuality is something inside of you, then someone later could come along and argue likewise about pedophilia or whatever. This is why it's very important that the homosexual community knows what their message is: Two consenting individuals of sound mind should not be prohibited by the government from entering into a legal contract on the basis of their gender.

[lordwow]

Developmentally, there's very little difference between two people a year apart of any age except for infants and young, young children (first 5 years). There's almost no difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old.

[lilboo]

It's actually not all that deep, though. That's why this issue cracks me up. It's SUCH a simple issue too. People take this WAY too far and have such strong opinions about it. I don't know why people have to give REASONS as to why gays = gay.

ESPECIALLY...**ESPECIALLY when the issue is simply: 2 people just want to be allowed to spend their lives together: THAT is why it's so funny. I can see the "abortion debate" being complex. I can see when NAMBLA wants to legally marry 10 year old boys, it can be complex.

Not this.
And especially when the issue is "Letting 2 people spend their lives together". Everything else is just a way to derail the topic. (Not here, just in general)

[UncleBob]

Developmentally, there's very little difference between two people a year apart of any age except for infants and young, young children (first 5 years). There's almost no difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old.

So... 14 and 15 year old?

If you were in charge and you could create a rule saying at what point an individual could legally consent to sexual activities, where would you draw the line?

[UncleBob]

It's actually not all that deep, though. That's why this issue cracks me up. It's SUCH a simple issue too. People take this WAY too far and have such strong opinions about it. I don't know why people have to give REASONS as to why gays = gay.

Agreed. So tell the homosexual community to stop trying to give reasons like "It's not a choice." Because:
A.) It is your choice to act on it.
and
B.) It shouldn't matter what the reason is.

[lordwow]

If you picked out any 2 children, one who is 14 and one who is 15, who would be more mature? I'd say it's about 50/50. Again, it's a complete crapshoot dependent upon a person's upbringing and experience. You couldn't tell a 14 and 15 year apart if they were standing next to each other or if you talked to them.

I would say that it would depend upon how old the participants are, but in general I think a 16 year old is a reasonable estimate of when most people are able to make decisions and understand their consequences.

[lilboo]

Yes, but tell the heterosexual community to stop telling us "it's a choice." Because:
A). It's not.
and
B). It shouldn't matter.

[UncleBob]

Lilboo: I think, in my limited opinion, when the heterosexual community says it's a choice, that they mean to imply that it is a choice in how you act upon your feelings. We're both right, it doesn't matter, so long as the participants are consenting and of sound mind, but, legally, how the homosexual community goes about trying to make the change will make all the difference.

If you picked out any 2 children, one who is 14 and one who is 15, who would be more mature? I'd say it's about 50/50. Again, it's a complete crapshoot dependent upon a person's upbringing and experience. You couldn't tell a 14 and 15 year apart if they were standing next to each other or if you talked to them.

I would say that it would depend upon how old the participants are, but in general I think a 16 year old is a reasonable estimate of when most people are able to make decisions and understand their consequences.

Can you phrase that like a law? :)

[lordwow]

No, I'm not a legislator or a lawyer.

The fact of the matter is that our legal system in terms of age of consent is archaic and poorly implemented. What it's purported to do is to protect the least able, children and those who are under the age of 16 who are unable to make decisions. People who are under that age, generally, are susceptible to abuse and being taken advantage of. They can not consent because they can't grasp the consequences or the reality of their situation.

Some 16 year olds can, some 14 year olds can, and some people can't until they're in their 20s. The law is simply in place to allow prosecution for people who take advantage of children who are unable to consent, but in many cases the law is taken too literally and 17 year olds dating 16 year olds end up in jail. Regardless, laws are enforced poorly here, so I won't devise one knowing that someone out there will take it either too literally or not enforce it correctly.

[UncleBob]

No, I'm not a legislator or a lawyer.

The fact of the matter is that our legal system in terms of age of consent is archaic and poorly implemented. What it's purported to do is to protect the least able, children and those who are under the age of 16 who are unable to make decisions. People who are under that age, generally, are susceptible to abuse and being taken advantage of. They can not consent because they can't grasp the consequences or the reality of their situation.

Some 16 year olds can, some 14 year olds can, and some people can't until they're in their 20s. The law is simply in place to allow prosecution for people who take advantage of children who are unable to consent, but in many cases the law is taken too literally and 17 year olds dating 16 year olds end up in jail. Regardless, laws are enforced poorly here, so I won't devise one knowing that someone out there will take it either too literally or not enforce it correctly.

Good answer. :)

I, personally, think we should move to a "coming of age" ceremony - a point where, after completing a series of tests to determine a young adult's competence, intelligence and self sustaining abilities, they should "come of age" and be allowed to purchase drugs (tobacco, etc.) and porn, apply for a driver's license, apply for a job, join the military, enter into a legal contract and have sexual relations. This means some children will "come of age" before other children born around the same time. This means some "adults" will not "come of age" until they are 40.

[von551]

I'll just leave it at this, no religion or morals involved, pure science:
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.

[RAMSTORIA]

:grabs popcorn:

[lordwow]

I'll just leave it at this, no religion or morals involved, pure science:
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.

And ignored.

[SpazX]

Oh von551, do you ever make sense?

[lilboo]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: <3 Von

AIDS is also the black person disease too ya know!!1!! :-B

[SpazX]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: <3 Von

AIDS is also the black person disease too ya know!!1!! :-B

Hey, we shouldn't be encouraging people to be black either. That's why my non-profit hands out argyle sweaters to black youth.

[docvinh]

Hey, if the whole idea is to procreate, why even have marriage at all? Wouldn't it make more sense for men to plant as many seeds as possible with multiple women? In this case, polygamists have a really good argument here.:) Also, if gay people are only spreading among themselves, all they would be doing is killing themselves off, right? And how the hell is everyone suddenly going to be gay?

I'll just leave it at this, no religion or morals involved, pure science:
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.

[CrimsonSnipette]

Good answer. :)

I, personally, think we should move to a "coming of age" ceremony - ...
This means some "adults" will not "come of age" until they are 40.

:rofl:What if you never pass?

[Kaijufan]

I can't believe the California Supreme Court actually ruled against gay marriage just a year after they allowed it. Seems pretty low of them. At least they let the people already married stay married.

I guess it's okay. All of you gay people can come on over to Iowa. ;)

[spmahn]

I'll just leave it at this, no religion or morals involved, pure science:
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.

Psst.... you can't use facts in this debate, because only the anti-gay marriage side has any, the other side relies on anecdotes, emotional arguments, and opinions, so they will mock you and your "so called" facts.

[Shrapnellistic]

Can't the GLBT community sign some papers to be legally unified and be recognized by the state to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples even with the bill in place that bans marriage between the GLBT's? Marriage that we recognize in the USA is obviously based around Christianity and the books are pretty blatant about disapproving of that "lifestyle" which makes me wonder why a GLBT couple would willingly want to attach themselves to that ancient philosophy just for the sake of "getting equal rights" when they can still get equal rights without some absurd label bathed in ignorance?

This made me wonder, can atheists be married?

[UncleBob]

:rofl:What if you never pass?

Then it sucks to be you. You won't be eligible to drive, enroll in social services on your own, buy "adult" items (alcohol, etc.). This would also encourage parents to actually make their children grow up and be responsible. Who wants to take care of their 40 year old son?

Obviously, there will still be homes and programs for the developmentally disabled and challenged.

Also, if gay people are only spreading among themselves, all they would be doing is killing themselves off, right? And how the hell is everyone suddenly going to be gay?

Because the gays are going to spread their gayness around to all of us heterosexual people! </sarcasm>

[StarKnightX]

Can't the GLBT community sign some papers to be legally unified and be recognized by the state to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples even with the bill in place that bans marriage between the GLBT's? Marriage that we recognize in the USA is obviously based around Christianity and the books are pretty blatant about disapproving of that "lifestyle" which makes me wonder why a GLBT couple would willingly want to attach themselves to that ancient philosophy just for the sake of "getting equal rights" when they can still get equal rights without some absurd label bathed in ignorance?

I apologize in advance if I'm completely wrong about this.

Short answer , no they can't.

Long Answer (which repeats some of the stuff you already mentioned and know) : The crutch of the whole problem isn't just a matter of marriage vs. civil union (or whatever version of that you want to use) , it's also the fact marriage carries many legal/financial/ect. benefits that unions don't. If civil unions had all the same rights/privilages that marriage had , there probably wouldn't be a problem , since everyone would just get a union instead. But since to get those benefits you have to be "married" and to be married you have to play by the churchs rules , then you have a problem.

To make it simple , its because "legal benefits" are tied into "religious beliefs".

[UncleBob]

Which is something that I feel needs to be addressed. We need to remove "Marriage" from either the church or the state. One can have "Marriage", one can have "Unions". What the church does with their's, I could care less.

The State, however, should treat their half as a legally binding agreement between two consenting individuals to share property and responsibility of said property (including bills, debt, taxes, etc.) in so far as the State is concerned.

Private companies, however, would (and should) be allowed to determine what benefits they wish to provide to what employees (and employees can decide what companies they want to work for).

[Kaijufan]

Can't the GLBT community sign some papers to be legally unified and be recognized by the state to receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples even with the bill in place that bans marriage between the GLBT's? Marriage that we recognize in the USA is obviously based around Christianity and the books are pretty blatant about disapproving of that "lifestyle" which makes me wonder why a GLBT couple would willingly want to attach themselves to that ancient philosophy just for the sake of "getting equal rights" when they can still get equal rights without some absurd label bathed in ignorance?

This made me wonder, can atheists be married?

Separate but equal has proven time and time again to not work.

And of course atheists can be married, I'm pretty sure both judges and ship captains can marry people. I'm sure some atheists also get married in churches by ministers also.

Personally I think with gay marriage just let the church leaders decide. If the leaders don't want to marry gays they shouldn't have to, if they do then that's fine too.

[lilboo]

But the problem is they don't want to :lol:
But I don't even want to be married in a church. I want to be married for legal reasons, not "RELIGIOUS".

[bmulligan]

Which is something that I feel needs to be addressed. We need to remove "Marriage" from either the church or the state. One can have "Marriage", one can have "Unions". What the church does with their's, I could care less.

The State, however, should treat their half as a legally binding agreement between two consenting individuals to share property and responsibility of said property (including bills, debt, taxes, etc.) in so far as the State is concerned.

Private companies, however, would (and should) be allowed to determine what benefits they wish to provide to what employees (and employees can decide what companies they want to work for).

I wholeheartedly agree with you. The State, in order to treat all individuals equally, should consider any joining of individuals together as a "civil union". Unfortunately, the religious argument brings the slippery slope with it arguing that marrying one's dog or more than one person at a time is unnatural and should be outlawed. Arguing on the basis of a presumed "god's law" is not a valid, moral reason to create a law that impedes individual freedom. It makes us no better than those who institute sharia law as in Iran or Afghanistan by the Taliban.

I happen to think that if you want to marry your dog, that's your business. For that matter, if your pursuit of happiness means marrying 3 women, more power to you. The State really has no business telling individuals how to live their lives and with whom they are not allowed to associate. It is contrary to the principle of freedom as these actions do not violate the rights of any other individual.

Now let's see how long it takes the leftist fringe to misinterpret my opinion and call me a dog-fucker.

[The Crotch]

Sorry, I've been away, so this is a bit late.

Dog-fucker.

I think that means something very different here, but whatever...

[theloserboy]

I'll just leave it at this, no religion or morals involved, pure science:
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.

mmmm, people like you always make me wonder why people are trying to limit late trimester abortions. If we allowed abortions past the up to and beyond the 100th trimester you wouldn't be around to bother the rest of the population.

As for your hypothesis that everyone would die if everyone was gay or lesbian: sperm bank. Heard of it?

I only read about the first 25 pages of this thread, so I'm not entirely sure if this has been posted before, but one of the main reasons why there hasn't been a whole lot of research done on gay genes / differences in the brains of heterosexuals vs homosexuals is because there are zealots threatening the lives of psychologists and the like. Sorry that i don't have a link or anything, but if you really wanted to find out more I'm sure a small amount of research would hopefully show that I'm not spouting BS.

[lilboo]

:lol: :applause:

[UncleBob]

I only read about the first 25 pages of this thread, so I'm not entirely sure if this has been posted before, but one of the main reasons why there hasn't been a whole lot of research done on gay genes / differences in the brains of heterosexuals vs homosexuals is because there are zealots threatening the lives of psychologists and the like. Sorry that i don't have a link or anything, but if you really wanted to find out more I'm sure a small amount of research would hopefully show that I'm not spouting BS.

To be fair, the crazy, dangerous zealots make more threats to those doing cloning and stem cell research than those looking for the "gay gene". Yet, we can clone sheep?

[rickonker]

Who cares if people choose to be gay or not? What difference does it make?

[UncleBob]

Who cares if people choose to be gay or not? What difference does it make?

That was the point I was trying to make earlier, but I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

[lilboo]

Who cares if people choose to be gay or not? What difference does it make?

That was the point I was trying to make earlier, but I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

This.

Being gay, I felt there wasn't a choice. But science may know something one day. Maybe deep down inside I did choose this. Regardless of the fact, it should not matter.

[rickonker]

That was the point I was trying to make earlier, but I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

Got it. Going back to your earlier posts:

Should we, as a society, just shrug our shoulders and say "Well, it's their nature - can't blame 'em." and walk on by? At what point do we, as a society, get to say "Your nature is wrong. Stop that."?

I'd say only when someone becomes violent.

lol. That went out the window when the government decided it was okay to seize the private property of individuals for the "welfare" of the majority. If the government can trample all over private property rights, what's to stop them from trampling over whatever rights get in their way?

Yeah, it's been funny watching progressives whine about rights all of a sudden. Of course gay marriage should be legal, but now they're worried about the majority trampling over rights?


I'll just leave it at this, no religion or morals involved, pure science:
The GLBT community is about 3% of the population. Now that small amount of our population accounts for 70% of all new HIV cases according to the CDC. Now is that healthy for any society? If everyone today turned gay, we'd all be EXTINCT within 100 years from either disease or the inability to procreate. Is it us heterosexuals that are expected to do the leg work for the homosexuals choice to not be able to procreate? How is that not science proving what a destructive lifestyle this is? I challenge the most liberal atheist to argue with those facts, which many agree with and see as reason to ban gay marriage. Just a tiny tip of the iceberg of how destructive this lifestyle can be to any society.

Who is forcing you to procreate? And how is banning gay marriage going to stop people from being gay?

[rickonker]

I can't believe the California Supreme Court actually ruled against gay marriage just a year after they allowed it. Seems pretty low of them. At least they let the people already married stay married.

I guess it's okay. All of you gay people can come on over to Iowa. ;)


Uh, you know, in theory, the court is supposed to interpret the law, not just decide if it wants gay marriage to be legal or not. The two rulings were about different things.

Unless you're just admitting that the courts often do whatever the hell they want.

[von551]

mmmm, people like you always make me wonder why people are trying to limit late trimester abortions. If we allowed abortions past the up to and beyond the 100th trimester you wouldn't be around to bother the rest of the population.

As for your hypothesis that everyone would die if everyone was gay or lesbian: sperm bank. Heard of it?

I only read about the first 25 pages of this thread, so I'm not entirely sure if this has been posted before, but one of the main reasons why there hasn't been a whole lot of research done on gay genes / differences in the brains of heterosexuals vs homosexuals is because there are zealots threatening the lives of psychologists and the like. Sorry that i don't have a link or anything, but if you really wanted to find out more I'm sure a small amount of research would hopefully show that I'm not spouting BS.

wow, ignorance and intolerance from someone claiming to be the opposite? how ironic. really, you wish me dead because i have an opinion different than you? wow, i thought hitler was dead. there HAVE been a ton of studies on this subject because of the liberal, naturalistic, humanistic scientific world we live in. You have it backwards my friend, science will always be used for the culture, not the counter-culture truth. Everything always tries to point to Darwin, evolution and insignifigance in our existence. Ironically, there's so much evidence for creation it's overwhelming, yet supressed because no one wants to have to answer to a Higher Power. There still hasn't been any major findings despite numerous tries, not despite handcuffs by the zealots, haha. sperm bank, huh? really? so you want to rely on man-made technology for something we're naturally gifted at? how ridiculous is that? why don't you just walk around with your eyes closed all day and rely on people to tell you what they see for you? ignorance. i can't blame you though, society is the product of conformity and ignorance, we're all guilty and it's so easy to be blinded by it. i wish no harm on anyone gay it's sad that i get threatened for trying to protect marriage from the government's agenda. I shouldn't have to have my marriage license say Party A and Party B instead of Bride and Groom or get a Civil Union instead of a marriage. The bigger picture the threat to religous freedom of speech which is already being threatened in europe, canada, and now the states. Don't believe me? Click HERE (http://rationshed.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/usa-pastors-in-the-pulpit-subject-to-imprisonment-for-hate-crimes/) to read how congress just made it hate speech to read passages in the Bible against homosexuality! It's all a big scheme to shut up the church's freedom of speech, which most of you want, but it's no different than making a bill saying you can't voice your opinion in favor of homosexuality without risk of imprisonment for an opinion. It's inevitable that the govenment/world will prevail in this, it's been written about thousands of years ago in the Bible, we're just trying to fight the good fight as long as possible.

[Msut77]

Ironically, there's so much evidence for creation it's overwhelming.

I think we hooked a live one...

[lilboo]

Von,

What if Marriages where only taken place at a church and civil unions where handed out by like..judges or something.

However, in terms of LEGAL stuff: Marriages = Civil Union.
Now, I can understand how the church may say "No" to same sex couples trying to get married in the church. That's fine. I am sure there are plenty of opposite sex couples who don't want a marriage in a church and are fine with a civil union.

What are your thoughts on this?
Remember: The ONLY difference in this situation is that a "Marriage" takes PLACE in a church.

[von551]

And how is banning gay marriage going to stop people from being gay?

It's not about stopping people from being gay, it's about them trying to redefine the definition of marriage. They claim they had their right to be married taken away when it never was their right and shouldn't have been. three activist judges took it up themselves to overturn millions of citizen's votes after being influenced by Gavin Newsom, governor of San Francisco. a man who cheated on his ex with his good friend's wife, a man who clearly doesn't understand the definition of true marriage. how socialist can you be when you think it's ok for the government to overrule the people's vote? whether you agree with the decision or not, you can't be ok with the government not obeying the people. Doesn't the Constitution start out with "We the people"? Interesting. Again the government is considering overturning millions of votes, what's the point of voting if we're truly a country being run like a monarchy? Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

[docvinh]

i can't blame you though, society is the product of conformity and ignorance, we're all guilty and it's so easy to be blinded by it.

I find this hilarious, since organized religion is all about conformity AND ignorance. Do what the book tells you because some random guy in the sky tells you to. Don't question it, for it is the word of that guy in the sky. :D

[Msut77]

It's not about stopping people from being gay, it's about them trying to redefine the definition of marriage. They claim they had their right to be married taken away when it never was their right and shouldn't have been. three activist judges took it up themselves to overturn millions of citizen's votes after being influenced by Gavin Newsom, governor of San Francisco. a man who cheated on his ex with his good friend's wife, a man who clearly doesn't understand the definition of true marriage. how socialist can you be when you think it's ok for the government to overrule the people's vote? whether you agree with the decision or not, you can't be ok with the government not obeying the people. Doesn't the Constitution start out with "We the people"? Interesting. Again the government is considering overturning millions of votes, what's the point of voting if we're truly a country being run like a monarchy? Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

This isn't a pure democracy in many ways that is a good thing.

[SpazX]

I find this hilarious, since organized religion is all about conformity AND ignorance. Do what the book tells you because some random guy in the sky tells you to. Don't question it, for it is the word of that guy in the sky. :D

Even worse, it's not the guy in the sky. There would actually be more credence if there actually was some voice coming from the sky that nobody could explain. But no, not only is it some random guy in the sky, it's actually the written words of some random human guy who is interpreting what they think some random guy in the sky is saying, which isn't very clearly written and is a translation from another language in the first place, so there's another guy who interprets that guy who people then follow. So it's the words of some guy interpreting some other guy who, at the time, said that he was interpreting a guy in the sky.

Saying that it's the words of a random guy in the sky is giving it too much credit, IMO.

But, whatever, OT.

[von551]

Von,

What if Marriages where only taken place at a church and civil unions where handed out by like..judges or something.

However, in terms of LEGAL stuff: Marriages = Civil Union.
Now, I can understand how the church may say "No" to same sex couples trying to get married in the church. That's fine. I am sure there are plenty of opposite sex couples who don't want a marriage in a church and are fine with a civil union.

What are your thoughts on this?
Remember: The ONLY difference in this situation is that a "Marriage" takes PLACE in a church.

i'm all for civil unions and equal rights, no one should have less rights (benefits, etc.) because of lifestyle. what i don't understand is why can't the gay community be fine with that? if it's just a word with the same rights as is the rheteric from the community, then why the hubub? take your civil unions, but don't force them on me and the other 97% of society. Heteros shouldn't have to jump through more hoops to get a marriage because gays can't get one. Alot of churchs will "marry" gays, so i know what you really want is the STATE, not church to recognize your "marriage". THe major flaw too is if this happens and gays get civil unions and not "married" in a church are they going to say they're "married" or "civil" or "partners"? I think we all know they'll say "married", who would say- "we just got civil!"? So then is the name or definition changing? I think it'd be the definition in the long run, right? This is all very unfortunate and I wish the government had never assumed the role of "owning" marriage, this could all be avoided. I don't like the government telling me they have the right to allow same-sex marriage just as much as you don't like them telling you they won't allow you to get same-sex marriage. the true enemy is them here, i believe, making enemy amongst citizens, thus weakening us, thus making them more powerful over us. just my slanted view...

[lilboo]

i'm all for civil unions and equal rights, no one should have less rights (benefits, etc.) because of lifestyle. what i don't understand is why can't the gay community be fine with that? if it's just a word with the same rights as is the rheteric from the community, then why the hubub? take your civil unions, but don't force them on me and the other 97% of society. Heteros shouldn't have to jump through more hoops to get a marriage because gays can't get one.

The thing is that: At the moment Civil Unions do NOT work. We have Civil Unions here in NJ. The problem is, some places ..like jobs (for health insurance) and hospitals (for visitations) do not recognize civil unions, only marriage. That is the current problem we have. To me, this is basically the issue.

Also, I don't understand the stuff I italicized. Can you elaborate?


Alot of churchs will "marry" gays, so i know what you really want is the STATE, not church to recognize your "marriage". THe major flaw too is if this happens and gays get civil unions and not "married" in a church are they going to say they're "married" or "civil" or "partners"? I think we all know they'll say "married", who would say- "we just got civil!"? So then is the name or definition changing? I think it'd be the definition in the long run, right?

Don't you see how silly this whole debate is? This whole thing TRULY is over a word. People aren't allowed certain rights because of a word. A WORD.
Also, what churches "marry" gays? I don't understand what you mean. I also never said the church should recognize it. In what I asked you, I said the only difference between a "Marriage" and a "Civil Union" is that the "Marriage" took place in a church.
HOWEVER, it is up to the church to decide. IF a church says "SURE, we welcome same sexed couples to MARRY".. Why would that be a problem?

Also, what's the next debate? When gays are granted this right, are we allowed to call our ceremony a wedding? Are we allowed to have weddings? Or will that be another word that is related between ONLY A MAN AND A WOMAN? I suspect this will be the next big gay debate.

This is all very unfortunate and I wish the government had never assumed the role of "owning" marriage, this could all be avoided. I don't like the government telling me they have the right to allow same-sex marriage just as much as you don't like them telling you they won't allow you to get same-sex marriage. the true enemy is them here, i believe, making enemy amongst citizens, thus weakening us, thus making them more powerful over us. just my slanted view...

The church, IMO, should be allowed to say No to same sex couples.
The government should not. Why do you dislike the government allowing same-sex marriage, but at the beginning you say you are for equal rights? Or are you just nit picking because of the term "marriage".

[von551]

Even worse, it's not the guy in the sky. There would actually be more credence if there actually was some voice coming from the sky that nobody could explain. But no, not only is it some random guy in the sky, it's actually the written words of some random human guy who is interpreting what they think some random guy in the sky is saying, which isn't very clearly written and is a translation from another language in the first place, so there's another guy who interprets that guy who people then follow. So it's the words of some guy interpreting some other guy who, at the time, said that he was interpreting a guy in the sky.

Saying that it's the words of a random guy in the sky is giving it too much credit, IMO.

But, whatever, OT.

Sadly, you and docvinh don't know the Bible well enough to know you're in direct contradiction to what it teaches. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 tells us to "test all things", pertaining to scripture - in laymen's terms, don't believe everything you hear and think for yourself. On the contrary is you and the world that goes with the flow and believes what the majority tells you. A good analogy I use is the movie The Matrix how it talks about the world being a facade to blind us from the truth, "we're all slaves." If you even know the formula or code the Bible was written with you'd know it shows a Divine writer, not man's system of writing. The translation is a cop out by athiests that don't know that the dead sea scrolls are word-for-word verbatim of the texts we have in circulation! Thousands of years without missing a word? How is that not Divine? We're talking about Hebrew here guys, not some crazy extinct alien language we're trying to figure out still. A language that's one of the major ones still used by millions today that this Book was written with, where's the mystery? There a ton of on the shelf Bibles and commentaries to study in it's original texts, I own one and it's great, or you can learn Hebrew, so again, where's the missing link?
2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed