-
-
Copy & paste this:
-
Latest Comments
Mr. Wayne on So Many Countless Hours Spent … tehrawb on High on Life? No, High on… The Master on Replotted: That’s Just… The Master on So Many Countless Hours Spent … RCC on It’s Just For Show Kitten on Art of Trolling: Nothing, Noth… cheezies on So Many Countless Hours Spent … Moiz Siddiqui on Crapping Has Never Been More… Abcde F. Ghij on If Only They Made Little Pouch… SHOTGUN CHUCK on High on Life? No, High on… JV1138 on The Scoop on Poop Gallade475 on Classic: The Hips Aren’t… headedtoaussie on Art of Trolling: Nothing, Noth… Skye on High on Life? No, High on… Green on The Phallic Graph of Phal… 
Cheezburger Company Blog
You forgot “Ride unicycles in a speedo at a SF parade.”
I think the red part was supposed to be labeled “Convince people to CHANGE THEIR mind ABOUT their own business.”
They left out a few words there, but now the meaning is clear.
Noooooooooooooooooooooo. The red part was: convince people to mind their own buisness. Thats what the creator intended.
Um, pretty sure gay pride parades aren’t made to convince people to mind their own business.
Seems to be quite the opposite…
Is that why they parade naked down the streets of toronto every year, flaunting the law?
You obviously don’t know what “flaunting” means. It’s not the law they’re flaunting!
Besides, around here they have a permit for the marches, just like any parade does. I imagine it’s the same in Toronto.
It’s “flouting”, dear, “flouting”.
Um, pretty sure the Irish Parade isn’t intended to convince people to become Irish. It’s about celebrating being Irish. Gay parades are the same concept. except people take the most flamboyant aspects and assign it to the whole group, rather than noting that most people at gay parades are pretty boring generally speaking.
-high fives- i’m going to apologize early for the caps, so sorry-
YOU, MY DEAR SIR, ARE A WINNER.
Vlad, thank you for the rational response.
Win! Best. Comment. Ever.
Thank you.
And yes, I consider myself very boring and I do go to the Toronto Pride parade.
And to clear something up, technically, yes, it IS illegal to be naked at the parade. The cops have and do arrest the people they can catch. I’m remembering this one group of older men (their club has a name, but I can’t remember it) who go naked, and consequently get arrested every single year. They’re very cheerful about it, they don’t resist at all. Really, it’s just a big celebration about how we don’t have to be embarrassed about ourselves (even when most of us are utterly boring).
Your internets will arrive in the mail shortly, Vlad.
Crap. Those parades had totally convinced me to be Irish.
Correct, and well said.
Thank you for being rational. You rock.
Of course not. The parades are part of the “Take over the world and make it fabulous” agenda.
You also forgot “change the definition of marriage from what it’s been since ancient time to something that suits them”
Captain! What are you doing??? Don’t you know what you are starting??
*sees oncoming herd of angry liberals*
Crap, I’m outta here dude. Best of luck.
It’s Monday, I’m bored.
Hey, go check out the latest Rofl Razzi. It uses your name in it.
Also, what I said was true.
And, historically speaking, marriage has always been heterosexual by definition. Even in ancient Greece men had homosexual encounters with other men all the time, probably more than they had with their wives; but they still had wives. Despite their social beliefs that being bisexual was normal and that having sex with all your man friends was normal, they still believed in “traditional” marriage.
The idea of homosexual marriage as an accepted, society-wide belief is very new and unprecedented.
I’m with the Cap’t on this one; I also think the graph’s captions are backwards…
Marriage was created as institutionalized slavery for women. I’ve been married for 23 years so I ought to know!
Wow, sounds like a personal problem. My wife loves it.
That’s what he said. Slaves for women.
It must be the burning thats getting to her.
Riiiiight. I’m probably more a slave to my wife than the other way around. I don’t mind too much though
sucks to be you
Originaly, yes, currently? No.
How does man have a homosexual encounter with his wife?
Yes, because we used to do it for a long time throughout history it MUST be right!
Just like slavery, abusing women, and forcing children into backbreaking labor! People did it for a very long time so it must be right! It must be the only way, just like “traditional marriage”.
Because divorce rates are so low in the US and everything, our system of marriage OBVIOUSLY works so well!
Get a grip already. Change is inevitable and completely necessary. If society stagnates, it dies. And really, how would it effect your personally if gays married each other. If you don’t believe in it, do marry someone of your gender.
edit: don’t marry someone of your gender.*
Cool it. Cap’n Obvious just commented on the way things were and are, not whether they should be like that.
commented? he was giving an obviously biased and outdated opinion.
Thompson raised a very good point, that if, by Capn’s logic, the way it has always been, must be the right way, then slavery, racism etc etc must be right.
regarding marriage, it is as it is and has been for so long because women and men have had naturally defined roles in life ‘since ancient times’ and so pairing up was mutualy benificial to both parties. whereas 2 men would not have to marry because both of them were able to work and survive by themselves (im not being sexist, bak in those days everything was more about survival of the fittest and men were generaly fitter, its a fact)
now that would mean that in those times a marriage between men was not seen as neccisary.
Now days however we dont have such a survival of the fittest society. marriage is done to join 2 people whom love eachother as a couple and family by law. that so with times the deffinition of ‘marriage’ has changed. what part of the current definition and use of marriage, should exclude homosexuals from marrying?
I can’t see anything to suggest that Capn is giving an opinion. Perhaps it’s a mistaken perception; I don’t know.
Andrea –
The first post about changing the definitino of marriage was biased. Prop 8 in California changed the states definition of marriage in order to prohibit gay marriage. In case somebody didn’t know, Prop 8 took away a right that people in the state already had. Additionally, all it took was 51% of the vote to change the state constitution. I hope you’re always on the popular side when it comes to voting about human rights…
Tyson, you are incorrect.
The definition of marriage was defined in 1977 by Governor Jerry (Uber Alles) Brown when he signed a bill making marriage in California between one man and one woman. This was further validated when in 1997 Bill Clinton made it a national policy.
In 2000 Prop 22 passed which simply stated that only marriage between one man and one woman would be recognized in CA. This is because Massachusettes’ courts had legislated from the bench and put into law something that wouldn’t have passed a referendum call. As a matter of fact the Courts refused to allow the public to vote on the matter.
Prop 22 was overturned by the courts, but that still didn’t give the state’s gay couples the “right” to get married. It merely stated that gay couples COULD be recognized if the state passed a resolution that allowed for that to happen. Which meant suspending the law that Moonbeam signed in 1977.
That law was passed in assembly and sent to Governor Schwartzenegger to sign. Ah-nuld said that he supported the effort but felt that it was up to the electorate to decide, and didn’t sign the bill.
The ramifications of this means quite simply that gays never had the “right” to marry.
Prop 8 passed in the highest turnout election in California history, also one that was sweepingly Democratic Party leaning.
It has always taken 50%+1 to amend the California constitution, that’s why the California constitution has about 300 percent more amendments than the US constitution does.
Gays have never had the “right” to marry in this state. If it makes you feel better, straights don’t have the “right” to marry either.
Gays and Straights have the ability to enter into contracts that provide all the same legal benefits the state can guarantee.
This is born out in the text of the California Domestic Partnership Act in full.
There is a list of a bunch of supposed rights that gays refer to that are their proof of the theoretical inaccuracy of that comment. However every single one of those supposed rights are neither rights or are not enforceable by the State.
California resolutions have zero effect on any national stipulations or benefits. Social Security/PERS/ etc are all Federal benefits and not covered by state regulations.
civil union =/= marriage. it’s really not the same rights.
polygamy should also be legal.
Yup. Allow women to marry as many blokes they like!
I believe that marriage was, indeed, “invented” in the name of procreation. Which means it would be illogical for gay couples to marry.
HOWEVER, gay couples should be able to sort out their legal status, finances, etc. in the same way as other couples. That way, the one who gets left behind after 25 years of a steady relationship doesn’t get left with nothing because the family has contested the will (it’s been known to happen!). There needs to be some kind of legal framework that acknowledges such relationships.
In GB, this is provided for in “civil partnerships”. I entered one of those 2 weeks ago. Not because I felt the urge to “get married” to my partner, but because I wanted to give her parental responsibility over my son, and they wouldn’t give it to her without a CP! It also sorts out our pensions, inheritances, etc. in one fell swoop.
I just wish that people would treat us like people. I don’t want special treatment, I just want people to stop making such a bloomin’ fuss all the time (or sneakily talk behind my back). I do wonder why especially men are so aggressive about gay men. I blame an over-active imagination (I mean, I don’t go around wondering what people get up to in their bedrooms, yeugh!).
Unfortunately in the USA there is no one standard that applies, it is being decided on a state by state basis. And “civil union” does not confer all the same legal statuses as marriage, hence the debate.
Really it makes no difference WHAT it is called, as long as it is called the same thing for everyone, and has the same benefits package.
As to being treating like people, I am with you 100% on that one.
Marriage has at various times and places consisted of one man and several women, one woman and several men, several women and several men, one man and several people of various sexes, one man and one man, and one woman and one woman. Which ‘historical’ version of marriage are you talking about? The one that fits your argument?
Thank you; that’s so true. Just glad someone was there to say it for me.
you forget that there was also 35 year old man and 12 year old girl
womens rights was unprecedented. does that mean that we should take them away now!?? because the greeks did it?
…because you can take someone’s rights away, sure.
Rights are not given, and they are not yours because you are a member of one group or another – you can’t stack up your “woman” “native american” “african” “disabled” and “veteran” rights and claim that you have more rights than anyone else. It doesn’t work like that.
You have rights because you are a human being capable of conscious thought and moral understanding.
Past societies that failed to acknowledge this for certain groups (such as women, minorities, etc) did so at their own peril – and, where are they now? Once acknowledged, it is difficult to obscure the shared humanity of these otherwise “subhuman” groups.
Marriage, on the other hand, is a social construct, not an inborn quality of a moral being. It’s not a right. The definition of marriage is relative to whatever society has constructed it.
The problem in the United States is that we tolerate such a vast (and beautiful!) diversity of internal cultures that, when we try to *legislate* a sometimes-religious, sometimes-secular institution such as marriage, those cultures are bound to butt heads.
We’d be much, much better off if we didn’t try to legislate the damn thing. Besides, if marriage IS a religious institution for many, then it’s a violation of the separation of church and state, as the state could be construed as endorsing religions that have an institution of marriage over those that don’t.
If we *must* have some civil acknowledgment of the unity of two people, it ought to be civil unions across the board, homosexual or heterosexual.
Hear, hear! Let’s just be sure that we bring the definition of a civil union up to par with the current definition of a legal marriage and not the other way around. In other words, let’s take all the rights currently recognized under a legal marriage and put them under a civil union. Then those of us who still want a traditional marriage can still have a religious ceremony in the church, and everyone’s happy!
So is the next step to teach homosexual biology and sex ed classes?
While world cultures have performed various kinds of marriages, the vast majority is one man, multiple wives. VERY rare (I’ve not heard of any) would be man and man or a woman with no husband at all.
judeo/christian/arabic marriage calls for Polygyny (one man multiple wives) at most and celibacy at least with one wife/one husband in the middle.
Heterosexual marriage is a basic unit of society…encouraging it is not to soceity’s detriment.
Homosexual union’s do not bear fruit. Perhaps people looking at a population “crisis” would disagree.
But they could adopt and take care of the legions of orphaned children that are already here…
Or artificial insemination…
They don’t have to “bear fruit” to contribute to the future of the children already here. I don’t think a population of over 6 billion needs to make sure it has a breeding pool since there is obviously one already there. Especially since a lot of those children are wards of the state and could use a home…
I’m sure its possible for a gay couple to raise a child that would be a positive addition to “civilization” as we know it. This isn’t my argument with not bearing fruit. There are several animal species that regularly practice homosexual intimacy…but they still pair of (makes them Bi?) to have children. I haven’t seen this personally but I’d like to say I trust the scientists that report such findings. Do some of those people have agendas and possibly manipulate the truth…meh…possibly.
The Fundamental question is, is there a moral law or not? If there is, who is the giver of the law? Is it a self imposed man made moral law? or is it a divine law?
wether or not society can accept something does not necessarily make it good. Society in the past has adopted racism, religious presecution and well as religious zealotry. Accepting and possibly even pushing a lax moral law may not end up being a good thing for society in general…we’ll see in hind sight what we hope to see now.
Based on my own personal experience, there IS a moral law and the law giver has a purpose for relationships, family, sex, etc. Because of the divine origin of the human soul, we are given greater intellect than the animal kingdom…and we will also be held to higher responsibilities. Because of the divine nature of man and the sacred purpose of family, there is a law with a corresponding blessing for compliance and loss of said blessing for non compliance.
I don’t just speak of Homosexuality but also fornication and adultery. Marriage is already under great duress from those who have devalued faithfulness in marriage and abstinence before. What we need is greater nobility, honor and respect for eachother.
There is divine law but it is for God to mandate. On Earth, we can only hope to make the place a level playing field, thus why we condemn murder and theft but should allow marriage to all consenting adults.
We can’t legislate sin as sin is in the eye of God, for religion just can’t seem to get a grip on things. We can’t assume that one religion is perfect as there are many religions and we have fought that war to death, and still fighting that war it seems.
If we are to hate the sin but not the sinner for homosexuality, then we need to allow the gays to choose for themselves as we have not denied ourselves marriage. Ethically, we cannot deny them what we take advantage of.
God said to Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged and Love thy Neighbor. As for Procreation, I have already had two children and my mother had three and octomom has over a dozen and Quiverful women strive for double digit numbers, etc etc.
We aren’t in danger of losing our purpose. Gay couples can raise a loving family and there are many children lost and waiting to be loved. It is negligence of our purpose as family makers to insist on increasing the supply of children while we deny perfectly loving people the right to marry and raise the children that are still lost.
What you have done for the least, you have done for me. God wasn’t fu(king around when he said that. So we need to make sure there are plenty of loving families of all stripes to raise those kids who have the least among us.
I can think of few things more noble, honorable, or respectful.
And I thank God for you. Talking to Valiant Defender, though, seems to be like bashing your head against a brick wall; therefore, I refuse. But thank you, DeathWyrmNexus, for your valiant efforts in defending the rights of others.
It is an honor and privilege, ma’am.
-hugs- thank you.
i love not having to type it in again because of the argument you’ve made here for me.
I have learned about homosexual sex in my sex ed classes :3
1) Yes. Teach homosexuality as a part of biology, which it is. Teach it as a part of sex ed, which it is. That was easy.
2) World cultures have performed various marriage types. OK. You have not heard of any that are man and man or woman with no husband (I assume you mean woman and woman). OK. So what? While they have happened, that is not really the point. The point is that now we are in the process of legalizing them. Cultures change and grow.
3) Judeao/Christian/Arabic marriages are very nice. I don’t object to them. We, however, are talking about the legal, not religious definitions.
4)No one is DISCOURAGING heterosexual marriage. Homosexual marriage will in no way do so. So your comment about detriment is irrelevant.
5) Homosexual unions CAN certainly bear fruit, in much the same way that many infertile heterosexual couples do. However, since procreation is not, as has been repeatedly discussed in this thread and elsewhere, the only, or even primary, purpose of marriage anymore, this is not an issue. I don’t believe you can prove that there is a population “crisis” anywhere except in, perhaps, the population of various religious sects that seem to be losing members. The rest of the world is overpopulated, and currently a net of 200,000 new people are added every day. By the year 2040 it is estimated there will be 9 billion people on this planet. Population is not an issue.
Yay!
Devy, in California all legal “rights” conferred by the state into “legal marriages” are available to “domestic partnerships”
IF that is truly your goal, congratulations, you’ve won.
Um, first of all, I didn’t know I was competing for any sort of prize. Second of all, I don’t live in California. I live in Louisiana, and as much as I hate it, I also love it and don’t think that I or anyone else should have to move elsewhere to be given the same rights. That’s the beauty of living in the USA. If you don’t like the way things are going, you can change it. You don’t have to be oppressed if you don’t want to be. And lastly, from the many posts written here about it, I don’t seem to recall anyone giving proof that the same legal rights received by people in a legal marriage are available to people in a domestic partnership in California. If you are right, please give proof, but realize that even if you are right, I don’t want to move to California.
My bad Devy, it wasn’t meant as slam. I thought you were from California is all. A lot of folks on your side of the aisle have a huge misconception of what Prop 8 and 22 were about, and when confronted with that misunderstanding have a tendency to go off the reservation. So it wasn’t personal.
As Prop 8 is a California initiative, I find it odd that so many people from out of state weigh in on the matter. For as much attention that the Mormon Church (for transparency purposes I’m a member) got for donating, the No on 8 side got considerably more money from out of state (specifically from the entertainment community) then the Yes on 8 crowd did. They also recieved somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-15 percent more money overall than the Yes on 8 effort did as well.
As far as not wanting to move here I don’t blame ya, I live in California and wished I didn’t some times.
The California DPA is located at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5
You can read for yourself that is in guaranteed by law that DPs recieve all of the same benefits.
The problem arises with the federal benefits, and to be honest with you, I would support California style DPs across the land.
I think the reason that people from outside of the state were so adamant about Prop 8 either passing or not passing is because they realize that what can happen in one state may be able to happen in the rest of the country. Plus, California seems to be the leader when it comes to more progressive ideas, aside from Prop 8 that is. But thank you for the info. I am glad to hear that California gives the same benefits, regardless of the type of partnership.
yeah… there seems to be this “oh noes, there are a finite amount of rights and the gays are gonna get all the good ones and not leave any for us!” attitude… sigh. In this context, rights are a noncompete commodity.
Actually you’re wrong. Historically speaking the definition of marriage depends on the culture you’re referring to… “marriage” is not necessarily heterosexual.
Haha. “Traditional” marriage also included half-sisters and cousins. Seriously, folks, this “fundamental marriage” argument is getting tired. Let’s go back to tradition and only recognize marriage between two white people. Or arrange them in ways that give your family more power, regardless of what the two people want.
Seriously people. For a VERY long time ‘Traditional marriage’ was
“Guess what Daughter! You’re getting married. I don’t care if he’s (old/ugly/violent/your cousin/gay) you ARE going to marry him because (he’s rich/he’ll make me rich/he’s my buddy/i owe him money/i said so)!”
Yay, tradition!
Or maybe I’m just biased because I got married this year on my parents 20th anniversary. Of when they would have gotten married. If they could. Which they can’t. Because you can’t get married unless you have BOTH Tab A and Slot B.
I believe in Egypt, marriages also included full sisters, brothers, and mothers …
Funny, in many societies polygamy was considered a “traditional” form of marriage.
Also, same-sex marriage was considered normal for centuries in China, Japan, and Rome until 342 AD.
Besides, what is ‘traditional’ is not always correct. Slavery has been a traditional societal norm in several cultures, you know.
Same-sex marriage has NO negative side effects, other than upsetting homophobes who believe their personal prejudices and faith should be the basis for civil law.
The Greeks also believed that kidnapping and raping a woman constituted marriage – even if she was already married (read some Homer). Doesn’t mean it’s appropriate in our culture/s today, and I’m sure very few of us today would call such a marriage ‘traditional’.
The only reasons the gay marriage thing is an issue anyway is:
a) religious opposition
b) financial benefits
Why else would people care who marries whom, or what they do in the bedroom together?
you mean “change the law so it doesn’t violate a basic human right”?
People have the right to be gay, and the same rights in civil unions as a couple as married couples (in Ca at least); why do they want to change the definition of marriage when I won’t give them any more rights than they already have, unless it’s to force their ideas on everyone else that believes in the traditional definition of marriage?
I say f*ck tradition in cases such as these.
And look at Webster online. It’s already official. WOO!
Haha, because Webster is the official definer of social constructs…obviously.
Actually, the United States courts ruled that “Separate but equal” doesn’t actually work. Look up “Brown vs. Board of Education” for details.
that comparison sucks.
Actually, that’s a really nice analogy. Thank you.
How does it force any ideas on anyone? Allowing a second group to use a word in a way another group considers completely different doesn’t mean that other group has to change their definition. As it is, we have a government recognized exclusive right on the definition of a word, which doesn’t make much sense linguistically, especially since our language is relatively unregulated as compared to some others in the world.
On another angle, what’s the point of having two terms for what is legally the same thing? If “Civil Union” and “Marriage” are legally identical except for the sex of the partners, then why call them something different? What information is it intended to carry? What purpose?
Either it’s intended to suggest that one is different from the other, or it allows for their legal situations to diverge. It’s either a desperate play by a group to maintain some level of cultural control over the whole, or it’s a mechanism by which to introduce differences between the two.
Inevitably, one will be abandoned in actual speech. People will say that they’re married, even if they only have a “Civil Union”. Are we going to have word police to enforce the legal exclusivity right over the word marriage?
Well said!
/agree
Oh, thank God someone in this stream not only has intelligence but also something relevant to say. I couldn’t have stated it better myself. Oh, and by the way, not every state recognizes a civil union like California. Louisiana, for instance, does not.
Devy, then wouldn’t your argument be better served focusing your efforts in states where Civil Unions are not recognized like in California?
Here in California, Domestic Partnerships are granted all rights that the state can give a “married” couple. So to continue to fight this battle here, merely seems like fighting a battle already won.
Does that mean they can file jointly on Federal Income taxes as can heterosexual couples? Does it mean that if a couple joined in California moves to… oh, say Texas… their union will be recognized, as would one between heterosexual couples?
The battle proceeds.
Precisely.
Not to mention, we are still dealing with “separate but equal”. If ALL marriages are called “domestic partnerships” under the law, there is no problem. Is that the case?
Um, I don’t know why all of a sudden you think I was directing anything toward California or any state that supposedly recognizes a civil union. In fact, I mentioned Lousiana as not recognizing a civil union, because that is where I live, and therefore, I will focus my energy on it.
My bad (as I stated above), I thought you were from California.
Thank you. Apology accepted.
Two words that mean the exact same thing with slightly different contexts. I have two apples. I got two apples.
They are different, but in 98% of contexts, interchanging them doesn’t raise an eyebrow.
Arguing against adding a new meaning to a word in English is weak. WEAK.
Your comment would hold more water if both the statements meant the same thing. “I have two apples” means “I currently possess two apples.” “I got two apples,” unless you are speaking in the colloquial, grammatically incorrect sense, means “I acquired two apples.” State of existence vs. action. Not the same.
his comments hold water with me because i’m not picking at metaphorical nits here.
well, he’s defending the statement that civil union = civil marriage (untrue) by saying have = got (also untrue)… to continue your “holding water” theme it’s kind of like sieve = sponge…
average jane = awesome
hmm… i don’t agree with his point, jane, but i can see what he’s saying is what i was trying to comment on, and since the general populace would probably see what he’s saying better with the mistake included, i don’t see a real need to correct him
I believe he was referring to the colloquial, grammatically incorrect sense. At least that’s how I read it. I agree, he should have inserted a [sic], but there is no need to be pedantic.
Amen! Couldn’t have said it better myself.
That is brilliantly worded and so true.
May I quote you?
Of course, you’re welcome to quote me. I’m just trying to inject some logic and explanation into a discussion that often devolves into groupism and name-calling. I want people to think, instead of just react in a way predetermined by their associations. The more people spread logic, the better for all of humanity.
Live long and prosper. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
i’ll do the hand sign for you
\\//,
heehee! Awesome! Someone finally caught it!
)
Word up, G.
=)
I often attempt a similar thing in discussions like this (and occasionally venture into more dangerous ground, such as YouTube comments) but I am not nearly so eloquent and flawlessly logical as you.
Suicide, Rose, suicide.
Youtube comments have no logic, rhythm, or conscious thought. It’s just a bunch of 8 year olds trying to insult each other till they cry because their opinions vary.
I know. I’m a glutton for punishment. It’s the same reason I read the Twilight books. They are so bad, I can’t look away and just keep coming back for more.
-HUGS-
YOU ARE AMAZING
Marriage is an institution, not just a word.
It does give them more rights if they get to be married. Check the tax code for why. Also, there’s the problem of child custody: Gay couples adopting a child only get to have ONE of them have official custody. What happens when somebody dies or they break up? Kid goes to foster care… it ain’t pretty. Trust me, marriage as a legal construct is a huge deal. Unless there’s something legally equivalent to marriage–treated the same as marriage for all purposes–that’s available for gay couples, they’re not going to have the same rights as straight couples.
Not even just adopting a child; let’s say one member of a homosexual couple was previously in a hetero relationship that resulted in a child. For some reason if they’d have full custody (either as a divorce agreement, spouse died, etc.) then that child would stay with them through the homosexual relationship. Now let’s say that child’s parent dies, what’ll happen? Well, the child wouldn’t stay with their parent’s spouse, they’d go to either a different relative or into foster care, despite having what would be a step-mother or -father right there.
Of course, this is just a hypothetical situation, but one I can see happening often.
this was actually on an episode of Law and Order my dad was watching in a hotel the other day.
the grandparents were extremely anti-gay, and they fought very hard legally to take the child into their custody, and while the child was there they poisoned the kid’s mind against what was essentially her second mother- convinced the child to accuse her of molestation, etc.
this was horrible, and a lot of heartstrings were pulled when you saw the emotional pain the mother went through simply because of her sexuality. it was actually a plot, but i don’t want to give it ALL away
I’m not sure how things work in the US, but here BOTH homosexual partners get custody when they adopt.
As for someone who has a child from a previous relationship: the ex partner can can give permission for the new partner to get parental responsibility. This means he/she can make decisions about schooling, is allowed visit the child in hospital and pick him/her up from school, and will still be allowed to see the child if the relationship breaks up.
This may sound confusing for the child, but I’d say there’s no difference between “ordinary” divorced couples finding new partners. My son takes it all in his stride and adores my partner (thank goodness).
people don’t “have the right to be gay” people are gay…
The whole thing about civil unions though is generally they offer only limited rights, not the full gambit that comes with marriage. California included. Thus, they are not two shades of the same thing, but actually different things.
At least half of the American population (and 2/3 of the younger population) believes that marriage is any two loving people. At what point is it *you* forcing your ideas of marriage on *us*?
There is so much win in this statement.
Agreed
/Agreed with the statement & with the amount of win in it.
I never thought of it that way before. Just wish I could fit it on a bumper sticker to show my neighbour with his shiny new anti gay marriage bumper sticker.
and back up into his car sticker-first?
i’m not saying use violence, but it is a stronger way to send the message XD
And yet it’s never come close to winning in an electoral setting.
Methinks your figures are incorrect.
“won’t give them any more rights than they already have” –They need to be married for those rights, in most states (most don’t have so-called “civil unions”). Besides, a “marriage” and a “union” are really interchangeable words–why do you have to have a separate (“Oh, but it’s equal! Well, kinda . . . “) category? A “marriage” is a unifying ceremony/state. Why so hung up on the terminology that you have to come up with something else? Never will get that ….
what traditional definition of marriage are you reffering to? and who is trying to change it? i think its just your deffinition of marriage you are talking about, and nobody really cares enough about your deffinition to try and change it.
also you say “they” which is a generalization. i suppose some might want extra acknowledgement for it, some people are attention whores, and loads and loads of people who believe they are in a minority are always QQing for extra respect, etc etc. but i myself would just like to see gay marriage to be legal everywhere and not to be seen as “wrong” is that so much to ask? do you have any reason aside from disliking homesexuality for the definition of marriage to not incorporate them?
Not true, even here. Look up the California Family Code, section 297-297.5
Domestic partnerships are filed differently than marriage licenses, approved on different criteria than hetero couples for marriage licenses, and are permitted only to people who are over 18 (which isn’t necessarily trouble seeing as how two hetero minors need parental permission to be married, but it still is a difference under the law.)
972 federal benefits are granted to married couples but denied to state issued civil unions. All we want is to get equal rights!
Seriously! I didn’t realize that legally they were not the same until a few months ago. I really don’t care what you call it as long as people are given the same rights, which as of now, they aren’t. I want them to have these rights in every state. If you are a straight couple and you move to a different state your marriage isn’t suddenly invalidated? Why should this be the case for gay couples?
My honest opinion is that the government should call all marriages/unions (straight OR gay) civil unions and leave the “marriages” to churches. That, or they should get out of the marriage business altogether. (However, that is not practical in terms of adoption, hospital visitation rights, inheritance, etc.)
And a state amendment to the constitution or state law would have zero bearing on any federal benefit.
By definition.
IN California, gays do have all the rights that the state can infer upon heterosexual married couples.
By definition that is equality.
“all the rights that the state can infer…”
That is the first step. It is not the last.
The Constitution provides for States accepting of licenses issued by other states… including marriage licenses. This is currently not being honored for civil unions by a great many states.
Federal Income taxes can be filed jointly by married couples, but currently ones in civil unions do not enjoy this privalege.
Additionally, I believe there are other rights that are not included automatically in California. If I recall correctly, hospital visitation is one…. and there are others.
This, by definition, is inequality.
Actually in California you are able to make decisions for your domestic partner in the hospital, including things like organ donation, life-sustaining equipment choice and such. To Zoreta, you are either uninformed or are “misremembering” (as Madame Speaker has been accused of). As a matter of fact, in California you can stipulate that anyone can make those decisions for you. In marriages and domestic partnerships, those choices actually revert to the “spouse” by law.
Anon, I realize that the federal benefits is the endgoal, but see that’s where the problem lies.
State referendum cannot by defintion affect Federal Income taxes. The Federal law was signed by Clinton, and is currently supported by Obama. Very few congressman are going to support the change in that law, due to the fact that they won’t get reelected. So anger towards state referendums are kind of a bogus excuse. As long as that remains federal law (that recognition only goes to heterosexual “couplings”) that gives the states every reason to NOT support civil unions. As a matter of fact it gives the courts a mandate TO deny those federal benefits to anyone who falls outside of that definition.
Do you believe that the state has the right to regulate contracts? Specifically do you believe that the states have a right to make determinations on who can get married and who can’t?
[whistles and waits for anonygirl uncomfortably on yippy's thread] sorry, i KNOW i’m not smart enough to argue with you.
In and of themselves, no, state referendums do not affect Federal income taxes. However, I am not angry with state referendums that offer equality (and I do mean marriage, not civil unions, unless EVERYONE is getting a civil union).
I do think the fight has to be carried out in both arenas, state and federal. If all the states legislate for homosexual marriage, the federal government would be hard pressed to deny it, and vice versa.
Do I believe the state has the right to determine who can or can’t get married? Well, whether I believe it or not, it is true so that doesn’t matter as much as whether the states that are determining such things are being equitable. Where they are not, federal courts are called upon to step in. It is an ongoing process, but we are slowly (too slowly) moving in the right direction.
And yes. I lobby my senator and congresspersons on this too. And some do support it. Eventually tides turn and more will. Like the civil rights battles, this is an issue that is not just going to dry up and go away.
thank you, anony
always right on time!
Yeah… No.
In Ca (as a Californian who did the research I think I would know), civil unions don’t have the same rights. Hospital visitation rights, tax breaks, and a whole lot of other good stuff goes with marriage that doesn’t come with civil unions.
If you want those included, then you have to jump through hoops to get it with legal contracts, and it’s crazy how expensive the lawyers are. Even then, there are ways for the family of one to cut the other out of wills, have them disregarded in medical decisions, or ban them from hospital visitation all together.
It is separate, but it sure as hell isn’t equal.
Yes, because marriage has ALWAYS been defined as a union between a single man and single woman, right?
Oh, wait… no, it hasn’t. It has also included polygamy, same-sex marriage, common-law marriage, and at one point in the US was defined as being between a man and woman of the same race.
Definitions change as our culture grows and becomes more aware. Name one legitimate reason (that is, not “tradition” or “definition of marriage”) why homosexuals should not marry. I want logic, reasoning and preferably evidence, please.
HA! Ancient times? What ancient times are you thinking of? I hope you’re not referring to the Bible.
Keep reading smart guy, I outlined it pretty well.
So you’re saying it’s ok to have sex with other men, they just can’t marry each other. Well…alright. Whatever.
No, I’m saying even ancient civilizations which accepted homosexual behavior still held views as marriage being heterosexual.
I mean i was really clear, I’m not sure how you can read much into it…
Dude, no matter what you say, they will continue to hear what they want.
“What? You think all gays should be executed? You bastard!”
“That’s not what I said…in fact, I didn’t saying anything of the sort.”
“What? You think Hitler was right for killing gays?”
“Sigh.”
You need not read anything into it. You say that ancient civilization held a particular set of beliefs.
I ask, so what? What has that to do with where we are today? Ancient civilizations have held a wide variety of beliefs that today we find abhorant. Yes, the idea of homosexual marriage may be a relatively new concept. But as such , it seems to be an attempt to equify an ancient wrong that prevented people who loved each other from marrying. So while the history lesson may or may not be accurate (I confess to not having examined anything that backs up your claims, and so to not being qualified to answer them) but that bears little import in the discussions of today.
We’d have to allow polygamy if we went with “ancient tradition”. No… you have to make today’s laws for today, not for a thousand or more years ago.
I actually wouldn’t mind polygamy, as long as the tax code didn’t favor multiple wives over monogamous relationships.
It wouldn’t have to. The contract would be a civil one, and like any corporate contract would have to deal equitably with all partners and any children. No reason that could not be made to work, and the same contract could be applied to single or multiple spouses.
Exactly. Outdated ideas from 2000 years ago have no place in today’s society.
The “traditional” view of marriage being between a man and a woman was created and enforced by religion to discourage homosexual behavior and keep people procreating. If you ask me, we could do with a lot less procreation right now, so I say let the LGBT population get married and have all the rights under the law that heterosexuals have.
Besides, why is it anyone else’s business what two individuals decide to do with their life? It doesn’t hurt you in any way for two men to live together, have sex, and file a joint tax return, any more than it would if one were a woman. STFU about it and let them be.
“I ask, so what? What has that to do with where we are today? Ancient civilizations have held a wide variety of beliefs that today we find abhorant.”
Exactly. For instance, the ancient Romans had no problem with homosexuality. By your logic, we should find homosexuality abhorrent.
Yes because we can’t evolve, that would be crazy. We have to either hold or dismiss ALL old views at once.
I think your biggest flaw is that you believe in an all or nothing logic which doesn’t work in the real world.
Everyone knows that evolution is just a crazy theory
Damn, I need to revert to my bigotted thinking from back before college…
“Ancient civilizations have held a wide variety of beliefs that today we find abhorant.”
“Exactly. For instance, the ancient Romans had no problem with homosexuality. By your logic, we should find homosexuality abhorrent.”
Since when does “a wide variety of beliefs” equal “ALL”?
“Exactly. For instance, the ancient Romans had no problem with homosexuality. By your logic, we should find homosexuality abhorrent.”
I’m so sorry to say it, but if this is an example of how you conduct data analysis, you might want to consider another line of work… perhaps one where drawing logical conclusions from clearly presented statements is NOT a function of the job, since you don’t seem to be all that good at it.
Inorite? XD
Actually.
The first recorded same-sex marriages occurred during the first century BCE. The first law explicitly outlawing same sex marriage happened in 342 AD, under Christian rule.
Good to know. More details please!
Those same ancient civilizations allowed polygamy and slavery, both of which are prohibited today. Ancient custom is no reason for perpetuation of inequality or injustice.
Capt Oblivious, native americans believed marriage was between a man and one or more people. Not exclusively heterosexual. Same for ancient China. This renders your statement “even ancient civilizations which accepted homosexual behavior still held views as marriage being heterosexual” as false.
Don’t speak about marriage as though it was the same in ancient civilizations as it is today, and don’t speak about European civilizations as though they speak for the entirety of the civilized world. The state (as opposed to the church) didn’t require records of marriages until the 16th century. That’s not to say that the didn’t do census data, only that they didn’t require the state be informed of the decision to marry in any way until a mere 500 years ago. That is not ancient by any stretch, and further, that is only Europe. Other civilizations have allowed same sex cohabitation (again, they didn’t RECORD marriages as we do, or afford it specific rights) throughout history.
My dear sir, legal marriage did not exist in the vast majority of ancient situations. You point is moot because we simply call things that are similar to marriage but not legally binding or affording the same rights “marriage” because they were two people in a committed long term relationship. There was no contract in Roman or Greek civilizations, so the argument is completely irrelevant. The discussion is about a legal contract and the right to call it by the term “marriage”. Since the Greeks and Romans did not have a legally binding marriage contract, and since Greek and Roman are not ENGLISH, there is no ACTUAL term for marriage in those languages (because marriage as a contract is a Christian invention of the 16th century, after the fall of the Roman Empire). Your argument is impossible because you are talking about two entirely different things. The state did not intervene in marriages until less than 500 years ago.
If we’re talking about marriage in the contemporary context, in which you are afforded certain legal rights after entering into a contract of marriage, then there is no reason why contractual marriage is the same as socially acceptable cohabitation, which is what the civilizations you’re referring to you ACTUALLY DID. If you’re basing your argument on historical context, what you should then be saying is no one should need to get married because if you and someone else agree to live together, you’re husband and wife, without any license.
Don’t make things up. Irrelevant argument.
double win!!!
Said it much better than I did. I applaud you, luna.
Sounds good to me. After all, marriage for love is mostly a modern concept; in the past women almost never had a choice in who they married, as they were sold off to whoever could benefit their father the best, and/or would give the groom status. While we’re at it, lets just change the laws back to where only men could propose marriage, and, hell, lets not allow blacks to marry whites. After all, outdated laws are the best policy in the end.
Seriously though; how would allowing gays to be married be a *bad* thing?
marriage is a religious ceremony. All religions have denounced homosexuality as a deviant behavior. So the only way you can get gay marriage is to federally regulate the way a church operates which is in violation of the first amendment. Remember its not only the homosexuals that have first amendment rights. Justice’s of the peace are there to “marry” people in the legal sense so that they can be named on wills and power of attorney forms. What it all boils down to is what I was talking about in my post below… they are trying to normalize deviant behavior. Your sarcastic comments are displaying your own blatantly close minded opinions. All you are concerned with is allowing something that the bulk majority of society disagrees with to happen. No matter what anyone says you want what you want and thats it. You fail to see that other people do not agree with your opinion and that they have a right to their opinion. You just keep pushing your agenda till you get what you want. I think it was saul alinsky in his book rules for radicals that said it doesnt take a majority to change the course of history but a tireless outspoken minority who never give in. Thats what the gay marriage agenda is… a political movement who are trying to change society to essentially give the middle finger to those who value the traditional definition of marriage.
While we’re at it we need to stop making divorce so easy to go through. Look at hulk hogan’s wife for example. she says with the guy for 25 years through everything hes gone through then divorces him over their son getting in a car accident and getting sued by the other kid’s family. If you marry someone and you dont get an annulment within the first year or so then you should be stuck with that person for life. We have no tenacity and no courage anymore when it comes to sticking with someone no matter what happens. Im not saying go back to stoning women who cant prove they are virgins at marriage or anything but we do need to stop making marriage such a trivial legal process. If you love someone enough to get married then they turn out to be an abusive jackass then ok fine divorce them. But if they are just “not who you thought they were” then maybe your courtship didnt last long enough now did it?
Anyway thats enough from me im going to bed enjoy your slow progressive march to a fascist state.
Religious ceremony? What about atheists? Or deists that do not belong to an organized religion or church?
Marriage is no longer a 100% religious institution. You have to get a marriage certificate. You don’t go to your church to get one. You don’t get tax breaks for being married from the church.
If a church decides they will not marry gay couples, whatever. The state has no business in interfering. However, gay couples still should have the right to marry. It’s anti-gay not to.
Dude, keep your statements short. Saying that you are “tolerant” is stupid. You tolerate your neighbor playing loud music. (Most) supporters of gay marriage aren’t trying to change churches, but the government.
This whole “separate but equal” thing doesn’t work. If I say, you know what, Asians can be called Mr. and Mrs. Whatever, but it’s not marriage, I’m racist. How is what you are saying any less bigoted?
And we aren’t a “Christian Nation.” That’s a terrible thing to say and I’m tired of hearing it.
Marriage is a collision of the social, legal, and religious worlds. Ever heard of “common law” marriages?
Anyway, it’s not only foolish to make a blanket statement such as “All religions have denounced homosexuality as a deviant behavior”, it’s also false. It’s not even true for all Christian denominations.
And nobody is trying to force anyone to perform marriage procedures on gay couples. As far as I know, those with the legal capacity to perform marriage can refuse to perform any marriage, on any basis. Unless they’re a judge, in which case it’s part of their legal job. People can also be married by a judge, with no religion involved.
The real agenda is to be free from the control various religious groups attempt to enforce on the populace, whether through social pressure or legal pressure. In this case, it essentially boils down to “If we deny gays the right to marry, maybe they’ll give up on being gay!”.
marriage became a collision between legal and religious beliefs when the government started deciding who could be considered married. Things like property rights and power of attorney and so on are really the only reasons to get legally married. The religious act is what the law is based off of and the whole gay marriage idea is so that everyone will accept gay people as normal and they’re not. I dont care if you dont like the idea or if you think Im being stubborn but homosexuality is not normal. If it were normal then heterosexuality would be abnormal and the majority of the population would be gay.
Any christian religion that hasnt denounced homosexuality has apparently forgotten to read Leviticus. “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”
There is so much wrong here, it is difficult to address…. so let me just hit some highlights…
“homosexuality is not normal. If it were normal then heterosexuality would be abnormal and the majority of the population would be gay.”
So… left handedness, red hair, and green eyes are abnormal? Should we take rights away from people because of that? For that matter, there are more women than men in the population as a whole. Should we make men second class citizens?
If you base your definition of normality simply on numbers (and this attempt at proof does that) then no one is normal, as we each are part of SOME minority group.
Leviticus – this passage has been refuted uncountable times (you can go look it up, I won’t waste everyone’s time reprinting here), it is 2000+ years outdated, and irrelevant to anyone today… most specifically to any government that is not a theocracy, as ours is not. Waste of time to keep quoting it as a reason for your prejudice (not stubbornness), it does not pertain.
it doesnt pertain to you because you dont like it. thats all it is. you disagree with it so you refute it with your own sweeping statements like “this passage has been refuted uncountable times”. Im sorry if you dont like it but look at other religions that arent based on the bible.. are their participants all gay? half gay? a quarter gay? no there less than 10% of the population all over the world. Why because its unnatural for two people of the same sex to be what is legally defined as married. Sorry thats just the way it is no matter how much you whine and cry about it homosexuals are not normal.
“Why because its unnatural for two people of the same sex to be what is legally defined as married.”
Well… Really, it’s unnatural for any two people to be married. Marriage is a human convention. Also, unless you’re less advanced than hunter-gatherers, to the point where you are unable to use tools, then I’m sure you rely on quite a few unnatural things to get by. The computer you’ve been typing your comments on, for example.
And to address your “not normal” argument: As Anongyrl said, if we base normality purely on numbers, and discriminate against those who are abnormal, then everybody would be discriminated against. You say that only about 10% of the world’s population is gay and that homosexuality is therefore abnormal, but what about the percentage of the world’s population that lives in your town? Or who have the same first name as you? Or who are wearing the same outfit as you are? By your reasoning, these people (including you) are normal; therefore, we should deny you and those other people rights. You said, “it doesnt pertain to you because you dont like it.” So what about you? Do these arguments you’ve made not pertain to you for any reason other than that you don’t like it?
The same can be said about you. Gay rights may not pertain to you because you are (presumably) not gay, and you may not like it, that’s all your argument comes down to. This isn’t about the definition of a stupid word, this isn’t about forcing your churches to do gay marriages, this is about *rights*. Why would we want to get married in a church that tells us we deserve to be stoned to death anyway? Marriage, by your definition, is a religious institution, and you even go so far as to claim it as a Christian invention, that you somehow have a monopoly upon it (entirely false, btw). But let’s say I agree with you, marriage is strictly religious. In this case, the USA uses marriage as a legally binding contract, guaranteeing rights to property, children, power of attorney, etc.. So, seeing as this nation is founded upon the principle of religious freedom, YOU are violating the law against integration of church and state by creating marriage as a legally binding contract. Since we allow freedom of religion, and since you made marriage into a legal term, you have no right to withhold it from people who are NOT your religion, be it Gays, Buddhists, Muslims, Blacks, Latinos, etc.. Looking at this from a legal standpoint, you lose, you checkmated yourself by defining marriage as a legal term, and now you are complaining about it. Only two situations will come of this. You will either redefine marriage into a non-legally binding contract, and make it a solely religious choice, and make it have no effect legally, forcing everyone, gays or straights, to apply for civil unions separately from a marriage license (marriage licenses will be obsolete, as it will have no legal benefits, you’ll have to take it up with your church instead). Now for the second situation, you will suck it up, and allow the stupid form to say “Party A” and “Party B” instead of “Husband” and “Wife”, and we will all be happy. We will achieve equality in our rights, and you will find, that absolutely nothing has changed for you guys. That is all, and you are all making rather large asses of yourselves fighting against something like this, as you are basically saying that “We reserve the right to meddle in the personal lives of other people, and make them miserable”. I’m tired, I shouldn’t have stayed up to write this, but I’m tired of all the hate, I’m tired of all the prejudice, and I wish we could all just be friends, instead of me having to worry about being taken by surprise in a dark alley and beaten up and/or shot to death, like so many others like me. Think about it, and love thine neighbor. Good night, and may you sleep well.
As a matter of clarification (and speaking as a US History and Government Teacher) there is no such law separating church and state. It’s simply a doctrine followed by the framers, and appears nowhere in the constitution. That this is true is casually evidenced by the inclusion of the word “God” in the pledge, as well as the motto stamped on our coinage.
In fact, minority religious groups have meddled in the affairs of everyday Americans multiple times, and to great detriment. We were even a dry country for a number of years (see the 18th Amendment) as a direct result of religious pressure.
Oh, good, good. We need more of you in this debate. I like history buffs, as I am admittedly ignorant to most of it. Thank you for your enlightenment.
Ok. This is where you actually pay attention to what the text says.
“To lie with a man as with a woman” in Hebrew means to have anal intercourse with another man. That’s it.
Many gay males don’t have anal intercourse and no lesbians do. So saying this passage condemns “homosexuality” is false. It condemns one same sex act.
Secondly, the very same book calls for the death of anyone who does work on the sabbath. If you go grocery shopping, balance your chequebook or rake leaves on the Sabbath you are committing an even worse sin than male anal intercourse and should be put to death. In Numbers 15:32-36 God orders the death of someone for gathering wood on the sabbath.
Finally, Christians don’t pay attention to Leviticus because Christians aren’t bound to fallow all 613 Mosaic laws. In fact, Paul said that if you use the law to condemn others and don’t follow every command perfectly, you are a hypocrite.
Marriage has two separate sides: The religious (church marriage) and the secular (courthouse marriage, marriage licenses, etc.). The secular marriage is the only type of marriage the government can legislate. Secular marriages are where legal rights are afforded to couples and they enter an signed agreement to the government. Religious marriage is a binding of two people under the eyes of the deity of their religion. The government of the US can’t touch religious marriage, so your bigoted church is safe. However, religion must stop trying to encroach upon secular marriage unless they want the government encroaching upon religious marriage.
Also, what the hell is this nonsense? “All religions have denounced homosexuality as a deviant behavior.”
Really? Buddhism, Confucianism, Jainism, the Metropolitan Church, the Episcopal church, Taoism, Paganism… have you not heard of any of these religions or denominations? They, for the most part, agree that homosexuality is a natural part of humanity and most of them support gay marriage. Or when you said, “all religions,” did you mean just the ones that agree with you?
are you really a reverend?
i’m agnostic, but feel slightly inspired that Christianity is okay for me to go back to. thanks, man, that really lifted a weight off my chest, hearing someone who’s been ordained (sorry if that’s not the correct term, i don’t remember the terms between catholic and the various different christian groups terribly well) make that argument.
Didn’t you say you’re from Massachusetts, Tyler? You should check out the Unitarian Universalist church. That’s the church I was raised in.
Cool. Is it a Unitarian Universalist church or a Church of Unity that she attends? Apparently, the latter tends to be more spiritual. In the Unitarian Universalist churches I grew up in, we never really prayed as a congregation. I like to describe myself as scientifically spiritual, or spiritually scientific.
>.> meh, it was a Christian one. my mum’s very open-minded, and i like the way she practices religion- it’s not an excuse to justify anything, especially any discrimination.
on another note, devy, i’m thinking of going Viking, worshiping Nordic Mythology and heading up to Valhalla. FOR ODIN! HE WATCHES US ALL!
what i like about them is, despite the fact that their religion isn’t as big on the peace and love bit, they didn’t scrutinize or take their religion super seriously. but still. wouldn’t i look frickin’ terrific in a shiny horned helmet, chestplate, loincloth, and carrying a big shiny sword?
plz to learn the difference between the legal agreement provided by/involved in civil marriage, and the religious sacrament known as Holy Matrimony, kthx.
already know that youre missing my point. kthxbai
“All religions have denounced homosexuality as a deviant behavior.” – FALSE. Unitarian Universalists have not, for one. I went to a homosexual “wedding” (wasn’t legal, of course) there about 10 years ago. I think the Methodists and Episcopalians are a little more open-minded, as well. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Even some Baptist congregations don’t “denounce homosexuality as a deviant behavior.” Look up the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists if you don’t believe me.
look up connecticut’s control of virtually all protestant denominations based on 501c3 non-profit corporation status. thats what gay marriage will get you. government control of religion.
I am really trying to see your point, but it is not terribly well illustrated. Perhaps you could provide some more info as to what on earth you are talking about?
sorry some of my posts were mysteriously erased… The state of connecticut is attempting to classify churches as a specific type of non profit organization and another law that they tried to enact but failed was to control the catholic church financially. If gay marriage is allowed by any church the government will then enforce gay marriage in ALL churches. Even though the first amendment is there to keep the government out of religion (not the other way around), they will ignore it like they do the 9th and 10th amendments (which state that the federal government has no power other than those delegated to it specifically in the constitution) and they will establish a committee or program to enforce the gay marriage laws. Which can then become a toe in the door to allow the government to dictate how churches operate… if that sounds far fetched just look at GM or AIG.
Please tell us what your source of information is, as I am still unclear as to the proposed legality of such a move, and I suspect you may be misunderstanding some of it.
ok… THE
Sorry… computer glitch posted the previous comment erroneously…
OK. The thing I THINK you are referring to is the fact that the law is being changed to prevent churches (and, in fact, any non-profits) from discriminating against homosexual employees on the basis of their sexuality. That is, if a church has hired employee “A”, then offers all of its employees domestic partners health benefits, but attempts to deny the same to the partner of employee “A” because both partners are of the same sex, in a state where the law prevents this in corporate settings, they will NOT be allowed to do so under the claim of “religious beliefs”.
It does not, in any way, attempt to legislate who churches must perform marriages for, or, in fact, any of the other church dogma. It merely prevents them from discriminating against employees based on sexuality, as laws already do to prevent discrimination based on race, age or other factors.
If this is NOT what you are referring to, please clarify. Thanks.
All religions have NOT denounced homosexuality a deviant. Don’t pretend that your own view point is inclusive of all religious groups.
I know A envangelical church with a gay pastor and they do not “denounce him.”
good for you. They are supposed to.
According to who? Obviously not god… she doesn’t seem to object in any way at all.
lol i love the assumptions that you know what god wants and that god is a woman.
….You seriously don’t see the hypocrisy in what you just said?
I’ve gone back and read shin0bi272′s previous posts. I don’t, anywhere, see him/her making assumptions or statements for God, or stating what sex God is. So no, I don’t see the hypocrisy in his/her statements. Yours, on the other hand…
In other words, shin0bi272 seems to claim to know what God wants in many of his/her posts, so yes, that statement is ironic.
dude, shinobi seems to “know” what god wants for us all, is what rinny was saying. also, i don’t know about anonygirl’s beliefs, but i suspect she could have posted she to get shinobi to display his close-mindedness.
Let’s not worry about the foundations of Western society though. *puts a sheet over Greek & Roman History*
Shh! If we don’t acknowledge it, it never happened!
read my reply to the graph itself. in it i said that there have been homosexuals since ancient greek and roman times. However they didnt live together and call it marriage… they went to bath houses and had sex with men and young boys and then went home to their wives and families. It was accepted and no one talked about it… now were supposed to accept gay people wanting to be considered normal and live together as husband and husband or wife and wife and thats what I (and the majority of society) have an issue with.
Why do you have an issue with it?
because its unnatural, and unacceptable by the majority of society (which if it were the other way around and the majority were in favor of gay marriage there wouldnt be any protests from the minority and the issue would be largely ignored by the news media). there are alternatives to the use of the word marriage and give the same legal rights but thats not good enough for the gay community they want to be married so they can be accepted for their lifestyle choice. Then theres also the problem with the government regulating the churches to enforce gay marriage laws which is a way for them to start controlling the content in the churches in the long run. Lastly if you allow gay marriage, you open the door to all sorts of other umm combination of couples that want to be married. What about people in committed 3-somes? polygamists? pedophiles that want to marry the 14 year old daughter theyve been raping for years (in NY a parent can give consent at the age of 14, used to be 13, for marriage)? Thats why its a problem… do you understand why I have an issue with it now?
“Unnatural”. No, actually it isn’t. By definition. Natural means “occurs in nature.” Homosexuality occurs in nature. There are numerous species of animals in addition to homo sapiens that display homosexual mating behaviors, including some species that mate for life. Thus, it occurs in nature, and is not unnatural.
“Unacceptable by the majority of society”. According to a Gallup Poll in 2005, 51% of the population is either satisfied with the acceptance of homosexuality, or dissatisfied because they feel there should be more acceptance. 13% were “dissatisfied but felt the level of acceptance was about right” which could be conservatives who want no more change toward more acceptance, liberals who want no more erosion of acceptance, or, most likely, a combination of the two. 8% were of no opinion, and only 28% were dissatisfied and wanted less acceptance. Hardly a majority.
“Alternatives to the use of the word marriage”. Yes, there are. “Give the same legal rights”. No, they don’t. “Can be accepted…” By you? I am sure they don’t care in the slightest. “Lifestyle choice…” It is not a choice, it is a fact of who they are. You are heterosexual, they are homosexual. No difference except you are attracted to people of the opposite sex.
The government does not regulate churches in the ways that you appear to be claiming. No church is ever going to be forced to perform a marriage ceremony that goes against their dogma. What WILL happen is that if a church hires a homosexual employee and that employee’s partner is denied benefits that the partners of heterosexual people are allowed, there will be consequences as there would be with any corporation, be it non profit or otherwise. But the functioning of the religious aspects will be unaffected.
Open the door to all sorts of other combinations of couples. If marriage is a contract between consenting adults, then no. If currently the law ALLOWS for pedophiles to marry 14 year olds in NY with parental consent, then perhaps you are fighting the wrong battle. Perhaps you need to be working on the issue of pedophilia, and I would back you wholeheartedly on that one. Perhaps we should prohibit heterosexuals from marrying, since that is the law that currently allows for this problem to exist.
So, I understand why you have issues. Sadly, I think most of your reasoning is specious (that is, it looks good to you, but lacks merit).
Rome failed because it was overextended and couldn’t defend itself against invaders, not because of their predilection for homosexual liaisons.
Yay, history! It would be good for us to pay attention to it, as it has been known to repeat itself on several occasions.
“All religions have denounced homosexuality as a deviant behavior”
Actually, my branch of Buddhism doesn’t say anything about homosexuality. And neither does atheism.
And if it’s a “religious” ceremony, how is it that our secular government puts it on the books?
And what about non-religious people getting married? Should we put in a Proposition to ban marriages between people who don’t include some sort of higher power in their vows?
“marriage is a religious ceremony.”
Wrong. A wedding is, in most cases, a religious ceremony. Marriage is a civil contract. If it were only a religious ceremony, then the US government could not recognize it as a legal contract, afford rights to it, or require licenses for it.
“All religions have denounced homosexuality as a deviant behavior.”
Completely and utterly false. Wicca and other neo-Pagan nature faiths accept gay marriage. Shinto does, as well. There are also Hindu, Buddhist, Gnostic, deist, and even some Christian sects that accept it.
“So the only way you can get gay marriage is to federally regulate the way a church operates which is in violation of the first amendment.”
No. There is a difference between a religious wedding and a civil marriage. There is no requirement that a marriage take place in a place of worship, that any clergy member be present, or even that any religious meaning at all has to be included. You can have a civil marriage at a courthouse in 5 minutes, and no church has to be involved. You can also get a religious wedding without the civil documents, but it won’t be recognized by law.
You are poorly educated on matrimony laws, shin. (And for the record, fascism is notoriously right-wing. Nice Godwin, though.)
Hi shin0bi272, my religion doesn’t denounce homosexuality as a deviant behaviour. Then again, my religion says “An it harm none, do as thou will” so its rational, tolerant thinking wouldn’t mesh well with yours anyway. Until you know exactly what all religions would say, don’t quote them in your arguments. Ta.
Yep… I have come up with a nifty saying to describe what they are really doing. “They are trying to normalize deviant behavior.”
There have been gay people since the ancient romans and greeks. They would go off to bath houses and have sex with other men and boys then go home to their wives and families. Its been that way for centuries … millennia even. Its only been the last 30 or so years that society has been expected to accept homosexuals living together exclusively. Now since the bulk of the white liberals who run the media and are deeply involved in shaping the pop culture (you really think rap music would be this popular without a bunch of white kids in middle America listening to it?) have gotten their message out that “its ok to be gay” and rammed it down our throats (no pun intended) for 20+ years, they want to get married… so that they can push the “normalcy” of abnormal behavior as far as they can. So hence the statement “they are trying to normalize deviant behavior”.
What is your evidence that homosexuality is “deviant behavior” (I’m assuming here that in your mind deviant = wrong)?
Did you know, for instance, that homo sapiens is far from the only species to engage in homosexual behavior?
de⋅vi⋅ant
/ˈdiviənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dee-vee-uhnt] Show IPA
–adjective
1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
–noun
2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.
But NEVER having the connotation that it is ACCEPTABLE to do so. Deviant is a word used exclusively to portray a behavior as wrong, illegal, immoral. You never hear the phrase “deviant redheads” even though we are in the minority. There are fewer oboe players than violinists, but no one says that they are “deviant musicians”.
And, in fact, homosexuality is not a departure from the norm in any way EXCEPT what is “socially accepted”, and if you are legislating on that basis, you will deserve what you get when one of YOUR strongly held beliefs turns out to be a minority opinion.
Hey! You watch yourself or the Oboe Mafia (of which I are one) will be all over your…backside. And not in a good way, either. I’m also a member of the French Horn Mafia, so don’t even think about going there, dagnabbit (we’ll find you and serenade you – this is not an idle threat!).
.
Oh wait, you said we’re not deviants? Oh…uh…never mind, then, sorry.
thats what kind of makes it a departure from the norm. less than 5% of the worlds population is gay… meaning 95% of the population make up the “norm”. So you want 5% of the population telling the other 95% how to view the world? yeah you’re a socialist.
Your numbers are off… but regardless of that….
I personally don’t have any plans to tell you personally how to view the world. I think your view is sad, perhaps, and I might even hope to educate you a bit, but other than that, you are perfectly free to think whatever you like.
You are not, however, allowed to deny 5% of the population (or more… consider that many sources say the number is closer to 10% and that does not account for bisexuals, who may also fall in love with a same sex partner and wish to marry them) rights simply because you do not agree with them. Equal rights for all. That is the issue.
World views are your own look out.
Seriously, I love you.
Well, that makes our impending nuptials all the more wonderful, doesn’t it?
I love you too.
yay
-cheers for anony and devy- hoooray!
>.> i know that shinobi may not like it homosexuality and all, but gays are fine by me
Of course oboe players aren’t deviant. It’s the VIOLA players who are deviant : )
I think we need to have an oboe concerto at the wedding….
with just a couple viola players thrown in there for their deviance please
Well, of course! Viola soloist, at the very least. And a french horn or two.
Awesome. Ooooh, they could play Boy George and Queen melodies!!!
Simultaneously! Anyone in this discussion enough of a musician to arrange Boy George and Queen into a quartet for oboe, viola, french horn and glockenspiel (I just like to say glockenspiel, this is no indication of their relative deviancy)? If so, we are offering an invite to the wedding of the century…. and if you do a really good job, an invite to the honeymoon as well!
Oh, this will be an epic affair, for sure!
Undoubtedly, Devy.
Um… rap originated from African tribal music, mixed with American styles. It only became really popular amongst white teens fairly recently.
Also, the “white liberals who run the media”? You mean like the people at FOX? Or the 4 conservatives out of the 5 media CEOs that run the majority of media in the US?
Something tells me you’re a Limbaugh fan…
Oh noes! Change! Run!
yeah cause change really happened with obama didnt it?
He hasn’t had time to do much, has he?
Besides, most politicians stick to the same old formula they’ve been using for decades; Obama’s no worse than anyone else, really.
Good thing it has changed. Divorce used to be illegal, parents (the father) decided who their kids should marry, interracial marriages were not allowed etc..
Marriage is completely unnecessary in any case. But if homosexuals too want to marry and divorce then let ‘em. Should be the norm in the land of the free home of the brave after all..
And if divorce weren’t allowed still would we be having this argument? It would be kind of hard for the population to maintain itself if more and more of us starting marrying and/or divorcing the same sex. thats of course ignoring the legal and moral implications of the issue. Weve taken marriage from a solemn promise that actually meant something and turned it into a legal document arbitrated by lawyers and judges when one of the participants is no longer happy. If there were no divorce people would be a lot more cautious (or one of the participants would have to submit to the other more) on who they marry and who they hook up with. Im not saying we need arranged marriages like everyone seems to keep bringing up for some strange reason. Im saying we are moving the concept of marriage in the wrong direction and making it easier for people to get married instead of harder. Sort of like lowering the educational standards in schools. We cant let children feel bad that they failed a grade or a test so we will lower the standard so everyone passes. Then we look at where we rank among the rest of the world and we are almost dead last in math and science (even behind madagascar) and wonder why or blame the president’s idea to try to help by throwing money at the problem. In fact the entire gay marriage argument takes efforts away from things like education or fixing way more important things in the country because we are here bickering about who’s legally bound to who and what hole they are “accessing” with what organs and objects. The homosexuals wont accept civil unions and the heterosexuals are not willing to allow them to be married.
Of course we would still be having this argument, as it is not about divorce, it is about marriage.
The population currently expands at a rate of approximately 200,000 people a day, world wide. It is expected that by 2040, we will hit 9 billion. Homosexuals (just like heterosexuals) will continue to contribute to that number at the same rate, married or not. Your fears about maintaining the population are groundless.
Homosexuals would like to SHARE in the solemn promise that marriage affords. Currently they are needlessly prohibited from doing so. Allowing them to do so will not take away from the value of marriage, it will allow them to participate in it, thereby strengthening a faltering institution.
If you are going to insist on an institution of some sort of testing or qualifying credentials before marriage it should NOT be based on the gender of the participants.
As to the math scores in Madagascar, I am afraid your analogy falls apart. Allowing homosexuals to marry does NOT weaken the institution of marriage. And, by the way, the sexual activities of any two people, married or not, has nothing to do with the question either. Some couples (both mixed and single sex) NEVER have sex for various reasons, yet they love each other just the same and wish to spend their lives together. You seem to be more worried about what is happening in the bedroom, which is only one aspect of marriage, certainly not the whole thing, and certainly not the most important thing.
Homosexuals won’t accept civil unions because a civil union is not the same as marriage, it is a second class “you are not as good as we are” attempt at a substitute, where no substitute is needed. Heterosexuals are, in many places, quite willing to allow them to be married, and have instituted the practice. It is merely now a matter of the rest of the country granting equal status where it is due.
hey, don’t pigeonhole us shinobi.
“The homosexuals wont accept civil unions and the heterosexuals are not willing to allow them to be married.”
i’m a heterosexual male, and i’m perfectly fine with gays getting married and having the same legal rights as straight people.
Seconded, I’m heterosexual as well. No fuss from me.
Ditto.
It only seems to be bigots and people with masculinity issues that have a problem with it, so far…
And it’s blanket statements like that which make it impossible to take you seriously. Apparently I’m now either a bigot, or have masculinity issues.
What a moron.
Well you do have a serious issue with making blanket statements and not checking to see if your facts actually prove what you say…
So you are misusing facts to make a false statement but that doesn’t make you a bigot. Care to elaborate? You still have facts to address down below that explode your homosexual as child predators idea to hell and back.
As you pointed out to me… facts are scary.
That they are. Damn commie facts that want to take your jobs, r@pe your spouse, hunt your children, and sh!t in your lawn.
laughing my effing a$$ off
ahahahahhahhh….. i can’t stop laughing… thank you, NexxiewyrmofDeath. you just made my day.
Not even close. In “ancient time” men married severail wives and could kill or divorce them at whim, unless we are talking about matriarchal societies.
Maybe you mean since “medeval time”… no, wait, that was arranged marriages dealing with property, and Henry VIII changed a lot of that with the idea of Divorce.
Hmm, “Victorian time!”.. nope again arranged marriages property and titles….but no mixed races!, does that help? Hmm….. nope.
Gee, I guess marriage has changed already…. wonder how we survived
I love how you act like we need to have interracial marriages and that arranged marriages are the bane of human existence. Henry the 8th was essentially a whiny little brat. He couldnt get an annulment when he kept getting daughters instead of sons from his wife so he started his own religion. Hey theres an idea… why dont they start a “homosexual church”? Then their right to marriage would be protected by the 1st amendment to freely practice their religion. If a church can be started because you cant get your way and you cant accept the ruling from those who are more important than you are you can just start your own church and make yourself the most important part of it. The groundwork has already been laid by henry the 8th so follow his example and start your own cult… er um religion.
“I love how you act like we need to have interracial marriages?” Are you seriously suggesting that interracial marriage not be permitted? And as to arranged marriages, there were some very serious downsides, as many people have pointed out. The point you are missing is that marriage customs have changed significantly, and are not the same as they used to be.
As to the “homosexual church” idea, you are missing the point. No one is arguing that RELIGIOUS organizations are the problem. The problem is that marriage is a legal partnership regulated by state law, and that in many states, the laws need to be updated. Nowhere is it required that anyone (heterosexual or homosexual) have any sort of religion at all to get married. A marriage license by the state and a civil ceremony is all that is required. So Henry and his problems don’t really relate to the issue at hand.
I wish that the government would just stay out of my church’s business. My church wants to marry any two loving adults, but the State is imposing its beliefs. That’s wrong.
Your right, and its unconstitutional.
So you agree that the state should allow gay marriage?
look. this guy is obviously floundering with his/her arguements. but this one has merit. it is unconstitutional for the state to ban gay marriage. however, they cannot impose on the church to recognize, because it is a separate authority.
separation of church and state was originally intended to keep the state out of the church.
the church has not recognized homosexual marriage, but the church isn’t the regulator of tax breaks, and hospital rights (unless it’s a catholic hospital.) in the grand scheme of things, a homosexual marriage would be much better off being recognized by the state than the church.
should gays allowed to be married? yes, simply because the government hasn’t the right to deny that.
spoon, i think you might have missed the original poster’s point.
the origin of this argument is actually that a church is willing to marry any two loving adults, and that the state is not letting them. it’s about three replies above your post :/ i almost missed it at first too. however, the state is blocking it. which is VERY unconstitutional.
You DO understand that legal marriage has no affect on church practice, right?
Legally, it CAN’T. There are some churches that still don’t allow mixed-race marriages in the deep South.
I want to know where you people got the idea that expanding the LEGAL contract would mean the government would force churches to perform gay weddings. Is the Catholic church required to perform weddings for Muslims, since their marriage is legal? No.
It’s a strawman. Stop attacking it.
“You also forgot “change the definition of marriage from what it’s been since ancient time to something that suits them”
-so? its just a word.
no but it is a word and as such has a meaning attached to it. It has morality attached to it as well and if gay marriage is allowed the morality is forever changed. Some of us want to try to save marriage not tear it down further. Its bad enough that its become almost a legal contract and not a holy ceremony but now they want to take another chunk out of the meaning. The slow road to socialism strikes again.
Newsflash, gay marriage is already allowed in a number of states. Please elaborate on how this has damaged you personally or hurt you getting married.
I live in Iowa, and know DARN WELL that the reason my fiance and I haven’t made it to the altar yet is because all those DARN GAYS are clogging up the line! Why, it stretches all the way down the hill and around the block! WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! [/teh funneh]
I’m in Iowa as well. Those blasted rope suckers are just cheapening the hell out of my values, my life, it made my fiancee’s cat grow old and die, it has made me work out less, it made me lose my edge in Assassin’s Creed so I had to spend five whole minutes getting my groove back, and I swear it flared up my allergies…
Blasted [insert pointless insult here]!!!
/continuation of the funneh
Wow, if it is that bad in Iowa, its a good thing Deyvlan and I are headed to Massachussets!
I don’t have time to wait in a line that long!
Maybe we need to make it a dual ceremony…. Devylan and me, you and your fiancee. Before any more cats die needlessly!
Think of the cats! Won’t someone please think of the cats?
Train of thought: Pearl clutching, pearl necklaces, boobies…
*snaps out of it* Yes, dual ceremony. Sounds awesome.
poor little pu$$ies… er, i mean, cats.
so, if i’m fine with homosexuals and live in MA, can i 1- go to the ceremony, and 2- have the video tape of the night AFTER your ceremonies? sorry, four boobies in one bed is just too good to be true.
Um, apparently you’re going to have to stand in line for that.
And once we are married… *I* get first dibs. I hope. Up to Devylan, really.
I will give her first dibs on mine. As a matter of fact, that will be in my marriage vows “I promise to love you for better, or worse, in sickness and in health. I promise to give you first dibs on playing with my boobies.”
WIIIIINNNNNNN STATEMENT!
One man and several wives, right?
Which makes any difference in the slightest to you how, exactly?
It affects anyone whos married. It (and the ease of which people are allowed to divorce each other) cheapens the entire concept of marriage. It went from a holy religious ceremony to a legal contract that could be arbitrated and people wonder why the divorce rate is 75% now. Why gay people want to even entertain the idea of being legally bound to a person is beyond me in the first place… Its like they see that its not working for the straight people but just because they cant have it they want it… even though the grass is dead and brown on the other side they still want it. They’ve honestly got it better they just dont know it. But thats beside the point… How does it affect you if they cant get married but are joined by civil union? Same legal rights just different name.
Two men are married right now and having marital sex in their marital bed.
Elaborate on how this effects you in the slightest?
As for marriage being dead, no it isn’t. The failures of some does not mean the failure of all. If two men being married cheapens your marriage then your spouse shouldn’t have married your loser @ss.
Two women are doing the same. Funny how no one seems to object to that quite as loudly, nor do they use the image of two women having sex for the “ick” factor.
Not that it matters, I just find it amusing.
We men have that annoying thing called ego where we imagine that we are somehow welcomed to a bed with two sets of breasts.
Which is very odd, all things considered.
One of the best t-shirts I ever saw read “Lesbianism is not a spectator sport”.
I never said it wasn’t pathetic but even I suffer from it.
That T-shirt is win, even if it makes my inner pervert cry…
/agree.
don’t all of us wish it was, Death? my ego suffers largely at the thought of hoping, eventually, to be welcomed to a bed with double sets of breasts
at the thought of not hoping* sorry.
Marriage IS a legal contract. Unless you are arguing that ALL marriages sanctioned by the state should go by another name, that argument doesn’t hold water.
For the record, civil unions lack over 1000 rights that come with legal marriage.
So no, it’s not the same.
If it were, then all legal marriages would be called “civil unions,” and there would be no need for a separate term. Separate but Equal isn’t.
I bet you belivieve people of the same race shouldn’t get married either, because you know that used to be the law. So stop using outdated law and outdated tradition to ,ake this wrong right.
I love how everyone is supposed to support things that they dont agree with because a vocal minority says so. Your progressive thinking is going to come back to bite you. I have a few questions for you… why do YOU have such a problem leaving marriage the way it is? Why do YOU think YOUR argument is the correct one? Is it because you want to be seen as a nice person and a tolerant, caring individual? Or is it because you want to do anything you can to piss off “the religious right”? All of the arguments you have all given me are the same ones that GLAAD and the ACLU are pushing. You are attempting to force others to accept your view and you spew this hate and vitriol towards those who dont immediately fall in line with you and stand up for their beliefs. So the long and short of it is you want people to not stand for anything and who will fall for anything. God forbid anyone disagree with the vocal minority.
It’s not about supporting ideas a “vocal minority” expresses. It’s about one universal truth: Change is inevitable. Whether a person is progressive or conservative in their world view, if they refuse to acknowledge changes occuring around them, they stop evolving. And things that stop evolving are phased out.
Here’s a thought to ponder: In this comment thread you represent the “vocal minority.” Now go back, flip the coin, place the shoe on the other foot, etc
Why do I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry? It boils down to something very simple indeed.
I do have a problem leaving marriage the way it is, because the way it is is unfair and inequitable. I don’t give a damn what you think of me… you can loathe and detest me for all I care and it bothers me not one little whit. My connection to religion has nothing to do with my feelings on this issue. Some of the arguments I use ARE used by others, certainly, but I don’t quote them unless I understand them and actually agree with them, and can present them intelligently in my own words. I have not spewed hate at anyone, and any strong words have been a result of my passion for the subject. I have said repeatedly that you have the right to your own opinions, no matter how distasteful I may find them, and I stand by that. I would hope (foolish though it may be to do so) that reasoned discourse might help you see things clearer, but if that is not to be, well, I will continue to fight the good fight, but not deny you your right to disagree on a personal level. I will object strongly and continuously to LEGAL inequities, however, and fight to have them rectified, no matter if it offends your sensibilities.
I don’t want “people not to stand for anything and who will fall for anything.” What an odd and unconnected comment to have made. I am perfectly content to have you stand for what you believe in, and I will stand for what I believe in, and if that leaves us facing off occasionally, so be it.
Why do I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry? I think they should be allowed to marry for the same reasons that any consenting adults should be allowed to marry.
Because they are human beings, and they love.
“Because they are human beings, and they love.”
YES! Your words are direct, well-organized, easily comprehensible (for most of us, at least), and polite. Thank you for them.
This is precisely why I want to marry her.
And I want the video tape. People in love shag passionately and you can’t buy that normally…
same, death. i live in MA. want me to send you the copies, if i can find out which hotel they’ll be in?
Yes, yes, and yes.
So, it is beginning to look like sales of copies of this tape could fund the entire wedding, the wing-ding after party, and the honeymoon too!
My mother always thought I should be a movie star! She would have been so proud!
I know I am certainly proud of you.
And I always wanted to be a movie star, so it’s win, win!
Awww…. that made me all teary eyed. Thank you.
You’re welcome.
Just wanted to point out that most people who support gay marriage do so because they have a sense of empathy and fairness toward their fellow human beings. The exact same arguments used against gay marriage were used against interracial marriage several decades ago.
And shin, I can tell from your post that you get your opinions from popular talk radio hosts, news channels and/or ultraconservative sites. Fun fact: the ACLU has represented Christians and other “religious right” types as well. They support equality and freedom of speech; otherwise, they wouldn’t have fought for Fred Phelps’ right to protest a few years ago.
The “way things have always been” is always the best right? Just like slavery, women’s rights, segregation, and just about every other form of discrimination…
But just because it’s been like that for a long time is no reason it shouldn’t be changed :/
Slavery has been around for a very long time, but most countries have abolished that.
The definition of marriage is different from culture to culture and history shows that it changes over time.
The point about gay pride parades is very apt. If gay Americans just want people to mind their own business, maybe they should think about marching down the streets in respectable business suits instead of ass-less chaps and a leather harness. At least then it’d be harder for people to accuse you of sexual deviancy.
If you want to keep the public out of your business, don’t parade your business around in public.
I don’t understand the phrase “ass-less chaps”.
Chaps are, by definition, “ass-less”.
It’s like saying “two-legged pants”.
It’s implying that they’re wearing the chaps with no pants, which is not traditionally how one wears chaps. Chaps are worn over pants to help protect the legs while riding/shoeing horses and working with livestock.
They were later often worn while riding motorcycles to add extra protection against rocks, bugs, and road-rash (in the event of a crash).
While all chaps are “ass-less” we all know they’re meaning chaps and no pants.
Yet the Irish are encouraged to wander around on St. Patricks Day wearing bizarre hats, and everyone applauds when Shriners ride in parades in their silly little cars and on the 4th of July we cheer to see a flock of women all done up as Betsy Ross…
And no one thinks that this is how these people behave all year round. Everyone gets that this is a CELEBRATION of who we are. It is a way to have some outrageous fun while affirming our identities.
Somehow, it becomes wrong to do so if you are homosexual. If you are homosexual, you must hide yourself away, do your best to fit in, never step out of line, never point out the fact that you are OK with who you are, that you enjoy the ridiculous as well as the sublime. Because if you do so, the world is going to think that you wear a speedo and chaps to work.
If we are going to say that Gay Pride Parades should be in business suits, then we should say that all parades should be.
As to “sexual deviancy”, homosexuality is not. Get over it.
No one made a graph saying the Irish and Shriners want people to mind their own business…
Because no one had to.
Anonygrl, your point doesn’t work. St. Patrick’s Day parades don’t exist for the purpose of garnishing respect or attention for a cause. Celebrating a holiday and demonstrating on a social issue are two different things.
We were merely making a point that the graph is very wrong. The gay movement is much more involved in being as overtly homosexual as possible than in demanding people leave them alone. If gays want to be left alone then they should stop making a spectacle of their sexuality. You don’t see heterosexuals in the street parading about the awesomeness of opposite-sex relationships. Keep your sexuality to yourself. I don’t want to know that a man has sex with other men any more than I want to know that he has sex with women. TMI.
I don’t know about that. Considering how marginalized the Irish immigrants to the United States were two hundred years ago, it’s not that bad of a comparison.
From http://www.history.com/content/stpatricksday/history-of-the-holiday
“The first St. Patrick’s Day parade took place not in Ireland, but in the United States. Irish soldiers serving in the English military marched through New York City on March 17, 1762. Along with their music, the parade helped the soldiers to reconnect with their Irish roots, as well as fellow Irishmen serving in the English army.
Over the next thirty-five years, Irish patriotism among American immigrants flourished, prompting the rise of so-called “Irish Aid” societies, like the Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick and the Hibernian Society. Each group would hold annual parades featuring bagpipes (which actually first became popular in the Scottish and British armies) and drums.
Up until the mid-nineteenth century, most Irish immigrants in America were members of the Protestant middle class. When the Great Potato Famine hit Ireland in 1845, close to a million poor, uneducated, Catholic Irish began to pour into America to escape starvation. Despised for their religious beliefs and funny accents by the American Protestant majority, the immigrants had trouble finding even menial jobs. When Irish Americans in the country’s cities took to the streets on St. Patrick’s Day to celebrate their heritage, newspapers portrayed them in cartoons as drunk, violent monkeys.
However, the Irish soon began to realize that their great numbers endowed them with a political power that had yet to be exploited. They started to organize, and their voting block, known as the “green machine,” became an important swing vote for political hopefuls. Suddenly, annual St. Patrick’s Day parades became a show of strength for Irish Americans, as well as a must-attend event for a slew of political candidates. In 1948, President Truman attended New York City ‘s St. Patrick’s Day parade, a proud moment for the many Irish whose ancestors had to fight stereotypes and racial prejudice to find acceptance in America.”
My point stands. Today, St. Patrick’s Day is a day of celebration, but it originated as “Irish pride” and was as distasteful to people in those days as Gay Pride is to you now.
And you are incorrect about the graph. My interpretation of the graph is that there is a very tiny green slice of the homosexual community that has big splashy parades and wants everyone to be fabulous, and a huge red rest of the pie of the homosexual community that lives normal, quiet lives, works next to you, takes their kids to the park to play soccer with your kids, goes to PTA meetings, pays bills, mows the lawn just like you, and DON’T do any of those things that make you so uncomfortable.
Marry me. Oh, wait, it’s illegal. Damn.
I will, thank you. Lets move to Massachussets and flaunt our love.
See, we didn’t even have to wear leather straps!
Hehe!
>.> i am in mass already, can i get some kind of certification and complete the ceremony? gays rock
heck yeah!
i’ll marry her for you, and we’ll swing your way. how’s that?
as long as you bring the leather straps
This just keeps getting better!! Devylan, you get to plan the reception!!!
oh my…
I miss all the good parties…
Add DeathWyrmNexus to the guest list…. he can sit on my side of the aisle next to my Aunt Rose.
For some reason, it’s not letting me reply to either of y’all’s posts, but definitely consider it done!
Is she hot? I mean, Lynn and I would be honored.
My Aunt Rose is about 90, stands almost 4’6″ and is a hoot and a half. You will love her.
Kickass!
Well put, thank you.
If people accepted that gay people occasionally walk down the street holding hands, they wouldn’t need to be so obvious and almost deliberately offensive about their public displays of affection. It’s a reaction to prejudice. If it were no big deal to be gay, then gay pride wouldn’t be a big deal either.
“You don’t see heterosexuals in the street parading about the awesomeness of opposite-sex relationships.”
Lol. Acctually, you see heterosexuals celebrating the awesomeness of their sexuality all the time. Perhaps not by parading down the street, but it’s still evident. Homosexuals are a lot more subtle in expressing their sexuality in the everyday than other people. Perhaps that’s why they feel the need to make an event of it every once in a while. Is that really so bad? Sexuality is awesome! I’m glad I don’t have to hide mine!
I’m going to shatter your argument very simply here–gay pride parades are participated in by a SMALL PORTION of gay people. Contrary to belief, we don’t have monthly meetings to discuss our Gay Agenda or the upcoming parades and how we should dress for them. Go ahead and criticize those people specifically, fine. But you absolutely cannot argue that the behavior of a few people in a parade has anything to do with the wishes of gay people in general.
I’m afraid you can’t just say that. There are millions of people on this planet who believe that homosexuality is an action, not a state of being. They also consider that action wrong. I consider a homosexual urge to be no different than the urge a married man feels to have sex with his secretary. All societies in history have set moral limits on sexual behavior. Homosexuality is sexual behavior.
For right wingers it IS about who you have sex with. They cannot imagine (note the worlds most imaginative people are on the left) what it’s like to love another man, so they think (note extremists always think everyone else is wrong) that they “must be doing it for the sex”
Thus explains how some of the most right-wing nutbars (senator larry craig, anyone?) can be caught having gay sex. It’s not for the gay, it’s for the sex.
Wow, your need to generalize and pigeon-hole vastly diverse groups of people, using words like “always” (e.g. extremists always think everyone else is wrong) in very inappropriate ways shows how hypocritical you are.
You want people to be open-minded and tolerant and you are extremely close-minded and intolerant. Awesome.
Good job judging an entire person based on one post.
That one post had enough hypocrisies in it for my claim that the poster is a hypocrite to be true. I don’t have to know him or her completely to understand that. At least I’m judging the one person I’m speaking to and not an entire (and diverse) group of people.
Mainly it bothers me when one side of a debate succumbs to the allure of calling the other side names, rather than discussing the actual point at hand.
If you’re in the mood to tear something apart, why not tear apart the arguments for legalizing same-sex marriage?
Because that’s not what this graph/discussion/debate, etc. is about…
Sigh…I just butted in to point out the hypocrisy in a post. I have no desire to debate gay marriage.
excuse me? name calling? im pretty sure right-wing nutbars is name calling. you people make it seem like someone who preaches and promotes openmindedness cannot in turn be ignorant or closedminded. there in lies the hypocrisy that parks was trying to show. it is openminded for a person to support gay rights but its not closed minded for a person to shun or look down upon someone who does not share their beliefs? isn’t that what being closed minded is? being artsy or “cultured” has nothing to do with having an open mind. not accepting new or different ideas is closed minded and often times is ignorant. Sorry to say libs but hypocrisy is something you seem to do very well. the first amendment allows freedom of speech, religion, right to gather and so on. But what most of you don’t know is that there are still restrictions and limitations on what is considered free speech. for example, defamation of a person is not protected by the first amendment. someone saying that “bush is a nazi” or related out cries, is unlawful due to the fact that it is not satirical or in anyway a joke. saying something insulting that is in no way true is not protected by the first amendment. therefor you are not only hypocrites, but do not have the ability to understand the concept of the first amendment which you so potently express your love for as your freedom to denounce other human beings. Just on the basis that you cannot listen or accept an idea different from your own.
So true, so true! Let’s stir up the hornet’s nest a bit more: if marriage is one man & one woman for the specific purpose of reproducing, what about the couples who can’t or won’t have children?
*runs for the nearest bunker*
(personally, I prefer “fruit fly”)
Don’t forget the historical definition of marriage as one man owning one or more women, as his personal property. Or the people a hundred years ago that thought that interracial marriage was an abomination unto God.
Look up the origin of “rule of thumb” – ouch! And the all powerful “they” also insisted that interracial unions would be sterile and that was sufficient reason to outlaw such marriages.
Thanks for the cliche feminist law reference.
When people who are against gay marriage give a solid rebuttal to the cliches, we’ll stop using the cliches. Just because it’s been said ten million times doesn’t make it less true.
No one here has EVER claimed that there has never been an unfair or unjust law. In fact, I’m pretty sure that 99% of people against gay marriage are also against racial discrimination, the “rule of thumb”, slavery, and many other injustices that were allowed (and are CURRENTLY allowed) by law. We just hate being associated with ridiculous notions like those.
Your premise — “one historical law was unjust so ALL historical laws must be unjust” — is illogical. The thumb rule and gay marriage are two different issues and must be dealt with separately.
Why? Prove your contention.
Um, what? You’re asking me to prove that all historical laws aren’t unjust? To prove that statement, I just have to find ONE historical law that isn’t unjust…
My premise was so obvious I didn’t think it needed proving…I’m sorry.
Thou shalt not kill.
There. An historical law that wasn’t unjust.
No, in fact, I am not asking you to provide an example of a just law. I am asking you to prove that discrimination against gay marriage is not an injustice that should be corrected.
Personally speaking, I have always used the comparison to other historical laws to point out the fallacy in the original argument: that something is correct because it is historical.
Quoting Captain Obvious: “And, historically speaking, marriage has always been heterosexual by definition.” The obvious implications here are that A) the definitions of words are immutable (false) and B) a traditional concept is correct because it has historical basis.
Using this premise, then, it is no surprise that many proponents of same-sex marriage point out that the definition of “marriage” used to include property rights over the woman.
I think we are agreed then. Being historical does not make a law just or unjust. Some historical laws are just and others are unjust. We just disagree about which laws fall into each category.
Parks is right. Saying that some historical laws are unjust, and therefore gay marriage will one day be one of these laws, is an argument with holes so big you could pilot a cruise ship through ‘em. An illogical argument doesn’t make either side wrong or right, though. It should just be tossed so that the actually useful points can be made.
Actually, he’s wrong. And right, at the same time. In essence, he’s agreeing with what people are actually saying, while disagreeing with what he thinks they’re saying.
The point is that history is not a sufficient argument for or against a law. Nobody’s saying that all historical laws are unjust, they’re saying that history is not a sufficient justification.
Some people do argue that the historical nature of marriage is sufficient justification for our current laws. So people point out examples of other historical laws that we do not follow and would not even consider, to show that history is not a sufficient argument. To quote somewhere else on this page: “you have to make today’s laws for today”. Oh, hey. That was you.
SOME historical laws stand, as they ARE just.
Some do not.
I don’t believe anyone (other than Parks) said that ALL laws should be changed simply because they are historical.
Homosexuals are people who are being denied the right to marry the person they love. The legal precedents indicating that this is a situation that needs correcting include Loving v. Virginia, and others.
Where are the proofs that this is NOT a valid issue that needs to be changed? That is all I was asking for.
Totally a Boondock Saints reference.
L2PopCulture.
Kidding. But, a little bit of levity keeps the vitriol away, yes?
by the way, “rule of thumb” was a way to estimate range for firing a cannon, not a rule on beating your wife.
If you were gay and read the comment you just posted, you’d realize how dumb you are.
Just because “millions of people” believe a thing does not make it true. Apparently millions of people believe there is a god. I’ve yet to meet a god.
The ACT of homosexuality is a behavior. So is the ACT of heterosexuality. Being homosexual or heterosexual is not. It is no different than being black, or being allergic to nuts. It is simply what you are.
All societies in history have set limits. Yes, as do we. We have decreed that pedophilia (for instance) is not to be tolerated for the harm it causes to minors. Homosexuality is not harmful, nor is the act of homosexual sex between two consenting adults, just as heterosexuality and the act of heterosexual sex between consenting adults is deemed not to be harmful. In this country, most (if not all) laws that prohibit homosexual acts between consenting adults have been struck down. That is the first step. The next is granting of the rights that are afforded to heterosexuals simply because they happen to BE heterosexual.
Thank you! well said
I agree with you that homosexuality is not ‘sexual deviancy’ or anything – I’m all for gay rights, have voted to allow same-sex marriages in my state (which, sadly, did not pass), and have done my damnedest to allow gays and lesbians the same rights that married couples have and to end discrimination.
However, the gay pride parades as they’ve become is not the way to do it. A parade is fine, it’s awesome, it’s putting a human face on the issues and is, like you say, a celebration of who you are in a world that wants to keep you closeted. However, dressing up in leather bondage gear and walking around nearly naked is not going to make people think that you’re deserving of equal rights, it’s making you look like sexual deviants.
By all means dress flamboyantly in a parade, but my over-sexualising the event is not helping the cause at ALL.
my=by
typing fail.
While I appreciate the rest of your comments wholeheartedly, I am going to address one piece of it, and where I say “you”, I mean “anyone who objects to the nature of a Gay Pride Parade.
In the town that I live in, St. Patricks Day has become an excuse for 24 to 48 hours of public drunkenness; not just an excuse, but a joyfully condoned celebration of puking, rudeness, broken bottles, spilled beer, and public urination. This thrills me not at all.
So, you know what I do? I don’t go. I find other things to do, and allow those for whom this sort of bacchanalia has some sort of meaning to go about their business. I don’t make any effort to stop it even though it offends me. I also don’t think it hurts the cause of the Irish any, as I understand the POINT of bacchanalia IS to be over the top, take things too far, have more fun than is normally legal.
In an event that celebrates alternate sexuality, you have to expect some sexualization. If that bothers you, stay home. Or go to the movies, or visit your Aunt Martha, or do something else that doesn’t put you in the middle of a situation you would like to avoid. I promise, next St. Paddy’s Day, I will offer you the same courtesy.
Um, I don’t think drunk Irish people should get married either.
Too late.
hahaha
Exactly. It’s not helping the cause. Of course, any criticizing of “marginalized” parts of society, no matter how appropriate, will be met with harsh yells of “Bigot!” and “Discrimination!” Just so you know.
Only if you are one.
And I, for one, don’t say “bigot” if you don’t care for the atmosphere of a Gay Pride Parade and choose not to attend one. I would, however, if your criticism veered away from “I don’t like…” and strayed into “they are wrong…”. You are entitled to your own personal feelings on any topic. Where things go awry is when people start taking away the equal rights of others based on those personal feelings.
I agree they’re not helping the cause by being obviously sexual… It seems to me more like the reactionary “black pride” movements, while the civil rights movement was going on–not the idea of being proud of your culture, which is what it means today, but the idea that “black” should be the main source of a black person’s identity and the most important thing in their lives. That kind of attitude became prevalent when the prejudice against black people was still strong and the laws still supported it; it was a way to declare your identity. Deliberate extremism of this sort has been popular in civil rights movements everywhere. Feminism had its “flappers” and bra-burners… gay rights has its parades. It’ll settle down and become quieter once people start to accept the changes. For now, let them parade. They probably need the outlet.
Technically, all chaps are “assless.” That’s what distinguishes them from pants.
I suppose the Irish parade member should stop dressing in green shamrocks and stereotypical leprechaun garb too, huh?
They’re costumes, mate. It’s supposed to be a gaudy celebration! How often do you see Thanksgiving Parade volunteers in suits and briefcases?
Damn Turkey Gobblers!
More like, force everyone to ‘respect’ them and treat them ‘fairly’
they’re people, so why shouldn’t we treat them fairly and with respect?
Very few people get treated with respect and life for most people is inherently unfair.
Why do gay people think everything should be jellybeans for them?
I’ll leave you alone, just don’t push homesexual lifestyle curriculum in elementary schools. I can’t handle the sex talk with my kids when it is the hetero stuff, how do you expect me to do with the gay stuff?
‘I can’t handle the sex talk with my kids when it is the hetero stuff, how do you expect me to do with the gay stuff?’
Easy. “You know how some boys have girlfriends and some girls have boyfriends? Well, some boys want to have boyfriends, and some girls want to have girlfriends.” And if you still feel uncomfortable and they ask you how two people of the same gender could have sex, tell them that full-on penetrative sex in missionary position isn’t the only way to make love, and change the subject. Worked on my sprogs :p
“I can’t handle the sex talk with my kids when it is the hetero stuff, how do you expect me to do with the gay stuff?”
Just do what so many ignorant parents in our society do, tell them “it’s wrong” or “God will punish them” so that you don’t have to deal with it yourself. “the gay stuff” ROFL.
And while I’m here, if you “can’t handle the sex talk,” don’t have children until you can be an adult and discuss it. It’s fundamental human nature FFS, why does our society have make it so taboo?
A wholehearted “SECONDED!” from me.
…Although, if you think about it, if nobody reproduced who was mature enough for it, our species would probably go extinct within the century…
That in itself is and ignorant statement. You say that same sex marriage is an ok thing, and that everyone should agree with it, but at that point you’re acting just like the people you say are wrong. You’re entitled to believe whatever it is you want about God and religion, thats you’re personal right, but by calling someone ignorant because they follow their religious beliefs and believe that same sex marriage, and homosexuality is wrong, is asinine
“How do you expect me to do with the gay stuff?”
Answering not Stephen in particular, but the entire community who asks that question:
Sadly, I expect you will do poorly… but hopefully for your kids’ sake (and especially the sake of your kids who are gay…) they will have picked up enough positive reinforcement from other sources to understand that they are not evil, not wrong, not somehow tainted and deviant, but that they just ARE. Hopefully they will have learned in elementary school that if this is who they are, there are others in the world who will love them, and support them, and fight for them to be able to live as any heterosexual person does, with all the rights and benefits, and that it doesn’t, in the long run, matter. If not, my other hope is that therapy will eventually be able to assist, and that your kids won’t feel the need to commit suicide or do something equally as harmful (for instance, participate in a marriage with no love in it to satisfy your ideals, thereby damaging themselves and others) just to make YOU feel ok about your inability to deal with life as it happens to be.
So teach them what you will, but please, be open to them finding out more. Because unless you keep them locked in the cellar for the rest of their lives, eventually your kids are going to learn about homosexuality. And some of them are going to discover they ARE homosexual. And if you can’t figure out some way to deal with it now, how are you going to deal then?
I have… Nothing to add. Very well done.
The gay pride parades about flaunting their sexuality for its own sake. They are an extreme measure to combat the massive isolation that gays feel in a largely hetro world. Sure, they may be an annoyance, but if that annoyance can keep a scared and confused kid from killing himself because he feels alone in the world it’s probably worth it.
Essentially, we wouldn’t need gay pride parades if the standard policy in this society for the last couple centuries was to pretend gays didn’t exist.
So, the dichotomy is: either put up with flamboyantly sexualized parades or kids will kill themselves?
Bullsh!t. They don’t have to put on ridiculous (and stereotypical) displays of homosexuality to keep kids from feeling alone. If they don’t want to be marginalized, why not put a normal face on homosexuality? Sorry, Perez Hilton isn’t cutting it.
Yes, of course that is it. Either we put up with something you find icky once a year, or every child in America who ever had a homosexual thought is going to commit suicide, and it will all be YOUR fault.
Sorry…. just thought I would push your ridiculous over generalization that one extra step.
The POINT Char was making was. Essentially, we wouldn’t need gay pride parades if the standard policy in this society for the last couple centuries wasn’t to pretend gays didn’t exist.
Read it again, and stop trying to hide behind a curtain of sarcasm.
They DO have to put on displays to help keep the entire community from feeling alone and marginalized. And one of the normal faces of homosexuality is that they are just people who sometimes like to cut loose and have a fun party. So once a year, they do. No different than any of the other groups that have a celebration once a year to get together and show off their fun side. And there is more sex at MARDI GRAS (which is, if you will remember, at its base a CATHOLIC celebration, and no one goes after the Vatican about that!) than at a Gay Pride Parade…. but since it is mostly heterosexual… it is not so icky. Looking at bare breasts is fine, but… Oh no! Let’s not look at bare buttocks! Unless they are on a woman of course, and then it is all good.
My problem isn’t with the fact that they have parades. It’s how over the top and stereotypical they are. There are normal gays out there. Guys who don’t act like girls and girls who don’t act like guys. There are gay guys who aren’t into leather and d!ldos and rainbows and makeup. Why do the parades have to be over the top? As someone in another post said, why don’t they demonstrate in normal clothes? Wear t-shirts or business suits, I don’t care. Just stop making homosexuality into this alternate lifestyle/social subculture that you have to buy into if you want to be gay. Your choice in your sexual partner’s gender doesn’t have to be the defining characteristic of who you are. Good grief.
And for the record, I don’t like what happens on St. Patrick’s Day or Mardi Gras either. Oversexualized culture at its best (or worst). At least Mardi Gras is. St. Patrick’s is more about beer…for some reason I haven’t figured out.
“Your choice in your sexual partner’s gender doesn’t have to be the defining characteristic of who you are.”
If that were true, there would be no need for Gay Pride Parades. Since it is not, they persist.
And how do we make that happen? Allow same sex couples to adopt. Allow them to inherit, visit sickrooms of their partners, make financial decisions for them, be on insurance policies, file joint income taxes etc.
In other words allow same sex couples to marry, in the exactly the same way we currently allow mixed sex couples to do so. Don’t hide behind “civil unions” or say that marriage should only be for OUR club, not theirs. Treat them exactly as you wish the rest of the world to treat you.
So you’re saying that your choice in a sexual partner’s gender DOES have to be the defining characteristic of who you are? That doesn’t even make sense. And many homosexuals would disagree.
No one HAS to define themselves by their sexual orientation. In fact, most enlightened gays that I know don’t make being gay the most important thing about them. Why would they? Since when is your sexual orientation all that you are?
Gays are people. Americans. Coffee drinkers. Athletes. Musicians. Scholars. Dog lovers. Many of them define themselves in these terms before they define themselves as gay.
I think a lot of homosexuals would be offended by your presumption.
Again, you misread. I am not saying that it DOES have to be… I am saying that sadly, it is what the anti-homosexual community seems to be bent of FORCING it to be. By not allowing equal rights for everyone, those who stand against homosexuality continue to make the issue one of the gender of one’s partner.
Certainly homosexuals are not forcing this to be the issue.
Well, exactly. I’m a tea loving Georgian with a passion for historic architecture and modern art. But if I try to marry the person I have been in a relationship with for six years, they won’t ask me that. They’ll ask me his name, and I’ll say he is a she, and in 80% of the country, that will mean I can’t get married and don’t have access to the same rights. I am a person. But because I love a person of the same biological sex, I don’t get the same legal rights. Because I love a person of the same biological sex, I run a higher risk of being raped or assaulted in this country. Because I love a person of the same biological sex I am likely to face discrimination in finding housing and work. This SOCIETY makes it about who I love. Not me. I’d like to just be able to settle down and have kids and not have anyone care who I love. I would really, really appreciate not being scared to hold hands with the woman I love on certain sides of town. I would really enjoy having a wedding with my whole family there, like most little girls dream of. Right now, I can’t. That’s not me. That’s my world, the world I live in.
I think I’m gonna cry.
… Don’t lose hope!
Please know that there are a LOT of people out here who would love to dance at your wedding, and are doing what we can to make that possible. Hang on! One of these days we will get there!
As a perverted heterosexual man, I will make a joke about wanting a honeymoon video but in seriousness, I do wish you the best. One of the best father figures I have had the privilege to meet as an adult was a lesbian I used to work with.
When she was denied her adopted son, I felt my own heart break as a father as I watched her depression spiral.
You deserve all the happiness and comfort I deserve, no more or less than equal opportunity.
-hugs- same here, nexxiewormofDEATH.
and good luck to you too, luna. i’ll be the flowerboy! 
and i’ll dance too!
sorry, nicknames need to be made when i talk
“Guys who don’t act like girls and girls who don’t act like guys.”
Oh lord check your stereotypes, please.
That was my point exactly. Those are stereotypes. Did you even read my post or did you just choose a few words to argue with?
May I ask you, completely seriously, if you have ever attended a gay pride event? Because in every group the loudest and most flamboyant will be the most noticeable. Jerry Falwell wasn’t your AVERAGE Christian, either, but everyone remembers him because he was loud and publicized. The average attendee, even at a gay pride parade, is neither in drag nor in leather. Many people are, but when you have 100,000 people gathering, if 1% are in drag, that means you have 1000 people in drag. That’s still only ONE PERCENT. So I think you’re looking at something from television portrayals and newspaper headlines, not from the perspective of the real people. When I go to pride, I show up in a dress or a t shirt and jeans with my girlfriend, who will be dressed similarly. Like your average woman. Most of my friends wear shirts and pants, regular clothes, with maybe a rainbow necklace as the only “gay” accessory. Generalizing us and our events are unfair.
Further, the reason you see leather daddies and drag queens and dykes on bikes and those sort of cliches is because pride parades try to highlight and pay respect to the vast and diverse subcultures in the gay community, not because those are what gay people are or should be. Only that they represent one way we might be.
Well said! At a parade, of whom do you take pictures? The folks in costume marching, or the far greater number of folks in regular clothes watching and cheering?
I was wondering when someone was going to mention Mardi Gras… Preach it, sister!
i think my gay friends should get married they r all so cute and fun!!! they never hurt anyone and make life a blast for us str8 girls!
The stupidity is painful with this one.
Actually, she has a point … it’s just one to which you’re oblivious. It’s too bad you’re ignorant of it, akshally. No, wait: “painful”.
i think what Andira is feeling pain from is the typing, not the opinion.
txtspeech SUCKS.
I completely and utterly agree. It does lend a bit of teh stupid to anyone who uses it it. I try to look past it, particularly if the *whole thing isn’t* txt-talk. I’ve been known to take a shortcut or two in a forum (I try to refrain, though).
Awww, you’re sixteen? Yay! I can’t wait for you to be our flowerboy!!!
However, you don’t get a copy of the honeymoon tape till you are older. Sorry.
pfft, the cameras are already set up
i’m tempted to link some disgusting site, just because damn near nothing comes between a sixteen year old and (at the very least) recordings of naked women
The fact that you CAN get hold of pornography is not my major concern.
I just want to avoid the whole pedophilia issue.
Quite right, because just because we love each other despite (or perhaps even because of) our being the same gender, we are NOT pedophiles.
bahhahahahahhaha, you’re right. i’ll have to market it for you two and not watch it, otherwise, you might end up on Maroon’s strangely illogical definition of “statistics” too
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/5/11/128865349521392122.png
I love how no one has a good reason for not letting gay marriage happen. Anyway, I think this graph is backwards.
That’s because all their “reasoning” boils down to the fact that the thought of guy-on-guy skeeves them out.
The wonderful irony of that is that there have been studies done that show that the more homophobic men usually have the highest amount of homosexual tendencies, while the men secure in their heterosexuality don’t give a rat’s ass.
And the ones freaked by the thought of guy-on-guy are totally turned on by girl-on-girl. I’m sooo glad my husband & sons have openly gay friends!
Thanks again for the stereotyping and pigeon-holing. I know this might blow your minds, but not everyone who is against gay marriage is homophobic. For instance, I have very good friends who are gay. My college roommate was gay. We chose to share a room (wasn’t potluck) and I knew he was gay. Didn’t matter to me as long as he didn’t have guys spend the night (I couldn’t have girls over, so it was only fair). I’m not scared of gays, grossed out by them, or a closet one myself. Sorry to kill your preconceived ideas about traditional marriage proponents.
If you would like to indicate to the readers here that you, personally, are not a bigot, why don’t you give use your own reasons for being against the legalization of same-sex marriage? Sarcasm can be great fun, but it doesn’t win an argument. Give us facts, not snide opinions, please.
This was never a discussion about gay marriage. Been there, done that. See the Miss California lol on RoflRazzi. I think it’s currently on page 4.
I was just correcting the ridiculous overgeneralizations about the people. An argument against the person (ad hominem) is what people who don’t have anything good to say resort to. Attacking the character of the arguer is just so much easier than attacking the argument.
And for the record, I will always be a bigot to you, no matter what I say. Wouldn’t matter if my gay friends got on here to give character references. And I’m sure they would do it in a second. We disagree on the issue of gay marriage, but they know I still love them.
Please note that I never, in fact, called you a bigot. I hardly think I know enough about you to be able to give an informed opinion on the matter.
Perhaps I am having difficulty understanding your motivation for spending so much time pointing out the (perceived) hypocrisy of others. I must also admit some amusement at the inherent irony of your posts.
“An argument against the person (ad hominem) is what people who don’t have anything good to say resort to.”
Indeed.
Please provide an example where I attacked the person instead of the issue…
And then refer to all the posts that contain the terms bigot, right-wing nutjob, religious, conservative crazies, and the like. Oh, and don’t forget homophobic.
I don’t think I’ve called anyone a name yet. Except hypocritical, which was an attack on what they said, which was hypocritical.
Very well. For this example I shall cite the following:
“parksj1 = Parks & Recreation says:
May 11, 2009 at 11:36 am
Wow, your need to generalize and pigeon-hole vastly diverse groups of people, using words like “always” (e.g. extremists always think everyone else is wrong) in very inappropriate ways shows how hypocritical you are.
You want people to be open-minded and tolerant and you are extremely close-minded and intolerant. Awesome.”
In this particular post, while the only “name-calling” you did was to label the previous poster “hypocritical”, the first sentence certainly constitutes an ad hominem attack. Considering, however, that I intend to point out all ad hominem attacks, rather than specifically “name-calling”, I feel this illustrates my point sufficiently.
I have asked you several times to contribute something useful to the discussion. Instead, the majority of your comments have focused on attacking various posters for their hypocrisy. This, in itself, is hypocrisy. I can only conclude that you are here for the sole purpose of making yourself feel self-righteous by belittling others and their opinions.
Feel free to point out how much of a hypocrite I am for stating this. You know you want to.
Have you read any of my posts that are about the graph? This isn’t a gay marriage discussion, so stop trying to steer it there. We’ve done that. I’ve posted a bunch of times on how gay culture/the gay agenda is counter-productive. But I also can’t let ridiculous overgeneralizations slide. I haven’t made any claims about “all liberals” or “liberal nutjobs” or “gay lovers” or anything like that. I did attack one person for hypocrisy, but it wasn’t in lieu of attacking the argument, which is the definition of ad hominem. She didn’t even POST an argument, so there was no issue to avoid with an ad hominem attack.
Also, please read all my posts before making claims about my purpose here. I’ve spent plenty of time on the issue.
“They know I love them! And they know it’s pure, because it transcends the fact that I don’t want them to have civil rights!”
And I have very good friends who are black, but I still think they shouldn’t be allowed to marry a white woman.
really?
and why does guy-on-guy skeeve them out? because if they admit it’s okay for “real men” to “catch,” then it’s only a few baby steps to admitting that men are actually NOT superior to women! THE HORROR!
Awesome connection, Average Jane! And So. True! Still the worst male insult possible: “pu$$y”.
i actually think that insult’s a bit funny, i laugh at my friends if they try and use it on me. so stupid, to call someone a word synonymous with a female’s genitals because they are “chicken” is it not?
Yes, but you see my point, tho, right? Calling a man ANYTHING synonymous with a woman is the worst insult possible. It really is telling about their feelings towards the opposite sex.
For instance, think of this: How many of you, out there, females, have EVER insulted another female by calling her a man? Personally, I can’t remember a time I did so. Male-speak and slang is so ingrained in us, that I had to implore one friend to stop calling me (not as an insult), “Dude”.
agreed, it’s an idiotic thing to say. it’s also highly immature, which is why i can hardly resist laughing at anyone who uses it. quite often, i’ve found girls who were a lot less…. accurately described by that kind of insult than my male friends, many of which who are more stereotypically “weak” than a lot of girls i know.
Any adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult.
That being said, why would you actually want to?
Let’s just ban marriage altogether.
lol… wasn’t there some comedian joking about that? “Let the gays get married, so they can be as miserable as us?”
failure graph is full of fail. ever see a gay pride parade? yeah there really into minding their own business
Because obviously if they have one day a year for themselves to feel less atomized by the current culture, then they obviously can’t mind their own business.
Meanwhile those legislating and demanding legislation of legal contracts between two consulting adults and who may or may not enter it are…
Sorry, your logic just fails. That would be like me saying the Irish can’t mind their own business because they have Saint Patrick’s Day parades!
Yeah, because everyone knows heterosexuals don’t flaunt their sexuality everywhere you look every day of the year — TV, movies, books, magazines, advertisements, on the street…
Okay, yes. The homosexual community across America should just lay down arms because we’re going to be allowed civil unions. It’s the same thing, just with a different name.
How about you go to the African American communities and tell them they should have been happy with ‘separate but equal’ as well. Let me know how that goes.
Whether we love or hate gay pride parades, I doubt they can be considered a significant part of the gay “agenda.”
Good thing the graph’s creator didn’t include it, then.
When I was in grad school, I had a friend who used a frilly pink Day-Timer, covered in glitter and trimmed with that fluffy not-quite-fur stuff. He wrote in it with a big oversized pen, just as pink and topped with a real ostrich plume.
He called it his Gay Agenda.
omg! i love it!
I am SO gonna steal that idea!!!
The problem with the gay marriage movement is that it is seeking not just the same rights, which they already have under civil union laws, but government-mandated respect for and approval of their lifestyle. They want to be able to teach my 7 year old in a public school classroom that it is okay for two men to be in a relationship because they are married. They want to normalize in the children’s eyes what the vast majority in this country believe is morally wrong. Make no mistake about it, they are after the children. This is not about getting people to just mind their own business.
I would agree that if there’s a gay agenda, this is it. However, I don’t think all gay people are part of that. But some people don’t just want tolerance, they want to be told that what they’re doing is right. They want everyone to agree that what they’re doing is right.
I think there’s a greater problem. People don’t generally have a clear understanding of the difference between “moral” and “legal”. Most people seem to think that they should be identical, that “right” should be synonymous with “legal”, and “wrong” should be synonymous with “illegal”. But that isn’t the case now, and it shouldn’t be. People’s morals differ. Allowing one group to set the morals for everyone else would be oppressive. Law is supposed to be rules that are generally agreed upon that allow people of different morals to get along. Laws are a compromise, and are intended to provide peace, not to impose a way of life.
People do lots of things that at least one group out there considers immoral. And some of these things are bound to be taught in schools, or at least mentioned neutrally. We should not sanitize our history, or discussion of the present. Public education shouldn’t contain value judgments. You can discuss something without making a moral judgment about it.
The problem with the religious agenda is that they are not seeking peace, but control. They believe that if they can squash all discussion, all public recognition, of things they disagree with, then those things will just go away. They want everyone to be forced to follow their moral code, and attempt to destroy all others, make it more difficult to even talk about other ideas through controlling the language that people use.
I think I love you…
I think I love both of y’all. But that’s a whole other discussion, isn’t it? Lol.
Beautifully said.
I ALSO think that I love you.
They’re after the children?!? Holy crap, why didn’t anyone tell me this BEFORE I had kids? Now I have to worry about roaming, zombie-esque dudes in ass-less chaps beating on my door in the middle of the night, moaning, “children! chilllllldrennnnnn!”
What do I use against them!? Raid? Silver bullets?? A sensible, charcoal-gray ensemble with no flair whatsoever?? Aiiigh!!
/snark
*falls over laughing*
<3
This reminds me of the Lewis Black “Gay Banditos” sketch.
Win win win
And you think that’s wrong? Why? And how can you know what the ‘vast majority’ thinks? Have you asked them? All your statements and arguments have no ground whatsoever, you think it’s wrong, therefore it must be wrong. Guess what: YOU are wrong! And no, I’m not gay, I’m just in favor for equal rights for every human being, regardless of skin color, gender or sexual orientation.
P.s. Someone who is after children is called a pedophile, which is something completely different than a homosexual.
Above comment is pointed at u-no-it, of course (who apparently can’t spell properly).
And food is called ice cream.
The problem with the right wing conservative movement is that it is seeking not just to curtail rights, which they have already done by creating the equal but separate civil union laws, but government-mandated respect for and approval of their beliefs. They want to be able to teach my 7 year old in a public classroom that it is immoral for two people to be in a relationship because they happen to be of the same sex. They want to marginalize in the children’s eyes what the conservatives believe to be morally wrong. Make no mistake about it, they are after the children. This is not just about denying people their rights.
It is just as ugly when it is turned around on you.
Haha, a liberal conspiracy theorist! Awesome…lol.
And by awesome, I mean sad.
No sadder than the opposite point, which, you will note, I quoted practically word for word, and which, you will also note, holds just as much water.
Yeah, I don’t think he read it.
he fails.
a lot.
don’t worry.
This is win.
Yet, the government has already become a babysitter government with schools limiting soft drinks and thinking about requiring service for graduation. Why do they do this? They feel they must to construct children with better futures. They (the government, so don’t shoot the messenger) believe that homosexuality proposes futures to the children that are immoral and degrading. This is simply another one of those situations.
Have to point out though: though the US was not set up on Christian laws and separation of church and state has been around for a while, presidents still swear on the bible, god is still in the allegiance, and in the motto. The question then comes, should religion be completely removed from all manner of the government of the United State of America? The founders of the US would never have thought of it being an issue but it is something we must consider present day.
“The question then comes, should religion be completely removed from all manner of the government of the United State of America?”
Yes, it absolutely should. Unfortunately our country is still largely populated by a bunch of cultist who care more about their r-peen (like an e-peen, but with religion) than doing what’s best for everybody.
Right on.
As an educator in Florida, I have to tell you that sex ed is no longer taught in schools, largely due to political pressure from the right, so here at least the point is moot.
Not moot, merely suppressed for all the wrong reasons.
“the same rights, which they already have under civil union laws,”
No. Please show me on the 1040 tax form the box for “civil union filing jointly.” Also, let’s say you’re straight and you get married in Vermont. Now you move to Georgia. Guess what? You’re still married according to the law in GA. Now, flip that and and say you’re gay and have a civil union in VT. Move to GA and surprise! No more civil union for you, now you’re just two gay people living in the same house.
“respect for and approval of their lifestyle.”
What is so wrong about respecting someone, regardless of who they love?”
“They want to be able to teach my 7 year old in a public school classroom that it is okay for two men to be in a relationship”
It is okay. It doesn’t hurt you for two men to be in a relationship.
“They want to normalize in the children’s eyes what the vast majority in this country believe is morally wrong.”
The “vast majority” you speak of has been wrong before. In the beginnings of this country, the vast majority of people had no problems with slavery.
“Make no mistake about it, they are after the children.”
Paranoid delusions.
soooo…. why not just push for changes in form 1040, etc?
Violating every human culture from the primordial ooze on hardly seems worth a few simple changes in tax paperwork.
The only way to effect equality with a few simple paperwork changes is to legalize gay marriage.
The sheer volume of tax, inheritance, child custody, caretaker, and other laws that would have to be changed to make “civil union” actually equal “marriage” is incredibly daunting.
“the same rights, which they already have under civil union laws”
The same rights that makes the government recognize hetero marriages on the Census but tells us we’re not allowed to claim we’re legally united, you mean? The same rights that don’t allow us to file our federal taxes jointly? The same right to serve our country in whatever capacity we choose without having to fear being fired because of who we’re attracted to?
Yeah, okay.
Civil unions a) do not exist in every state b) are not equal to marriage in every state where they do exist c) are not recognized by the Federal government. As someone pointed out above, if Civil Union is legally equivalent to Marriage, then why insist on different names? The only reason to force the name to be different is to allow one to be pushed down an alternate legal pathway… and therefore to BE different.
And by the way, I don’t have a “lifestyle.” I have a LIFE.
:[ i wish that the world was more fabul0us
shouldn’t it be *FABULOUS!!!*
I’ve never been able to understand the “chosen lifestyle” concept that implies (states, even) that homosexuals “choose” to be gay. My earliest fantasies (before I really knew anything about sex) involved the cartoon version of Invisible Girl – I’ve always favored women over men sexually. It isn’t something I “chose” (especially in junior high when girls started to get more…interesting, and my own hormones were starting to kick in). Do the people who assert that it’s a choice actually want to be gay but have “chosen” to be straight? Seriously? Every time they see an attractive member of the same sex they sigh with regret?
.
I know I’m not the first person to ask this or even wonder about it, it’s just that I am truly puzzled by the concept – perhaps I’m even stranger than I thought for not “choosing” my sexual orientation? I’ll freely admit that I hope my kids are straight (the younger is only nine and the older is, I think, straight, but I haven’t pushed her about it) just because I think it will make things easier for them in their lifetime, but if either (or both) of them are gay I’ll keep loving and supporting them. This does not guarantee that I’ll like their partners either way (neither being gay nor being straight makes someone a good person, after all), nor does it mean that I’ll support them when they’re doing something I think is a bad idea, but being gay isn’t on the “bad idea” list for me – it’s just part of who someone is.
.
Now, can someone please tell me (since I’m not a Biblical scholar by any means) exactly what percentage of the Bible is dedicated to anti-homosexual statements? I thought it was only one or two lines (and that in the Old Testament), but based on the…fervency? Stridency? Amount of attention paid? Whatever – I figure at least 83% of the New Testament must be about how evile those homersexuals are (shucks, maybe this should’ve been a graph?).
Awesome. That is my definition of you.
Two quotes in Leviticus, one in Deuteronomy, and, I think, three or four in the writings of Paul. Oh, and the two in Leviticus use a word no one knows how to translate correctly (to’evah).
Romans 13 as well, I believe, but none of this has any merit anyway. I’m far more interested in what statistics have to say than in a book that we get to pick and choose what we want to follow. According to the bible, I can still own slaves, beat my wife with a stick no thicker than my thumb, and a series of other things that are a definite no-go. If you’re going to attempt to use the bible as the final authority, then do not DARE say anything to me unless you’re following every single bit of the bible word for word, step by step, or I will just as conveniently adhere to my right to have and beat slaves, and ignore your statements about homosexuality.
I do not care if someone is homosexual. I do not care if they get married. I don’t care if they call it “married” and have all the same benefits as a normal person. I do, however, very, very, very strongly disagree with homosexuals being allowed to adopt children.
If we can’t keep Octopussy from having kids artificially, then there’s no way we should be involved in that decision among homosexuals. However, I do not believe for a second that adoption should be an option.
Any REAL, non politically based, non biased studies done (and yes, I’ve even done my own statistical surveys, and am considering making a business of it) will show drastic trends that the pro-homosexual studies (most often done by homosexuals) will not. I submit:
1.) Homosexuals are up to 10x as likely to commit pedophilia.
2.) Females raised by homosexuals are often considerably more masculine.
3.) Males raised by homosexuals are often considerably more feminine.
4.) Both sexes are many, many times more likely to experiment in homosexuality/bisexuality.
5.) Female children raised in homosexual households are much more promiscuous at a much younger age.
6.) Male children raised in homosexual households are more chaste than their female counterparts, but also much more introverted.
7.) Depression/suicide rates among parents with homosexual children are almost 5 times higher than those from heterosexual households.
I am equally opposed to heterosexual single parents being able to adopt regardless of their financial stability.
I am equally opposed to heterosexual families that already have a large number of children (say, 5) being permitted to adopt even more.
Correction:
#7 should read:
7.) Depression/suicide rates among children with homosexual parents are almost 5 times higher than those from heterosexual households.
2-4 aren’t problems.
5 and 6 I will need cites on as I know tons of guys who are introverted from hetero familes and the same goes for “promiscuous” girls out of heterosexual families.
7 is a fu(king duh because their parents being marginalized and all sh!t rolls downhill.
1 is something I have a comment waiting moderation down below on and by that logic, what should happen to white males when you look at serial killer statistics?
Wow… I don’t even know where to start with your responses. I really think it’s the ignorance of people like you that make me so frightened for the future of our species.
Gender confused children result in identity confused adults. If you want to live in your little Pollyanna world where everyone loves everyone and everybody gets along, and nobody discriminates, and everyone in the WORLD is going to change to your point of view, more power to you. Frankly, I’d prefer that my kids grow up as realists and know how to be functioning members of society.
For #1, I had even given lower numbers than those actually found by the American Sociological Review, just to try and make it more palatable for you pro-homos. Start there, and try to find the study if you honestly have any interest in educating yourself. The numbers were essentially this: Among heterosexual parents, approximately 0.6% of their children report having had a “sexual experience” with their parent. Among homosexual parents, the number was closer to 29.0%. Look it up. I dare you.
You will also find studies showing the homosexual lifestyle to result in a much, much lower life expectancy (2005 study showed homosexual males to have a 20 year lower life expectancy, comparable to the life expectancy in the late 1800′s.)
Homosexuals are far more likely to carry deadly, or lifelong STDs.
Personal experiences:
I personally know of one Black gay man named Dale that my GF worked with. (He was fired eventually due to drug use.) He had HIV, Herpes, Hepatitis C, and HPV. He thought it was funny to say he’d “joined the 4H club.” He often went to visit men he met online for sex without mentioning to them his “club” status.
A second homosexual I knew was actually a friend of mine named Sean. He ended up committing suicide.
A third I didn’t even know was homosexual that used to run with us in school. He’s currently dying of AIDs.
NAMBLA is founded, run, and supported by homosexuals.
The statistics are out there. In fact, you pretty much have to AVOID them not to see them. Instead, people like you will see ONE study on homosexuality done by a homosexual stating that it’s “good” and that’s as far as you’ll look.
1 in 7 women will be raped by their husband
1 in 4 women in college will either be raped or suffer a rape attempt
1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assulted in her lifetime.
If I use your logic, we need to ban men and I need to report to where ever we are sending said banned men. The statistics are out there, look it up.
And I’ve known men who nab a wad of STDs and then pass them onto their wives and girlfriends.
I personally have suicidal tendencies and actually had to deal with a suicide in my college by a straight man.
NAMBLA is founded by pedophiles with an interest in boys. There is a difference between a pedophile and a normal homosexual/heterosexual.
And I dare you to cite a source for the 29% homosexual parental rape that isn’t a blog. I dare you.
It is simple, if you cherry pick for a bad picture of an entire group, you will find it.
And for the record, I counter your NAMBLA example with the KKK being a Christian group.
And that comment is awaiting moderation too… Wtf…
Oh, you are so invited to the wedding!
Woot!!!
I’ll bring my flogger!
This party IS going to rock! I should get married more often. Devylan, want to make it an annual event?
Oh heck yeah! We could even make it public, in the streets, with lots of debauchery. Oh… wait… we may offend someone…
If they are going to be offended, they should RSVP that they can’t make it. But to be polite, they should still send a gift.
Where shall we register?
As I haven’t been paying as much attention as I should, if you are both gals, Iowa is an option and hell, I live there.
Also, if you are both girls, I have to make the typical perverted heterosexual male joke about requesting a honeymoon video. I apologize in advance, I can’t help it. Call it a disability.
Oh wow, registries! I hadn’t even thought of that… I could use some new kitchen supplies…
DeathWyrmNexus, though I can’t speak for my spouse-to-be, I can only assume that with a name like Anonygrl, she is a she, as am I. There’s only one problem with your request, though. I actually have a husband, who would probably want first dibs on a honeymoon video. Lol. Of course, this opens up a whole new can of worms with my pending marriage to Anonygrl, doesn’t it? Darn society and their preconceived perceptions of what is right and wrong. Darn.
I do hope, Anonygrl, that you aren’t offended by the idea…
DeathWyrmNexus: So you really DO live here in Iowa? So do I … on the East Coast of it ….care to share whereabouts you are?
Yes, in fact, I AM a woman, and as a friend of mine says, I have many ways of proving it.
As to having a husband already, that is fine by me if it works for you. I am pretty easy going about such things.
About the honeymoon video, well, first let’s decide a) WHERE we are honeymooning and b) Who else we are inviting. A suggestion, since the wedding turning into a National Day of WhoopDeeDoo, how about we make the honeymoon a little more private and only invite the people we really like? Then, if they happen to bring their own video cameras, I say what the heck, why not?
1. I can respect the husband’s primary claim of video. I do want second dibs.
2. Yes, I am in Iowa. Cedar Rapids to be precise. Anymore disclosure than that would need to be through IMs which I am found on Yahoo or if you are on Gaia, I use this username there.
3. I suggest something tropical and with a large room with lots of large pillows for accomodations, as well as plenty of places to attach ropes and cuffs to for the honeymoon.
4. I know that my name can be a bother to type out, so calling me DWN or DW is fine, just in case anybody was getting annoyed typing it out each time.
DWN: I tried adding you on Yahoo Msgr, because you seem cool as hell, but it keeps giving me an error….so, add me, if you will. I go by the same name there, as well. We nearly live in the same area code, which is kinda neat.
Doh… darklair_deathwyrm is what you needed to enter.
JAMAICA!!! I think they’ll love us there! Plus, I’ve always wanted to go.
Jamaica is good! I like that idea….. white sand beaches and blue water…. I’ve been to various places in the Caribbean, but not Jamaica yet. And I do like to scuba dive, so that works for me too!
Done!
Now all we need is a guest list of who we are inviting to the honeymoon in Jamaica, since the free world is invited to the wedding in Massachusetts.
can i has an invite?
i promise not to drink and ruin it, either. i choose not to take alcohol/drugs, so i can’t do anything COMPLETELY insane!
and i’ll be your flowerboy/ dancing idiot who hits on all the people you don’t like so they’ll go away too.
they’re useful, trust me. i’m straight, but hey, if someone’s annoying my favorite married couple at their wedding, i’ll hit on anyone in order to get them away from y’all
I think that sounds like a wonderful and helpful service to perform, and every newlywed couple should have someone to do it for them, Tyler.
And maybe if things in the hitting on people line get slow, you can be the poolboy and fetch drinks. If you like, you can put flowers in them, since you are already the flowerboy.
Hey, Devylan, we are going to save a fortune hiring Tyler to do all this multitasking. Seems like we will be able to EXTEND the honeymoon! Yay!!
yayness
agree with you here, man. i have nothing to add to your arguments either, they’re completely rational. just wish i’d seen this comment earlier too, i’d have liked to argue with him too. XD
OK… some statistics for you….
At its peak, NAMBLA, a homosexual organization, was reported to have approximately 1,100 members on its rolls.
At its peak the KKK, a Christian organization, was reported to have 4-5 million members.
I am not expressing support for NAMBLA, but as a threat to the general population, I am guessing you can see where the greater threat might lie?
The statistics are out there.
the funny thing is, anonygrl, that up until like 2 months ago, i didn’t realize NAMBLA was real. i thought it was purely a South Park creation, until i heard about it in real life. BRB, vomiting.
anyway- the KKK worries me more than NAMBLA, a group that’s acronym isn’t even recognized on my spellcheck.
Please tell us where your statistics come from? It is difficult to address them otherwise. Thanks.
Clearly, Flautenpupie79 is a member of the Gay Mafia trying to take over the country. Why else are homosexuals so powerful and so in-your-face in government, in mass media, in universities if they didn’t want to take over the country? Why do they demand special rights, and be given preference to non-homosexuals if they don’t want to take over the country? Why is poor Miss California treated like she was Adolf Hitler simply by expressing an opinion that is in opposition to the Gay Mafia? Why is the Gay Mafia doing all they can to destroy anyone who has an opposing opinion, preventing them from earning a living, if they don’t want to take over the country.
Now, if you swap the two colors of the graph, THAT would make the graph accurate.
What!1!? I thought it was the Jews! Now you’re saying it’s the homos? Why wasn’t I notified? When was the memo sent out? How do they expect people to keep up with this stuff if we don’t get the memos? Sheesh! Could someone maybe come up with a schedule or a calendar so we could just look it up? You know, “Let’s see, it’s Wednesday…ah, Libertarians, cool. Ooh, Masons tomorrow, my favorite! Oh wait, New World Order on Friday, yay!”
I think I’m in the fabulous camp at this point, but bisexual so I’m only half gay. It’s like multiclassing but not.
I’m sorry, but that means you’re only allowed to support half of the Gay Agenda (or you could support one half to level 7 and the other to level 9). Choose wisely.
.
Unfortunately I don’t actually have any idea what halves (or even how many) are available, sorry. I keep asking them, but they refuse to tell me.
(It’s all in the manual – you can look it up)
Aw, man, there’s a club to join, too? Awesome! How much are the membership fees?
Lazy gays.
We heteros work our butts off trying to implement our diabolical agenda, and what do they do? Complain, complain, complain…
Since this is a humor/entertainment website.. I’ll copy n paste this fairly long piece
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
(sorry for the length)
Oh, wow. You do not need to apologize for the length of this very pertinent post. I really should read that book. I’m assuming this is out of 1984 by George Orwell?
Epic ‘understanding of sarcasm’ fail.
No, dude, I got that this was sarcastic. That’s why I want to know where this is coming from. Epic ‘reading all posts from a poster’ FAIL.
Epic ‘knowing who a famous Science Fiction author is’ FAIL.
Its from somewhere from the internets.
Ah, cool. Thanks.
I do admit, however, that this can’t possibly be a quote from George Orwell’s 1984, because of the allusion to Britney Spears. For that, I will admit to failure. For misunderstanding sarcasm, I will admit to failure, because obviously, I understood the sarcasm 100%. Some people… sheesh.
That and 1984 is not a very humorous book. I thought everyone read it in middle school? Perhaps that is just a regional thing.
Probably, because I wasn’t required to read it, but I’ve always wanted to. And I know it’s not humorous. Most science fiction isn’t supposed to be humorous, and a lot of it, at least the works of the greats, end up becoming science fact. I think that was probably the intended point of this poster who calls him/herself 1984.
Oh, and thanks for sticking up for me.
hey devy, google “I LIKE MONKEYS” and click the first link.
i may be a perv, but it’s nothing dirty- it’s just a HILARIOUS joke written by one of my friends.
I was supposed to read it… but i didn’t…
The graph is right in my opinion you all sound like pompus asses. just mind your own business. As the saying goes “what a king does in his castle…”
This made me lol muchly, thank you.
I had to respond to #7. I’m sick of hearing this BS statement. The simple fact of the matter is yes, GAY parents CREATE GAY CHILDREN. Without genetics even playing a role. Homosexuality IS a learned trait. Do… Some… Research…
Here, let me get you started:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_sexpref.html
My comment is “awaiting moderation”, too. Bummer.
Probably because it was peppered with URLs, because the Maroon wanted me to research. So…I….Did.
“Genetics Behind Male Homosexuality Could Be Explained By Sexually Antagonistic Selection
. . . . However, work published in 2004 by Camperio Ciani and collaborators indicated that females in the maternal line of male homosexuals were more fertile than other women.
This led the team to consider sexually antagonistic selection to provide an explanation. In this type of selection, a reproductive advantage is experienced by one sex while a reproductive disadvantage occurs in the other sex. Previously, this sort of evolution has been documented in insects, birds, and some mammals, but it has never been seen in humans.
….. “
So where did the gay parents learn it? And explain gay children from straight parents.
If it is learned, then explain to me how it would be possible for you to learn to like men, assuming you are a male. Cuz I did have a period of sexual confusion as a child so I did try both but found that I had a marked repugnance for the male form. I couldn’t learn to like the male form despite the access I had at the time. I simply craved the female form like any heterosexual man.
Thus, I am engaged to a woman and we have two healthy sons. My only bias against my sons being gay is that it would just be one more thing awkward for me to discuss with them since men have no appeal to me. Other than that very shallow reason, I don’t have an issue and my oldest son flirts with every attractive woman he sees and he is only four. He didn’t learn that from me as I tend to be reserved in public.
i’m 16, and was confused/unsure for a while while i was going through puberty, but i figured out that the female form was something i liked. a lot >.>. Also, i found that the male body was frickin disgusting, in my opinion. gays are awesome, although i may not understand how exactly they ARE attracted to other men/women, i don’t bother them about it. now, i’m very sure that i’m straight, and it doesn’t bother me at all to let people think i’m gay, or whatever they want about me. overall, the experience has made me a LOT stronger as a human being, and i very much am glad i was confused during my development. i never experimented, but i did worry whether or not i was straight. my parents are heterosexual, and practically encouraged me to come out of “the closet”. Amazing how oddly un-reasoned maroons post is, isn’t it? sorry about the story. yours was just similar to mine, and i felt i should share too
Not a problem, it is nice to know that you are’t alone.
The “fabulous” part had me laughing.
HATED IT! *snap snap*
Bull! Their Queer parades that rule the streets every few months aren’t exactly subtle. They’re different and they beg you to notice it.
Yeah, those darn blacks used to be so “in-your-face” back when they were trying to not get killed for wanting to do things they “had the right to do” … like vote.
Groups that are oppressed tend to have to be a little up-in-your-face until they finally get treated decently.
Mental image: Tiennamen Square … Guy in front of the tank? He should just lay down, right?
Yes homosexuals are treated so badly… uh… where, exactly?
And where in the constitution is the “right to marry” listed?
Homosexuals are more likely to be the victim of rape, and many have been killed as a result, right here in the good ol’ US of A.
Matthew Shepard.
Thank you! That’s the name I was trying to remember!
But of course, my dear!
that story is so sad… just like a few towns away from where i live, Marlborough, i think there have been 2 or 3 kids beaten to death over their sexuality over the past 10 years or so.
and yes, hate crimes are generally against the laws. two of my good friends today were made because i was big when i was a kid, and still am, and i found them getting beaten up by other kids when we were younger, so i *removed* the other children (throwing, picking them up, once you prove to kids that you’re stronger than they are and you look crazy or scary, they all run away.) anyways, i do believe hate crimes kindaaa violate basic human rights, don’t they Mike?
You can’t be serious…
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1582039/20080221/id_0.jhtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard
Just the first two of many that I can remember quickly from the past several years.
As for the “right to marry” in the US Constitution, you’re correct, it isn’t there. However, Amendment 10 reads “…powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So, whichever laws are not set up by the federal government are the responsibility of the individual states. And the states have taken it upon themselves to require legal documentation for marriage. So the Constitution does not expressly provide the “right to marry,” but rather the states do.
The Constitution also says “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof,” so I why aren’t gay marriages in one state recognized by other states the way straight marriages are? That’s a clear violation of the Constitution.
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
If marriage isn’t a right, it’s a privilege.
Civil unions do not provide equal protection under the law to that of marriage.
Due process does is not a majority vote.
“And where in the constitution is the “right to marry” listed?”
It’s not. Nor does the Constitution of the U.S. GIVE YOU ANY RIGHTS AT ALL.
It exists to delineate the rights the government CAN LIMIT. Didn’t you take government in high school …. or even in college?
well, he should if his feet hurt, but he shouldn’t move out of the way. or if he needs a nap. that’s cool too.
No, see, the tank driver wouldn’t be able to see him, and then they would DEFINITELY drive right over him, and . . . err, never mind.
oooooh!!! SCRUNCHIE-MUNCHIE ROADKILL FOOD?
been catching up on my graphjam since i haven’t been here in two days :/
sorry. little outburst there.
anyway, it’s all right, wouldn’t he most likely end up between the… the…. the…. tiny conveyor-belt things (the name isn’t coming to me) and not be crushed?
psstttt Naoyusimi- look at the recent comments, out of the last 25 of them, i probably hold at least 19 of it
Wow! Where do you live that Gay Pride Parades happen every few months? I want to seriously consider moving there….
Everywhere I have lived, they happen only once a year. You must live in the gayest place on earth!
hey anony… quick question. if i fill up literally the whole board of recent comments at 8pm, when everyone’s on the internets, does that make me over-talkative?
I mean, i frequently do this if it’s like 2:30 in the morning, but this time of night? i’m mildly ashamed.
Kid,
I’m sorry to be the one to have to tell ya this: if you’re home at 8 on a Friday night . . . you don’t have a life.
‘Sides, the internets are busiest on Sunday & Monday evenings. Silly wabbit.
oh, naoy, i already knew that. it’s okay though, since i can’t drink, and have had such a long week that i will probably sleep until about 11 tomorrow morning.
ohhhhh rightttttttt >.> i knew that…. and hey! i have a rabbit! and he is addooooorrrrable!
That’s cute, that nickname-thing . . . but don’t you think you should divide up my 4-syllable name into 1 or 2 syllables, insteada that syllable-and-a-half thing you got goin’ on, there?
pfttt, maybe, simi? nao? yusi?
I’m leaning towards “Nao”, but then, I’m kinda instant-gratification-girl, sometimes.
It’s *your* nicknaming, tho.
hah. ironic, NAO meaning me screaming at my friends “NOW NOW NOW NOW!”
NYSM?
Nao Yu Si MI?
yeah, we’re going with nao.
oh, in my defense, it’s 11 here.
and you’re here too! so…. that point isn’t going anywhere useful anytime soon.
I knew you’d catch that! (You’re smart.) But yeah, *you’re young*. And party-hearty. I’m OLD. My sweetie worked hard most all day long (so did I, but my work is less physically demanding), and then we did estimates and tried to collect from our customers most of the evening, stopping only for a quick supper, and we just got home about an hour ago (it’s 10:19, here in Iowa). So yeah, we’re pooped, AND he told a guy he’d do some work for him early in the morning. Yeah, owning your own business is FUN. (No, really, it is. ‘nless your boss is an A$$h@le.
)
hey! my comment is gone!!!
anyways, working is bad for you nao. what kinda business?
plus all my friends are sick sooo i get to spend all weekend dragging soup everywhere XD
and hey, i hate crowds so you can’t expect me to partyy
and you’re not old… you’re…. time-challenged?
Tree service.
Hate crowds! I thought you were going to be the life of this reception — or do I have you mixed up with someone else?
DON’T TAKE THEM SOUP! IT’S TEH SWINE FLU!!1! RUN AWAAAAY!
“Time-challenged” . . . I like that. Perfect, too (you have no idea–but I’m about to tell you why). I’m late for EVERYTHING. [I'm giving notarized instructions that, upon my death, should be followed exactly: I want my coffin to arrive at the service AFTER everyone has been waiting for a bit, say, 10 minutes. I WILL be late to my own funeral!]
my comment is gone again!
i would just like to point out that even though it’s small, “Take over the world and then make it fabulous” is still in there
Yes… and every night Pinky and the Brain tried to take over the world. You can see how well that turned out.
You might want to consider the possibility that the green slice exists primarily to point out the validity of the red, in a humorous and over the top sort of way.
Validity of the red? Well, perhaps it is the loud, militant, minority that is being heard from, but I don’t hear any dissent from the majority if that is the case.
If you want us to mind our own business, quit putting your business in our face so much.
It is hard to ignore something that keeps being shoved down your throat.
Dissent? I don’t dissent. I support what the loud, militant minority does. However, my personal life is none of your business, I have never tried to make it your business, and I have never pushed my sexuality “down your throat.”
In fact, in this entire thread, and most anywhere I post on the subject, I don’t speak about MY sexuality at all. When a question about my sexuality comes up, I often deflect, joke or change the subject, because it is not the issue.
That being said, I do want you to mind your own business. And as to that loud minority, I want them to keep shouting from the parade route that there is nothing wrong about being homosexual, and I want you to not go to the parade, if it bothers you that much.
The law is mandating somebody else’s business. What the problem is that you are making your business to mandate the contract between two people based on gender, despite them being red blooded, consenting adults like yourself.
So perhaps if you stop meddling, let them go about their business, we could move on. You aren’t being asked to marry a homosexual, you are being asked to get the hell out of the way like the obtuse moral roadblock that you are.
So get your damn flawed moral high horse out of our laws so we can have a bit more equality.
Nah, if they just wanted to be left alone, why push for more than civil unions, so long as they give the same legal benefits of marriage? They want gay marriage to be considered the social equal of hetero marriage, which means either mandating it by law or changing social mores.
That’s not being left alone, and to say it is is dishonest. They want to go beyond legal equality into moral equality, and that’s why the whole thing about it being called marriage is important.
So the graph sucks. Anyways,why the hell why the hell are we even talking politics on this site? More kittehs prz.
“Moral equality”. Ummm, whose morals? I don’t want to be equal to you, morally, thanks anyway. I’d rather not be pulled down quite that far.
also, anony, could you argue the fact that they need to GO BACK TO ICANHAZCHEEZBURGER if you don’t want to talk politics on graphjam.
Civil unions -don’t- give all the legal benefits of marriage.
What’s wrong with a fabulous world?
Yeah, who knows; maybe our ancestors were absolutely FABULOUS neanderthals!
that would be amazing
anyway, that’s one of my favorite facts i’ve learned in science classes- it always makes me wonder, so when we take our legends of giants or ogres and look at them, couldn’t that easily be where THAT legend came from? a lot of stuff in history is interesting like that 
on another note, papjon, i find it kind of interesting – did you know homo sapiens are not descended from homo neanderthalensis? we were actually two separate species, living around the same time.. unless you’re descended from the neanderthal.. in which case, we might share a father
‘Convince people to mind their own business’ Should be ‘Trying to convince people that homosexuality is normal and not the sickness it is’
Your comment might hold some validity if homosexuality were a sickness. Since it is not, your remark can be dismissed for the prejudiced nonsense that it is.
Have a nice day.
I have a modest proposal.
Seems to me that it’s the idea of two same-sex people having sex that bothers the anti-gay-marriage crowd. “I have nothing against gays and lesbians, but homosexual behavior’s a sin and they shouldn’t do it!”
Well, how about we pass a law that all gays and lesbians MUST get married and adopt at least two children per family? After all, once you have kids, who has time and energy for sex?
No it’s the fact that homosexuals are continually trying to force their agenda on the rest of society.
The only way that has been successful is with the corrupted court system, the general population has voted against it every time it has been brought up, even in California.
No one is forcing it down anyone’s throat.
Don’t like gay marriage? Then don’t marry someone from the same sex.
Its pro-freedom to let them too be miserable hah hah.
Agenda? Could I get a copy of that? I seem to have lost mine. Thanks.
Phew, thanks! I’d forgotten #7. Lots of steps involved in that one.
WIN!
You remember, of course, that the civil right battles of the 1960s were fought almost entirely within the confines of the American judicial system. Why is it surprising that this movement would take the same battleground?
dude, this is just asinine. 1- the general population voted for it here IN MASSACHUSETTS, thankyouverymuch. pay more attention BEFORE you comment. 2- the agenda of gays? oh, you mean the demanding of the same legal benefits as straight couples when they choose to make a commitment to the one they love? sure, i guess that’s an agenda, in the same way my plan to reason with my parents is an agenda, too.
Not me – and mine are teens already!
If we are legislating sin, then the church goers have a lot to account for… This may take a while.
Ok, I’ll toss in my two cents….
How about this: We nix the ‘marriage’ word from all the courthouses across this great country. We instead call it a ‘civil union’. So, any two folks, straight gay, man, woman, heck you don’t even have to be anything but roomies get go get that piece of paper which means everything legally. Then, you can argue your heart out about the meaning of the word “marriage” because that word her-to-forth would not have any meaning legally.
I think the bottom line of a marriage relationship is procreation. So, it means everything in a religious sense to me. In addition for non-religious male-female couples could still, say, get a amrriage certificate from the state. It still has no legal meaning (in my world). Oh, but would there still be hard feelings about gay couples not being “married”? Well, in my world yeah, sorry. You get all the same legal rights as anyone else. However, I say we do make a difference between gay and straight couples. Why? Because they ARE different! That said, IMHO, if you want to bat for the same team then fine, go have at it. Ill respect your decision and support you as much as I would anyone. But in return gay couples need to respect a straight couple’s right to have a traditional marriage and family relationship. The two are not really any better or worse than any other, but they do have fundamental differences. I just think those differences should be based on respect, not the hate I see in these posts.
I respectfully disagree that procreation’s the bottom line. Not everyone can procreate; for instance, it so happens that I can’t. I don’t think that means I should never get married.
And many gay people do have children – the old-fashioned way or by adoption.
If procreation is the bottom line, then you are advocating that we break up heterosexual marriages on the grounds they are sterile, childfree, or postmenopausal…
Have a nice day.
You bigots will be ashamed to look your grandchildren in the eyes someday. They had this same argument in this country when black people and white people wanted to marry. Would you be proud to say you were against that? You’re closed-minded and ridiculous. Get over yourselves.
After Miss California was asked and stated her opinion, we can clearly see what the militant homosexual agenda is, direct personal attacks against anyone who dares not agree with homosexual marriage and other of their pet political issues.
Who really are the intolerant ones?
Everyone has to agree with the homosexual lifestyle or they are bigots, homophobes, or whatever other label can be thought up.
You can see many examples here.
The anti-marriage forces are the intolerant ones. (I would have thought that was obvious.)
It’s true… just like that Jewish lobby. You see how they slander Hitler with personal attacks, just because he doesn’t agree with their right to exist.
Oh wait, no… you ARE a bigot.
Miss California wanted to be Miss USA. She wanted to be elected to a position where she represented the United States of America as a whole. I am a citizen, and I don’t particularly want to live in her “country” that believes homosexuals should not marry. So I am one of those who speaks up against it.
Frankly, if she had said “I am all for gay marriage! In fact, I think that before allowing heterosexuals to marry, they should be encouraged to try homosexuality! I think it is for everyone and we should make it mandatory!” then the conservatives would have been up in arms. No big surprise that the liberals found what she said distasteful.
Who are the intolerant ones? Well, apparently you are one of them. Yes, some people on either side of any controversial issue will be. But not all, and you trying to paint the whole group with a single label only proves YOUR intolerance, not mine.
hey anony, can i get a link or quote of what she DID say? apparently, i missed this, and shall probably find it hilarious and/or a depressingly accurate sample of humans.
how dare they tell you to let them have their rights! just like how black people were horrible for protesting not being able to vote! horrible people!
Yes, we are horrible for being intolerant of their intolerance…
No, they aren’t content just saying ‘mi nd your own buisness. They aren’t content unless they force their agenda on everyone else. And those of us who see it as unnatural and perverted have a duty to speak out against it.
Agenda again…. I keep seeing that word thrown around… I would love a definition of the gay agenda… a copy of it. Is it a manifesto? I seem to have misplaced my copy.
Yeah I’m getting tired of this idea of the “gay agenda.”
So as long as we’re just throwing around agendas here, how about the right-wing, conservative, religious fanatic agenda that they are trying to force on us? You know the one, that says all homosexuals are an abomination and should be killed? Let’s talk about that agenda for awhile. Here’s a good place to go for a few pages of the agenda I’m talking about.
http://www.tencommandments.org/homosexual.html
I go to this website every time I think our society is growing and changing for the better, just to remind me how far we still have to go.
I just read that. BRB, putting shotgun in my mouth….. do i REALLY have to consider people who denounce other people like that part of my species?
Okay, one more thing before I get back to work…
I’ve read *I think* all the comments here, and I have yet to see a single post from the anti-gay marriage side that gives a good reason why it shouldn’t be allowed.
While I’ll admit that I’m a bit biased, I think the pro-gay marriage side has actually taken the time to outline the reasons why it is necessary.
And don’t give me any of this “it’s against religions” crap, I’m pretty sure we’ve explained in detail that the marriage we are for is the legal contract recognized by federal, state, and local governments. Believe me, I have no interest in changing the views, beliefs, or customs of your religion…I would just like to see all marriages treated equally under the laws of this country.
Read your bible. Marriage is between man and women. It isn’t a religious issue, it is a God issue. We will all face judgement someday, so do what you want, but know that we all will meet our maker.
Your maker is not mine. So, if I ever meet yours, I will explain that I think his ideas are archaic and need serious work. If that makes him uncomfortable, well, sorry, but he has earned it. I will also encourage him to try to do better from here on out. Here is seriously hoping he is not to small minded to learn and grow.
My maker and I are already in agreement, so I guess we will do fine.
-hugs-
thank you.
and KC… you’re an idiot if you think God is unrelated to religion.
God IS your religion, or at least, the most pivotal part of it. If you think marriage should only be between a man and a woman, you can trust in your good old bible for that. also, you should trust in your bible next time you need an excuse for something, because out of context, your bible will say almost ANYTHING. also, if god loves and forgives everyone, why does he judge them and damn them eternally? shouldn’t you be able to argue your point? if you really believe in a God who WILL send you to hell after judging you, why do you believe in a god that loves you and will forgive you?
“It isn’t a religious issue, it is a God issue.”
……………………..*sigh*
i know right. LOLZ.
by the way “Marriage is between man and women.”
i take it you’re Mormon, polygamous, or don’t read your point of view over?
I feel the homosexual people should have the same rights as heterosexual people, but I don think we should change “civil Union” to marriage, but change Marriage to “Civil Union” as this more accurately describes what legal marriage is. This is somewhat ironic to me because people who are in a civil union are denied many of the legal rights of marriages.
Other than that, I don’t think anything about the gay rights movement is upsetting.
hmmm.. makes sense to me.
as long as my gay friends can have the same privileges as my straight friends when they commit to a relationship, i’m happy.
I also wish to note, which sounds like the people are more in love?
“We are married”, or “We are united”?
I’m with this guy. WIN graph. Succinct, to the point and … well, dead-on.
Here’s the issue you guys…
MARRIAGE as it is being defended currently is a RELIGIOUS UNION between a man and a woman. It is that way because the Bible says that it should be.
Which is exactly the problem. The RELIGIOUS aspect of marriage is what is keeping Gays from being allowed to marry, which is in turn not letting them have Federal and State benefits as a couple.
MARRIAGE should be a religious matter alone, and should not come with any benefits from the state or the country. It should be a choice that the people who wish to be married through a church make, it is a contract with THEIR church. NOT everyone ELSE’S government.
A Civil Union should be given the same benefits that a Marriage currently offers, and those benefits should not be afforded to a Marriage through a church or religious group.
This way, both Homo- and Heterosexual couples will be able to have a CIVIL UNION that offers them BOTH the SAME BENEFITS of the law.
Then, if the Heterosexual couple wishes to have a MARRIAGE through their Church, under their own beliefs, then that is their choice and they can do that as well.
A couple would be able to be married through their church, and be recognized as a couple by their religious community, and then also have a Civil Union through the Government in order to receive the benefits of state and federal law.
This way a Gay couple would also be able to have a Civil Union that gave them EXACTLY THE SAME BENEFITS as the Straight couple, and the Church itself could not intervene in the lives of the Gay Community, because they would not be involved in the decision at all.
Separation of CHURCH and STATE.
ANY couple, be it gay or straight, should be allowed the same rights as each other through the act of uniting in a Civil Union that has been given all the same benefits that a marriage currently has.
A Marriage is a RELIGIOUS CEREMONY. It has no place in our constitution, and the CHURCH has no place telling people that they cannot be together, and thus cannot get benefits from the Government.
THIS!!
Perfectly said. Though of course you know they’ll find a way to refute your point.
Seriously, though: What difference does it make what it’s called? You can have a marriage of wine and butter and call it a sauce; you can have a marriage of two companies; you can have a marriage of ideas . . . what have you. A “marriage” IS simply a name for a union, a coming-together of something. The argument over what it is called is silly and senseless. Why come up with Orwellian doublespeak? It’s as Carlin said: Language gets watered-down and meaningless after a time. Everyone KNOWS what “Let’s get married” means. One shouldn’t have to alter it to: “Let’s go have our civil union!” (See, there isn’t even a verb! But I suppose some goofball will come up with some awkward form.) *To obsess over the naming of the thing is to give in to the oppressors’ demands!!*
There’s a difference because as long as people use the word ‘marriage’ to define a union that has state and federal benefits, the church is going to get it’s knickers in a bunch.
Yeah, it’s not a big deal what it’s called to the rest of us, but it’s a big deal to them.
So, LEGALLY, just call it a Civil Union so the church gets it’s nose out of the business of people who don’t even practice their religion. If you want to call your Civil Union a Marriage in everyday speak, then do it. But just in the law, call it a Civil Union (between either manxwoman, manxman, or womanxwoman), and have THAT be the way that people are afforded the benefits of the State and Federal government. Getting married through the church should have no benefits from the government, because it is in fact, through the CHURCH.
If a gay couple gets a civil union, they can have a ceremony to exchange vows, without needing the approval of a church, or a priest to sanction it, and they can do it traditionally (With a frilly white dress if they so choose), or however they want.
In the same light, a straight couple, if they wish, could do the same thing, and get their marriage recognized by their church or religious group by having a priest present if they wished.
The Civil Union is all and well, but most states define Civil Unions differently, thus if I wanted to move to Iowa with my “Civil Union Partner, I may not have the same rights under Iowa’s Civil Union laws as I did in whatever state I moved from. “Marriage” is a blanket term with the same rights and benefits recognized nationally. This being the case, every state should give everyone, including straights the same rights under Civil Unions and remove the term marriage from all federal and state benefits and rights. If you want to get married in a church go get married in a church, but when you’re filling out your tax forms, you’re in a civil union.
THANK YOU.
I *COMPLETELY* agree! Heck I’ve written this in blogs and stuff (though no one ever reads them) and even my religious conservative friends agree that this should be what happens.
Please, I’m totally offended by your attempt to be reasonable and logical. You are hereby darned to Heck for eternity (or until next Wednesday, whichever comes first). Next time it will be two weeks, so watch your step.
Slight wrinkle…
Atheists can get married by a justice of the peace and I have yet to see a single person lobby against that it is called a marriage.
AK! Common sense!
Naoyusimi,
There is a veb to use in the case of Civil Unions. I propose “unite”
E.G “lets get united!” or “we are united”
You can get down on one knee and ask, “Will you unite with me?”
don´t forget that they are just dying to gay up our children… because we all know that gay people are pedophiles, even if 97% of pedophiles are actually straight.
anyone who pays attention to a fictional book is out of their minds.
You’re an unbelievable idiot. Once again, pro-gay fails to do any actual research before spouting off false statistics.
Here’s a 10 second Google for you:
The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)
In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)
In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)
Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)
And then my favorite:
The homosexual magazine Guide published a pro-pedophile editorial in its July, 1995 issue. In referring to pedophiles as “prophets” of sexual freedom, the Guide editorialist wrote: “We must listen to our prophets. Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children’s sexuality. . . . Surrounded by pious moralists with deadening anti-sexual rules, we must be shameless rulebreakers, demonstrating our allegiance to a higher concept of love. We must do it for the children’s sake.”
Yeah, you should be looking at the religion of the majority of child molesters, not their sexual orientation. Sheesh.
You know, it’s funny, but I’d read on a website where homosexuals were trying to claim that “it wasn’t the homosexuality making them sexually perverse! It’s their religion!”
I hope to GOD you were being facetious just now, because if not, wow… Ignorance knows no bounds. Statistics show homosexuals to be many times more apt to commit pedophilia than heterosexuals. There has been absolutely no correlation drawn between religion, despite the handful of Catholic Priests. (Interestingly enough, many homosexual catholic priests have admitted to specifically going INTO the clergy because they felt they had to repent for their homosexuality in the first place. I absolutely do not agree with this, as I have absolutely no care in the world what happens behind closed doors. I just simply do not believe that homosexuals should be permitted to adopt.)
What are the numbers of homosexuals versuses the number of pedophiles? Seriously, what percentage of homosexuals are pedophiles?
Because it sounds like you are trying to say that just because a profile matches a certain group, we should condemn the whole group.
Care to bring out the numbers of serial killers being white men vs any other type? And what that would imply with your logic?
Also, as a male child rape victim, I will have you know that there is a difference between a pedophile and a gay man.
I seriously hope that you’ve been facetious all along because you aren’t following logic. You are following a cherry picking expedition that states that a minority represents the majority. By that logic, White men should be denied access to a lot of things, considering their percentages in violent crime.
Care to rethink your logic?
Those surveys are old and were debunked years ago and on numerous sites.
Any therapist will tell you that child rape/molestation is a crime of opportunity and power. Boys are likely to be raped by men because men are more likely to molest and they have more physical power. It doesn’t say anything about the sexual orientation of either the victimizer or the victim. A man who molests a boy isn’t necessarily a homosexual.
Talk about playing games with statistics.
Besides, using this logic, we should conclude that American Indians shouldn’t be allowed to have kids because their rate of alcoholism and family breakdown are higher than the general population. Blacks should be segregated to their own neighbourhoods because the rate of violent crime in the black community is higher than the general population. Evangelical Christians shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they have a higher divorce rate than the general population.
See how silly this is? It doesn’t say anything about the people who aren’t alcoholics, don’t get divorced, don’t commit violence and don’t molest. The law should treat people equally and give them a fair go. People who break the law should be prosecuted, but you can’t use statistics (bogus or not) to deny people equal opportunity based on what a slim minority may do.
I
As well as a compulsion that usually stems from a personal inadequacy or damage. In recent years, I discovered that I wasn’t alone in some of my more terrifying thoughts.
Victims of molestation tend to have moments of reversal where they imagine being the attacker. It is a horrifying and sickening experience, one I thought I alone endured. However, in speaking with other victims, I found that I wasn’t alone. I have no intention nor compulsion but the “daymare” pops up from time to time. However, I found that a lot of my anger is not so much at my original attackers but their mother who would torture me in the bathroom in some insane attempt to get my mother blamed and me taken away.
Knowing those guys, the attack had nothing to do with sex, which sexual assault hardly ever does and more about that they could and I was less than them.
A lot of hardcore pedophiles tend to have issues with dealing with adults in the first place, their sexual preference as it were is a lot more complicated than gender based.
Ahhhh, FINALLY someone with a sensible rebuttal. However flawed the logic is.
For starters, I too, as well as my brother, were victims at 10 years old of our small town’s Fire Chief when he offered to take us on a “fishing trip.” I’ve refused to play the “victim card” so please, don’t bother.
First, if you want to compare pedophilia to serial murderers, then should we not be comparing them to “serial pedophiles?”
The total point is obviously not that they do it SERIALLY. The points is that the crime is committed. For your analogy to make any kind of sense what so ever you would have to compare pedophiles to all murderers, but then your argument wouldn’t make any sense anymore, so let’s stick with a specific sub-set?
But you want numbers, so let’s crunch those.
1.) We know that 2% of the population is homosexual.
2.) According to the U.S. Justice Department: Roughly 33% of girls and 14% of boys are molested before the age of 18.
3.) We know that 97% of male molestation are committed by males, vs only 4% of female to female molestation.
So, this is to say that:
1.32% of pedophilia is committed by homosexual females
13.58% of pedophilia is committed by homosexual males
For a total of:
14.9% of pedophilia is committed by homosexuals.
32.1% of pedophilia is committed by heterosexuals.
So you would like to believe this to be an argument FOR homosexuals to adopt children, no?
Well now it’s time to take into account population density. An ugly little thing that pro (anything, be it homosexual, black, minority) likes to keep hidden under the rug.
Unfortunately, from the above statistics we can easily see that:
31.702% of child molestations are committed by homosexuals.
68.298% of child molestations are committed by heterosexuals.
Yet homosexuals only make up 2% of the population, but are responsible for over a third of the molestations?
To put this in perspective, for every 1000 homosexuals in the U.S., there are 49,000 heterosexuals.
Of THIS many, people (50000):
14.9% were molested as children by homosexuals (7,450).
32.1% were molested as children by heterosexuals(16,050).
This means that for every ONE heterosexual (16,050/49,000), 0.33 children are molested. Or more accurately, one child is molested per every 3 heterosexuals.
However FOR EACH homosexual (7,450/1,000) the statistics state that SEVEN POINT FOUR FIVE CHILDREN will be molested.
Does this mean that one in three homosexuals molest children, or that every homosexual molests 7.45 kids? Of course not. These are statistical averages. One of the bigger issues with pedophilia is that most pedophiles (heterosexual or not) molest DOZENS of children. But LOOK AT THE NUMBERS man. If we go with the assumption that every pedophile molests 22 kids (three times the average for homosexuals) then you STILL have a 1 in 3 chance that a child raised by a homosexual family will be molested by them.
Strange how that supports other research showing that around 0.6% of children in straight households end up being molested by a parent, while 29% from homosexual households report “having a sexual experience with” one of their parents.
The numbers just keep adding up no matter how you slice them. Look up the statistics yourself. Do the math. As I always say, I absolutely DARE you to educate yourself.
Children in homosexual families have roughly a ONE IN THREE CHANCE that they will be molested BY THE PARENT. In heterosexual households, it doesn’t even equal a single percentage point.
That still states that the majority of molestation happens to females by males. Ergo, your logic states that we should ban heterosexual men from having little girls.
You’re still cherry picking.
No, YOU’RE blatantly “cherry picking” as you like to call it. So are you suggesting that we pass a law stating that homosexual men aren’t allowed to adopt boys? And I love how conveniently you utterly ignore the statistics, but then, you’re a liberal. I know facts only count for you when they support your asinine argument.
Here, let me make this a little clearer for you, m’kay? I’ll just repost the last paragraph. Ignore the numbers since logic isn’t your strong point:
Children in homosexual families have roughly a ONE IN THREE CHANCE that they will be molested BY THE PARENT. In heterosexual households, it doesn’t even equal a single percentage point.
…Better?
ROFLMAO
“since logic isn’t your strong point”
Apparently, you don’t know to whom you are speaking . . .
::gets popcorn, a pillow, and a tall cool drink::
Alright, continue . . .
agreed. should i get a new girlfriend just to watch this epic movie with me?
1. Liberal fail, not a liberal, I’m a moderate. Thanks for using liberal as an insult though.
2. Your own statistics state that it isn’t an outbreak of pedophiles but a small number of highly productive pedophiles, which stills doesn’t state a case against the majority of homosexuals.
3. If we are to accept your logic then the number of sexual assaults against women is cause to deny men access to women as there is a 25+% chance we will assault them.
4. We are both cherry picking. You are cherry picking to prove a false point while I am cherry picking to show how ridiculous your conclusion is.
As for my conclusion, I am stating that it is flawed thinking to cause a ban based off a minority of a population.
And you miss a big detail from your statistics, 33% of girls are attacked 96% of the time by men. So roughly 1 in 3 girls are attacked by a male figure. This is compared to 14% of boys which figures to a little close to 1 out of 5.
Now if you are going to ban gays from adoption, then you need to ban men as well on the same lines. Your OWN proof vs your logic states that.
See how it is cherry picking now?
Oops, sorry, my post went on the wrong reply. See below.
where in the hell did you get 2%? i’ve read studies that say 6-7%, heard as high as 10%, but i’ve NEVER seen the % of homosexuals in a population go BELOW 5%. where are you getting this from? sources?
[citation needed]
Maroons–
I’m very late to seeing this comment, but a similar one was posted elsewhere and was completely ripped apart by logic.
Read this link, which was posted there as well: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm
Pedophiles are attracted to children. It doesn’t matter if they’re male or female. Most “true” pedophiles showed no real attraction to adults of either sex. Further, a vast majority of the men who committed these acts against little boys (who would be the ‘homosexuals’ in your mind) in fact had heterosexual relationships–they had wives and girlfriends.
Your last point has just as little merit. Where’s your research? Prove it.
A further note on the pedophile-gay issue is that people who have been molested as children are more likely to become pedophiles because of Stockholm Syndrome, but there is no such thing for homosexuality. So, people who have been molested by a member of the same sex are not more likely to become gay themselves.
Sorry for disproving some of the posts.
I’m sorry, what did your unsupported opinion “prove” again?
my post holds as much credibility as yours, Maroons, because neither of use cited ANY sources, let alone reliable ones.
1.) Of course I would use “liberal” as an insult. Every liberal I’ve met has repeatedly refused to educate themselves on anything they’re harping on, and conveniently ignore statistics and facts. This is precisely what you’re doing.
2.) My “own statistics” are from the Department of Justice, and they certainly do NOT show that it’s a “small number” of “highly productive” pedophiles. What they DO show is that even IF we assume that those “highly productive” pedophiles are molesting children at a rate of 22 children PER homosexual pedophile, it’s STILL 1 IN 3 HOMOSEXUALS THAT MOLEST CHILDREN. 1 in 3. Keep that in mind. THINK about that. Let it absorb.
Now, if we use these EXACT same statistics to see what happens if heterosexual pedophiles are molesting children at a rate of 22 per heterosexual pedophile, you get the result of 1 in 66. Okay, let that sink in…
Now… And I’ll go slowly for you here… If statistics show that 1 in 3 homosexuals are likely to commit pedophilia, but 1 in 66 heterosexuals are likely to commit pedophilia, which person are you going to send your child home with to be babysat by?
4.) Apparently, you like to use the term “Cherry Picking” in a way that means, “I’ll ignore your facts and then just pick the information out that I like but if you show me facts proving me wrong, I’ll just keep on ignoring them and call you a cherry picker.” I’ll have to look up that definition.
Again, you go into your lack of knowledge of how to do any sort of statistical metric.
For starters, 96% of female molestations are committed by men.
97% of male molestations are committed by men.
All this demonstrates is that in both sects, men are far more likely to molest than women, and tells us absolutely nothing in this debate.
The debate is one of which is MORE LIKELY to molest. The SOLE reason that “14% of boys which figures to a little close to 1 out of 5″ is SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE men do 96-97% of all molestation. Since homosexuals only make up 2% (or 1/50th) of the population, you would EXPECT the molestation of BOYS (ie: homosexual molestation) to ALSO be 1/50th of the molestation that happens to girls. This would be to say that if girls are molested 33% of the time, boys should ONLY be molested less than 2/3rds of ONE PERCENT of the time. You are very, very purposely ignoring population density to attempt to pose your argument, but I’m not going to let you do it. The fact is that HANDING A CHILD to a homosexual to raise is a significant RISK to the well being of that child.
If you were playing russian roulette, would you prefer a gun with 66 chambers, and only one holds the bullet, or would you prefer a gun with 3 chambers, and only 1 holds the bullet? The risk for molestation here is massive, and the Department of Justice statistics prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Go ahead and continue to conveniently ignore the facts, though.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm
Here you go… a well written response to the very statistics you quote, which explains why your numbers are both inaccurate and misleading. No need to rehash it here, take a look there.
-hugsqueeze- thank you!
I am a big queer. I have never been molested as a child. My parents are still married. I have never molested any children (or any one for that matter).
Both of my roommates are big queers. They weren’t molested, nor have they done the molesting. 3 queers in one household, no molesting, no desire for molesting. None of my ex’s (all queer) have ever molested or been molested. The story is the same for my roommate’s ex’s.
statistics on the internet < real life
The reason that I prefer someone of the same sex is unknown to me. If I had a choice, I would LOVE to be straight, things would be way easier! My car wouldn’t be vandalized on a weekly basis, my family would let me see my siblings and niece, I don’t have to fear for my life when walking down the street, I would be able to be married, having children would be easier/cheaper… the list is endless. But I can’t choose. I can’t force myself to be attracted to the opposite sex (I’ve tried).
It took me 20 years to accept myself for who I am. All I ask is to be treated like a human being versus a sex-addict/rapist/second-class/disease-infested/trying-to-take-over-the-world MONSTER!
-hug- it’s okay, man. i think you’re a human, if that helps at all. i’m heterosexual, but i don’t see why all these people are so anti-homosexual. i mean, most of the gay people i’ve met are absolutely INCREDIBLE personality-wise, and are a lot more supportive than my straight friends. also, considering the massive amount of human population on the globe, it’s great that gays exist- people who can’t procreate but are willing to raise normal, healthy kids born from other, failed heterosexual relationships? that’s TERRIFIC, when you consider the species. anyway, i don’t think you’re a sexaddict/rapis/secondclass/diseased/monster person. you seem like a perfectly compassionate human being to me.
and further more, people are more likely to mask the fact they are homosexual, therefore it is unknown exactly how many homosexual people there are.
14 cents and counting!!!
I apologize to Maroons, I missed his post when he said he got the information from the DOJ. I am humbly sorry for the mistake. you win this time…
(I still dont think gay people are evil, though. Sorry for those of you who do)
And my comments are getting eaten cuz I included a link.
“While we wait for my comment to get moderated… Google “Psychological difference between homosexuals and pedophiles”
The top link.”
It is why his interpretation of the data is flawed.
He did garner some stats from the DOJ (or, perhaps, the anti-gay writers he takes the information from did, I don’t know). However, the statistics themselves do not point in the direction he takes them. My comment with a link that deals with those statistics and explains why they are so misleading is awaiting moderation…. so check back.
Why are you still reading down here? Go waste more time on the internets!
lmfao
I understand that statistics do not add truth to something (someone did a really example of that further up) I was just apologizing for making a false statement that he did not cite a source
“What is the gay agenda? Is it… assless wedding gowns?”
Margaret Cho!
Well, I’m out of this pointless discussion. It all boils down to this:
Me: Homosexuals have been repeatedly shown (in multiple studies, even those done by homosexuals) to raise children that have “issues.”
Your rebuttal: “Those aren’t issues! They’re features!”
Me: Homosexuals statistically prove to have a higher incidence of child molestation.
Your rebuttal: “The data’s wrong! The boys were ‘adolescents’ not ‘children!’ I have pro-homo sites that have disproved the data! The guys that molest boys aren’t gay because they said so!”
Basically, this entire debate has been a nice banging of the head against a brick wall.
No, the pedophiles aren’t classified as homosexual by the American Association for Psychology. Ya know, those people who actually study the mind.
Don’t blame me because your interpretation of the data is flawed and you are purposely ignoring facts in your cherry picking expedition…
Read the article I posted a link to. It deals with all the statistics you posted.
Yes, the information you pulled refers to the DOJ numbers about some things, but interprets them in ways that are not widely accepted and have been widely refuted, primarily by the established medical and psychiatric community.
I apologize if that is upsetting to you. However, catagorizing your inflated numbers and unreferenced “studies” as actual statistics and any answers you get as nonresponsive is disingenuous.
Careful, actual facts are scary.
Speaking of which, I look great in a tux and Lynn would love to bring something edible to the wedding. We are primarily meat eaters but I wanted to make sure if we prepare something else in case the marrying couple had objection to tasty meats.
I am a huge fan of tasty treats, and, in fact, expect that my intended IS one… guess I will find out when I get there!
woohoo!
good idea, i’ll bring….
)
You guys like scrambled eggs and soup, cake, brownies, and anything that doesn’t require me to do any serious *cooking*? (i have ADD, and get very, VERY, distracted. seriously, i think i might be distracted by my shiny necklace right now… sorry, back
i’ll also bring the paints for your new house! i LOVE picking colors! my mum always lets me pick out the paint for EVERYTHING that isn’t directly theirs…. apparently i pick good, practical colors that you don’t get tired of looking at when they’re together in one place
We are getting a HOUSE? COOL!!! Here I was just hoping for a nice silverware set and maybe a few toasters.
I know, right?!
of course you are, Anony. it’s only logical, seeing as how you’re going to need a bedroom and multiple soundproofed rooms and all
. also, painting is fun, i love to do it, and coloring is TERRIFIC. so it’s a win-win for the whole threesome…. whoops, did i say that word out loud? 
Threesome? I haven’t agreed to that.
oh, you didn’t have to. that was my imagination running wild again, but this time it tripped over my tongue on it’s way through my convoluted journey in one ear and out the other. sawwy
fogives?
Besides, Tyler isn’t of age… And I’ll withhold my dirty fantasies from the commentary.
hahaha
hey death, been seeing you on LOLnews too. gotta love the sister sites, eh?
PK is my normal stomping grounds, actually.
How did they know?!?
To Valiant Defender–
We should make up our own term? Oh, how about “buttbuddies”? Instead of “Husband and wife,” we’d be “buttbuddies”!
south park FTW.
i’m straight, but i would be truly happy to see either option come to pass. the world needs more tolerance, more acceptance, and more fabulousness.
great graph!
*testing search feature* Yasoup PeachyKat
My last wish is the world to be FABULOUS
*head goes limp and heart monitor level’s out*
I scrolled real fast past all the silly nonsense so I could say…thanks for the chuckle! I love it! Great video!! Peace and happiness for everyone! Be who you are!
Ummm, can I get invited? Porn and treats, who could ask for more
Here’s the thing about marriage: it’s one word with two meanings. It means:
1. A binding legal agreement concerning custody and responsibility for children and ownership of property, etc.
2. A commitment made according to the spiritual and social of the parties involved, usually according to their religious beliefs.
The government should ALWAYS be involved in marriage as defined by the first definition (which is really a description of a civil union, not a marriage), and NEVER be involved in marriage by the second definition.
The ONLY thing governments should do is grant civil unions, not marriages, and said civil unions should be granted without bias concerning the gender of either party. Marriages should be a matter for the churches, temples, whatever, and should have nothing to do with the legal aspect.
The problem comes when the government attempts to regulate marriage as defined by the first definition, and it is taken as regulating marriage as defined by the second definition.
Governments should ONLY grant civil unions, not marriages, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight. Marriages (the spiritual aspect) are out of the jurisdiction of the law.
All the debates now a days are because of this. The problem is that people keep naming it marriage (religious) when they are talking civil union. If the media and politicians used the correct definition and the term to go with it, there wouldn’t be a argument.
The same thing is with stem cell research. Believe it or not, and the media and government don’t tell us this, is that most “stem cell” research doesn’t even use stem cells any more, let alone stem cells from fetuses.
If people knew this would we be arguing about it? No. Its a sad thing isn’t it?
“I think people should be gay if they wanna be gay or not be gay if you do’t want to be gay.” Sure, everyone is debating about the marriage factor, but I think people need to stop talking down on people who are gay and people who are against gay marriage. The whole marriage thing can still be talked about, argued about, or debated, but I think we should just relax a little and stop all the mean put downs. So just shut the f*** up, grow a pair, and quit acting like a bunch of spoiled brats fresh out of the third grade with pine cones shoved up your butts.
Thank you, and enjoy the rest of your depressing little life.
(quote by my six year old daughter)
Your six-year-old has a charming mouth on her! Did you teach her those lovely things?
i think his six year old only said the first bit, nao. O.O wait, didn’t she?
We appear to have gone off topic a little, considering what started as a joke intended for a quick laugh has turned into a massive debate about human rights and religion
Welcome to the internet.
Here’s my philosophy on it, as per Dan Akroyd:
“What you shove up your @^#*! is your own business.”
I don’t CARE. If you are doing this it does not affect me one iota. I look at it as population control, AND abortion control–how many gays do you know who are having abortions?
Am I the only one who would prefer the green?
lol!…”And then make it fabulous.”
i think i know the one gay guy who actually wants to take over the world
If they want us to mind our own business, why the hell do they shove it in our faces in the first place??! If they wanted us to mind our business, they wouldn’t need an agenda would they?
Maybe it’s just me but nudity doesn’t bother me. remember the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” ARRGGHHHH!!! It’s a NIPPLE… The HORROR! Cripes, we’ve all got them, it’s not like we’re going to strip off before a shower and accidentally notice in the mirror that we have them and get mentally scarred for life. What is it with people and normal parts of the body? what if our stupid culture (I’m Australian BTW) said noses were rude and we had to get around wearing “nose bras”? it’s crazy, people should get over it.
I just found this site today and haven’t stopped laughing! Props good sirs (and ma’ams) props to you all!
tl;dr
To enlighten everyone we should all read “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” to learn about marriage.
Speaking of, marriage was a legal contract. One man would sell another human being–wait, no, a woman, not a human being–to another man. Then they’d have some little ceremony if they were religious. It was all about moving about property.
Marriage was never romantic. It was binding two people together to ensure children and the well-being of a familial unit in a world where women and children had no rights and hence needed a man to protect them–because they had no idea what they could do for themselves. That’s marriage. Personally, I find that disgraceful, but that’s not because of my religion–it’s because of what people think that share my religion.
People think and have thought many things. Shellfish and pork were once outlawed–because they were unsafe. Same-sex relationships and premarital sex can now be safe, though I don’t advocate the latter.
But, good news! Marriage, while a legal contract, religiously can be just about anything. Think about it: Who the heck married Adam and Eve? Nobody. They had no big party, no fancy clothes, no cake or champagne. Sure, they sinned, but nobody was there to marry them. If the sort of marriage many advocate is true, they were having premarital sex the entire time they were together. They also had illegimate children.
Basically, weddings are a farce. Also, if you hate gay people, please stay away from cloth of multiple types, pork, shellfish, tattoos to remember the dead by, etc. Because if it wasn’t about God watching out for our safety, those things are all things to watch out for.
Also, Jesus was a Jew. Remember that. If you want to be more like Jesus, maybe go kosher, too. Amongst other things.
So, basically, my motto is that God is watching out for us and if we managed to fix one of the early problems he probably planned that and he loves us all. Heaven, He sent His son to us to absolve all our sins. We’re still whining about sinners?
That’s just distasteful.
In other news, I’ve found all these arguments hilarious. I found a link to this on some other site and it’s been fun. Personally I’m a nondenominational Christian, but it’s neat to see lots of other people coexisting rather peacefully, even if they don’t agree. It hasn’t turned to stoning so I find that comforting. That was hip a while back, you know.
Lastly, most of this, while I believe it to be fact, is probably mostly opinion. You can twist facts into anything.
I’ve seen some skimpy costuming, but no less than in a Mardi Gras parade. Do they actually march naked in Toronto?
Might we worth the trip to see that. Or wait, perhaps you could just provide some proof that there is actual nudity, and that it is not being dealt with according to the laws of your community?
Thanks.
Actually, you *can* do that in San Francisco. What you can’t do is walk down the street being an ignorant, intolerant asshole. That happens here, but it’s totally not cool.
Might be worth the trip to see that. Sorry for the typo.
Yeah, there’s rumors about one or two gay people getting “neked” in the SF parades, but if this is a regular occurrence in Toronto parades, I would assume it’s a Canadian thang…
Hexx, most of the posters here seem agree with you. Please take the time to read their comments. Some of us are straight, some are gay & at least one is somewhere in between. There are a couple baiters & rabble-rousers, but they are outnumbered by level heads.
Thank you for the references. I know two men (they’re grandfathers now) who were raised in homes headed by two women. Both families are strong, loving, and simply delightful.
Change sometimes has to grow quietly until it blossoms. My husband & I always vote “pro-gay” (if there is such a thing!), but we’re only two people. Yet in the shadows we raise our children to be openminded and accepting. I would talk about “when you settle down”, not “when you get married”. I would refer to “your spouse”, not “your wife”. They only sexual rules set down for them were no sex before adulthood and no conception outside of marraige. (I’m a realist…I just want them to be emotionally & financially ready for parenthood!) Just as the civil rights movement has taken a generation or two to settle in and get comfortable, so too will gay marraige/gay rights. In the meantime the next generation of open hearts is waiting in the wings.
Now let’s go wait for our invitations to Lunamorgan’s wedding!
Sorry, I just haven’t had a chance to read them yet and at the start I started to become a little nauseated so I decided to get back to studying for finals and writing essays.
Soon I’ll sit down with a bottle of Pepto-bismol and I’ll read them all through.
I do agree that change should happen slowly or it won’t happen at all. In my classes (i’m getting a degree in social work) we have talked about the difference between tolerance and equality, and how tolerance really is condescending [ex: Oh, okay, you're gay, I guess we can go ahead and "put up with" that.]. Equality and acceptance are what we shoot for, yes, but tolerance is a good first step, because it’s still better than hate.
Good luck with your exams! My academic passion is evolution, so that (and being ancient) have probably given me a more long-term perspective. I grew up during the 1960′s and have watched society adjust to major changes. We older ones have had to really work at the mandated changes, but our kids have never known the “old ways”. My children have always had friends and neighbors of different races, my husband and I have not. Hubs & I work hard at what our children consider as natural as breathing. Society will probably follow a similar pattern as gay rights progress. Like evolution, it’s a series of baby steps & stumbles & dead-ends until “change” is finally the norm. Maybe it would feel better to think of tolerance as a ramp leading to acceptance and equality.
Now, back to the books!
So, I might get some flack for saying so, but I am bisexual. I am married to a loving husband, who knows of my sexuality, and we have a loving, precotious, and as far as I can tell straight toddler son. My parents are two of the most loving and supportive people I know, and I never felt abused or neglected growing up, and I have yet to experience trauma.
i like how you bash pro-homosexuals for making up their research, then don’t cite your sources.
brilliant there, bud.
THEN YOU MUST BE A PEDOPHILE!!!11
Oooooh, so that’s my problem. Wow, I never knew… phew! Glad we cleared that up!
hats off to you sir. tolerance is a two-way street!
The change in the law has nothing to do with religion. Allowing same-sex marriage will have no impact on religious institutions – they will not be required to marry same-sex couples, they will not be required to offer services to same-sex couples, they will not be able to be sued for treating same-sex couples differently than opposite sex couples.
As to your biological comments and using that as a justification to denying same-sex couples the right of marriage I ask these questions:
Do you think that infertile couples should be allowed to marry?
What about couples that do not plan to have children?
What about a person that has had a sex change?
Religious rights does not mean that you get to legislate your beliefs. It means that you get to practice your religion and nobody forces you to do otherwise.
Gays getting married has nothing to do with you and if you feel that gays getting married does affect, perhaps you need to reflect on why that is.
Also, quit talking funny? My aren’t you the high and mighty bigot today… Jeez. Sorry but no, we will continue being intolerant of your intolerance.
Your religion isn’t made right by your worship. Your religion should not impact the lives of those outside of it. We are not a theocracy, the end.
Oh snapz. I don’t believe in your God. Should I be deported? Should I have to follow laws set forth by YOUR religion even though the constitution calls for separation of Church and State?
I got married to my boyfriend a year ago. Did you like… feel it like a thousand hot pokers into your rectum? Just checking.
While i do believe that no one should force a belief onto anyone, your comment insinuates that gay marriage is wrong due to a specific religious belief. However, not everyone believes in the same religion and therefore no system of government or law should be based on a religion.
Actually, you get paper cuts.
The problem is that Valiant Defender, for all of his pretty words, is not tolerant.
He is attempting to convince you that his definition of marriage is the right one (a point which he is entitled to do) but follows it up with the idea that someone on the other side of the discussion trying to change that definition is intolerant of him.
This is, in fact, not the case.
He can believe whatever he likes, and we can disagree with him and he can disagree with us. That is debate, that is not intolerance.
What we are intolerant of is discrimination. His PREJUDICES, while sad, are not primarily the issue at hand. The issue is that he wants to act on those prejudices to define his club of “marriage” (which is a legal contract, for purposes of this debate, not a religious one, as he would argue) as exlusionary to homosexuals. That is discrimination, and of that, yes, we are intolerant.
In our society, we have agreed that it is illegal to discriminate against someone for reasons of age, gender, sexual preferences, disability or race. Objecting to the actions of people who wish to do so is not intolerance. No matter how many times the religious right may argue it to be so, read it again.
It is not intolerance to object to discrimination.
Do quote tags work here? Guess I’ll find out.
[quote]
Also, quit talking funny? My aren’t you the high and mighty bigot today… Jeez. Sorry but no, we will continue being intolerant of your intolerance.
[/quote]
Yup, I am partial to my own beliefs. In this sense, everyone is a bigot to a degree.
My point was not that talking funny is WRONG because I talk babytalk to my baby all the time. She is very cute, btw. My point is that if you want to blend in and be accepted then quit trying to stand out and be different.
For example. I do NOT have a sticker on my car that means I only screw straight people. I do not have a special way of talking that means that I have chosen to be different from them (straight). I do not hold parades that tout my fertile heterosexuality!
I also don’t wear crosses to broadcast my Belief in the Jesus the Christ. I don’t wear any special anything to denote pride in my race, class, gender or anything else. If I did I would probably be fired. I also have no desire to continually cause conflict with people who believe differently than me.
[quote]
Your religion isn’t made right by your worship. Your religion should not impact the lives of those outside of it. We are not a theocracy, the end.
[/quote]
Um. My religion impacts everything. Its like saying your big bang doesn’t effect the creation of the universe.
If the big bang is true then we all live in a universe created by the big bang regardless of whether or not I choose to believe it.
You are also right that my worship doesn’t make my religion true. I do know, however, that my religion is true. In fact the True religion. With 11 million members world wide we are somewhat small in size…but we are consistent.
Furthermore, see my comments above about why gay marriage effects my religion.
Also, even if man made laws allowed “marriage” doesn’t mean they are actually married by the true definition. Man cannot legislate eternal principle.
This doesn’t mean that we aren’t kind to people who choose to commit sin. We ALL make mistakes daily. We all learn and grow.
The way to win a debate is to dismiss someone else’s beliefs.
Lets see. I have the right to believe what I want except it doesn’t matter what I believe in this particular debate. Have I got that right?
You want the worldly ever changing and hence meaningless definition of marriage so that you can feel comfortable with yourselves in your violations of eternal law. You want to deny eternal law exists and mock the sanctity of marriage and its sacred nature based on your belief that marriage is NOT sacred. You cannot even see how you have tresspassed because you give no heed to the sign on the gate which states ‘This is holy ground”.
What our society agrees to is continually further from enlightened and headed toward darkness. Your blatant tossing of my belief is indeed discrimination. Your modern high society politically correct ideals MUST trump the old school outdated dogma of bigoted religious zealots. Your moral values MUST trump mine.
At this point you will state again. This isnt’ about religion, its about a law! Rights!
See how quickly you will dismiss my beliefs again…you are so prejudiced and intolerant that you don’t even see that is what you are doing!
Can you NOT see there is a MUCH deeper issue at hand? It will come to a head. Religion will fail. It has been prophesied to fail for 1000s of years. It won’t fail because its wrong…or because God is not all powerful. See, those people who think so d o not understand our purpose and the contract. We’re here on unlimited terms of free agency. Agents unto ourselves to do as we please. There will NOT be found ANY undeniable evidence of God. Such evidence would ruin the clean state of this test. To see what we will do of our own free will and accord. In the end Religion (except in a small pocket of devout believers) will come under much persecution.
Will you remember US when we’re stripped of our rights further? When we’re persecuted on the streets and in schools for our beliefs? When we’re made fun of and called names for our faith? Will you stand up for our belief that being Gay is wrong? Because that time is ripening quickly. That time in many places has already begun. No longer able to pray in school even amongst a group of consenting individuals.
No. You will not…and why? Because we believe that being gay is wrong. We believe that adultery and fornication are wrong! We believe that pornography is wrong…for these things you will happily turn the other way when the pendulum has swung in your direction.
Prove me wrong. Go to a rally to support the doctor who doesn’t want to do invitro for lesbians based on personal beliefs. Write to your congressmen about support the church who is being sued for refusing to perform a gay marriage.
Let’s see…
No proof of religion is true other than your say so. Check.
Stating that different is bad. Check. Seems you missed the Judge Not and Love thy Neighbor in your bible there.
Statement saying that we need to be a theocracy. Check. Sorry, the same statutes that allow you your religion without persecution should allow gays to marry. It’s called freedom.
Lastly and I’ve used this example enough and NOBODY has given me a straight answer yet, maybe you’ll be the lucky one.
Right now, in one of the states that allow gay marriage, two men are having sex in their marital bed probably a good fifty to a hundred miles from your location. You can’t see, hear, taste, smell, or feel them in anyway.
Explain to me how they damage your marriage.
why should your religion impact EVERY one of us, even those outside it? why should only heterosexuals, not even of your belief, benefit legally from things people of other sexualities cannot? no matter how nice you are to a gay man in every day life, not allowing him the same legal benefits you receive for being in a heterosexual relationship isn’t right. your religion should affect you and those who believe in it fine, but it SHOULD NOT make our laws for us. not everyone is the same religion as you, and noone will be.
by the way, fun fact, did you know World of Warcraft has 11 million subscribers worldwide? might want to round that number up or down a million… cause when i see 11 million that’s what pops into my head. O.O
1. I don’t believe the church should be sued. It’s their church.
2. Your rights aren’t being stripped by what we suggest. We are suggesting simply giving rights to those you deny while allowing for yourselves.
Prove me wrong in how allowing a gay marriage, which has already happened btw, damages you PERSONALLY. Not a metaphor, not a vague reference. Tell me Exactly how two men married is damaging you.
“Religion will fail.” So your major concern here is that if the government refuses to legislate based on your beliefs, it will erode your beliefs and your religion will cease to exist? That is both an odd and interesting way of looking at things. However, that is not my issue, nor is it my concern. The state does not exist to prop up your religion. It exists to provide equity under law to all its members. If your beliefs die out because the government fails to accept your persecution of others as valid, perhaps it should.
I am not suggesting that I will throw stones. I will continue to support your right to believe whatever you like. As I will do for others who hold opinions perhaps diametrically opposed to yours. And if THEY try to legislate in a way that is inequitable for you (that is, if someday, for instance, Christians are prohibited from marrying) I will fight for YOU. What you personally believe, and how many others you can convince to believe it, however, is not at all my concern.
Will I object when you are persecuted for your beliefs? Certainly, when two conditions have been met. The first being that you have stopped persecuting others. The second is that you are being persecuted. Demonstrate that this has happened, and we will discuss this further. Till then, you are on your own.
Will I stand up for the specific things you believe in? No. I don’t believe in them, why would I support them. I will stand up for your right to hold those beliefs, and for your right to say so. But you would not stand up for MY belief that gay marriage is right, so why would I stand up for your belief that being Gay is wrong? You need to rethink what you are asking for.
You say I want the definition of marriage to cover homosexuals for what amounts to religious reasons, that is, having to do with the violation of your eternal laws. In fact, this is not the case. I want nothing to do with your eternity, I never have. I have my own eternity well in hand. You keep trying to force the debate back into the religious arena, I keep trying to explain that it does not belong there. NO ONE is trying to change your religion. No one is asking YOU to change anything about your religion. Your religion is, and always has been, entirely your business, and you are free to believe whatever you like. Carrry on! Do what you do, go to heaven, or not, as you see fit! Don’t perform marriages you don’t believe in. That is fine. No one is asking you to.
However, no matter how many times you say it… this issue is not about your religion. It is about equity in the law. You believe that it is equitable to deny a portion of the consenting adults the same rights that are given the rest based entirely on the issue of sexuality. I don’t.
What church is being sued for refusing to perform a gay marriage? I am sorry, but I have missed that one. Yes, I will write my congressperson about that. As to the rally to support the doctor who doesn’t want to do invitro, I won’t go to a rally to support that. Medical services are not religious ones… and no where does the separation of Church and State provide for invitro being a religious practice. I won’t go to a rally for the opposition either, if that helps any.
Prayer in public schools is a separate issue that I don’t really want to debate here, but let me ask you, if students were asking to form a coven in school, and worship the goddess, would that be acceptable?
Tell me exactly how two men married in MA is damaging your marriage. Give me specific examples. Gay marriage is already allowed in a number of states so you best have an answer as it IS happening.
dude, marriage doesn’t belong to ONLY YOUR RELIGION. how do you not see this? it’s a legal institution, if you want a holy commitment ritual all your own, go ahead, practice your own religion, but don’t force the government to cater to your needs. marriage and commitment to a partner is integrated into tons of cultures, and nowadays, it’s a legal issue, not a holy one. If you can get married and get tax benefits, get a legally recognized demonstration of your love, why can’t someone who is attracted to the same sex? Your marriage won’t be DEGRADED by different people being allowed the same legal benefits, but you can show your love in another way if you want, say different vows. it’s time to get over your beliefs, stop worrying that the government isn’t legislating to the letter of a “sacred law”, and let others have the “privilege” that, as of right now, (except for Massachusetts) only heterosexuals like you and i have. you can have all the different union ceremonies you want to prove you love your wife, but you shouldn’t get legal benefits others cannot because of your sexuality. it just isn’t right.
“In the past many false relgions have falsely injected prejudice into many things. They were wrong to do so. ”
And yours is not one of these because….?
If we have prayer in school, I am teaching my kids Muslim prayers, Wiccan prayers, and maybe something I make up about my awesomeness.
Also, I wonder if he can answer my question about the fact that two gay and married men are having sex right now and how it affects him personally.
Oh, forgot something that sums up your post, dearest Anonygrl.
“Your religion doesn’t qualify for a bailout.”
anonygirl, i love your posts here. they are terrific and well-reasoned.
.
Ardent, it’s unnecessary to deny other people who love each other the same benefits as others, simply because of their sexuality. It’s not about your religion, marriage has a context OUTSIDE of YOUR religion, no matter what religion you may follow. “Sacred Ground”…. you can have that if you want, it’s fine by me, but you CANNOT use a word that is a LEGAL benefit to people to discriminate AGAINST them. the use of this “Sacred Ground”, if you were to discriminate against people based solely on their sexuality, would be a misery causing thing, anything sacred about it would be completely TAINTED. do you not see that?
by the way, Anonygirl, thank you… glad to see someone argue so clearly, means i don’t end up doing loads of research just to argue
and again Ardent… i would never persecute you because of what you believe is right or wrong, but i’m not going to cater to your beliefs. if you think it’s wrong, fine by me, but that doesn’t mean my opinion can’t differ. I’m not dismissing your beliefs, but i do believe that if you really think marriage is sacred, you should take away the legal benefits, and give the commitment represented a different name, if you’re not going to share it with everyone regardless of who they are.
i’m not actually concerned about “religion failing” as this life isn’t the end anyway. I’m just stating that it is heading in the direction.
I’d happily lose the unwanted “tax” status in favor of maintaining the religios purity of the institution. In fact my religion HAS been persecuted because of our belief specifically regarding marriage. Much like Abraham of Old, at one time we practiced polygamy. When the state of utah was forced into the union they were forced to cease their practice of marriage at the end of a gun and many people were wrongfully imprisoned. Polygamy is a christian belief (unless you’re talking about the bible thumping christians who ignore the actual contents of the bible).
Anyway. We are all called upon daily to judge what we should do and how we should react. “judge not lest ye be judged” is a warning, not a commandment. in other words, if I judge others wrongfully, then I will be judged accordingly. If I make a righteous judgment call then I will also be judged accordingly.
I’m doing my best, and thats good enough.
If it was just equity of law, then call it something else.
Make your own word and institution. Use a scientific term like “coupling” or something. We could make up our own infinitives and such. “they were Coupled” “Will you couple with me?” “Will you be my life partner?”
p.s. not talking about “prayer in school” per se so much as even clubs. We are no longer ‘one nation under God’ but a divided nation under mammon. We are democrats and republicans, gay and straight. The lines are becoming clearer rather than melting.
If we were to call ALL marriages administered by the state something else (union, coupling, whatever) that would be fine. However, the word marriage is already written into all of the tax code and applicable laws, making that prohibitive. If that were to be the case, however, YOUR marriage would then also become a coupling, or it would not be state sanctioned, and thereby lose all the benefits you currently enjoy. Why go through all that when the word “marriage” is already a legal one, not just a religious one. Far easier to change the word that churches use, since there is no great bundle of law that would need rewriting.
Polygamy… well, actually, I am in favor. Again, as long as it is contract between consenting adults, it works for me. I would say that both ploygyny and polyandry should most definitely be included, as should multiple marriages with same sex partners or mixed sex partners. Let’s be equitable to all.
Judging… do what you feel you must. Discriminating, please do not.
anony, you get a hug for pro arguments.
there’s a lot of really cool gay people i’ve met in my life, i see no reason to discriminate against them 
also, do i get an invite for you and devy’s marriage? i live in MA, and want to be the flowerboy!
i’m straight, but hey gotta love the gays
Thanks! I thought you were going to perform the ceremony? But sure, you can march up the aisle strewing flower petals, then perform the ceremony too. And you can sit with DeathWyrmNexus and his beloved at the reception.
As long as he doesn’t annoy Aunt Rose, I’m good.
anonygirl has obviously never seen my two places at once trick… it’s kind of cool, once you get over the fact that i am really FLOATING HEAD DOCTOR. (sorry if you don’t watch scrubs, but that segment is funny as hell.)
anyway, i plan to throw the flowers into the laps of the people as i run by, do a backflip over you guys and your maid of honors, best men, whatever, and perform the ceremony with the same speech impediment as in the Princess Bride…. mawwiage. also, i’ll read it in under 9 parsecs with my power level over 9000 the whole time!! impressive, huh? then i’ll start skipping and tossing flowers everywhere.
omg, Tyler, you will be the best flowerboy/minister EVER!
if the two people in MA were married. They’re NOT, except by a temporary man made law which in effect makes it meaningless except inasmuch as it gives some sort of tax designation.
How does it Damage My marriage? Um. It doesn’t. What it does, is attempt to redefine. A rose by any other name, is still a rose. Two men wearing rings giong at it after being declared “married” are not, by any real measure, married. If gay men are Married then marriage has lost its meaning.
If “marriage’ is merely a government construct then the battle is already over. Marriage is already lost. When I teach my kids about Love and Relationships it is already in terms of Eternal Marriage anyway. I discuss this kind of union in terms of covenants…sacred vows. We’re required by the government to publicly register and all that bologne. I could care less about that part of it.
But mostly…mostly the two men who are participating in those acts are damaging themselves.
What are the repercussions? We may not know for a generation. How long will it take for homo to be broadcast as normal and good in public education? I’m sure that the next step. Thats the step I’ll be pulling my kids and funding from public schools.
Heya DeathWyrm….
No proof of religion? Are you seeking proof? Oh no. I didn’t think so. If you wished a discussion on the veracity of God I could share personal experiences with you that I have witnessed.
Just because You haven’t seen doesn’t mean there is no proof..and if you think it is just myself that believes, you do greatly err.
So, uncheck.
Stating different in general is bad? No. Stating that violation of eternal law has eternal consequences..yes. Besides, its not the consequences we want…its the benefits of compliance to higher principles.
Don’t mistake chastisement for lack of love. If I didn’t love, I wouldn’t care and wouldn’t say anything. I do care, I do love and therefore i make my stand for truth and right.
Also, Judge not is vastly misunderstood. We are all required to make judgements daily. The scripture is in reference to us being judged the same way we judge others. I do not know you and cannot even begin to judge you. I do know that there is an impure practice which is trying to make its way into maintstream acceptance…this thing I can judge with impunity.
My judgment is thus. Love them, teach them, warn them.
We “need” to be a theocracy. LoL. NO no. The purpose of life is to show who we’re going to be..our true nature. Will we choose good or evil. Our governments necessarily legislate moral boundaries. However, like it or not, our universe IS governed by a theocracy. If you knew him, you’d know that this is a very good thing…even for those who choose to defy him…he has paradise and mansions prepared. Even the worst destination will be a paradise compared to this earth. To qualify for Hell is actually quite an accomplishment. However, for those who are valiant in doing what is right there are greater rewards.
As stated earlier. The act damages themselves. The acceptance of “marriage” between homosexuals as a societal norm then will allow more too choose this damaging path. It dilutes the sacred significance and mocks the sacred role of family.
why should your religion impact EVERY one of us, even those outside it?
and darn that Gravity too! That stupid newton and his moronic apple!
If you don’t like gravity, you’ll have to find a universe where that universal constant doesn’t exist.
Just like this, the True religion does impact everyone. If there is a universal eternal law, then it applies to you…even if you vote against it.
If you want to stick your hands in the fire, you’re going to do it. No amount of warning will stop you. So, you’ll pass the law and live the life. You will see it be normalized. You will think that warnings were a lie.
I recently stopped playing wow. So, 10 million, 999 thousand 999.
So if we allow gays to get married under the “construct of man” you have no actual issue as it doesn’t hurt your definition of marriage since your definition of marriage happens in a church with all the Eternal and Religion stuff. Good to know.
So I take it since you don’t consider them married but the law does and that is all we want, then you don’t have a problem?
“the two men who are participating in these acts are damaging themselves.”
In what way? Think of two people participating in a loving, committed relationship, enjoying the benefits that you enjoy as a married heterosexual, living a full and happy life together, perhaps raising a family, growing old together. How is that more damaging than living in fear of persecution? More harmful than losing the home built together when one partner dies and his will is overturned by an unsupportive family member who has never been a part of their lives until that moment? More destructive than losing custody of a child raised with a partner simply by virtue of the fact that co-adoption was not an option and someone made a wrong guess about who might die first? More painful than after a life together being unable to sit in the hospital with a dying partner and not being allowed to see that person’s wishes carried out?
If that is what your eternal law wishes on people, then your law is evil. If your morals would see people suffer the hell of being unable to love here on earth in favor of some mythical hereafter (where that love is also undoubtedly proscribed) then your morals are seriously flawed.
What are the repercussions? The repercussions are that another segment of our society will be granted the same civil rights that you currently enjoy. The repercussions are that people who love each other deeply will be able to share their lives in the same way that you are currently able to do.
Yes, soon kids will be taught at school that homosexuality is merely another function of biology, and that like blond hair, it does not matter. They will be taught that if someone is homosexual, it only means that they are homosexual, not that they are evil or morally wrong.
So pull your funding (and explain that to the tax collector) and your kids (and hope none of them is gay) from the schools, go hide in the woods somewhere, and let the rest of the world get on with the business of making this a better, more equal and more loving place for all the rest of us.
Anonygrl, you are by far the most well-spoken of all advocates in this thread. I am so glad to have met you here in cyberspace.
Um no, your stating so doesn’t make it a truth. So no, emphatically no. I am not asking for proof of God, I saw that when my sons were born. I am asking for proof that your religion is somehow more true than my own.
Also, governments don’t legislate morality, they legislate ethics for a level field between their citizens.
Also, I don’t see how heaven would have the decadence of earthly mansions as it is a state of higher being. A mansion is a construct to show wealth and power, neither of which have meaning beyond the grave. A mansion is but an empty house and not a reward I seek in the afterlife.
But I do find it very telling that you think the concept of earthly rewards hold any comparison to what is beyond this skin and flesh.
Sorry, but I sporfled at “paradise and mansions.”
You can say what you want, but what you’ve “seen”, which is probably more like “I got lucky one day” or “I saw the leaves rustle and thought I heard a voice” means nothing to those who don’t practice your religion. Zip.
I do, however, believe in unicorns!
Falling in love with someone of the same sex is not ‘damaging’ in any way. People in this thread have been complaining that gay people get ‘in their face’ about what they think is right–HOW are you any different?
You’ve contradicted yourself, and I doubt you realize it:
“We’re here on unlimited terms of free agency. Agents unto ourselves to do as we please. There will NOT be found ANY undeniable evidence of God. Such evidence would ruin the clean state of this test.”
“The acceptance of ‘marriage’ between homosexuals as a societal norm then will allow more too choose this damaging path.”
By your own logic, you should support gay marriage. It is vital that people be allowed to choose evil. Otherwise, this life proves nothing. If people are never given the option of homosexuality, then you can’t say that they ever made the right choice. They were never given the choice, it was made for them.
Law exists to protect people from each other. To enable different people, who believe different things, to live together without harming each other. Law is not supposed to restrict us to what is morally right. It’s to enable us to make those choices on our own, to protect the individual from the masses.
Someone who lives a perfectly moral life because they were never given any choices has proven nothing. Moral actions do not make a moral person. That requires moral choices.
Doesn’t your religion mention that someone had a plan whereby all might be saved? That if everyone were forced to do the right thing their entire lives, then they could all return to their Heavenly Father? Wasn’t that plan rejected in favor on one in which people had choice, in which they would return based on their own merits?
Why is it then that most religions seem to be concerned with force?
Now this is where you are falling apart. First, you think your faith is anything but faith. Second, what does your cancelled subscription of WoW have anything to do with what we are discussing.
Your religion does not impact me. I am sorry to say it, but it does not impact most of the world, if all you have is 11 million members out of 6 billion + people in the world today. More people live in my home town.
GRAVITY, unlike your god, is an observable fact. Not a great comparison.
Your universal eternal law means something to you, and if that is a comfort, I am glad for you. You must understand, however, that it does not mean anything to the rest of us. As to what will happen in any supposed afterlife, I will take my chances on it not being what you think, but rather that if I am to be judged (and please note the use of the conditional phrasing) that it will be noted that I did my best for the betterment of my fellow humans, and that this is far more important than some archaic code that is no longer relevant. If I am condemned to your hell for that, so be it. But you should also know that if your god is the sort to condemn someone to hell for taking care of others, I have no interest in spending eternity with her, either.
His god is a Her? No no no, we don’t insult women like that.
Dude.
Really. Your inconsistent arguments and highly fallible logic are not helping us take your side seriously, and they certainly aren’t convincing anyone.
Just quit now, while we still have some respect for the Christian right.
Rose,
I can’t respect the Christian Right. Can’t do it. I have even less respect for the Mormons, of whom “Valiant Defender” is one. (He sounds like he’d be the type to strap on a bomb to “convince” people his way of thinking is the correct one.) My ex was a Mormon, and I learned all I need to know. This cult is one of the most anti-intellectual and sexist (likely racist, too, but they’re not as blatant about it anymore) groups I’ve ever had the chance to learn about. I was told how “important” Matriarchs are . . . yeah, almost as important as Patriarchs . . . except they can NEVER be Elders. You want to talk “separate but ‘equal’”? ::PFFFT::
Naoyusimi,
I can completely understand where you are coming from. I, personally, have little respect for the practises and beliefs of the far right in any form; however, having known personally (and being related to) some very intelligent, very well-spoken right-wing Christians, I unfortunately am forced to respect, if not their beliefs, the persons themselves and their right to believe whatever suits them. I also can concede that they may see things differently than I do, and thus may base their world view on different standards than I have. If I am to ask them to respect me, I must give them the same in return; otherwise, there can be no equal footing for the evenly-matched debate upon which I thrive.
Please note that stupidity does not at all fit into the above diatribe. It refers solely to the intelligent. =)
Gravity is tangible, something that you can’t really argue AGAINST. good choice, if it was a good analogy. however, you can’t always expect the government to legislate your beliefs into the law of a secular nation. it should affect you, fine by me, i don’t care if you want to live that way or not, but you shouldn’t cause anyone else misery or take away their legal rights because of something ABOUT them. gravity does exist, i’ll give you that, and constantly has an effect on everyone on earth. however, just because you believe what you want to, that doesn’t mean other people should be held back because of it.
You should keep playing, man. i play Quel’Dorei on a lv 80 fully-epiced tankadin.
epiced in 25 man raid gear, too, with like 3 pieces of 10 man remaining. none of that shabby stuff. although i haven’t been playing recently either- too much to do.
But unlike your “clean test” Valiant Defender, gravity can be scientifically proved…
If only the apple had really fallen on Newton’s head and it was a legend…
devy, i just wanna clear up… he’s kidding, right?
i’m pretty sure he is, but a little bit of me is VERY frightened.
I’m pretty sure he’s kidding. But if he’s not kidding, then the joke’s on him.
the joke would soon be on him anyway, because i’d have to grab my club and show him how little i like my wedding-to-wedding paycheck to be interrupted
All religion is a man-made construct. Moses would have been diagnosed schizophrenic by a psychiatrist. “The burning bush told me to go up on the mountain and pick up the pieces of rock etched with the laws we should live by”. Seriously, all religions are as valid as eachother because as human beings we have a hard time wrapping our brains around the concepts of eternity and nothingness. We need a ceiling and the ceiling is called God or Goddess in many different languages. Look within or look without for your safety and love but no one is more right than anyone else just as no one should have more rights than anyone else to be married under law.
Valiant Defender – how weak is your religion that you feel it is threatened by something that doesn’t involve either it or you?
lol
Oh, man. I’m so sad to confirm how true this is. Man, old fat men LOVE to be naked in SF!
There are one or two naked people at EVERY parade here. Nakedness is legal in SF. Never anyone that you wanted to see naked, however…