-
-
Copy & paste this:
« Previous Hypothetically Date That Is | It’s Hip to be Quadrilaterals Next »
» 883 TPS Reports
Leave a Reply
-
Latest Comments
Schluppy on Classic: It’s a Tra… Hoff on Classic: It’s a Tra… Alex on Art of Trolling: Nothing, Noth… Herr Derp on I Can Graph to Potato Herr Derp on If Only They Made Little Pouch… Panic on If Only They Made Little Pouch… StongRadd on So Many Countless Hours Spent … yo mama on So Many Countless Hours Spent … yo mama on So Many Countless Hours Spent … Evertide on Classic: It’s a Tra… DatGuy on High on Life? No, High on… Steve on So Many Countless Hours Spent … Tex on Debra! Go Out of my Labor… Niko on Followed By a Critical Against… Niko on Hand Wash Only!? 
Cheezburger Company Blog
FAKE AND GAY!
…fake? o.O
Shopped
…
It’s a graph. Did you expect a photograph?
Wait wait wait, so you’re telling me you DON’T see the photoshop? Woww, you need to open ur ignorant eyes a lil moarrr….
Well, not that I understand why it would matter anyway, I just tried it for myself and it’s easy enough to make with the graphbuilder. Unless there’s something I’m missing (an in-joke?), it doesn’t look shopped to me.
I’m pretty sure it’s just this:
{http://xkcd.com/331/}
Bah, moderation. I’ll try it again:
I’m pretty sure it’s just this:
{http://xkcd. com/331/}
The Joke
^
|
|
Serpentine’s head
She just couldn’t see the pixels that prove it’s shopped. I know, I’ve seen some before….
Oh I get it now! You’re saying the reasons are fake, about gay people! Well done!
boooooooooooo. gay people ar a descrace to the usa
No, the ignorant, racist, homophobic and uniteligent are.
win
Those darn uniteligent’s *Shakes fist angrily*
uniteligents*
unintelligents*
Fail.
not to mention imigratiophobes and islamophobes
Your spelling is a disgrace to the English language.
Land of the free and home of the brave, not land of the privileged majority and home of the bigoted religious assholes.
Yes.
Majority vote once forbade interracial marriage; the court had to strike that down that too as violating equal rights.
Marriages performed by the state must recognize consenting adult couples regardless of gender and regardless of religious opinions. If marriage is a purely religious – as opposed to, say, social or legal – institution, then separation of church and state demands that the government not recognize, regulate, or perform any marriages at all.
(Can you tell I was good at proofs in geometry?)
A disgrace to USA.. Sure. Just as jews were a disgrace to Germany 70 years ago.
yup death camps, not being allowed to marry basically the same
I thought it was all the morons who couldn’t spell?
What’s a descrace?
If you want to defend marriage, why not make it harder to get divorced?
boooooooooooo. you ar a descrace to the use
That sound familiar, but I can’t remember where the line comes from…… oh well.
This is an old, old graph. how did conversation here get started up again?
I do not give a crap about gays as long as they call it a civil union and NOT ‘marriage’; that implies a man and a woman…..
Actually, it implies a religious ceremony, which gay couples should be allowed to have if they are religious and can find a church or other religious institution that will agree to perform it (which frankly wouldn’t be as difficult as many people seem to believe.)
And I don’t know exactly why this thread got started again, but I am surprised you dared to show your face here after your sock puppet was revealed.
Because marriage is a christian service, and christianity is a religion that (ridiculously) condemns anyone is gay to hell. Religion isn’t right, of course, but it never has been, and shouldn’t have to change for people who are not christians. Gay people should be happy with civil partnerships. And this is coming from a devout atheist.
Matt: I take it Jews, Muslims and Hindus should also be happy with civil partnerships in your brain cell challenged world?
I notice no one ever responded to you. In his world yes…every religion except Christianity should be happy with civil partnerships. Which is ridiculous.
I love how all of these Christians on here are getting butthurt by the gays. The arguments are always the same.
‘Christianity was what this country was founded on’ …no it wasn’t take a look at the majority of the founding fathers practicing religions and you’ll see it isn’t true.
Christianity dictates that gays shouldn’t be married. It also dictates you can’t wear certain fabric for clothing and you can’t eat shellfish. Yeah, good luck with that.
My favorite…”Marriage is between a man and a woman and the constitution says so” Uh…no it doesn’t…when was the last time you read the constitution?
I don’t know why everyone is so excited to get married anyway. It wasn’t a state-run thing until whites started marrying slaves. Before the civil war all you needed was a priest to tell you you were married. Which means all you Christians are ignoring your doctrines. Don’t believe me? Where in the Bible does it say marriage is between a man, a woman, and a state-run government? It doesn’t. God doesn’t want you to have to go to the state to get permission to marry. Technically the civil partnership is how people were married in Jesus’ time. So the Gays are more Christian than you are. Which means you only want the marriage license for the tax breaks.
“no it wasn’t take a look at the majority of the founding fathers practicing religions and you’ll see it isn’t true.”
Umm, did YOU take a look at their religions? Depending on who you claim to be a founding father, they may have practiced different forms of Christianity, but they were ALL Christian, as far as I can find out. If you have other info, please share.
I’m not trying to claim they founded the country on Christianity, but their own beliefs (again, Christian beliefs) definitely played a role in their decisions.
Spade? Neil? how can I friend you guys on cheezburger?
Actually spade most of the founding fathers were either agnostic or atheist….
Or Deist, which still really isn’t the same thing as Christian.
Back up the truck there lady….. Deist implies that they actually believe in a God, right? so how is that so different from Christianity?
A Deist reads the Bible, goes by the content as written, then makes a judgement based on reason, not faith. Your first problem is a Deist believes in God, not the Trinity which is not even in the Bible. To quote Jefferson,
“No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the ancients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads…The pure and simple unity of the Creator of the universe…that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities…”
1. A Deist answers only to God.
2. Deists ask questions, they don’t just follow.
3. Deists believe that person conduct is more important than just any blind faith.
4. Deists reject revelations, magic, visions, etc.
5. Deists do not believe in any satan other than as a representation of evil.
6. Deists believe in total seperation of Church and State.
7. Deists don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant work of God.
8. Deists base truth on examination of the facts and derive truth based on that evidence. Christians claim truth then hunt for evidence to prove them right, rejecting anything that proves them wrong, even if it’s in the Bible itself.
9. Deists do not think God is an idiot. The do not believe God murdered the first born of egypt to make a point, drowned the world in any flood, etc.
thank you, you put a name on my beliefs
I still can’t find snything to support this. What I have found says that some (not most) were Deists. And of those, some were just opposed to organized religion, not necessarily the tenets of Christianity. I have also found lots of Episcopalians (Christians), Presbyterians (again, Christians), Unitarians (yep, Christians), and Congregationalists (say it with me now: Christian). Even a very few Catholics (still Christian). Again, I’m not saying they based the government on Christianity, but their beliefs definitely had an effect.
I’m pretty sure they were mostly Christians…. IN GOD WE TRUST, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, ENDOWED WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS BY THE CREATOR….
See? They’re Jesus Freaks! And, quite frankly, I’ll go with “uh” since I’ve already been unfortunate enough to live by a Jehovah’s Witness thing-y and a bunch of hobos/ladies of the night. In other words, I don’t want MORE umbrella bashings.
Eh, I still don’t understand the point of marriage. Such a vicious cycle. Love your husband/wife, love your kids, love your job…hate your husband/wife, hate your kids, hate your job…die…
It’s sad, really.
“IN GOD WE TRUST”- First placed on money during the Civil War, and adopted as a national motto in the 1950′s.
“ONE NATION UNDER GOD”- Added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1940′s.
“ENDOWED WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS BY THE CREATOR”- Okay, at least that one is actually from the founders, but still doesn’t show they were specifically Christian. As I said before, many of them were Deists, which means they believed in God, but not miracles, divine interventions, or organized religion in general.
Actually ‘under God’ wasn’t added until 1954
tl;dr
That is all.
{[_]
The Constitutional problem is that the matter is left to states. Just like the slavery issue where if any state could claim a person of color as property then that could be enforced in every state. If any one state wants to start allowing gay marriage, ALL the other states are forced to accept that as a legal document, no matter what their individual state constitutions say. THAT fact is the REAL polarizing factor, because the first state to allow it officially essentially forces it on every other state.
What we really need is the old Roman idea of “households”, where a household is almost like a little corporation, with a chief “patriarch”/”matriarch” and gets appointed to all the “big” decisions. But that creates a bigger legal problem that all adults are “created equal” in our laws eyes and marriage is the legal exception, and has been diffused over the last 40 years as less and less of a contract between people and more of a state-sanctioned “arrangement”.
Actually, that’s not true. If a couple who live in a state where same-sex marriage is not allowed get married in a state where it is, the state where they live is under no obligation to recognize that marriage (the same goes for any other marriage that would not be permitted by the state where they live, no matter what the reason.) Even if they lived in a state which allows same-sex marriage at the time of the wedding and move to one that doesn’t allow it years later, the state they move to may decide whether or not to recognize the marriage. The only situation where a state would have to recognize a marriage that would not be legal according to its own laws is when the couple do not live there, but something happens there involving a marital right, such as one spouse having to go to the hospital while traveling (in which case the other would be treated as next of kin, even though their marriage would not be recognized if they lived there.) If you’re willing to go through some minor legalese, there’s a very informative article about it linked to my name.
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at with the “households” thing, but if it means that one person in a marriage is designated as the “decision-maker”, I’m against it. Even if the couple can choose which one is in charge, rather than having it tied to gender, I really can’t see any situation where it would be beneficial to decide that at the time of marriage, rather than through discussion by both spouses when the decision is being made. I can also think of way too many situations where having one spouse designated as the sole decision-maker is just asking for abuse (particularly where money is concerned, but really every type of decision I can think of, whether financial, medical, legal, or child-related, could be problematic if one spouse’s right to help make the decision is denied.)
ow and behold,
durr, It IS in there!
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
What Gypsy said. Also, you’re arguing a point that wasn’t made; the only thing hm said about something *not* being in the Bible was,”Where in the Bible does it say marriage is between a man, a woman, and a state-run government? It doesn’t.” Unless you can point out where in the Bible it says *that*, don’t pretend you’re actually refuting any of hm’s points.
I’ll trust the words of the elders, not pretending. They really sound much wiser. And safer.
You’re still not arguing the actual point hm made, which means you’re not refuting it. You can trust the words of the elders all you want, but when you use them to argue against a point nobody made while ignoring the one they did, then yes, you are pretending. Can you, or can you not, point out where the Bible says the state should be involved in marriage?
No, there is nothing about the state and government being involved. But still I haven’t found anything promoting same gender marriage, either.
Did anyone say there was? No, the argument is that aside from an ancient cleanliness code, a story about rape and lack of hospitality that’s been twisted around to condemn homosexuals, and some letters from Paul whose translation is uncertain at best, there really isn’t anything *against* it. And even if there was something, separation of church and state says that either it’s none of the state’s business, or it’s none of the church’s. Either way, having a law based on a religious belief is wrong.
I tried to say I’m done posting here a put a link up twice and for some reason, they put my message on pending approval when I put up a link to ‘Warriors for Jesus’ on their latest message on Facebook and they never let it go through. It says nothing about this topic but has greater things in mind. Look them up and view under discussions, A powerful vision. Warriors For Jesus on Facebook.
I don’t claim to speak for all gay people, but I know this for myself:
Bullsh*t written over 2,000 years ago by a group of senile, old men trying to control their people (who were in a very different environment from ours) has absolutely NO influence on what I do with my own body nor with whom I do it. I couldn’t care less about what people in biblical times thought about homosexuals (except from an academic perspective, in which case it’s totally interesting). It is in no way relevant to my identity as an American male living in 2010. I’m going to keep on being gay. You can call me a sinner all you want, but you won’t change a thing about me. And if your god does send me to hell, I don’t want to be in heaven anyway.
People use religion to justify whatever the f*ck they want, be it slavery, racism, sexism, the list goes on and on. But each time something new pops up, people eventually see their errors of their own volition or are forced to see their errors by others. Human culture is constantly evolving. Religion is a cultural construct, and therefore it too evolves.
But I’m not waiting around for people shackled to an ancient hatred to get their act together and open their eyes. I have places to go and people to love, and I’ll be damned if anyone stops me.
Actually, heaven will be a lot nicer than hell. but I can understand.
a famous man once said something along these same lines:
I would rather go to hell than heaven: the former is home to kings, bishops, and popes. The latter is inhabitted by beggars, monks and priests.
To tell the truth, I feel the heaven/hell thing is a little messed up, because what happens in this small time slot somehow determines the afterlife. Ah, well.
P.S. what you really deserved there was a flaming, but Jesus died for that, and I am feeling extra Christian right now.
ehw, do you see the illogic of this post? You disagree with the Christian idea that our actions in this life impact our ultimate destination in the afterlife. Why would you believe in something you don’t agree with? You seem to realize that the Bible is in fact a collection of metaphors not meant to be taken at surface value. The true meaning is found deeper.
If you want, I can put my argument within a Christian framework. This obviously isn’t the same as your view on Christianity, but then again no one’s is the same as anyone else’s. That’s the beauty of interpretation. Anyway, here goes:
I’m gay. I’m happy that I’m gay. I don’t feel comfortable forming romantic relationships with women. If I tried to do so, I’d be lying to myself, the woman I’m with, and God. Ultimately, I’d end up hating myself and causing nothing but pain to those around me. God wants us to love each other. Lying to my partner about who I am is not a sign of love.
God created us all and has a plan for us. Why would He deliberately create me gay and send me to hell for it? A God of love wouldn’t do that.
The whole point of Jesus was to essentially wash away the fine print. The core message is that you must strive to live a good life, caring for others and for God. The bumps along the road are part of the experience. You’re gonna screw up. That’s just how humanity operates. But God loves you no matter what.
That’s the best I can do. I’m not a Christian, but I grew up surrounded by the religion. I just wanted to try to pull the argument out of the entirely scientific/political realm and into yours. I’m trying to meet you halfway here.
Good show, sir. *nods* And, quite frankly, as a Christian and not a Jew, I’d say the ‘Christ Takes Away All Sins Clause’ must go to anyone that isn’t *ahem* the normal Southern Baptist’s BFF.
I mean, New Testament stuff is supposedly the ‘law’ now and I’m hearing people quoting Old Testament stuff that is ‘void’. Plus, seeing how badly ‘Holy Ghost’ was mangled in translation…
Oh, well, I believe but I think ‘love the sinner, not the sin’ should be held over everyone. You don’t have to agree, but be civil. Christians are supposed be civil…
Now I’m losing my point…adios…
Leviticus chapter 20:
7: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8: Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.
10: And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12: Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.
I’d take the people who quote Leviticus a lot more seriously if they were also trying to pass laws and constitutional amendments against bacon and shrimp.
*gasp*
Wait, THAT’S why god destroyed New Orleans! It wasn’t the gays, it was the gumbo!
Shrimp and sausage go so well together! Why does sin have to be so delicious?!?! WHYYYYYYYYY?!?!?!?!?!
Yeah…I think that was about how that kind of stuff can make you seriously ill…
Pigs have a parasite in them and if pork isn’t cooked quite right, it can kill you. -Yawns- We also all used to be vegetarians. Odd how so many vegetarians are atheist…(assumption based on Liberalness)…
“I love how all of these Christians on here are getting butthurt by the gays.”
I’m Christian, and I say let the gays and lesbians marry each other. Marriage is about being with the one you love forever, even though some people I’ve talked to seem to think it’s just about procreating.
I’d take those who argue it’s for procreation more seriously if they also wanted to make it illegal for women past menopause and sterile men and women from getting married, and if they also wanted to outlaw any form of birth control. If it’s just for procreation, then only fertile young people should be allowed to marry, and they should only have sex if they want a baby.
Ugh. Marriage exists in other religions.
It doesn’t make his point any less valid. Civil unions aren’t illegal in most states, but for some reason thats not good enough. Gays wanting religions to acknowledge gay marriage as being okay is like me demanding a Hindu Priest to perform a christian wedding ceremony. Its not in their religion, get over it.
The simpler way to put it is that gay people have just as much right to demand that religions accept their behavior, as religions have right to demand that gay people stop what they consider innapropriate behavior. Both parties do something that the other finds offensive.
Please do a little research on ‘Civil Unions’ before you insist that it’s ‘good enough’. And then consider how you would feel if yous heterosexual marriage worked the same. “Sure we’re married! As long as we don’t change states.” And that’s just for starters.
If I were married I could care less if it was recognized by state, church, or family. Its a sacred thing between you and the person you love that is also older than any religion or government. If you both decide to be married you are. But for some thats apparently not good enough.
No offense to any of you, but you’re all completely missing the point. We couldn’t care less if you or any religion recognizes our marriages, the point is we need our GOVERNMENT to in order to fully protect our families. This is the lie the religious right is feeding you. We really don’t care if you want us in your churches. In fact, if this is such a problem for you, we’d rather stay out, thank you very much.
This is not about how YOU feel about gay marriage from a moral standpoint, this is about my RIGHT to protect my family should the unthinkable happen. It’s about choosing to spend the rest of my life with the person I am in love with, and having laws set up to respect that relationship and allow for us to have the same rights as any other civilly recognized relationship (there are about 1,400 of them). For a list, please see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
This is so hateful toward religions. Christians won’t hurt you, but if that’s the worst of your fears, then you would hate muslims.
The government won’t help you because it’s illegal. That’s part of living in America. You have the right to defend yourself, but if you believe it’s OUR intolerance that cause you suffering, then let me tell you how many Christians died to “intolerence” when the Roman emperors descided that they wanted to be worshipped as God.
If you’re gay that’s okay, but you can’t marry.
back then it was “you’re a Christian? that’s good, we need to feed the lions.”
Intolerence my butt.
I’m sorry, but where the f**k do you get off and who do you think you are telling me who I can or can’t marry?
Wait, you’re telling me i can’t marry my computer desk? But i’m in love with my computer desk! I love it so i can marry it!1!!1!!!!!!
You can marry anyone you like. Marriage is between two members of the opposite sex.
+50 to this guy.
A computer desk can’t love or consent, nor does it have any constitutional rights. People have rights, can feel love, and can consent or decline. A computer desk is NOT a person.
blah blah blah. it’s just another ‘civil union.’
No one care about how the Christians were persecuted, that has NOTHING to do with gay marriage. Gay marriage rights aren’t about changing what Christians think about gays, its about being able to have insurance for your spouse, being able to have rights or a say when your spouse is dying in the hospital. America is about equal rights you idiot.
I was just saying we would think twice before doing the same.
Terrible to say not to care about some one’s persecutions as Christians when you’re wanting to some one to care about the gays’ persecutions. But, I agree 100 percent that gay marriage has NOTHING to do with Christianity or rather any psalm of the Gospel and shouldn’t ever be expected to be.
When someone is using the persecution Christians experienced under Roman rule to claim that nobody can fault them for persecuting others now, I think “No one care[s] about how the Christians were persecuted” is a pretty fair response, actually. Even if it’s not an excuse for what they’re doing, saying “Yeah, well a couple thousand years ago Christians were persecuted worse!” whenever somebody says they don’t like the way they’re being treated is childish at best. And that’s coming from a Christian, albeit one who is in favor of gay marriage.
Well, I also believe if people don’t like living with the laws they have around them then they can go somewhere where they can like the government / state laws to live. ‘Gay pride’ things have gone around and came back and forth since forever and as far as it being favored, I believe there are many polls and votes going on and all around it always sounds the same. The majority will vote against it. Has it not been?
Sometimes people should and do fight to change the laws in the places where they live. That’s what all of those amendments to the Constitution are for.
If everybody who hadn’t liked the laws as they were had left instead of trying to change them, we would still have slavery and nobody except white male land-owners would be allowed to vote. Heck, we’d probably still be part of England, since rebelling and forming your own country seems like a pretty extreme form of changing the law where you live.
As far as “gay pride” and polls and such, it has actually been steadily gaining approval for quite a while now. Click on my name for details, but it’s gone from roughly 10% in favor and over 70% against to virtually tied in the last 22 years.
and if you’re worried about being unable to defend your family do the christian thing and BUY A GUN. It’s what Jesus said, so if you can’t, sell your cloak so you can get it.
Okay, seriously? Your ignorance is showing. “the christian thing and BUY A GUN”? Since when has it been Christian to shoot people? Where in the Bible does it say “GUNS ARE AWESOME GO GET ONE”? And come on, Christianity has hurt so many people in the past. What do you think the Crusades were? They killed millions in the name of the “one true religion.” Don’t try to stick your religion up people’s asses. Gay people want the right to marry so that they’ll be able to stay and take care of each other if one of them is in the hospital. Wouldn’t you want that right for your spouse? I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you people to understand this concept. And yeah, Christians were persecuted… for a tiny amount of time compared to the centuries that they went back and persecuted everyone else! And the founding fathers? They were Deists. NOT Christians. Go read a history book. And ACCURATE history book.
I meant solely for self defense purposes. You are obviously one of those pessimistic people who looks at guns and thinks “dangerous murdering devices” while people are unable to defend themselves because they don’t have any. The founding fathers WERE deists; they believed in a God. Not too different from us, except that perhaps they realized God is to awesome to be truly described and decided to make a religion out of it. Deism is on the line with Christianity, believe me.
And by the way, Jesus really did say that; “If you do not own a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” I am sad to admit I could not find that verse with my concordance. but it’s there; I memorized it. It’s our right to bear arms.
last I checked, accidental firing/misfiring/mishandling of guns causes more injuries annually than intentional firing of guns. also, since when does a gun stop everything that could put you in the hospital? try saving yourself from falling off a building, getting into a car accident, being attacked by a metal dragon, etc with a gun. (that last example might be possible to stop with some heavy weaponry, but who carries more than a handgun on a daily basis?)
hmmm, so the deists are like christians? First of all, lots of christian branches are very different from each other (ex: Episcopal vs. Christian Scientists; Catholic vs. Quaker) so you may not want to refer to all Christians as “us” seeing as many would disagree with you. On top of that, here are some other monotheistic religions, to name a few: Islam, Judaism, Buddhism (in a way), Sikhism, Druze, Bahá’í, Zoroastrianism…By your logic Deism is just as similar to those as it is to Christianity. Next time, maybe you should think before you say something that stupid.
because guns are so brilliant in defence purposes, all of us in england who dont have guns jsut get robbed constantly and cant do anything to stop it, we jsut wish we were in the US where we can buy guns and jsut shoot up schools
-ksdlf
I’m sorry, which side are you on? brilliant point about England, btw. guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
He also said “Turn the other cheek.”
I believe that was a joke you stupid troll. And what business is it of yours what I shove in peoples asses? If I want to shove my religion in another mans ass apparently I have every right to do so.
And I believe the expression is “to shove something down ones throat.”
Based on ehw’s response, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t. He is pretty much Poe’s law in action, though, so it’s hard to be sure.
Poe’s law? WTF is that??
lol at Nikolai, though. good job, man!
Poe’s Law: “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”
I’m having real trouble telling if you’re basically just a straw man being set up by someone who supports gay rights to make the other side look bad, or you really believe the things you say and you’re just *that* bad at debating.
+ over 9000 to this guy.
you are amazing and exactly right! If two people love each other and want to share a life and family together, they should be able to and have rights as a legal couple, without interference from ignorant christians, or from anyone else for that matter.
why would christians buy guns? they’re not anywhere in the Bible.
If you do not own a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Jesus said that; swords may not be practical anymore, but the modern equivalent is a gun.
Jesus ‘said’ that because he and his followers were facing persecution and serious danger. The last time I checked, you weren’t preaching reformist views in a religious state.
The “sell your cloak and buy a sword” thing also has to be taken with a pinch of salt, and Jesus healed the sword-wound of a high-priest inflicted by one of his disciples (in the Olive Garden) and instructed them not to fight.
Having got that out the way, can I point out that basing your way of life on the Bible is one of the worst suggestions I have ever heard; a hateful and contradiction-filled narrative with some funky rules about clothes and some messed up views on gays and women- have fun with that.
You should hate muslims? No. You should hate (if you’re petty enough to) extremists, no matter their religion. The Quarn does not teach violence, rather extremists, probably psychopaths by nature, choose to use it as a unfounded excuse for their actions. Also remember that Christians have killed many times claiming it was the work of their God. And its still Intolerance. Equality is the aim of modern soceity, and its definition needs to be stuck to.
Hmmm….
Two words:
Spanish Inquisition.
That’s just ONE example.
hm let me think. it was at least 16 centuries ago. the world has changed. the western world isn’t a theocracy anymore. seriously, what’s your point with this comment?
maybe we should kill all the jews then: they killed jesus, didn’t they? arf someone thaught of it before me, too bad.
You just want the tax breaks.
yeah. there are no gay people, just dudes wanting tax cuts.
I say this is genius: make up gay people, make it such a touchy subject noone dares rebut, and then make save money while everybody pities you!
Yeah, I have sex with guys…but its for the tax breaks, I swear….
Oh, right, I meant if I we were allowed to have all the tax breaks heterosexual couples in my state have.
Yes. It Is about government peeps. The legal benefits of being married. Banning gay marriage is kinda retarded. I mean, the country was built on being able to be able to enjoy life, that is, to pursue happiness. And what gives the government the right to spike down gay marriage? Government was set up to help the people, for popular sovereignty, the will of the human beings that hold the nation together.
Patriotic messages aside, No one cares what you do. I couldn’t care less if you married a member of your gender or a fat chick. What really makes gay marriage so wrong? Is it one mother fudging chromosome? Why yes, I guess it is.
This just in. God doesn’t care. If he did, he would’ve stopped Little Boy, Fat Man, Auschwitz, slavery, Afghanistan, the bubonic plague, etc. If he/she/it didn’t stop those things, why would you have to conform to a Bible supposedly written in his will? And where you there when it was written? No? I was. Guess what, it was written by trollz (: And no, I am not gay, nor does that matter to you [the reader] really.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be precise. Besides, in Article 4, section two in the constitution, which happens to be “Rights of citizens, it says NOTHING about marrige of ANY type, Gay, straight, or otherwise. The constitution is HORRIBLY sexist, but it was mostly about the effin govt. Get used to it.
I agree with you mostly except for your saying that god doesn’t care.
He does care, that’s why there is a heaven and hell. The point of faith is to make you strive to achieve that paradise without him telling you or forcing you to do things. He can tell you how to get there, but he can’t force you to take action.
What proof do you have of a heaven and a hell?
I think religion is an example of “Prove it’s true.” “Prove it’s not true.”
You can’t prove that there is no God.
You also can’t prove that one religion (or lack of religion) is better/more correct than another religion.
I can’t see you, but I know you exist. How would you like to be doubted?
You know he exists because of the evidence in front of you. Religion is, often, about ignoring evidence- not using it form opinions.
So God created an infinite Universe, just for us as a test on this one tiny rock to see whether we could get to Paradise? We occupy one tiny planet orbiting one tiny star (relative to the rest of the Universe). That’s a lot of wasted space. Especially if we’re supposed to go somewhere else after we die.
Maybe there’s life on other planets! Aliens are people too, you know!
Agreed!
Great Idea!
…The surest sign of intelligent life is that it hasn’t made contact with us yet.
-Calvin
Dear ehw,
Your quotation of Calvin was genius. Thank you.
thx I am a huge fan.
Since I’m sure many people won’t bother to click the link, here is a small selection from NOLO:
Some of these vary from state to state, but the list typically includes:
Tax Benefits
* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
* Creating a “family partnership” under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
* Inheriting a share of your spouse’s estate.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
* Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
* Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse — that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.
Government Benefits
* Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
* Receiving veterans’ and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
* Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
* Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse’s employer.
* Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
* Receiving wages, workers’ compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
* Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
* Living in neighborhoods zoned for “families only.”
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
* Receiving family rates for health, homeowners’, auto, and other types of insurance.
* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
* Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
* Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
* Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
* Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
* Receiving crime victims’ recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
* Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
* Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
Not if they don’t have the same legal rights and responsibilities, no.
you’re right, it isn’t good enough. know why? because even you would be pissed if you got married only to discover that your marriage wasn’t good enough to grant you all the legal rights and responsibilities that everyone else’s marriages granted them. If you both decide to be married you are, that’s true enough. But the state sees it differently. To be LEGALLY married, you have to file the appropriate paperwork, and get a marriage license. Gay people do not have equal access to that process, which is discriminatory, unjust, and unconstitutional.
Marriage: The legal Unity between a man and a woman.
You know what’s disgusting? whenever I see a demotivational poster you guys don’t like, some gay person just makes a demotivational of that and lables it as “intolerant bigotry: it’s on the internet, too”. whenever someone posts a poster like that bashing the Christians, we never reply, and I know it as a fact, I have seen every poster to date. (it was time consuming)
Gay “marriage” (if you can even call it that) is unconstitutional. The constitution supports marriage, THE UNIION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. If you don’t like it too bad.
Actually, marriage is never mentioned once in the Federal constitution, and there is no universally agreed upon definition for the word marriage. Many define it a a legal union between two consenting adults. The attempt to define marriage as applying only to heterosexual partnerships in a constitution is applying the moral restrictions of a few religious groups to the population as a whole. That is against the constitution. If you don’t like it, too bad. Our government is not here to make you feel secure in all of you moral foibles, it is here to guarantee that all citizens receive equal treatment under the law. That means protecting minorities against majority derision. Things like gay marriage are what the constitution exists to protect.
Look it up in the dictionary. and by the way, marriage is a religious institution, and if you gays all want seperation of church and state, then that means no marriage in the city hall, a government building, and if the church says no, too bad. But that’s not the way it is. and the government gets their definition of marriage from us, so you are pretty much screwed anyway you decide to look at it.
Honestly, the biggest problem is that the government doesn’t recognize gay couples as a ‘pair’, so they lose benefits that ‘married’ couples would get. If the gay people could ‘marry’ and call it something completely different, yet still be recognized by the government as a pair, I think everyone would be happy.
I am against gay marriage and advocate this myself.
@ Moo, there are civil unions, which are designed to do just as you describe. Unfortunately, the problem lies in intolerant idiots who dont want gays to have those rights as couples either. Also, I don’t believe civil unions offer all of the rights that marriages do, especially seeing as they’re only legal in a few states. The main thing is that the people who don’t want gays to marry are mostly people who believe homosexuality in general is wrong, and they think we should “fix” gays or suppress all of their rights. The real issue here is the intolerant bastards trying to control love-lifes.
Actually, there are plenty of churches across America who will marry gays. Look at Unitarian Universalism and you’ll see.
This, this, this! Unitarians aren’t the only ones, either; there are even some Baptist churches that would be happy to marry gays if it were legal.
My parents belong to a Lutheran church in Connecticut that performs same-sex marriages.
I did. The definition varies between dictionaries. Your definition is not the only nor the most correct one.
If marriage is a religious institution, then 1. athiests shouldn’t be allowed to be married, 2. if gay members of a religion that does allow marriage between same-sex couples decide to be married according to that religion, their unions should be exactly as recognised as heterosexual ones in other religions, and 3. marriage should have absolutely no secular, legal status.
So, basically, your argument is pretty much screwed any way you decide to look at it.
Atheists aren’t using ‘perverted love.’ (Bible says that)
atheists can suck on my sword. =={XXXXXXXXXXX>
So what? Their unions are outside religion, therefore, if marriage is the sole property of religion, their unions should not be valid.
Atheists do not mangle the defintion of marriage.
HAMMER TIME!
|\
=========[|]>
[_]
~~~~~~~~~>-< right on the head of the serpent!
If marriage is religious-only, then their union not only “mangles” the definition of marriage, but outright defies it.
I never said religious people only.
I get so many replies.
My guess is that you mistook us saying “marriage is a religious institution” for “only religious people can marry”.
this is more fun than social networking.
If marriage is a religious institution that can thereby dictate the forms in which marriage is allowed even to those people who do not agree with the religious doctrines, then marriage without religion is impossible.
If ONE religion can dictate what is and is not a valid marriage, and it refuse to grant validity to one pair that is (arguably) condemned by their religion, it is logical for it to also refuse validity to another pair that is (definitely) condemned by their religion.
Don’t worry, I’m not bothering with your more asinine comments. Saves a lot of time.
That doesn’t mean NON-religious people can’t be married. Marriage is a religious institution, and just like Christianity, It excepts all men and women. But you can’t have a man and a man together, marriage is save for a man and woman. We still except gay people; and a gay can mary a woman and a lesbian can marry a man. I hope this makes sense. I have heard that there are gay Christians, but I have never seen one.
(I once read this verse that said that homosexuals will not inherit the earth, though.)
Marriage isn’t a religious institution, though.
I don’t believe you.
the Christians have evidence that they find unbreachable, and so do you. I guess we can’t agree until someone breaches the others evidence, which will most definitly not include saying “there is no God. period.”
The thing that makes marriage not a religious institution is that you don’t need religion to get married.
So, since I’m atheist, I can’t get married? Well f*ck. When the world stopped being based on religion, nations (secular ones mostly, that is the USA as well) opened up marriage up to everyone, atheist, CHristian, Jewish, ect.
Since when has marriage been a religious institution? People were getting married long before there was religion. As you said, if two people say they’re married, then they’re married. So you just contradicted yourself.
The government is actually based primarilly on the idea of popular sovereignty, or majority rule. So that’s why when we vote, the dominant political, religious, racial, or moral persuasion always wins. So if gay marriage keeps getting shot down as acceptable, it is not because of a few select groups of people. It is because most of the population does not want it and is not comfortable with it.
3/5ths clause was also in the constitution, so should we go put all them black homies in chains and count them as 3/5ths of a person, which their owner obtains the vote for?
that was in the bible too, also no shrimp and no beards or tattoos.
Again, marrige is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION! GIVE IT A REST!
hahaha also in the bible; you can sell your daughter into slavery; you should not shave; if someone cheats on their spouse, both should be killed; handicapped/blind/deaf/etc. people cant be anywhere holy; non-christians should be stoned; dont have multiple crops in the same field; dont wear clothes made of more than one fabric; if a city worships another god, kill everyone in it and raze and burn it to the ground.
Haha the funny thing is that was in the old testament WE’RE NOT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. We’re in the new testament. Why did you think God sent Jesus to Earth? He sent him to change the rules and the boneheads who are foolish and read the Bible without no intention of understanding it will never understand it. Gays to me is sick and disgusting. Why? One “man” is acting like a “woman” and one “man” acts like a “man”. Same thing applies to Lesbos. And people can’t be gay automatically by choice something has to happen in their life to have to change. That something is Sin.
All of that was in the Old Testament too. Why is it that eating shellfish is okay now because Jesus changed that rule, but loving someone of the same sex is not?
Hate to burst your bubble, but that was done in the defense of slaves. See, otherwise each slave would be counted as a full person which would result with more Southern people controlling the government, since it was all about population. The North decided to be sneaky and do that, just so more Northern abolitionists could save slaves. I’m not an expert, but that was the main idea, I think.
Plus, please speak proper English. Using slang like that degrades yourself.
The founding fathers owned slaves that they did not consider to be “men”, definitions change over time; because your dictionary says something doesn’t mean the meaning will always remain the same.
And this is coming from a straight, white guy.
To Crzycoco:
Have you met any gay people before? Yes, some are more effeminate than others. But not all of them. Hell, I know some pretty queeny straight guys.
Actually, by putting “man” and “woman” in quotation marks, you bring up a very important point. Gender isn’t a function of biology. There are indeed distinct physiological differences (hormones, sex organs, secondary sexual characteristics, etc.). That’s something distinct from “gender.”
Gender is actually culturally defined. What is “manly” in America is different from what is “manly” in Europe/in Africa/in the Middle East. It’s all a performance. We learn what makes a “woman” a “woman” as we grow up by seeing all these cultural structures: pink, Barbie, fashion, domesticity. We think these things are womanly because we are TOLD they are womanly.
In many tribal cultures, women don’t cook. That is seen as a manly duty. But in America, for a long time, the kitchen was (and still remains) the woman’s domain. How do you explain these differences?
So I’ve known I like other guys since I was around 5. What sin did I commit at that age to completely switch my sexual attraction? “Sin” is just an easy excuse people use when they can’t come up with their own valid reason to dislike something or someone.
FYI: I’ve been gay my whole life, I don’t act like a “woman,” and the men I have sex with don’t act like “women” either. Also, biologically speaking, gay men tend to have higher levels of testosterone than straight men. That technically makes us more “manly,” at least according to your logic. Explain that.
Heck, I’m straight, and married to a straight man, but in some ways I’m “manly” and he’s “womanly” (I deal with bugs and spiders, he does the vacuuming; he hates watching sports, I hate romantic comedies; when it comes to disciplining our daughter, it’s not “wait until daddy gets home”, it’s “do what I tell you to or I’ll call mommy”, etc.) There are other ways where we fit the stereotypical gender roles better, but I wouldn’t say either one of us is 100% either way.
bionelly, I think you might be my sister from another mister. Woo for breaking gender norms! Also, where did you get your husband? I want one of whatever model it is you have. IKEA usually doesn’t stock husbands who speak English.
HECK YEAH.
And while we’re here, let’s just say that the last time this happened, the gay people who were calling us “homophobes” were just being heterophobes!
So death to the next dry bundle of sticks that mutters “homophobe”!!!
Homophobe.
Sorry, had to.
BANG!!!!!
jk :B
Homophobic fvcktard
heterophobic a$$muncher. wham.
|\
=======[|]>
[_]
and stab!
==[XXXXXXX> X(
Um, no. No one is being a heterophobe, you idiot. I’m straight. I like men. I support gay marriage. I am not a homophobe, like you.
I’m Hetrosexual. And guess what? You’re still an ass wipe Homophobe.
A$$-MUNCHING HETEROPHOBE.
I bet the graphjam moderaters let that “a$$ wipe” through because of the agenda they have, which confirms it’s existence!
I call bullshit. You don’t get ‘heterophobia’. You get some gays who would go squick upon the sight of a naked woman, but then don’t you get straight guys who go squick at the thought of gay sex? No one has ever tried to force heterosexuality out of people, have they?
Uhm. Nooo. Marriage has been a _civil_ ceremony for a while now, and has a whole set of legal benefits attached to it. You can keep your religion, I don’t want any part of it. I, and other gay/lesbian folk like me, want the same legal protections as all other married couples. That’s all.
Because civil marriages don’t offer federal rights and benefits and whatnot, just state rights. And have you ever heard someone say “Honey, will you civil union me?” No. It implies that they SHOULD be kept separate, even though allowing gay marriage would not affect straight ones.
You’re an idiot. “Gay people should be happy with civil partnerships?” Really? That’s like saying African Americans should have been happy with their officially segregated schools/public facilities/water fountains/etc. I mean…we could have just COMPLETELY denied them access to these things, right? It’s also worth noting that these “civil partnerships” you mention don’t exist in that many states. There are 5 states that have civil unions that grant the same legal rights as marriage, and 4 that have some sort of arrangement that grants fewer rights.
And this isn’t about forcing any religion to bless same-sex unions or perform same-sex marriages–we have a first amendment that guarantees the free exercise of religion, even for the crazies. So no one would have to perform a gay marriage if they don’t want to, for the same reason that no one has to perform ANY marriage if they don’t want to.
Sorry, but you can’t get away with the comparison to the civil rights struggle with african americans. Marriage is a not human right, it’s a religious institution.
On the subject on unions, or even marriage, if your state does not allow, or have an equal alternative for, gay marriage, then you can do something about it. You can use your vote to change laws, change the people who make laws, or vote with your feet and move to a state that suits your needs.
This subject should not be touched at a federal level, and by that, I also mean any benefits for marriage as well. States, however, can ban/legalize what they like, as permitted by the state’s constitution.
I have no problem with individual churches choosing to proceed according to their doctrines. But that doesn’t mean the law should force people not of those churches to adhere to them. If athiests can get married, in a totally religionless union with exactly the same rights, responsibilities and status as the religious, why can’t homosexuals? Some churches will refuse to perform the ceremony for people not of their faith – fair enough – but they can still expect the same secular legal status.
We meet again.
And So the firestorm begins!!!!!!
Gay people have all the same writes we do. They can marry people of the opposite sex, but the fundamentals of marriage state that it is wrong to have same sex unions. Our laws represent those fundamentals, so by proposing that guys marry in spite of those laws, you have published a work that instigates people to fight against the law, and if I remember correctly from my time learning about laws in scholl, that is a misuse of the free press and a crime!!! You’re asking the government to give gays special legal status, which allows them to marry each other even though it’s illegal!!!!
Sometimes life isn’t fair; and don’t say you’re trying to eliminate the laws that provent gay marriage, because that is even worse, that you would remove laws for you’re own pleasure.
Maybe you should go back to “scholl,” ehw.
oh sh!t!
You forgot to make an actual logical arguement!
you need to get that taken care of right away!
I don’t have to make a logical argument, in this case. It’s not worth my time, and your incoherent rambling didn’t make the least bit of sense. Thus, there’s nothing to argue. You’ve done your own cause a disservice throughout this thread. Maybe you should buy a dictionary and leave the logic to the folks who are capable.
well, maybe if I weren’t a poopoo head I would stop making excuses!
Wow, you’re stupid.
Wow, I agree. And possibly 11.
Sure, in the majority of Christianity, homosexuality is a sin, but, according to Christianity, so is not being a Christian.
And yet, if all the mosques and synagogues and such in America were destroyed, I don’t think there would be a person in the WORLD who would be pissed off.
One may not like homosexuality, but they exist and they should have a right to marry like heterosexuals can.
Well, since you fail at logic, no logical argument is required as rebuttal. You have no concept of marriage and its history. Your views on marriage are completely narrow-minded and fundamentalist Christian-centric. In your argument, if there were a religion out there that allowed same-sex marriages, then it should be allowed in the United States.
Also, the issue by nature cannot be a religious one in the courts, because of separation of church and state. The law does not care if a marriage is performed under any religious pretext at all. It is the same for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists and any one else.
The truth is, you are a complete and utter moron which knows NOTHING of this mater. In other words, you’re just another common troll. When gay marriage is finally legalized in this country, I hope it really, really bothers you, you ignorant f*ck. Kthxbai.
I recognize that I have no say in what other religions believe. you screwed up when you though I said the opposite. YOU fail at logic, you ignorant d1ldo chomping piece of sh!t.
oh, and by the way, the trend here, as I see it, is that one anti gay says something stupid, he goes off to do some more stupid stuff. someone replies to him, and in turn, a different pro gay comes down on him. this trend continues, the same anti gay responding, with the person who originally said the stupid thing never coming back, instead letting others try to fix his worthless little arguement. Don’t believe me? look down the page. You are an A$$basket, but won’t you be suprised when you stand before God and think “Crud, they WERE right!”
You fail at reading comprehension, logic, spelling, typing, and English composition. Your inability to perform any sort of rational thought is so massive it is a wonder your skull does not implode.
If you’ll notice, with one exception, I’ve only been responding to you, the troll, out of sheer boredom. I think you’ve been fired up enough, as you’ve reached a really hilarious frenzy.
Though, I am not going to play at this all day, as there is no hope of you ever making any progress. Gay marriage will be legal. You came flame the internet all you like, go on a rampage, cry, or hold cardboard signs on a street corner, I don’t care, but it will become legal and there is nothing you can do about it.
I have some bad news for you; these are the points you made:
1) I fail at reading comprehension.
2)I am a troll.
3) Gay marriage will be legal (without explanation as to how that will happen) and it’s all because I’m a troll.
now let’s look at the post before:
1) I fail at logic.
2) Semi-intelligent answer, marred by your stupidity.
3) Apparently, nothing but insults.
Troll? well, takes one to know one.
Oh and when I say FAIL I mean literally. You made 6 sections, which I gave numbers to above, you got 1 of them to look like it was intelligent. your grade is about 16%-17%, you flunked, you literally FAILED, and it takes a real moron to do that.
Alright, Gay marriage will happen because it is an argument about the rights of a minority. You’ve been babbling on about people trying to ruin christianity. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. Christians were once persecuted, by have you ever heard about the crusades?
A ‘minority’ would wrongly imply racial difference from the majority. And that’s my problem with homosexuals. Just because you are different on the inside doesn’t give you the right to p1ss and moan. If it did, then technically Christians would be a minority. And that hasn’t happened. A minority would be the native Americans; they share a heritage and similar physical characteristics. HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT A MINORITY, MULTIPLE HERITAGES AND NATIONALITIES CAN BE HOMOSEXUALS, SO STFU. And screw, might I add, you!!!
@ehw
I guess women aren’t a minority either (politically), since they aren’t another race. Oh, and the handicapped. Anyone can be handicapped (racially), so they aren’t a minority, so there’s no reason to protect them. Ditto with the poor, for that matter, and children.
I think you should do some reading on what “minority” means – it’s not always about race.
Homosexuals can be composed of all those you just mentioned.
Yes, they can. And women can be all of them, and handicapped people, and so on. Heck, there are probably poor, handicapped lesbian children of every race. That still doesn’t mean “minority” refers exclusively to race.
ehw I love you. Not gay love, but you are full of entertainment!
What you say is true to me. Homosexuals are not born that way and are not stuck that way. Its just statistically unlikely that they would be able to be hetero (for lack of desire, persistence, understanding, or some other behavioral problem). That to me makes it a temporary inconvenience. Race doesn’t change, and all of those other items in the list are PHYSICAL ANOMOLIES that often require medical procedures to correct. Be careful what you call the group, because minority in that sense means it is an ailment to be corrected like a handicap. You can’t change your ancestry, but you can fix a broken leg.
Perhaps with some more medical research we can fix more complex problems with the brain. Maybe homosexuality is one of them.
So, wait, being female is a physical anomaly? How about religion? Somone can convert from one religion to another, but religious minorities are still recognized. Should Jews or Muslims be “fixed”? Being handicapped is the *only* thing on that list that could be categorized as “PHYSICAL ANOMOLIES that often require medical procedures to correct, ” so your statement is incorrect. The word “minority” does not carry any connotation of “defect”, it simply means “a part of a population differing esp. from the dominant group in some characteristics (as race, sex, or national origin) and often subject to differential treatment.”
Thats a good argument! So perhaps homosexuals are a minority. Religion is protected by free speech, though. That free speech doesn’t extend into arenas where harm may be caused to the public. I have theories and am sure I can cite plenty of studies that could tie into how homosexuality would harm the public, and I’m sure you could counter with as many arguments. So, only time could tell. The problem is that if gay marriage is bad it affects the lives of my children, which I cannot accept. Even if it were a 10% chance that bad things would happen in my own child’s life, it is not an acceptable risk to me. “Bad things” refers to anything that lessens my child’s capacity for happiness.
And if banning gay marriage is bad, that alos affects the life of my child. Really, I can’t see any way that allowing gay marriage would be bad for my daughter if it turns out that she is straight; it simply won’t apply to her, and at worst, if she ends up with opinions that are different from mine, she’ll have to live with the fact that someone somewhere is in a marriage she disagrees with. If it turns out that she is a lesbian, though, I want her to have all the same rights straight people do, including the right to get married to someone she loves, and have that marriage include all the rights, privileges and protections that provides. That seems like it would have a much greater impact on her life.
So if making gay marriage legal influences your child to be gay, you would rather they be able to get married gay instead of preventing homosexuality in the first place. My fear is that in being gay, there is less of a capacity for happiness. They can’t have children between the lovers. You would have to convince me that the statistical majority would be just as happy being raised by two adults that are not their progenitors as those that are.
raising biological children with my lover provides me with a great capacity for happiness. I want my children to have that same opportunity. I also want grandchildren. If that means I must control their environment, then I will do so until they are ready to make their own decisions. The environment influences behaviors, desires, values, and beliefs. I don’t want to sacrifice the happiness of many future generations for the sake of those few that will have no living remnant of their love. Homosexual relationships have no future concern. They won’t be good heterosexual role models.
ah, and in the great state of California they also control the education of children. I think they’re making it more difficult to choose what is taught. Something like you must have a degree or certificate or something to homeschool.
Yeah, we have it pretty bad here in California. The way you fight turning gay is to practice slapping back the notions whenever they come. make it a habit. it’ll be easier.
You know what I really like? that d1cknose Sinistrad decided to stop arguing here now that he has been shown to be the hopeless failure he really is. He just lets his friends try to repair his hopeless little arguement here after he scored an F at life. you guys were nice to talk to, too bad Sinistrad started following the trend of leaving whatever arguement he entered halfway through. Ya here that? I can here him weeping in a puddle of fear!
that is, hear* not here*. I don’t need more ‘scholling’ LOL
There is plenty of evidence that homosexuality is biological, evolutionarily advantageous, and “natural”. There is very little, if any, evidence that homosexuality is significantly optional, nor detrimental, disadvantageous, or undesirable to individuals and society outside of social impacts (i.e. all the “down sides” of homosexuality would go away if people were more accepting). That includes reproduction, as many homosexuals have children.
Moreover, the fact that homosexuality is biological means that the only likely impact it will have on children is that people who are naturally homo- or bisexual are more likely to be open about it.
Being with the person one loves also provides a great capacity for happiness. Raising children that happen to not be the offspring of both parents has little overall capacity to decrease happiness – as demonstrated by all the people who choose to adopt despite being fully able to breed on their own.
To Yodoleheehoo:
I’d be curious to see these sources you claim that paint homosexuality as damaging to the public. I won’t accept things based on opinions or religious doctrines. Give me examples with hard, scientific evidence that proves gay is harmful to anyone.
As for my proof: check out any modern psychological studies on sexual orientation. Here’s something quite interesting: it’s a study done on, among other things, what happens when people undergo “treatment” to change their sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
If you don’t want to read the whole thing, there’s an abstract at the beginning. Basically, the researchers found that not only is it not effective, it also often results in psychological harm. If sexual orientation were indeed a “temporary inconvenience,” it would be easy to change. Check out the study. Really interesting stuff.
About race: race is a cultural construction, too. The categories we use to compartmentalize people into different races (skin tone, hair type, facial structure, etc.) represent a fraction of a sliver of a percent of all the genes that make up the human genome. You’re likely to be more genetically related to someone of a different race than someone of your own.
“Race” is a word devoid of real meaning. Something more appropriate would be “cultural ethnicity.” You can have a cultural identity related to ethnicity. Race, not so much. Racially, I’m white. I’m a mix of German, Scottish, and various other European nationalities. My family has been in America for several centuries. Why would I feel a stronger connection with some white guy who lives in Germany than with my black neighbor who I practically grew up with?
Hahahaahahaha, come on, all these different religions, all with no proof that would hold up in any court of law and you’re betting that you’res is the right one. I think including different views on religion (such as Christians who aggree with gays) you’ve got more chance of winning the lottery. So when you die, and f**k all happens I hope you enjoy thinking ……………….
BTW– there are several religions that allow same-sex marriage including reform Judaism and Quakers.
Quakers, really? I had no idea o.o runs to check wikipedia… haha
plus lots of christians, like episcopalians and some baptists and other protestants. Even a lot of catholics, it’s really just crazy ones who are against it.
Oh my jebus ehw.
Ur the kind of person i dont like >:/
and you prolly dont care. But whatever. I dont know too much about the legal stuff and whatever, but at least im not closed minded.
Don’t care.
==|XXXXXXXX> stab. that’s for manipulating the name of God.
I’ve been reading all these comments and I can’t help but notice yours. To sit here on this forum and constantly say ignorant things..you must be so miserable in your daily life. It’s sad. You use your faith as a crutch to justify your hateful ways. I’m praying for YOU. A closed, bigoted heart isn’t a healthy one.
The right in question is “the right to marry the person you love”, not “the right to marry according to the doctrines of a non-universal faith”. Forcing people to marry people they don’t love seems very much against the teachings of Christ to me, who had a lot more to say about love than about condemnation of homosexuals.
Since when has it been a crime to argue for the change of laws? Man, Martin Luther King was one Hell of a criminal, then.
It’s not for my own pleasure, as I’m straight. It is for social justice. Something, again, Christ was rather fond of.
Jesus is God. Get it through your dang head! (someone already mentioned this, but what the heck.)
I’ll pound it in. BAM!
^
========[|]>
[_]
Hammer it!
When did I ever say otherwise? In fact, I don’t believe I’ve actually used the word “Jesus” nor “God” at all.
Um, since when was Jesus God? Jesus is God’s son, born of the Virgin Mary. It’s funny when Christians try to argue that the Bible is right, and then get the Bible wrong.
This was actually a big debate in early Christianity: was Christ all human, all God, or both? They ended up settling on half-half. But, it is accepted that Jesus Christ, God and the “holy spirit” (did you know that was originally a goddess, consort of God? I much prefer that version) are “aspects” of a united divinity. The three-leaf clover is often used as an analogy: the three leaf lobes combine to make the one clover leaf.
I’m so glad that us atheists got the right to think freely instead of being “hammered” the truth.
ehw, there’s a vast catalogue of things you and I need to adress- but for now- let’s deal with a couple of important points:
1. A minority is “A racial, religious, political, national, or other group thought to be different from the larger group of which it is part.” The LGBT community make up less far than half of the US population- so they are a minority.
2. My elder brother is transgender- and he is legally allowed to marry a girl- chromosonally speaking, your country already allows same-sex marriages.
3. You cannot expect serious responses with your level of spelling and grammar- many of the intelligent and erudite members of the site (who I do not be among) will simply pass your comment by with a shake of the head.
4. Your assumptions about “misuse of free press” are almost offensively incorrect. No-one is inciting violence or hatred- your case would hardly stand up in a Court.
With that out the way- please cast your eye over my responses to your previous comments.
ps. You’re obviously desperate for an argument, and need to be knocked down a peg or two, let me know if you want to arrange a more convenient method of debate.
Actually, you are wrong about marriage not being considered a “human right,” at least from an American legal perspective. In Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court held that “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
And while marriage itself may not be a federal issues, the 14th amendment says “No State shall [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” which means that it isn’t just the State constitution that controls what States do.
And to close, I find your second paragraph very offensive. “If you don’t like it, then move?” So…my fundamental rights are up for a vote? If I were an African American in the South in the early part of the century, I should have just moved to where Jim Crow wasn’t in charge?
“fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
I wonder why marriage would be fundamental to human survival…..
hmmm…..
Cuz it ain’t no life without love [to something, someone, or some idea] (:
Pursuit of happiness
stab.
=={XXXXXXXX>
I’m happy. I pursued.
We do not care about marriage as a religious institution. Marriage is a CIVIL institution. To be legally married in these United States, you must file paperwork with the appropriate authorities, and receive a marriage license, regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof.
The Supreme Court would seem to disagree with your assertion that Marriage is not a civil right. I think they have a little more authority when it comes to the legal definition of marriage than you.
This subject wouldn’t have to be “touched” at a federal level, except that the U.S. Constitution states that no state can deny the equal protections of the law. Plus there’s that whole “Defense of Marriage Act”, which is, in fact, a federal law. In other words, the anti-equality crowd hoisted this to the federal level first. Our side is just trying to point out that said law flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution.
Nobody here is happy with ‘civil unions’ though.
Why can’t gay people just stick to making p0rn (trigger word?) as usual?
Because, you willfully ignorant blockhead, Civil Unions (at least in the United States) lack over 1,000 rights that regular marriage (the civil institution, not the religious one) provides. Therefore, they are inherently unequal (see Brown v. Board of Education for the Supreme Court’s opinion on that one).
If Gay Marriage were made legal, the religious institution of marriage would be unaffected. The government (as is required) takes a hands off approach to religion, and therefore will not interfere in the rights of any religious organization. Therefore, your arguments concerning religious contentions to gay marriage are rendered invalid. Besides (I believe this is worth noting) that there are many religions that not only accept, but support loving same-sex relationships. Examples include; Unitarian Universalist or Unity Churches, various Christian sects (often by denomination), Many sects of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Native faiths, and most of modern Paganism and Wicca. All of these are supportive of Gay Marriage. What makes it okay for your religious beliefs to define theirs?
Marriage was not originally a religious institution, and has been around for far longer than Christianity, there are recorded messages dating back to Babylonian times. Therefore, the claims of marriage as a religious institution are bunkum, and even if they were, a civil, non-religious counterpart exists in modern society nee legal marriage.
The only other arguments are based on slippery slope conjectures which are a long-standing logical fallacy. Animals cannot give legal consent, inanimate objects have no legal rights (except in regard to their owners) and children are below the age of consent, therefore none of these are valid for marriage. Polygamy, on the other hand, would be valid, and I for one believe there should be no laws preventing the marriage of more than two persons as well, but this is another debate entirely.
Now that your arguments have been thoroughly refuted, do you have anything else to say for yourself, you ignorant little twat?
(The Bony Man apologizes for his unnecessary insults, and recognizes that they add nothing to the debate, but feels they were cathartic, and, in many ways, good for his soul)
Actually, I do have something to say for myself!
too long, didn’t read. joking, joking.
you might think you are kicking the a$$es of the anti-gay crowd, but that will never happen. as you said, gays have civil unions, and they are pretty much stuck with those in most states. for the record, it is thanks to you that I am now more happier than before, because of that part about civil unions, to see that the government has decided to not give these qu33rs the 1000 rights belonging to married couples. We shouldn’t have to waste any money on homosexuals. So, you may think you will do something by arguing with me, calling me a troll, and saying homosexuality and ‘love’ will win out, but you won’t. See, I’m a troll of a different manner. Whilst arguing with me, I have distracted you from making an actual impact, and shown just how many homosexuals waste their time on line defending graphs like this, a ‘pity party’ of the rejects of our society. well, take a look outside. you are stuck with civil unions, (which I did not know prior to your comment.) you showed how nasty and @$$-tastic you could be when prop 8 passed, (you didn’t see us complaining when they elected Obama) and you are truly never going to see gays get the same ‘rights’ as married people. Well, I have had my fun here, and I ain’t coming back to this large and terrible flame war after this. there have been big ones, and I had fought well into the 1000 posts during the “great flame war”.
So now, I am off to enjoy some funny graphs and other stuff. You guys ought to be ashamed of using an innocent site like this to push your political opinions, using graphs that made noone laugh. I suggest the rest of us ‘opposed to gay marriage’ people leave this topic; let’s see how these idiots do arguing with themselves. needless to say (I will say it for you anyway) I won’t be posting here again. goodbye. I will just leave you, you who will probally go outside and resume your hopeless lives, only to see that yes, you are a gay, and the world isn’t as gay friendly as you would have hoped it too be after arguing with me. I realixe I just mispeled a bunch of words, because I will not becoming back. I will not see your comments
PS I have just one more thing to say to you guys; you gays make me say YOU ARE MOTHERS OF SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!!
“you didn’t see us complaining when they elected Obama”
…seriously? o.O I live in Australia, and I barely heard anything BUT complaints about Obama’s win.
“I ain’t coming back”
Jolly good. It was quite pleasant and intellectually stimulating until you came in and lowered the bar.
I’m not gay, and the world is constantly progressing. People like you are a dying breed enjoying your last desperate gasp. This, as they say, gives me hope
“YOU ARE MOTHERS OF SHAME”
Ah, that takes me back…
lmao. And yet, here you on are on this forum wasting YOUR ‘time”.
Geez loueez what the heck was I smoking when I wrote this? I sound waaaaay more hateful than I’m supposed to…. Must have been answering all the comments….
Marriage is no longer a religious institution anymore considering anyone heterosexual can get married and divorce within a week. Marriage may have started out as a religious union but is not anymore.
What happened to separation of church and state?
This isn’t quite the point though.
If civil unions are not allowing gay marriages to have the same rights, that is something that should be changed at the legal level.
Forcing a religious institution to do something against it’s beliefs is no better than forcing a gay couple to stay separated.
And forcing a religious institution *not* to do something because it’s against another religious institution’s beliefs is also just as wrong. Considering phxflyguy’s response to you below, I’m not going to believe it’s an issue until you provide some evidence, but even if it is, the solution is to allow churches/religions to decide who to marry according to their own doctrines (as they already do for issues such as whether or not the people getting married have been divorced, or whether they’re church members, or have been through premarital counseling), not to say that because gay marriage isn’t allowed by some churches, it can’t be allowed by any of them.
Here are the facts:
1. There will be eight countries in the world with civil marriage equality by the end of this year. None of them require churches to marry same-sex couples.
2. No country in the world has introduced or tried to pass a law with such a requirement.
3. No LGBT group has advocated for such a requirement.
4. Even in countries with a state church, there is no such requirement. Specifically, in Norway, the bishops voted this year NOT to perform same-sex weddings and there was absolutely no resistance from the government. In Norway, the state church receives a yearly payment for every citizen who identifies as a member.
So let’s recap:
1. It doesn’t exist.
2. It has never been passed by any legislature.
3. It has never been mandated by any court.
4. It has never even been seriously proposed.
5. It isn’t even being requested by LGBT people and their supporters.
However, as noted above, churches and synagogues that DO recognize same-sex marriages are prevented in most of the US from performing legal marriages according to their beliefs. Their religious freedom is being infringed on, not the fundies. Anyone who says that churches will have to perform same-sex weddings is a big fat liar and should be told so to their face even if it is your mother, dearest friend, minister, or anyone else.
Liar, liar, liar!
As the Rev. Dr. Nancy Taylor of Boston’s Old South Church. points out here:
Coming from this experience, Rev. Taylor does not mince words about those who claim that religions that do not want to perform marriages of same-sex couples could be forced to do so by a state law legalizing same-sex marriage. “Not only is that not the case, it’s a disingenuous argument,” she says. “Anybody making that claim is lying. Clergy know very well that they are not required to officiate at any wedding if they don’t chose to. We are permitted to exercise discrimination with respect to who we will or will not marry.” Rev. Taylor points out that clergy regularly exercise this option by simply declining to officiate at marriages of non-members or mixed-religion couples. “We get to choose who we will marry,” she emphasizes.
Marriage was a social and legal institution well before it was religious.
Ding ding ding. We have a winner!
Long ago, people used to marry themselves, until the good ol’ church came along and told everyone they needed a priest to be married.
Any trolls who can lubricate those neurons long enough to do some actual reading might want to read this: http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
God was around well before people doubted his existance. your point?
His point was that marriage cannot be considered a purely religious institution because the social and legal aspects of it were in place first. I’m not sure if he is right about that, but I do know that marriage predates even monotheism by millenia.
I’m not sure what your point was meant to be.
Really? Ooohh I got it all wrong then kthnx.
@ehw If you look at the graph you’ll find it mentions a logical reason. Religion is not logical when taken literally e.g. God exists, rather it i only logical when looking at how it applies laws to a soceity. Please try again.
Seagull, are you insinuating that gays and lesbians aren’t human? If you stab them in the heart with a knife, they bleed and die like the rest of you…
Crap… I got kicked to the bottom here… sorry hapless readers.
While your point is valid, that’s a fairly lame argument.
If you stab a dog in the heart with a knife they bleed, that doesn’t make them human.
If marriage is a religious institution, the state shouldn’t recognize anyone’s marriage.
As pointed out, marriage is not Christian. It existed long before even the concept of monotheism – maybe even before organised religion itself.
In any case, if you’re right: there are religions that do allow same-sex marriages. Why won’t the state allow those full legal status? Why is it only the “Christian” (and not all churches oppose it) doctrine that is enshrined in secular law?
well, you (person that posted before you serpentine) are an idiot. Second, christianity has no say against same sex marriage. The catholic church does, as serpentine was trying to say perhaps. Don’t mistake the christian doctrine with the catholic church
I am afraid to say you’re wrong, for two reasons:
1. Homosexuals are no good in the bible, they are always prostitutes, and sodomists.
2. I don’t mean you’re wrong about Catholics, so I didn’t want more flaming.
The passages claimed to be about homosexuality are very much subject to debate. In any case, your point is an interesting one, but not in the way you think. You see, if you’re right about homosexuals always being prostitutes, then that suggests that it’s the prostitution that is bad, not the homosexuality itself, as today, very few homosexuals are prostitutes.
Your comment on sodomy is just plain wrong. There is no actual mention of anal sex in the Bible. The people of Sodom were “sexually deviant”, but the main example from it was rape, which is indeed pretty deviant.
Back it up with scripture, sir. If you can construct an argument using documentation, maybe we’ll listen. (And please don’t give me leviticus, we all know it “it is detestable” yada yada but in the same chapter it says shellfish is detestable, stone cheaters and no mixed fabric. Its called a moral code and it expired when jesus came along)
Actually, I think the moral code remained, and was built upon. The ceremonial aspect of the law was done away with (animal sacrifices, maybe the stoning parts…).
@ehw – Do you understand the meaning of the word sodomist? It means to have sex anally, so to say a gay man is a sodomist is to say hes gay. That is not a logical argument as to why they should not be married.
While I agree with nothing at all that ehw says, I feel the need to point out that one needn’t be gay or even bi in order to have anal sex. Even if one is male.
This, by the way, coming from a female.
I knew that.
If marriage is a religious service, then government should have no say in it.
If marriage is not a religious service, then the government should not rely on any religious definition of marriage as that is a violation of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Either way, you lose.
Only if you live in the US,
True, but I am U.S. centric because I live there
The gay marriage issue is mostly a problem in the U.S. Hell, it’s legal in good ol’ Mexico
Marriage predates Christianity by a few thousand years.
this graph is really byast!!!!!!! all of these comments (which I read) are really veried!!!!!! you sure no how 2 attract attention!!!!!!!!!! I mean Im 10 and I no how to start a argument. great way to make friends and influence people!!!!!!!!!!!!!
exclamation points help you attract attention as well. other things do too, but those things will come to you with age.
You… you’re awesome.
Dear God, it’s an incoherent lunatic convinced that it’s smart.
As an 11-year-old, you shame me to even be born within a year of you. Please learn grammar, stop abusing your unlimited text contract, and get yourself a friend who doesn’t repeatedly use the word “like” in normal conversation.
Wow…I agree. No offense, really………I’m just a bit of a grammar nazi, though I don’t parade it like some do. (Ahem, people who name themselves “Grammar Nazi,” or even worse, “Grammer Nazi…” Yes, I have seen that.)
Yes i do find that they seem to make all minors like i look like complete and total idiots (My grammar is off yet it is still the point that matters)
Fungus- wtf? Im glad you’re so effin perfect. Like seriously? Shes ten. Dont expect her to use the grammar of a freakin 20 year old. Listen to what she said- “im 10 and i know how to start an argument. Great way to make friends and influence people.” thats sounds pretty intelligent to me. And its okay to act your age. You dont have to have a 2 foot stick up your ass all the time. Im 13, and you, NOT jen, shame me by being born in a close time frame.
WIN. Only idiots pick on 10 year olds, after all.
<3 You are now my favorite 11-year-old.
@Fungus – + over 9000 points again. As a 16 year old, I’m very happy to have been born within 5 years of you. You have my respect and I’m so happy that you’ve now pissed off ehw by saying dear god.
eh, well no he hasn’t. see, saying dear God would be implicating that there is a God. I use it myself all the time.
LOL trolling fail.
Or… it’s hyperbole!! *collective gasps*
Surprise.
I never stated my religion, how did you assume I was an atheist? I’m guessing that you’re convinced that everybody who disagrees with you must be “DA HEATHENNNNNN11111″, so sadly the fact that your random guess was correct will do nothing to change this. Of course, I could be incorrect – you may also choose to imagine me as a Jew, or some other religion that you would probably enjoy laughing at.
Win. Epic.
sounds like you missed the sarcasm in my post. I am still anti gay.
This what I love about this site. All ages, able to state their opinion. Jen, go for for it. And if anyone complains about your grammar, tell them “STFU”. And, for the record, I’m 55 years young.
In what age period? Because if you’re 55 years young in the base 20 system, you’re 1100. In the base 90, 4590.
I don’t think we should all go attack the ten-year-old…she may not use the best grammar & punctuation but she’s just a kid! Shouldn’t we be trolling the homophobic @#$holes instead?
Don’t forget the heterophobic A$$hats!
Shouldn’t attack the ten year old? Look as Jessi Slaughter.
In base 20, 55 would be 105 base 10 years ([5 * (20 ^ 1)] + [5 * (20 ^ 0)]), and in base 90, 55 would be 455 base 10 years ([5 * (90 ^ 1)] + [5 * (90 ^ 0)]).
Just letting my inner nerd out
“Because marriage is a christian service…” Um, no. If that were true, marriage would only be available to Christians.
“..and christianity is a religion that (ridiculously) condemns anyone is gay to hell.” Actually, a lot of Christians disagree with this point. There are many interpretations of the Bible, and mine (which many people share) does not condemn homosexuals. There are at least two churches in my town (which is in rural Ohio; not the most intolerant place in the world, but certainly not the least) which would be happy to marry gay couples if it were legal.
“Religion isn’t right, of course, but it never has been, and shouldn’t have to change for people who are not christians.” It does when a LAW is being based exclusively on the beliefs of one religious group in a way that excludes others, amounting to an official endorsement of that religious group, which is against the First Amendment. People who do believe gays are going to hell don’t have to change their minds, they just have to accept that other people don’t share that belief, and shouldn’t have their legal rights constrained by it.
“Gay people should be happy with civil partnerships.” They might be, if those were actually available everywhere, and if they actually gave all the same rights. Even if they were, though, why should my church be prohibited from marrying gay couples just because some other churches don’t like it?
“And this is coming from a devout atheist.” But evidently a very uninformed one.
Amen.
You are awesome, 30000000 points to you, good sir!
Marriage is an institution that was established long before Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and all other religions. To say that it is a “Christian” service is wrong. Please get your facts straight. You also state that “religion isn’t right, but it never has been”, which religion and could you please define “religion”. It has different meanings for different people.
Are you saying that athiests shouldn’t be allowed to marry?
So true. Too much conformism by ultra-christians…
Hurray for love of all kinds !
Oh, so you say that if you’re not christian, you don’t need to obey the law, which started out as God’s word?
“Hurray for love of all kinds!” well, I guess that means pedophiles, sex offenders, bestials, necrophials, and rapists should just run free.
You know, I really liked the rainbow, but then gay people came along and twisted what it meant. I will never forgive rainbow stealers.
The first written code of law was put down by Hammurabi, Sixth King of Babylon. Ancient Babylon was polytheistic and actually turns up as an opponent to your god in some of the older of your books. Your god, I’m afraid, does not have first dibs on law-making.
You appear to have trouble distinguishing between sexual contact and love. A not uncommon affliction that can lead to many common sexual disorders and relationship problems. Best of luck resolving that issue.
Gawain! Huzzah! Its nice to see someone really shoving it to ehw.
You have my respect
well, kid, that officially makes my username the most typed username in other peoples post on cheezburger, fair and square.
I knew about Hammurabi, though. nothing special. God gave Adam and Eve the first official laws, though. God also scrambled the one language of the Babylonians.
So uh was is it only like 3 things in the bible are actually against the law?
Define “God”, please. From your comments, I suspet you mean the God of Abraham. ( Please note, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the God of Abraham.)
Islam worships muhammed the prophet actually…. bunch of terrrorists….
Mohammed is the main prophet of Islam, and he is obviously revered for that reason, but he is not regarded as God in any way. It’s a simple historical fact that Islam worships the same God as Judaism and Christianity; even if you didn’t believe in God, you just have to look at the historical record and religious texts to see that they’re all referring to the same being. They believe different things *about* God, but then Jews and Christians believe different things about God, too, and I don’t see you saying that they’re worshipping a different God because of that.
And by the way, the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists and do not support terrorism. Saying they are is as innaccurate and offensive as saying all Christians are Nazis. Some people just go off the deep end and use religion to justify it, but that doesn’t mean they have to give the entire religion a bad name.
But none of those laws were written. They were all oral for centuries. There’s no way to actually get a precise date on those laws. Plus, they were changing constantly anyway. Find me a stone tablet we can date and we’ll go from there.
Speaking of proof, how about that whole scrambling the language thing? In order for us to know something happened, we have to have evidence of it. I’m not familiar with any archaeological evidence of god scrambling the Babylonian language. I’m a little rusty on my archaeology, so maybe I missed something…
You wouldn’t write a research paper using only one source, would you? You need a variety of perspectives in order to form an educated opinion. If you tried to argue your point by deliberately ignoring all the other sources and ideas relating to your topic, you’d be guaranteed to get an F.
The bible is an invaluable tool in understanding the symbolic culture of a group of people spanning across centuries. It is not, however, a primary historical source.
This country does not run on your God’s word. The Constitution protects all faiths equally, as well as those who abstain from any faith. Your logic falls flat completely in that you compare consenting adults with sex offenders. Clearly, you are hopelessly irrational.
and you flunked.
stab.
=={XXXXXXXXXXX>
If it’s not marriage, it’s all the same. Two consenting adults does not equal right.
If your only response is to say that Sinistrad, who is making perfectly valid points that are completely logical, fails your imaginary class and then imply violence, please just don’t respond. If you were actually making rational arguments that MADE SENSE, I wouldn’t say this, but seriously, you’re making me lose faith in the human race all over again. I hope I never meet you in real life, you moronic, bigoted git.
I see a lot of people on your side making equally stupid posts. it happened the last time this issue came up; I saw a really good post from the anti gay side, and some stupid phag just responded with a prerecorded comment about how people like her were stupid. Bigotry and idiocy are prevalent on both sides, and now YOU know how it feels. Go throw yourself on a d1ldo, now, like other pro gays do.
Why do you assume all pro gays are gay? Thats a ridiculous notion, but then again you seem to believe all gays are wrong, so this is what we should expect.
He’s been brainwashed by a moronic extremist branch of Catholicism (presumably), don’t even bother arguing, any “logic” of his is based purely off unprovable quotes and ridiculous passages from the bible (another unprovable source) which he twists, manipulates, and even rejects to suit his immature and hateful purposes. Don’t even bother with this wretched, pitiable soul.
Do I look like a catholic to you, you atheistic life hater?
where does the “life-hating” come in?
Since when did rape, bestiality, necrophilia or peadophilia count as love? LOVE and SEX are not the same thing.
Thanks, but I think the rainbows are for sharing.
1. Oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” isn’t banned, it just isn’t recognized by the government in most places. You can get married at all sorts of apostate (read: fake) churches today if you like. There is just no compelling reason for the state to recognize it and confer benefits upon it.
2. Oxymoronic “same-sex marriage,” by nature and design, does not product the next generation. That doesn’t mean marriages have to produce children, just that children are only produced by the combination of one male and one female.
‘“same-sex marriage” isn’t banned, it just isn’t recognized by the government in most places.’
Only cause we managed to overturn Prop 8. And actually, most states do in fact have bans on recognizing same-sex marriages.
‘You can get married at all sorts of apostate (read: fake) churches today if you like.’
Know where else I can get married? City hall. That’s all we’re talking about here, in fact. Nobody cares if your religious zealotry forbids the gays from getting married in your pretty little building. We don’t need to.
‘There is just no compelling reason for the state to recognize it and confer benefits upon it’
I’d say the 14th amendment is a pretty compelling reason, actually.
Little off topic, but has anyone looked into the history of the 14th ammendment? I think most of the southern states (who were not willing to pass the ammendment) were basically banned from government until they would pass it. Or in some cases, current governing bodies were replaced with those that were more amenable to the ammendment. I find it curious that this ammendment purports to grant equality and freedom to so many people was passed in such an underhanded manner.
If I’m wrong, correct me. I’m not claiming to be an expert on anything, but especially not legal history
So you’re saying that black people shouldn’t be citizens? I don’t understand why you’re questioning the 14th Amendment.
you obviously missed the point. If spade ever said anything like that, I would eat a lobster. can’t stand ‘em.
I’m questioning the method of ratification used for the 14th ammendment, not the worth of the ammendment. It seems like the government was saying “Of course you’re allowed to vote, as long as you vote the way we want you to…”
Well, the Civil War was in large part a reaction to slavery. Of course southern states wouldn’t vote for the amendment, since they approved of slavery. As has been stated on this subject before, just because a majority of people think something doesn’t make it right. It’s called the “tyranny of the majority.” Those in power want to stay in power. The point of America is to protect the little guys from the big guys.
The 14th Amendment had to be passed. Slavery is morally reprehensible and antithetical to the American Constitution. It’s not subject to popular vote.
When the fundamental rights of any human living in America are compromised, the government can and must step in. That’s what happened with the 14th Amendment, and that’s what’s going to happen with same-gender marriage.
I’m not saying the 14th ammendment is not valuable, or wasn’t necessary, just that it wasn’t ratified the normal way. In fact, several states withdrew their ratification after seeing what happened in the south. It replaced the “tyranny of the majority” with an oligarchy, which is pretty close to what we still have today….
We’re not an oligarchy. We’re a republic. Popular vote applies 99.9% of the time. But there are certain exceptions, such as when a segment of the population experiences oppression at the hands of the majority. The judicial branch of our government is there to provide a balance to the electoral and executive branches. They look at the big picture and make sure America isn’t heading down a dark alley. The constitution explicitly protects all Americans’ basic and fundamental rights.
ITS NOT A “PRETTY LITTLE WHITE HOUSE”!!!!!!!!!!!!! josh, I goto church in a place where I practice my beliefs!!!!! Your offending me and all my friends and family! So, keep your hatred locked away inside you!!
Last time I checked the church was a small, pretty white-coloured building, and I should know since I live next to one that is older than Christoffer Columbus..
Then you have never been to bayside.
Err…No…just keep your eyes off the internet if you feel that way…
If marriage is a wholly religious institution, then the government should have no say in who can or can not get married. Rather, the tenants of each religion would dictate who can or can not marry. If a single religion allows homosexual marriage the it would be allowed everywhere under freedom of religion.
If religion is not a wholly religious institution, then any laws concerning marriage should not take into account any religious beliefs and traditions because religions contradict each other. Therefore, religious justifications for banning homosexual marriage would be irrelevant and, in fact, unconstitutional.
Either way, you are wrong and lose the argument.
Are you kidding? Those who use big wurds like “oxymoronic” and use ordinal numbers (instead of bullet points) are never wrong. Gtfo.
I agree. Somewhere along the way, they got lost in the jibber jabber and just decided to use big words until they got what they wanted.
Don’t be hatin’ just because you can’t understand big words.
I like big words. And if I couldn’t understand them, I wouldn’t argue here.
Apparently you don’t understand them well enough to see that Dfrtbx was sarcastically mocking *Neil*, who was the one who actually used the word “oxymoronic” and numbered his points. And can you actually point out a problem with EvilDave’s argument, other than “he used big words so he must be wrong”?
whoops.
This is the most awesome statement in the history of awesome statements.
“christianity is a religion that (ridiculously) condemns anyone is gay to hell.’
Christianity does teach that homosexual behavior is wrong (see Romans 1, where it is exhibit A as an example of how people reject God’s obvious existence and the do things that mock the created order).
Yet is also teaches that we are all sinners in need of a Savior. Straight people go to Hell as well as the just penalty for their countless sins against a perfect and Holy God — unless they trust in Jesus for their salvation.
“Hurray for love of all kinds !”
People can love each other without a marriage certificate by the state.
Brother,
Homosexuality is found throughout the entire animal kingdom. It is not some fun behavior that people one day choose to engage in. It is actually beneficial as it is natural birth control, but, alas, not a choice.
There is no “obvious existence” of God, otherwise there would be no more debate. We do not know whether or not a god or gods exist because there is no proof, only belief. That’s why it’s called faith.
Personally, I think religion is very regressive to a society that desperately needs the idea of healthy progress to be reinstituted. But I may be one of the dreamers.
The only thing I preach is love and respect of the world around us. You aren’t going to snap anyone out of their ‘sinning ways’ if they are bound by love and nature, which gay and straight creatures are.
Actually very few species, all of them mammal, engage in homosexual intercourse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
Sorry.
…did you actually just link to a wikipedia page as though it was fact?
*Groan* people have been getting their information from Wikipedia for years. There’s no reason to assume the article is inaccurate. If you want to attack it, find a better source that contradicts the Wiki article.
People have also been getting information through rumors for years, does that give them more credibility?
Dear god.
How do you survive when you are that stupid?
Care to back that up with some kind of arguement?
you consistently rely on “begging the question” to make your points. It’s one of the ugliest forms of logical fallacies and used only by the ignorant. Therefore, you are stupid. QED.
Actually I have yet to do so, and if you think you can prove that wrong please do so.
…but you did/are…
does ignorance imply stupidity? HA!
Proof ~ evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
In other words, opinions are not proof. Keep trying though! You’ll figure it out yet, I have faith in you!
There are moderators on Wikipedia, dips**t.
Like, you know, EDITORS for NOVELS.
Oh and like the moderaters are perfectly unbiased. F*ck off.
Oshiz, all I was saying is that wikipedia is a poor excuse for a credible source of information. Quote a credible source if you’re going to try to prove a point, in this case national geographic, encyclopedia brittanica, etc… Not the side that once said Stephen Colbert killed all the elephants.
I sure hop you actually return his arguement, instead of letting other people return for you like the idiots you are.
gee, no one touched this. real responsible.
Nah, I realised arguing with a bunch of people who are defending the credibility of wikipedia is like trying to explain physics to a 3 year old. There are just some things certain people can’t understand.
And EHW I sincerely hope you are actually a pro-gay marriage genius, because if not you are a bigger detriment to your own cause than you realise. You make me want to change my opinion just so I can’t say I agree with you.
That came off a bit cross, I meant no offense ehw. Just simply you seem to exhibit every bias and stereotype that the pro gay marriage advocates point out and accuse us all of. Easiest way to win an arguement/debate is still argue your point but make your opponent think you are on their side. If both sides just say “You’re wrong” nothing is accomplished, just more division.
For the record, I was arguing for you. Fletcher was the Nimrod who called you stupid and p1ssed off without being logical. I was flaming HIM. people will disagree as long as issues like this pop up. We have one basis for banning gay marriage, they use an entirely different basis to argue. I am not even sure why I touched this arguement; Can’t help those biased cheezburger mods.
I noticed that all homepage material has a ‘ms. fix-it’ qoute; that way, all the cheezburger people have to do is not come up with one, and the graph stays down.
Cite a source that contradicts the Wiki article, don’t simply dismiss it because it’s a Wiki article.
Actually, swans, eagles, and wolves are homosexual. (I know that the point that mammals are homosexual was already made. STFUaEMcN)
If you doubt Wiki, check its SOURCES. Y’now, at the BOTTOM of the page?
Did you just claim that someone linking to Wikipedia must be wrong?
It is a handy collation of facts. It also offers a number of sources supporting the claims. Follow the sources, if that page isn’t reliable enough for you. Or do your own Google Scholar search.
Not true. Do some reasearch. Insects, fish, birds, reptiles, and mammals all have species that engage in homosexuality in some form or another. Engaging in intercourse is not the only form of homosexuality.
Indeed, there are fish and reptiles capable of switching gender, in some cases at will.
That’s not homosexuality.
The truth of the matter: homos are animals!
You had it coming with that sentence.
As are all humans. Your point?
bionelly, old friend. It was only a matter of time before we would meet on this subject.
well, I will just say that I don’t believe in evolution, just like a person chooses to not believe in Christianity, the difference being that I do not instantly say “don’t push your idea on us; logical people won’t believe you.” that being said, the point of my comment was that regular people don’t act like animals, gay people do, God created man and animals different, so that is why I said that: to make the idea sound prepostrous. Man is not an animal, he should not act like one.
I no longer am taking you seriously. Madre de dios, if there is no evolution, explain Dinosaurs. Preferably as something other than failed experiments, because dinos are pretty darn boss.
They are boss. It is not hard to explain: God made them. Some people say a lot of them died in the flood. All those ‘dragons’ you hear about in the Bible? that would most likely be them.
Crap. The problem is, that’s actually quite belivible. My only problem is that I also belive dragons exist…somewhere.
Well, whatever you believe, just remember that the dragon you must avoid is Satin.
*Satin is a fabric. Satan is the devil, who is NOT a dragon, just insane.
* Dragons are elemental creatures, whereas God and the Devil are metaphysical creatures, possibly nonexistant. But not likely, souls ARE matter, and all matter goes somewhere.
Dragons are associated with Satan, and with evil and chaos in general, in the Abrahamic and other religions. My thesis depends on this fact :3
So, what, Noah just forgot to put them on the ark? And what about the ones that were aquatic? Shouldn’t there still be plenty of them around? And shouldn’t there be fossils of dinosaurs dating to only a few thousand years ago, instead of an abrupt cutoff 65 million years ago?
(So there’s no confusion, I believe in intelligent design, and a metaphorical rather than literal interpretation of Genesis.)
Just to play devils advocate here, Dinos were VERY big. they would’ve broken the ark into billions of tiny pieces. Unfortunatly for your argument, there was ONLY one aquatic dinosaur, and that was Spinosaurus. Tachniclly, all the others are “large reptiles”. And we don’t know whether they went extinct or not either. loch ness, NY sewers, there lots of places they could be.
True, but in that case I would think God would have come up with some other way of saving them, rather than having them go extinct because humanity screwed up. And really, fitting two of each kind of land animal on the ark isn’t that feasible even without dinosaurs, especially if you also bring enough food for all of them.
To be totally freaking truthful, bionelly,(1) noone can comprehend God, and (2) if we still had velociraptors and T-rex after God saved them (ever seen Jurassic park?) noone would ever leave their house again, except to buy guns and ammo.
as for the species, I am sure you would only need 2 cat and 2 dog, and those would breed to form all the different cats and dogs today. And if you eliminate all those cats and dogs, think about how much room that saves!
So your argument is that God eliminated dinosaurs because we couldn’t coexist with them after the flood, but before the flood people were able to live with them just fine? And the various breeds of dogs and cats are just that, *breeds*. They are not separate species. Even if we only count species of reptiles, birds and mammals (leaving the insects and other invertebrates to fend for themselves), there are still over 22,000 species of land animals, meaning you would have to be able to fit 44,000 animals plus enough food for all of them to last over a month. Given the known dimensions of the ark, they simply wouldn’t all fit.
what ehw is trying to say is that the temperature changes that came with the flood probably killed the dinos.
bigger isn’t always better.
I don’t think that actually is what he was trying to say, but even assuming it was, it still doesn’t explain the timeline. Why should dinosaur fossils end at the K-T boundary if they actually survived into modern times? And if you argue that those fossils are actually much more recent than they appear to be, then why don’t you find fossilized human remains in the same layers?
actually, it was what I was trying to say, bionelly. and for the record, Dinosaurs are a very sketchy subject for all Christians. We know that after the flood, dinosaur numbers had dwindled severely, and that the new world, following the use of the canopy (a large atmophere composed of water, thought to allow humans to live so long like Methusala did by blocking more harmful sun rays than the modern atmosphere) to cause the great flood, had created new climates that left the dinosaurs all but extinct. I hope this makes sense.
…no. No it does not. But knowing that some people actually believe that sort of primitive hogwash makes me both a little happy and a little sad.
I’d just like to point out that science and religion aren’t antithetical.
The most brilliant biologist I know on a personal level is also the best Christian I know. He’s thought about his religion deeply. He doesn’t accept anything at face value, and after much thought and reflection, he has become a stronger Christian THROUGH his science. This is of course anecdotal evidence, so it wouldn’t hold water in a court of law, but seeing as half of us here are OK with arguments based on opinion, I’m fine with it.
Anyway, I’d hazard a guess that not too many Christians nowadays actually have that big a deal with dinosaurs. You use the results of science every single day. You don’t doubt that electricity makes your lamp turn on. Try going twenty seconds without using some sort of scientific product. All of the evidence and decades of research prove without doubt that dinosaurs lived and died millions upon millions of years ago. Science is fact. Religion isn’t.
I don’t mean that it isn’t valuable or beneficial to many people. Hell, it’s still around for a reason. If I had a religious question, I’d go to the people who devote their lives to studying it. Would you ask a psychologist to perform open-heart surgery? Would you ask a TV-repairman to install your windows?
Christians don’t take every single word of the bible literally. You can’t. It’s simply not possible. There are so many contradictions and misunderstood passages. OK, so the world was created in a week. Who are you to say that a week in god’s experience is the exact same as a week in ours? A hundred bajillion years could be a day to him. Immortality will do that. It’s called a metaphor.
Gonna throw in a plug for the Counter-Creationism Handbook here, for anyone thinking of arguing either way. Whether you have problems with evolution or problems with people doubting evolution, it’s a really really handy book to have. Don’t let the unfortunate title put you off, it’s not an attack on Creationism but a defense of science.
You can call me “old friend”, but frankly, your behavior in this thread has made me lose what respect I had for you. I’m responding only because I don’t want your assertions to go unchallenged.
First of all, it doesn’t take belief in evolution to realize that humans belong to the animal kingdom. We are alive, and we are not plants, fungi or bacteria; we inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, move under our own power, consume other organisms, are multicellular and do not have rigid cell walls. We also have hair, bear live young, and lactate, placing us squarely within the order of mammals, which are a subset of animals. Many of these distinctions were made before Darwin.
To address the other point, as Serpentine has already said, this is strictly to address the argument that homosexuality is “unnatural”. If you’re saying that straight people don’t behave like animals because they have sex with people of the opposite sex, you should remember that animals do have sex with animals of the opposite sex, too. Some of them even form monogamous relationships.
…you still had respect for him? o.O
Eh, more than I do now. In the other thread he actually seemed to start off not *that* bad, but yeah, by the time he started calling people “ph4gs” and randomly bringing furries into the discussion, I was pretty much fed up. I do like to give people the benefit of the doubt whenever I can, though, and it seemed at the time that it was just due to the discussion wearing him down. Now that there’s been a sigificant break and he’s still starting off just as offensive and incoherent as he ended up there, even that excuse is pretty much gone, though.
Hey, it’s not like all the people on your side didn’t resort to calling us homophobics in the same manner. But hey, part of cyber warfare is trolling, using stuff like that to garner angry responses, (I am quite good at it.) which I am doing right, by commenting after I specifically said I wouldn’t return. I was originally going to return your post simply because I liked you, how you remain so logical, but then I thought of the applications.
From time to time, yes, people on my side have done that. Saying “your side does it too” is not an adequate excuse, however. If it were, then all of those people could justify *their* behavior by pointing to you and the other anti-gay-marriage trolls. And actually, “homophobe” is the most widely accepted term for someone who is strongly against homosexuality; if you want to come up with a more neutral term, be my guest, but until then simply using the word does not make someone a troll.
And yes, trolls are part of the internet, but that doesn’t mean they are respected, or that they’re actually helping the side they’re arguing for at all. The fact that even *people on your own side* have said that they don’t like you arguing for them because you’re making them look bad should be a hint that you’re doing *trolling* right, but you’re doing *convincing people to be against gay marriage* wrong.
Homophobe would imply that we were afraid of homosexuals.
“Irrational fear or hatred”, in fact. Quite apt.
Like with spiders, correct?
@ehw Once again proof is what is needed. Asking for faith is, in a modern age, ludicrous. Man is animal, we merely evolved and decided, when creating religious texts, to place ourselves above animals to justify killing and eating them.
Nope, lots. In fact, it’s pretty rare, upon detailed study, for “deviant” sexual behaviours to NOT be found in various species.
“Homosexuality is found throughout the entire animal kingdom.”
Animals do all sorts of things that I don’t think you’d want people to do. Dogs will hump almost anything — male dogs, female dogs, coffee tables, your leg — is that your standard for human sexual mores?
“The only thing I preach is love and respect of the world around us.”
And if you really love people you’ll warn them of consequences and you’ll not want people to corrupt young children by normalizing perversions.
Humans will hump almost anything – male humans, female humans, one’s own hand, alternate orifices, plastic (fleshlights/vibrators), ripe fruits – how is that not your standard for human sexual mores?
Almost all of that is extremely socially unacceptable.
To do in public, and pretty taboo to discuss, but that’s about it.
Indeed. Heck, there are songs about masturbation, and it’s pretty well accepted, even by many Christians (name is linked to a detailed explanation of why.) Sex toys aren’t exactly only available on the black market, either. I even know of at least one Christian sex toy website. Fruits and vegetables might raise a few eyebrows, but really they’re not much more socially unacceptable than regular sex toys. And except in the context of cheating on one’s spouse, pretty much no one is shocked by the idea of people having oral sex (anal sex is a bit more taboo, but still hardly newsworthy.) So yeah, unless you’re doing it in a way that would be unacceptable even if you were having completely “normal”, missionary-position sex (like in public, or in the course of cheating on your spouse), *none* of those are “extremely socially unacceptable”.
I dunno folks. Try walking down a street in Memphis NEAR your same-gender partner (not even in actual physical contact). I’d say it’s still pretty socially unacceptable. And it’s not just in the South. Two guys holding hands in most areas of Los Angeles also get a lot of flak. “Acceptable” as a mental/political category is still very different from “acceptable” in daily life.
Here’s the thing: “there are lots of examples of homosexuality in nature” is a direct response to the claime that “homosexuality is unnatural” (not in this particular case, interestingly, but almost every other time). You’re responding to a response without actually backing up the original claim.
The claim that “homosexuality is wrong because it’s unnatural” is easily debunked by the fact that homosexual behaviours turn up frequently in nature.
“Just because animals do it doesn’t mean we should” is a valid point, but runs counter to the original claim – if nature cannot be used to justify behaviours, then “homosexuality is unnatural” is an equally unfounded reason to condemn it.
So yes, nature is not a good thing to base one’s morality on. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a valid – indeed, the only – counter to appeals to nature.
Just throwing it out there: we probably shouldn’t use the term “homosexuality” for same-gender sexual behavior in animals. The word “homosexual” has a lot of implications applicable only to humans. It’s a very political term (clearly), and completely culturally based. The definition changes depending on when and where you are.
There are many reasons for engaging in same-gender sex in nature: it can be a form of social bonding within a group, a display of dominance, or simply a way to relieve stress. Whatever the reason, the fact that it exists, and continues to exist, proves that it is “natural.”
Human culture is what separates us from our fellow animals. I’d like to think that if chimps don’t beat the s**t out of their fellows for engaging in same-gender sexual behavior, then we humans wouldn’t either. But I guess that’s asking too much.
3. The main reason: “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron: “The same-sex union of a man and a woman.” Advocates for it should at least concede that they are proposing a radical change to the definition used by virtually, and perhaps all, cultures (religious and atheistic) for thousands of years).
4. If there are no reasons to ban “gay marriage” then there are no reasons to ban polygamy, etc.
5. “Gay marriage” will erode religious freedoms, as it necessarily pits most religions as enemies of the state. After all, if sexual preferences are civil rights then denying them those “rights” must be illegal.
6. Government sanctioning of oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” results in children as young as 5 being taught that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender behavior is normal.
3. “The same-sex union of a man and a woman.” No one, except for you, has ever said that. It’s just silly.
4. Yes there are reasons. Namely, a marriage is a legal contract between two people.
5. That’s a logical fallacy. You have no way of proving that and you want to know what? Because its a GUESS based on BLIND IGNORANCE. If you really think that will happen, please show me some research to back you up.. because right now you just sound crazy.
6. This is why I have issues with debating sensitive topics on the internet. Because people like you, with no training or education on these complex topics, splash this unproved theories on “what will happen” should something they don’t agree with on a moral level passes. Sir, again, please do some unbiased research. Go the library, read up on history, sociology, psychology and the US Constitution. When you’re done, come back and we’ll chat, ok?
Have a great day.
Your point (3) contradicts your point (4)… In (3), you piggyback on the fact that there has been no clear, outstanding cultural definition of “marriage” in the most common sense of the word. If we’re here to re-write the meaning of “marriage” as its typically been defined (between a man and a woman) based on the fact that someone’s activities in their home and sex life does not affect you, then why stop at monogamy? Surely, polygamous relationships often crop up in cults, but what if (yes, I’m going to play the “what if” game) polygamous relationships are endeavored for some time in the future outside of a cult? Will you reject your point (4) then?
As for number 6, you have to realize that he’s right. After gay marriage, homosexual people will immediately turn around for schools to teach “acceptance”.
I don’t remember being taught about any kind of marriage in school. My church teaches that people can marry the person they love. My church also married two women in 1972 and has been performing same-sex marriages ever since, long before they were recognized by the state.
Schools should not be teaching students to hate anyone who isn’t completely heterosexual.
Yes, it is fine to be gay. Or bi. Or trans. My religion says so, as well.
3. I just did a google definition check, and there is nothing about males and females. Just “the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)”. Even if you’re right – and I don’t believe you are – so what? Definitions change all the time.
4. That is a terrible argument, for a variety of reasons. I’ll stick with this one: polygamy is all-too-often a tool for oppression and abuse. In circumstances in which multiple people of any sex can be married in an equal, mutual, loving, unabusive union, I would be okay with that. Wouldn’t expect there to be many cases in which it worked, but whatever. However, legal complications might make it impractical. I don’t know. In any case, “if we do this we will have to do that” I’m sure is a logical fallacy of some kind.
5. So, the oppression of minorities is a religious freedom, is it? Then that is a religious freedom that, in my opinion, is fully worthy of erosion.
6. Yes indeed. And it so it should be. There’s plenty of scientific evidence to back it up, too.
So… which side are you arguing, again?
Yes, if you look long enough you can find a new definition. But the legal definition is a male and a female — duh — which is why we’re having the debate. The pro-”gay marriage” people try to have it both ways, trying to change the definition by assuming the definition has already been changed. Just one of their many illogical arguments.
“That is a terrible argument, for a variety of reasons. I’ll stick with this one: polygamy is all-too-often a tool for oppression and abuse.”
You sound very judgmental. Who are you to criticize adults who want to enter into these relationships? Why are you so bigoted and poly-phobic? You just haven’t been socialized with enough pro-poly propaganda yet.
“So, the oppression of minorities is a religious freedom, is it”
Who said we were oppressing anyone? Homosexuals can associate with each other all they like. We’re just saying the gov’t has no reason to regulate their relationships.
“This is why I have issues with debating sensitive topics on the internet. Because people like you, with no training or education on these complex topics, splash this unproved theories on “what will happen” should something they don’t agree with on a moral level passes. Sir, again, please do some unbiased research. Go the library, read up on history, sociology, psychology and the US Constitution. When you’re done, come back and we’ll chat, ok?”
I have researched this way more than you appear to have. My guess is that you get your information from the mainstream media, who filters out anything remotely anti-gay. Do you know the rate of HIV and syphilis in gay men vs. the rest of the population? Do you know the % of gays who value monogamy? Do you know the % who consider three-ways as part of their definition of “monogamy?” And so on.
Do you know how schools will have to change curriculum to show gay parents to kids as young as kindergarten (many already have)? It is really quite perverse.
How about if you do some research?
Did YOU know that lesbian women are the lowest HIV rate group?
They also produce the most p0rn.
dissssssss.
I seriously doubt that most of the women in so-called “lesbian porn” (at least the kind made for straight men) are actually lesbians. Sorry to burst your bubble. They are acting.
Prove it. a lot of weird sh!t happens in p0rnography; the people who perform it could be anyone.
Indeed. Including “not actually lesbians”.
Isn’t that a result of the *ahem* physical aspects of their encounters? There would be less bodily fluids exchanged, so there would be a smaller chance of passing on infections.
The whole agument of “Who gets more AIDS” is pretty silly, anyway. HIV is a great example of non-discrimination…
“Do you know how schools will have to change curriculum to show gay parents to kids as young as kindergarten (many already have)? It is really quite perverse. ”
vs.
“Why are you so bigoted…”
Maybe look at yourself (and beliefs) a little objectively? Though, I suppose it does stand on firm ground. We’d like the former statement just about as much as we’d want young, black boys in our classrooms as well. I know you’re conservative (actually, I have no idea; just another inane liberal assumption in your eyes, I suppose), and so I charge you: look back at history. Cultures change, my friend.
But it’s okay to change curriculum to meet the needs of right-wing politicians? Texas just reshaped history in their textbooks. That, Neil, is perverse. Perhaps a bit worse than suggesting that our youth should be taught tolerance, at the very least.
Funny that you should call someone else out for being judgmental.
As far as the “mainstream media” filtering out anything remotely anti-gay – frankly, that’s just a gross untruth. Have you watched Fox, lately? Or anything other than MSNBC, for that matter? All media are biased. You can flip the channel to find whatever perspective you would prefer. If you don’t like what you’re hearing, turn it off. It’s that simple. If you want a different perspective, change the channel. Oh, by the way – I did say that the media “are,” and not that the media “is”. The word “media,” is a plural noun. There is no giant conspiracy. Get over it.
Fox blamed Bill Clinton for the oil spill…
Neil:”You sound very judgmental. Who are you to criticize adults who want to enter into these relationships? Why are you so bigoted and poly-phobic? You just haven’t been socialized with enough pro-poly propaganda yet.”
I will just repeat the part you so conveniently left out: “In circumstances in which multiple people of any sex can be married in an equal, mutual, loving, unabusive union, I would be okay with that. Wouldn’t expect there to be many cases in which it worked, but whatever. However, legal complications might make it impractical. I don’t know.”
Neil: “Who said we were oppressing anyone?”
You did:
Neil: “After all, if sexual preferences are civil rights then denying them those “rights” must be illegal.”
Dunno if sex ed is taught to kindergarten children, but regardless, so what? We’re arguing that homosexuality is okay. Saying “if we say homosexuality is okay then we’ll have to teach the children that homosexuality is okay!” isn’t going to convince anyone.
“The gov’t has no reason to regulate Homosexual Relationships.” So you’re saying they should be able to get married, right?
You do know that polygamy is rampant in the bible, right? Look at David and Solomon, both had multiple wives and concubines, also known as kept women or mistresses.
See my reply above about why if you involve government in the discussion of marriage you lose the right to control marriage on religious grounds.
Gay marriage does not erode religious freedom. The government banning gay marriage erodes religious freedom by banning any religion that sanctions gay marriage.
Oh, and it is against the civil rights laws to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. That is the basis of the lawsuits against laws banning gay marriage.
Concerning your point 6, and your point is what exactly? Most children are not taught anything about sex until they are much older, so why do you believe that what you have stated will be taught at such an age?
Old testament =/= New testament.
Said by someone who has clearly never read either or didn’t comprehend either at all.
As far as culture surrounding marriage is concerned, yes, there is a difference.
“Most children are not taught anything about sex until they are much older, so why do you believe that what you have stated will be taught at such an age?”
They won’t be taught about gay sex, they’ll be taught about gay couples in general. “It’s perfectly normal to have two mommies”
Which is only a problem for those who are already against gay marriage, so it really makes no sense to use it as an argument.
That’ll come in handy for the kids who actually have two mommies.
So LGBT is something that should remain a taboo, is that what you’re saying? Homosexuality is not (as you oh so elegantly put) a perversion. Pedophilia is a perversion. Being in a loving, mutual relationship with another who just happens to be of the same gender is not. I’m bisexual, but I’m also a Christian, so by your calculations, am I going to hell?
(No disrespect to you personally, I’m simply stating my opinion as you stated yours. Have a good day sir.
“Perversion” seems to be different for each person. Some people consider homosexuality to be a perversion, others do not. Because it is just opinion, it can’t really be backed up, on either side…
stick it to ‘em hard.
you have my sword. (line steal)
=={XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX>
*shoots ehw in face with longbow*
I am not in New York, And it is not past sunset, so your actions are not legal. You missed, too.
What does the time of day have to do with longbow shooting? And I was using an internets longbow, which would just steal all your internets and give them to me.
This is kind of something i can get behind.
Perversion encompasses a wide range of items, and it’s mainly negative connotations are based on certain items within this category.
Perversion isn’t always something bad, it’s just something different from the norm. Anal sex is kind of a perversion, but it’s done a lot. BJs are kind of a perversion, but they’re also done a lot.
Just because something is a ‘perversion’ doesn’t automatically assume that it’s evil.
Really, because a friend of yours said “hurray to love of all kinds” up the page a bit, so I guess that means either you or your friend is wrong.
I guess it’s “hurray to love of all kinds” as long as you mean only gay love.
no responses? well, I guess I know which arguements to make in the future; gays don’t seem all that special when you relize that they to can be rascist bigots, just like the rest of the world, now do they?
“Really, because a friend of yours said “hurray to love of all kinds” up the page a bit, so I guess that means either you or your friend is wrong.”
I guess it’s “hurray to love of all kinds” as long as you mean only gay love.
“a friend of yours”? exactly what do you mean by that? that’s a pretty weak argument, no wonder no one is replying…
Proud2BBi is bisexual, so i’d assume that she doesn’t “mean only gay love”…
anyway, even if someone else said “hurray to love of all kinds”, she would be agreeing with them (seeing as pedophilia isn’t mutual, and thus statutory rape).
That ‘friend’ is “Spireal”, who’s up the page a bit. Now reply.
The fact that gay people aren’t special is kind of the point.
No argument can be offered, because the line, taken out of context as it is, was pretty unwise. “An opponent didn’t think out their words properly” is hardly worthy of a victory dance, though.
5.- Religions are more than able to discriminate against gays and lesbians all they want. They are not obligated to embrace them in anyway- any more than it’s against Muslim’s rights to practice their religion, but are still subjected to the constant view of women’s uncovered faces in the US.
6- Being gay is normal -it’s just not average. It’s more common than left-handedness, genius and perfect pitch. All normal states of being-just not average.
Interestingly, left-handedness is disproportionately common in homosexual people. I find that kinda neat.
(left-handed and straight)
I love that factoid! I tell it to people all the time.
I’m a gay lefty, and my sister is a bi lefty. Woo for crazy statistics!
Er Christianisty also calls for the death penalty for brides who aren’t virgins, declares eating shellfish (at weddings or otherwise) an abomination, declares most wedding dresses abominations as they are made from two differnet fabrics, prevents 25% of women of child bearing age from attending weddings (you really have to word the invites carefully) and the groom really must have a full beard. Of course your slaves can keep track of all this for you, provided they are from a neighbouring country of course.
^ WIN!
Jesus said kill virgins? And that’s happening now?! Oh NOs!
No; that was part of an ancient (and now defunct) Jewish legal code. It’s in the Old Testament, but that doesn’t make it the law for today. People often like to point to the old testament and its laws against shellfish and mixed fabrics and whatnot as proof that Christianity is legalist, but if you read the New Testament, all but the moral part of that legal system has been abolished. It’s like saying that because the United States once held black slaves, we still agree with it.
If that were true why is the Old Testament still in the Bible? The laws relating to slavery aren’t still published are they?
If slavery is no longer legal, why do they talk about it in history books? Is there something we are supposed to *gasp* LEARN?
History books are clear that the laws they talk about are now repealed, the Old Testament is not. The Old Testament states baldly that a number of things are abominations and punishable by death. There is not footnote explaining this is no longer the position.
Sure, there’s no “footnote” but if you continue reading you see the evolution of the law from an incredibly strict law, full of external demonstrations of devotion, to a broader definition of the law to “Love”. To try to claim that everything in the Old Testament is still in force is being willfully ignorant…
If that’s so, then why is it insisted that the few, ambiguous passages that refer to homosexuality are absolutely still in force?
No, the wilful ignorance is picking and choosing what parts of Leviticus still apply while claiming the surrounding chapters have “evolved”.
The Mosaic law was made up of basically two parts: a moral, and a ceremonial. The ceremonial aspects of the law were completed, or fulfilled, with the atonement of Jesus Christ. The moral aspects remain in force, with some added emphasis given by Christ.
PWNED!!!!!
I agree completely about the “Old Testiment vs. New Testiment” arument. Most people (one’s who aren’t Christians or even Christians who do not study the Bible) don’t understand that the old testiment is exactly that… Old… Old laws… Back in the Old Testiment people had to make sacrifices to be forgiven. Jesus took all of our sins with him on the cross, so now all we have to do is ask for forgiveness and truly repent.
Now, can anyone tell me why gay people NEED to be married anyways? Marriage started as a Christian unity. A unity between a man and woman through God. Sex is supposed to be saved til marriage (although now-a-days it usually isn’t), but it’s a way for God to allow sex and to start a family. So what is the true reason for two gay people to marry?
I believe this is just another way for people to try to bash Christianity (which is what the Bible predicts. Christianity will be attacked before the end of days). I’m not saying allowing gay marriage is the “end of the world” but what is the freakin’ big deal?
Gay’s demand a vote on legalizing gay marriage. It loses then they protest and complain that it’s still unfair. God loves everyone, no matter what they do. Everyone is a sinner, and every sin is the same in Gods eyes. Whether you steal a piece of candy or kill someone.
Testament.
Marriage did not start as a Christian unity, it is in the Old Testament, therefore pre-Christian.
So, having studied the Bible how am I supposed to know what part are “Old” and not to be followed?
As stated elsewhere, marriage is a civil and legal institution since it provides benefits and obligations, it is not religious.
Marriage predates Christianity, friend. Marriage also has become intertwined with laws, and civil unions do not grant the same laws.
Also, no one really likes it when you act like God is undoubtedly real unless they are Christians. Keep in mind that there is no proof for any gods, only faith.
Best wishes to you.
Really? Marriage started as a “Christian unity”? Don’t tell all the people who were married in cultures that existed hundreds of years before Christianity.
And the “big deal” is that if I am in a committed, loving relationship, I want to enjoy the same protections that heterosexuals do.
This isn’t a way to bash Christianity. We don’t care about Christianity. We don’t want to force your denominations to perform marriages for us. This is COMPLETELY about legal protections.
Tell me, why do straight people “need” to be married? Pretty sure the reasons are exactly the same.
Been said before, but I reckon it warrants repeating: marriage is far, far older than Christianity, and has many more forms than the Christian variety. Hell, “Christian” marriage is varied enough in itself.
No we don’t, me and Mrs G got married for tax reasons and to score the benefits we could get.
More or less the same reasons same sex couples want marrriage.
If you were gay and your partner got cancer, you wouldn’t be able to see them one last time before they died… because you aren’t married. Does anyone REALLY deserve that?
So, if same-sex unions had ALL the rights of “traditional” unions, but were called something different, would that be OK?
yeah, really hypocritical of them. (not sarcasm.)
Honestly, a lot of people probably still wouldn’t be. But, a lot more others would be happy with a legal union that confers all the same rights and responsibilties as “traditional” marriage that is available to any loving, committed, consenting pair (or more?) of adults regardless of their sexes, and the option to confirm it in a religious ceremony at the church of their choice that is willing to perform it.
To put it another way: There is “marriage”, the secular, legal union of two people that confers official recognition, rights and responsibilities in the eyes of the law, society and the government.
Then there is “marriage”, the religious ceremony that symbolically unites two people before the eyes of God/s, and may have certain ecclesiastical significance to policies and the like within the church.
Christianity (and others, but that’s the main group in question) is claiming monopoly over both of these. Their symbolic religious ceremony is the only valid one. Its conditions must be applied to every union, regardless of the couple’s actual beliefs. Governments support this claim by conflating the first definition with the latter, making the one dependent on the other, and only on ONE version of the other.
Gay marriage proponents, such as myself, want the former category (“secular marriage”) to be available to anyone who wants it (consenting, equal adults, etc). This would also allow churches and religions who do permit same-sex unions the option of consecrating this legal union in a symbolic ritual (“religious marriage”).
Does that make sense? And is that really so unreasonable?
It’s absolutely reasonable to want all the same rights. I would support that, but I just see it as something different than marriage. Hence, my question. If it’s called something different, why isn’t that OK?
Because that implies – nay, enshrines – that homosexual unions are meaningfully different to heterosexual unions.
Now, if we had: “civil union”, which is the secular, legal, officially-recognised union that anyone, straight gay or bisexual, can obtain which bestows government benefits, rights and responsibilities; and “marriage”, the religious institution bestowed according to the beliefs of individual churches (or whatever other terms), that would be fine.
Serpentine I could not agree with you more. No further elaboration needed on my part.
Goodgood. Nice when communication works
Amen. +100 for logic win.
Please state exactly where in the new testament it says that the old testament is null and void.
Read Matthews 5:17
-Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Look like the old testament is still in play.
There are slaves in the New Testament and no one says there is anything wrong with keeping slaves. Have you read the book of Philemon? He was a slave, and Paul seems pretty complacent about his status as a slave.
Nope. Nor did he ever say that homosexuality is a sin.
Actually all of the things you just listed were called out in the old testament, which Jesus pretty much told the world to forget. Nice try though. And I do like how you completely overlooked the fact that they still have no right to demand that religions change their beliefs.
Yeah, and the strongest passages condemning homosexuality were ALSO found in the old testament. To my knowledge, homosexuality is never mentioned at all in the words of Jesus, and lesbians are never mentioned in the New Testament at all. So nice try on your part.
Also, we aren’t demanding that you change your beliefs, unless it is your belief that not everyone should be treated equally under the law. If your church doesn’t want to marry me to my boyfriend, fine. We’d rather not get married there anyway.
“homosexuality is never mentioned at all in the words of Jesus”
1. Jesus is God, so the whole book is his.
2. He explicitly reiterated that marriage was designed for one man and one woman.
3. Homosexual behavior and “same-sex marriage” were not debated at that time.
4. Just because He didn’t mention it doesn’t mean it is OK.
100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
100% of the verses referring to God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
“2. He explicitly reiterated that marriage was designed for one man and one woman.”
Please explain the multiple wives of Kind David and Solomon and Job, and the many other examples in the Bible.
written after that sh!t happened. sure Solomon would have listened if God had said not to.
Homosexuality is only vaguely mentioned a few times and is mostly looked down upon because the men were laying with other men *instead* of procreating with their wives. Infant mortality was high in those days, and children were required to keep up family farms and houses. Also, Sodom was destroyed because the men tried to rape the angels. Hospitality was highly valued in those days.
Being cruel to the poor and homeless is explicitly mentioned hundreds.
Tell me which one you think was more important.
I would like to see that statement by Jesus, please. And if “the whole book is his”, then “that was in the Old Testament” is not a valid counterargument when people point out all the other now-ridiculous things that were also condemned.
Also, those other verses are very much up to debate. Most of them, for example, refer to rape or to temple prostitution – one of the latter actually condemns child slaves to Hell.
I believe clicking on my name should lead you to a website that covers this, if I did it right.
Basically, the Bible says very little about homosexuality. That neither supports nor counters gay marriage, it’s just a fact. Those few passages that CAN be considered to be condemning homosexuality (but, as I said, this is open for debate), are subject to the same questions of context, meaning and relevance as every other little line and condemnation, such as shellfish and adultery and the like.
Furthermore, even if you’re right and the Bible does condemn homosexuality, how does that give Christians the right to legally impose their beliefs on the billions of people who are not Christians, or who are but disagree with that particular doctrine?
Is it the childrens fault they are slaves? No? Then why are they going to hell?
This is why many people believe those particular passages are against the will of God, and are the result of the humans who actually wrote them down tainting the message with their own beliefs. The link in Serpentine’s name discusses this.
Because the Bible tells me so.
Jesus NEVER said forget the old testament. In fact, what he /did/ say was that ‘I have come not to rewrite the old law but to add to it’. So according to Him the only ones going to heaven are Jews for Jesus. But it doesn’t surprise me that you entirely overlooked that since you also seem to be determined to overlook the fact that a couple of people have already mentioned that no one cares if you change your belief. Only if you change the law.
No. Not “add to it”. “Complete it”. There’s a difference. As you’ll remember, Jesus regularly broke (*gasp*!) the Old Testament laws when they interfered with common sense or kindness, such as healing a fellow on the Sabbath, or letting his disciples harvest themselves a meal. He regularly humiliated the religious leaders for their hypocrisy… The guy was a revolutionary. What he meant when he said that was that he meant to force people to think about the spirit of the law–at the base of which was “Love God; love your neighbor”; and follow that, dumping the law itself when it interfered with the aforementioned golden rule.
We also have, later on, Peter’s vision revoking the Jewish food regulations, which were part of a health code and probably not meant to be religious to begin with. It’s my opinion that laws against homosexual behavior were, similarly, health regulations from a time before condoms.
Have you read the bible? Or only a translation of it?
Thats a stupid question to ask considering nobody in this site or even alive today has ever read the original un-translated bible.
And yet Callista says “What he meant when he said that . . .”
I’m curious how she knows the nuances of what was said from a translation.
Many people alive today have read copies of the original texts. They are readily available, if not readily comprehansible to most of us. The versions in english have now been translated twice so how accurate are they?
Where in the new testament does it say one may eat shellfish and pork?
Where in the new testament does it say one should not stone a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding day?
Psst. He’s agreeing with us
No kidding, it’s like they say ‘but in the old testament you can’t have them.’ Well THAT’S not right!!!!
Then they say ‘well the old testament is dated, and there are different sets of standards in the new testament.’ Then everyone starts jumping about how he’s wrong.
These people are disagreeing with a person trying to agree with them, and are therefore making themselves look like idiots.
Yep, Leviticus with a hint of Deuteronomy, Same place homosexuality is called an abomination. All or nothing my friend, you can’t pick and choose the word of God. All I demand is consistency of belief, the bible isn’t an a la carte menu.
And actually the bible is exactly an A la carte menu, you do what you have to to be a good person. The bible says obey the laws of the land, suppose the united states instituted a law to shoot illegal immigrants on sight, that would obviously be the wrong thing to do, and therefore you would not abide that law and by extension, the bibles instruction to obey the laws of the land. Not every Sin is ultimately evil, and not every good deed is ultimately selfless. I Agree gay people should be able to reap all the legal benefits that straight people do. But marriage is reserved for a man and a woman, if a civil union grants all the same benefits then quit splitting hairs about what its called.
Your example is irrelevant. Biblical injunctions to obey local laws have no bearing on ignoring laws within the Bible. If people obey some and ignore others then they treat God’s Word as an a la carte menu. They are putting their judgment above the Bible.
Their judgement is above the Bible, mankind makes robots, God makes individuals capable of free will and judgement. The bible is a general guideline on how to live your life and be a good person.
If you want a little more realistic example, Nazi Germany 1930′s-1940′s, had many laws that Jesus himself would have been ashamed to see his followers obeying. Despite the bibles suggestion that you obey the laws of the land.
Another irrelevant example, How do I know which of the laws in the Bible I have to follow and which I can safely ignore? Remembering that the passages about homosexuality, the uncleanliness of women and stoning those in inappropriate clothing are consecutive chapters in Leviticus.
You have to read the Bible in context. Look at Leviticus 18 — the beginning and end can’t be more clear in showing that the laws applies to Israelites AND non-Israelites. Then look at the passages addressing dietary restrictions and such (ch. 11, I think) — they apply to the Israelites only. Really, it is all there. Read it yourself and don’t just pass along sound bites.
So, given your own arguments, in what way is the Bible a reason to force everyone to abide by every one (or, rather, the few that you deem still relevant) of its tenets through law?
Serpentine, if I was gay I’d want to marry you.
So you’re a laaaaaaady, then? If not, you don’t have to be
…gay, that is.
He would have to be a polygamist, though. That’s a different graph….
I’ll just nip off home and ask the missus if it is ok . . .
Polygamy ftw B)
I suck.
Oooooh hacked! Posting in my name while I’m asleep? Classy.
If you’ll read my post just a bit further up, ” I Agree gay people should be able to reap all the legal benefits that straight people do.” It’s not a reason to force anyone to do anything, it’s a guideline for a set of good morals. Not a list of reasons to hate people or force people to do things. My arguement is marriage is a religious thing, between a man and a woman. I say give everyone the right to civil unions and give them the same legal benefits as everyone else. I think most just are splitting hairs because its called a civil union, not a marriage.
Have you done any research on civil unions? If you had, you’d know that civil unions do not carry all of the same rights and responsibilities of marriage. Do some research, then see if you still think it’s about symantics.
If god made “individuals capable of free will and judgement”, then god wants said individuals to exercise same. If god wants people to exercise free will, shouldn’t they be allowed to do so as long as no one else is hurt? As such, wouldn’t god want homosexuals be allowed to exist and do as they please and even marry as god wants people to have and exercise free will?
…yes. That was the point of my post.
I like how all these morons try to take you down and fail. They speak harshly, “but a kind word turns away anger.” we will always win with people like you.
Shame about the people like you.
And A seems to be arguing for and against. A summary of their position would be useful.
Ive posted my opinion, I am opposed to same sex marriage as marriage is a religious institution. However, I have no problem with civil unions for any and all, and those unions having every legal benefit as a married couples.
I’ve*
as married couples*
Whoops.
But what about those religions in which homosexual unions are fine? Shouldn’t they be permitted act upon their own beliefs?
(possibly redundant given the above posts, but it is something I’d like clarified)
Ugh. I was gonna ask something else, but I forget. Oh well.
Serpentine, in response to “But what about those religions in which homosexual unions are fine? Shouldn’t they be permitted act upon their own beliefs?”
I think religions can and should do whatever they believe in regardless of outside opinion. And I’m not about to tell religions what they can and can’t do, things like that started the worst wars in history.
“The bible says obey the laws of the land”
Unless they disagree with God’s law.
“if a civil union grants all the same benefits then quit splitting hairs about what its called.”
Dude, that is *all we are asking*. Thing is, many civil unions as they exist now *dont’* grant the same legal benefits as heterosexual marriage. A lot of states don’t even have civil unions.
There is no demand that the religions change their beliefs. Only that those beliefs should not be forced through law upon everyone whether they believe or not.
I am a moron.
Don’t tell me I’m wrong, that would be forcing your beliefs on me!
And this is why we need tripcodes.
what are those?
oh and by the way I would like to know what the trigger words are.
Christianity does not call for these things. These are Old Testament laws specifically directed at the nation of Israel.
And yet they were repeated in the King James version in the C17th, with nothing to suggest they no longer apply.
Old testament reader is messing up. Jewish law misinterpretaing fail FTW.
Man I miss the 90′s when they were in the closet and I could go a normal day without having to hear or see something fruity.
It’s going to be allowed, and they will gracelessly accept it with: Nah-nah! *raspberry*
le sigh…
If i were allowed to actually marry the person I loved, I would celebrate at finally being treated as equal under the law. Just because I love someone’s soul and it happens to be in a body similar to my own, that doesn’t make it any less love. And it’d be like the old men weeping and gnashing their teeth and the young men rejoicing when the new temple was built in the Old Testament. The older generation wept because the temple wasn’t as nice as the old one, but the new generation sang and clapped and danced because they even HAD a temple to begin with.
I wouldn’t feel any malice, only joy. And I’m trying to reconcile that unbridled optimism with the fact that I won’t be accepted by some people because I happen to love a little differently.
I used to be one of you. I know the arguments for, and the arguments against. And the fact of the matter is, I wouldn’t hold any grudges. Maybe that’s just me, but I’d hug anyone on the street. Straight, gay, what have you.
I’d finally be able to get married. To be with someone I love for the rest of my life and have all the benefits of a heterosexual couple.
We will be graceful, for we have always been graceful in our passivity. And we will accept it, because you would if you were in the same position. We have always conceded defeats eloquently and dignifiedly, and we will celebrate in exactly the same manner.
Not ALL the benefits of a heterosexual couple. *cough* children *cough*
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist saying that. I’m not a homophobe, just a troll.
Well Yeehah for you!!!! I’m sort of a troll myself:
how do you get 4 gay guys to sit on a barstool?
turn it upside down!
did you here about the two gay judges? they tried each other out!
now for all the atheists:
a dyslexic atheist:
There is no dog!
an atheist news network:
we don’t beleive in a kind loving god who cares for us and meets our needs, so send us some money so we can, uh, spread the good news.
atheist hymn;
who gives us reason to live?
no one, no one!
Yeah, you might call me a hypocrite for my lack of a logical arguement, but I would just like to point out that pro gays are not doing to well in this arguement, either.
I forgot what I was going to say. oh well.
I prefer “Hear about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac? He stayed awake all night wondering if there really is a Dog!”
Hahaha, it’s fine. I can be a troll myself.
And there’s adoption/surrogacy.
But my main point above it that the opposition to same-sex marriage needs to realize that they’re going to affect the lives and the pursuit of happiness (two unalienable rights, as I recall) of millions of fellow Americans. And it’s all over something that won’t affect heterosexual marriages in any way.
These are our lives. And you people are going to quaff our wants, our most primal and deepest and most gnawing wants, just because it makes you a little bit uncomfortable?
I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. If we were doing that to you, with heterosexual marriage, you’d cry outrage.
I just want to live my life the way I was born to live it. And I shouldn’t have to worry about that, but I do.
I just want a life that’s as central as left-of-central can be.
I truly wish this were true. YOU may be graceful in victory or defeat, but that’s not been the case for everyone, on either side. You can see by the nasty-grams being posted on this very graph. Or when the polls closed in 2008 and prop 8 passed. Near riots in the streets, vandalism, etc. What a sad sight…
It truly is disgraceful. Makes me sad.
I had forgotten about this until you had pointed it out. Thank you.
yep. so much for “hurray for all kinds of love.” f***ing rainbow stealers.
Let’s be civil here, please. I’m trying to express my point without malice or profanity…it tends to make the argument stronger when you don’t use either of those things.
Marriage shouldn’t be an institution recognized by the Government, anyway. Civil Union Contracts should be available to both heterosexual and homosexual partners, as it is merely a contract to share expenses, grant next of kin rights, file taxes jointly and so forth. It essentially only needs to create a new legal entity consisting of the two partners. If you choose to call that marriage for religious purposes, that’s fine.
But the government must act independently of religion, as it must serve ALL people, of any religion or no religion.
ABSOLUTELY!
As a Catholic, I agree with this view 100%. We need to drop the government involvement at any level. (I responded already, heh it’s an automatic response to any argument referring or pertaining to marriage law)
My wife and I were married in our church. I don’t care what the state says, I only did what I had to because it was illegal to marry without a license. How f**ktarded is that? Make it illegal to bop your relatives, that covers the whole inbreeding thing that they seem worried about.
Fun side effect: the state wouldn’t be allowed to ask on any form whether you were “married”.
That depends on which state or country you live in. We aren’t all in the US you know, our forms contain questions on civil partnerships.
I agree completely, but I really doubt it will happen any time soon.
i love this graph, (even though there isnt one) but im wondering why cant gay people get married?? there no different from anyone else besides who they sleep with. seriously marriage in any type of way shape or form should not be even poked by the government
it isn’t, look up. Gay and straight couples can get civil union contracts.
Marriage is a religious thing and homosexuality is denounced in christianity, therfore, no gay marriage XD. Its a church/religion thing, not government
As others have mentioned, civil unions are only recognized in a handful of states. The federal government, and all state governments do however recognize marriage contracts, and have laws pertaining to them.
Personally, I’m all for separating the two, civil unions being a legal thing, marriage being a religious thing, that has no meaning from a legal standpoint. That however is not currently the case here in the US.
Marriage is not a religious thing if it confers legal benefits. If those benefits are better than the benefits of civil partnerships then marriage is legal not religious.
So only Christian marriages are legitimate?
What about Hindu, Shinto, Jewish, Buddhist, Unitarian, and all the other religions? Are their marriages less because they have different views?
You’re pulling at hairs here, he said ‘religious thing’ and gay marriage is DENOUNCED in christianity.
Nowhere in his post did he say marriage was a ‘christian thing’.
No, they can’t. In California, opposite-sex couples can only get a domestic partnership if they’re over 62, but they can marry. Same-sex couples cannot marry, but can get domestic partnered…domestically partnered….? Ah hell, whatever the verb form is.
Also, domestic partnerships/civil unions are not recognized by the federal government.
The civil union thing’s already been addressed, so I’ll just say this: What about religions (and even Christian churches) that don’t denounce homosexuality? Why should they be stopped from marrying gay couples just because other churches don’t like it?
That’s already been addressed, too. But interestingly, I have not seen one response to it…
Well, I meant in response to that particular post, but yeah, the point’s been made. I know I’ve been making it as often as possible, because it really bothers me that so many people on both sides of the debate see it as homosexuals vs. religion as a whole. The people on the anti-gay marriage side are able to convince themselves that they’re defending religious freedom (when in reality they’re denying it to others), and the people on the pro-gay marriage side set themselves up for the separate-but-equal solution of civil unions, which are better than nothing, but still far from ideal.
I have noticed the complete lack of response, though.
I’d like to see the state completely removed from the marriage process. It should be a private thing with no state sponsored licensing or benefits attached.
We have commonlaw marriage laws, so divorces are covered.
Keep government where it belongs, way over there, outside the family, however you define that word.
So that’s why they shouldn’t be “allowed” to marry by the state, the state should have no say for or against, period.
Agreed, Marriage as it is should be a religious institute, period. If one church forbids gay marriange, that’s fine, if another down the road has no problem with it, go right ahead.
You got it. Then all the pious people can just say “Oh you aren’t really married because you weren’t married in OUR church.” and the rest of us can just go about our lives not giving a d*mn about it and living our own individual lives by our own individual morals.
Some people misinterpret the Bible, which leads to different doctrines.
No, everyone interprets the Bible. Including you. You do not have a grand, inalienable, universal, undeniable insight of Truth into the “correct” interpretation of the Bible, and if you think you do, you’re even sicker than I thought.
I never had that sick notion. we are all blind or vision impaired when it comes to truth; I just follow the one I perceive as right.
The greatest lies aren’t those which are without grains of truth: real lies have truth mixed in to make them evermore believable.
You follow the one you perceive as right, but you seem to think that also gives you the right to make other people follow it, whether they perceive it as right or not. If you don’t believe that you somehow have more perfect knowledge than the rest of us, then what do you think gives you the right to do that?
Can we get off this topic on this site please?
We hear the same arguments from the same sides each time, this isn’t going to be solved in forums one way or another.
All you get is a flame war here, so lets stop stoking the flames please?
Agreed but it won’t happen. The cheezburg network is completely in the tank for homosexual rights as well as most liberal causes in any form that they can’t resist posting political stuff in the nonpolitical sites.
Hehehe but 4chan certainly isn’t!
Yep. totally true. Graphjam has an agenda. just remember that if you rate this graph down, then that just shows the approval rating.
also, report as incorrect/offensive.
But surely people will change their minds when *I* rehash the arguments!
When you put it like that cass, I’m convinced.
I think this was a great new take on the issue XD
Urg, If I wanted political subjects, I’d go to Pundit Kitchen.
With this, and other graphs here, it solidifies that the people who approve front-page graphs have an agenda.
Oh noes! People have OPINIONS!
AGENDAS. And for the record, we didn’t expect a website about funny graphs to be so biased as to what makes the home page.
… No, I think Serpentine meant opinions
They are, after all, what starts agendas 
So what’s YOUR opinion?
That I would like some choco cake. and my old cat back. and Bucky (a dog). and a complete spinosaurus skeleton. and a humongous star sapphire. and etc. etc. etc.
Oh man. Those all sound great (what happened to you, Weasel?
). Share?
Fankoos. I wasn’t sure that posted, i couldn’t find it afterwards.
Let gays get married! There’s no reason they shouldn’t be as miserable as the rest of us married folks!
You, sir or madam, have just made my day.
YES
MANKIND will DIE!! also Nazi will ride on dinosaurs
If it’s okay for one person to be gay, EVERYONE will want to be! And then where will we be? Not breeding, that’s where! Everyone. ESPECIALLY you.
It is okay for a person to be gay. And homosexuality is not a choice.
I was being facetious
I sure hope you were, because otherwise you fell for the worst troll imaginable.
Well my science says that it is!
But seriously: you can’t really offer general evidence for that (well, maybe the day when physics is axiomized and pigs fly). Some people switch from bisexuality to homosexuality to heterosexuality seemingly erratically. Perhaps they’re just finding what suits them best, as it really isn’t a choice? Well, if such erratic behavior is the case, it doesn’t really help the “it’s not a choice” argument. Thus, the situation is too ambiguous to come to a definite conclusion.
AMEN!
Trying to prove that homosexuality is not a choice by saying “Ask a homosexual” or “I didn’t choose to be homosexual” should be seen in the same light as “I believe in God because _________” They’re both based on personal experiences that can’t be refuted or proven.
Except that there’s lots of scientific evidence testifying to things like the biology of homosexuality, possible evolutionary mechanisms and reasons, the extreme difficulty of “converting” or “curing” a homosexual, the innate character of it, and so on. Yes, “ask a homosexual” is a pretty poor angle to take, but that doesn’t mean it’s the sole basis of the scientific fact that homosexuality is primarily biological, not a concious choice.
Dftrbx: it is possible for someone to be gay or bisexual and not be aware of it for a long time. Social pressures can push people, conciously or subconciously, to alter their behaviour or suppress urges and the like in all sorts of ways. I suspect that, if the world was entirely accepting and open about homosexuality and homosexual issues, the “erratic switching” would stabilise dramatically.
Bisexuality, too, can shift things a lot, as people’s tastes change over time (and in the case of bisexuals, their taste has a lot more room to move), and a long-term relationship can affect perceptions of that person’s sexuality.
Again, all theories. Very plausible, well-founded theories, but theories nonetheless. Until the human genome is decoded, and you can point and say “There! That is the gene that produces homosexuals!”, I don’t think you can call it proof.
There is a great deal more evidence for its evolutionary beneficiency (is that a word?), not least being the fact that it still exists and can be found in a variety of other animals, than for it being evolutionarily harmful or not evolutionary at all.
To put it another way: there are definitely biological reasons why homosexuality exists, we just don’t yet have enough evidence to say for certain what those are, and even when we do it will probably still be up to debate because there’s probably a variety of factors involved. There is no, or very little, evidence that homosexuality is “a choice” or unnatural or damaging to humanity or anything else.
Oh, yes it is a choice. wether (sp?) you love or not love is a choice, as well as who you decide to love. God is love, nobody says the Bible wasn’t funky by saying that. After all, you aren’t just one thing; look at revelation, is that loving? all we know is that for his plans for us to work, we have to follow his rules, wether they’re weird or not, because those all work for better. if the cost is no gay marriage, so be it.
You’ve obviously never been in love then. It’s not a choice, trust me on that. If it was, why would we? If people could choose to love, then why are so many commiting suicide because their spouse/kids die?
Love; there is none at first sight. just desire. I guess gays marry easier because people of the same sex have more in common, someone that shares more of their beliefs than someone of the opposite.
Since they don’t need to make babies, though, their balls are useless. And god meant for them to be used. thus, I will relieve them of their balls for free.
slice.
=={XXXXXXXXX> B==D <-balls
Well the last part is only true as long as they’re gay.
As for me I plan on marrying a woman someday.
Why do you keep responding to yourself? In any case, while love may not happen at first sight, it also isn’t voluntary. If it were, then as Moo said, people could spare themselves a lot of pain by deciding not to love people who have died or who don’t love them in return.
Also, there is no guarantee that two people of the same sex will share the same interests. My husband and I share more interests than I would with the average woman, or than he would with the average man.
The thing about the balls is simply uncalled for, and is one of the reasons why you’re even losing the respect of people who are on your side.
So you’re saying what we should do is blindly follow rules that we didn’t make, even if we’re not entirely sure of them, because some person higher than us says ‘you have to follow his rules, wether they’re weird or not, because those all work for better.’?
*cough*SHEEP*cough*
Ahem.
you just walked yourself right into my trap. Sheep you say? well, you’re right. The Lord is my shepherd. that’s a qoute from the Bible. See, only God knows what’s coming so the sheepier the better.
…
My God.
ehw is a double-agent.
Don’t you all see? He’s working the fundies from the inside! Subtly poking and prodding the ideology until it’s so ridiculous and absurd that noone could possibly think it’s serious, thereby furthering human progress from behind the lines of bigotry and backwards-thinking.
Devious. Truly devious. I apologise, I have grossly underestimated you, dear ally.
*slow clap*
well then that leaves me in a better position to STAB YOU.
stab
=={XXXXXXXXXXXXXX>
I come to this site for laughs… I don’t come here for a obvious liberal agenda….. Stupid liberals trying to shove their agendas down our throats… and something else along with the agenda.
Well said, James!
Then ignore it, Jesus.
little hard to do. you didn’t.
Epic.
I dont get it why god ‘hates’ gays, i dont believe he does. People say it, not god. God wants us all to be happy, right? He forgives us anything. Maybe he just said “its not good to be gay, because a man and a man, cant make children. And a woman and a women also not. It will stop the human having kids. (Sorry for my bad English, i’m from another country) I just think the people made this picture about God hating gays. He doesnt. I just know. I dont believe in any religion, but i know that if he exists, he wouldnt ‘hate’ them. Why would he hate people who are loving? Its a good thing.
They base it on Leviticus 18:22
(King James Version) “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
There’s a few others, too, all of which have alternate interpretations. Someone posted a link to Religious Tolerance .org earlier, follow the links through that.
Yeah, yeah, but that is the one everyone “knows” and likes to site.
Also see Romans 1, but note that the Bible doesn’t just consider homosexual behavior to be sinful. Christians shouldn’t grandstand on behaviors that aren’t temptations to them, because the Bible also rails against lust, greed, gossip, etc. In short, we’re all sinners in need of a Savior and Jesus is that Savior.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ro 1:18–27). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Yep, christians base their hatred and bigotry on the bible. We know that.
Fuc|< you, Evildave. I have never seen a worse person than you.
Really? Haven’t looked in the mirror, lately?
If you insult the Bible, you insult us. And by the way, I stair in the mirror often at the genius I see.
Well done neil. +1000 internets for your intelligent use of the passage.
Because its a SIN. He hates them because they go against his design for humanity.
Please see my post at 5.42am.
Except that homosexuality isn’t exclusive to humans, but rather it pertains to the entirety of the animal kingdom, so… Your argument is invalid.
If by the entirety of the animal kingdom, you mean 5 species (all of which are mammal).
If that were true (which it isn’t, let’s google battle!), that would still render his argument invalid. *shrug*
Sorry, I don’t think it does. I don’t necessarily agree with the argument, but he’s focussing specifically on humanity, not on the entire animal kingdom. The fact that homosexuality exists in other species has nothing to do with God’s “design for humanity”
God’s ‘design’ was in his image.
Does this mean…OH MAN! GOD IS GAY!
By this logic, all rectangles are squares….
See further up for why this is entirely incorrect.
If god is perfect and god has a design, by definition god’s design is perfect and would therefore take into account homosexuals or there would be no homosexuals, which would mean that god either doesn’t have a design, is not perfect, or does not exist.
Either way, you lose.
Or homosexuality is part of His design, in which case homosexuality does not go against His design so He does not hate them.
He still loses.
You forgot a variable: SIN. disobedience to God, which caused us to be less than perfect.
Yes. And I am proud to be imperfect. I can’t do any sport, and absolutly suck at telling time and jokes. However, I can read any book you throw at me, know spanish, latin, and ancient galic (sorta, I cant speak it and don’t know a third of the words, but still…), and love math, science, and all reptilian life. So I am imperfect. Who decided that all humans had to be tall, white, blond, athletic, straight, intellegent and have an innate fasion sense(which i also don’t have and have never bothered to cultivate)? I apologize if I insulted anyone during this rant, but I needed to say this.
So is atheism. You still let the areligious get married.
Yup. We shouldn’t be doing it because even though it doesn’t harm us, and it doesn’t make us bad people, some dude somewhere doesn’t like it.
why does this site allow such silly propaganda? what happened to the “jokes”? how about one like “Logical reasons to redefine a word like Marriage”
This generation will be dead before the affects of F-ed up relationships starts to get obvious. Some can see it already but they are labeled radicals or intolerant
Soooooooooooo freakin’ true.
I would like to hear things that are from people outside of Christianity. I’m tired of hearing “God this” and “God that.”Everything is too finite in Christianity. There must be other religions… Like Trollism, for example.
Disgruntled rational, educated people, you feel free to stick around, though. You stoke the fire but provide the facts.
I am from outside of Christianity. If people want to use Christianity to prove somethhing they have to do so in a convincing, rational way. If their objection is based on Leviticus, and I counter with another law from Leviticus, they can’t simply say Leviticus is obsolete.
I am not making the assertion that homosexuality is wrong, therefore I do not have to provide facts or prove anything. The person making the assertion does, and they must provide more than wishful thinking and selective quotations from a contradictory book.
Mmm. If someone is demanding that someone else act a certain way or be denied certain rights, THEY need to justify it, not the people who just want to do the same things as everyone else.
Is there a more elegant way of putting that?
Got one! To prevent gay divorce! Ta DAH!
LOL!
If gay marriage is made legal, I’m going to get a vote going to ban gay divorce… That’ll learn ‘em!
I say if gay marriage is banned to “protect and defend” marriage then we should also ban the thing that is most dangerous to marriage, divorce.
I’d actually support a ban on divorce. Sure would change the way we view marriage today….
Agreed. Used to be people would rather live in misery than go back on their vows. But nobody believes in honor or pride anymore, so vows are nothing more than empty words to most.
So, what you’re saying is… you miss the Good Ol’ Days when people were forced to live in misery until the day they died, quite possibly inflicting horrible emotional trauma on children forced to watch their parents trapped in a loveless marriage, thanks to devotion to “honor” and “pride”?
Yes, thats exactly what im saying. A time when people were less inclined to make rash stupid decisions. And actually kept their word. Most dont really seem to understand what the phrase “Till death do us part” means, theres a reason its not “Till death do us part, or we don’t get along anymore”. Divorce was originally instituted for VERY SPECIAL circumstances, not for people who are morons and jumped into something they couldnt see through.
That’s why I said we would have a different view on marriage. Marriage is not taken very seriously anymore because it’s so easy to get a divorce. People enter in to a marriage already planning on their divorce. If they took more time and took it more seriously, realizing the implication of spending your life with someone, we wouldn’t see a 50% divorce rate. That’s the tragedy…
Well, I wouldn’t support a ban (for the reasons Serpentine mentions above), but I do think it should be made a bit more difficult, so people will think harder before getting married in the first place.
Hey, us lawyers like divorce . . .
You’re a lawyer? Loophole exposing scum. only 33% are good lawyers.
You’re giving them way too much credit. 16.5% at best.
Gays will never get anywhere. Thats why they should be destroyed.
Oh come on man. that’s not a valid way to pose our argument, unless you were doing that to make fun of us.
Put all gays on an island by themselves and let the problem “breed” itself away.
That seems a shame, seeing as it is theorised that homosexuality may evolutionarily increase kin viability.
That’s a great theory.
The fact is that same-gender couples can’t reproduce. Just sayin…
So? That doesn’t change the fact that there are a number of ways it can still be evolutionarily beneficial. Come on, I’ve already linked all this stuff before. Just go do a damn Google Scholar search.
You’ve linked to theories! I’ve admitted that I believe the theories, that they are well-founded and very plausible. Cmoney made a ridiculously insensitive statement, but, the fact remains true.
If you refuse to give any credit to a scientific hypothesis on the basis that it is “mere theory”, then you must see no value in science at all, and it can never be used in any argument ever because it is entirely worhtless.
Science very, very rarely works in absolutes (and when it does, it’s usually a shorthand for “the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of this”). That is why it WORKS.
If I said “science has proven that homosexuality has evolved for this reason”, THEN you would have reason to criticise. As it is, it’s nothing but unjustly undercutting scientific knowledge for the very quality that makes it worthwhile.
In case you haven’t noticed, I’m getting REALLY sick of the “it’s only a theory!” criticism of scientific knowledge, in a variety of areas.
I value science immensely, being a scientist…
I just think if we are accepting theories as proof it has to go for both sides. I’m not trying to single you out, but just trying to show a point. If I say there is definitely reasons to believe in the existence of deity but say, “I don’t yet have enough evidence to say what they are,” I would be soundly mocked in the “scientific” community.
I am equally tired of people demanding proof of God’s existence, when I can see evidence all around.
Oh Gosh, this gay propaganada as ever. There is, of course, nothing wrong if two (three or even more people, for that matter) sign a contract that obliges them to the exact same rules as an ordinary marriage does.
But it is nonetheless no business of the state!
And by the way, the word ‘marriage’ always ment a man and a woman. Why do gays insist on this word that applies for no other contract than the specific one? Shouldn’t handball players insist on calling their sport football as well?
Is that why so many kings in the bible had multiple wives? David, Solomon, etc…
You are making a common error and assuming that the Bible approves of its records. The Bible is a thoroughly honest book, noting the sins and flaws of even the leaders. But God’s ideal for marriage is consistent throughout and it merely notes that some did have multiple wives. It also notes the adverse consequences.
Completely out of context but I’ll answer you
They were Jewish, we are Christians
That applies to the condemnation of homosexuality, as well.
Signing contracts *is* the business of the state. And civil unions do not have the same rights and responsibilities attached to them that marriages do (nor are they available everywhere.)
I love that most of the posts here–on both sides–are missing the point of the graph, which is that there are no LOGICAL arguments against same-sex marriage.
There are religious ones. (Jeebis invented marriage!)
There are scientifically ignorant ones (It’s unnatural!)
There are legally ignorant ones (Non-binding civil unions are the same thing as the benefits of a government-issued marriage license!)
There are purely bigoted ones (Gay folk make me feel funny down there so I’m gonna hate ‘em!)
…but there are no LOGICAL ones. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
As the graph points out.
There are many logical reasons, and you don’t even need the Bible.
1. The government is only involved in marriage because by nature and design these relationships produce the next generation. Why else would government be involved? Do you want the state to certify each of your friendships?
2. By nature and design, two men or two women do not produce children.
3. The multi-thousand year old definition of marriage in all cultures and religions was of one man and one woman.
I realize that the pro-gay lobby likes to pretend that there no logical arguments but that is just more deceptiveness on their part.
Except the main one that you’ve somehow missed. Marriage is a religious union. And most religions are against homosexuality. This chart would have been closer to being correct if it had been worded “Reasons to not allow civil unions or give them the same treatment as marriages.”
Then you run into first amendment issues.
If marriage is a religious union, then the government should not have a say in who can or can not marry because then the government is then making a “law respecting an establishment of religion” and would be oppressing any religion or religious movement which accepts homosexual marriage.
Marriage is not a religious union. You don’t need to go to church to get married.
You’re confusing the religious rite of Holy Matrimony with the civil contract of marriage. They’re different things.
No-one needs a religious rite to get the civil contract any more than they need a Christening to put a name on their kid’s birth certificate.
If this is true, then gay members of religions that are fine with gay marriage – including atheism – should be able to get marriages exactly as valid as any other.
Let’s ban ALL marriage and ALL rights that go along with it.
So it’s everyone, or no one. That way there is no discrimination.
I’ve been saying this for years, but you’re the first to agree with me.
You have my sword.
And MAI axe!
LOL, f4g!!!
LOL troll much?
I am referencing cyanide and happiness.
How fun, I’m referencing Other People’s Business!
This is actually more reasonable than just banning part…
I’ve got another idea:
LOGICAL REASONS TO ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE
_
|_| uhhh…
Because consenting heterosexual adults are allowed to marry.
Because consenting homosexual adults wish to do so.
Because there are legal benefits to marriage and disallowing homosexuals to marry is to deny them those benefits without due process.
Because homosexuality is wrong? How has almost everyone forgotten that in the last decade or two?
Seriously, because the bible says so in the old testament that people have already claimed isn’t for Christians since they have the ‘New’ Testament?
Oh and people probably forgot about the whole ‘homosexuality is wrong’ thing since like people have already stated, it’s found in quite a few species of animal on the planet.
Please explain in detail why homosexuality is wrong without referring to religion or religious texts.
I might as well ask you to explain why gays should be allowed to marry without mentioning civil rights, freedom, benefits
That one is easy: because it is right.
Correction; stupid people think it’s right. And, by the way, if you are an atheist, then what great authority said it was right that you must obey?
“Myself” is not a viable answer.
Actually, as a bisexual, AND a devout Christian, I agree with him (At least on the gay marridge part). In my opinion, Government and Religion are two totally different subjects that should never even come close to mixing with each other.
Oh wait, I just read it more thouroughly. S**t, I was never good a debating anyway.
Obey who or what, in what context? As a preliminary, without the necessary detail, I’ll go with “noone” and “evolution”.
So ‘noone’ said it was right, and I will discount ‘evolution’ because evolution can’t talk to us or give us a book like God did.
Because its clearly not natural. Darwin could tell you that. If society starts accepting homosexual behavior as natural and just an “alternative” lifestyle, our future children will grow up VERY confused.
You’ll argue that some men and women are born with homosexual tendencies and I agree with that. But you don’t embrace them, you fix them. The same as you fix other “natural” birth anomalies such as children born with ADD or with violent tendencies.
Homosexuality produces no children, and therefore, the relationship goes against nature. Survival of the fittest, homosexuals, from the darwinist view, are holding the human race up from evolving to greater things.
This includes “curing” autisim, right? I agree, low-functional autistics probably would like to be cured. But has it EVER occured to the entire human race that we would learn much more from other people if we just happened to NOT kill them? There happen to be autistic who can carry on a normal life, and some of them like the way they are, thank you very much. In fact, some Autistics tend to be more academic smart, but suck at physical activities. You could learn alot from them if you people wern’t so idiotic to assume that because they’re less perfect, the must have the intellegence of a fruit fly. And if you wish to play the darwin card, humans aren’t done evolving either. We’re still monkeys, more adapted to climbing trees than sitting at school desks for 17 years of our life. NOBODY is perfect, and nobody will be for millions of years, even if we think we are. It’s not just the strong over the weak. Intellegence has started become a player in life. And I bet, that there will be more autistic people, untill that becomes “natural” too. Or maybe more ADD people, or more people with downs syndrome. Or, for all I know, we could turn into a race with six different gender, and homosexuality won’t exist. Don’t claim you know what’s coming around the corner. Or reality will punch your teeth into the back of your face.
*sigh* Well, as long as I’m posting links…
http://www.springerlink.com/content/mt0r1667527314x5/
http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dNVIOYX-_3QC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=evolutionary+benefits+of+homosexuality&ots=keH_6p0T8N&sig=gz_X6cT0Ee-fQBOf-qdL7rD0m-I#v=onepage&q=evolutionary%20benefits%20of%20homosexuality&f=false
http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(02)00363-8/abstract
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w266w85204w4g635/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
I never posted that… WTF?
Actually, there are hundreds of other animal species that engage in homosexual sex. Therefore, it is natural. Many scientists conjecture that there is an evolutionary purpose for it, such as caring for the children of other animals that might have died.
People are complaining about the population being too high, and you are complaining about gay people not making babies?
0_0
Because the liberals are pushing “Its not wrong, its a-ok” agenda. In other words, the general public are a bunch of brainwashed loons.
Says the man who instantly trusts the book that has been re-translated and changed too many times to count, which was apparently written by a big man in the sky who just spontaneously spawned himself, and has the power to create an entire universe, yet leaves children with cancer to die.
Oh, and if you’re too logical to believe in that bulls**t, he’ll throw you in a pit of fire for all eternity.
Mmm.
oh the irony.
I bet you are also going to tell me we have magical machines that let us go to “graphjam” and whatever, and all the people you see here are real, not fake, because we can see what they wrote, even though we can’t see the people who actually wrote it.
Oh, and if they say you’re an imbecile, it matters so much, because they don’t know what you’re like yet derive a lot of info from one single comment without waiting to here the entirety of the message.
yeah, who believes that?
If I’m a troll, then how come I’m filled with glee whenever noone comes up with a response to my posts? I struck gold here!!!
come to think of it, I have done this 3 times now, and noone has ever touched the subject! wanna be a first? no one could ever even respond!!
You might be catching.
?
oh, yeah, and that doesn’t count!
STILL NO RESPONSES shame really I was looking forward to some sort of reply I DECLARE THIS YET UNTOUCHED ARGUEMENT WIN!
PS I R B FIRESTORMING AND IT FEELS GOOD!
Actually, we have no real way of knowing if the posts here are made by real people or chat-bots. That’s probably why no one is responding to you on this. Your point is moot.
Even if it is “wrong,” there are a hell of a lot of things that are “wrong” that are not actually illegal. And vice versa. We’re talking about the law here, not morality.
According to the bible that people seem to be following even if they don’t completely agree with it.
*cough*SHEEEEEEEEP*cough*
Upon what objective, universal (i.e. non-religious, as no religion is universally accepted) basis do you make that “factual” claim?
To pip a couple of contenders at the post –
“It’s unnatural”: there are many examples in nature. Even if there were no examples in nature, as is often pointed out, there are a lot of “natural” things that we do not do, and a lot of “unnatural” things that we do. If you are against homosexuality on this basis, then you must also be against democracy, clothing and computers.
“It isn’t reproductive”: While truish (homosexuals are still able to breed, they just often take slightly different avenues to do so), it is totally irrellevant today. Humanity has TOO MANY breeders. Removing some can only be good for us and for the world. Also, there are many other non- or counter-reproductive things we do, such as contraception and abortion (which I realise many people against homosexuality will also oppose), celibacy, putting off sex ’til marriage, anti-promiscuity, having sex after menopause, etc.
“If everyone does it, humans will go extinct!”: People (the vast majority, might be some exceptions) do not choose to be homosexual. Nor do they choose to be heterosexual. There is a certain proportion of humanity that is biologically inclined to homosexuality. This proportion is almost certainly stable – in fact, if homosexuality is embraced, it is entirely possible that the frequency of homosexuality inclination will DEcrease, as closet homosexuals aren’t forced into marrying people of the opposite sex, thereby removing more of their genes from the gene pool.
Mm… That’s about all I can think of. What else have you got?
Can you back up the “TOO MANY breeders” claim? The majority of Europe is in a population decline, with governments offereing incentives to mothers for bearing children, trying to reverse it. Same in Australia, right?
Human population as a whole is skyrocketting beyond the capability of the planet to support us? China is so overpopulated that it has a one-child policy, and Japan so packed that people sleep in drawers? Unfortunately, the area is too big and, to a large extent, self-evident, to find a particular paper studying the situation to declare “humans are breeding too much!” Here’s some things I could find, just quickly, anyway:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/pdf_extract/306/6888/1285
http://www.bodhi.net.au/pdfs/ovpovcecs.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
Before someone chimes in with “it are Wikipedia! It are not reel sauce!”, I would like to draw your attention to 216 footnotes at the bottom of the article.
And in Australia, it depends on who you talk to. One side (mostly the overly-religious Right) wants to push for a population increase (while simultaneously railing against the “invasion” of refugees), while another side (notably our current PM) wants to keep our population steady.
“For the world as a whole, the number of children born per woman decreased from 5.02 to 2.65 between 1950 and 2005. A breakdown by continent is as follows:
Europe 2.66 to 1.41
North America 3.47 to 1.99
Oceania 3.87 to 2.30
Central America 6.38 to 2.66
South America 5.75 to 2.49
Asia (excluding Middle East) 5.85 to 2.43
Middle East & North Africa 6.99 to 3.37
Sub-Saharan Africa 6.7 to 5.53
Excluding the observed reversal in fertility decrease for high development, the projected world number of children born per woman for 2050 would be around 2.05. Only the Middle East & North Africa (2.09) and Sub-Saharan Africa (2.61) would then have numbers greater than 2.05.”
A birth rate of 2.05 (projected for 2050) would most likely represent a decrease in population, wouldn’t it? In order to even maintain the population, on average, every woman would need to give birth to 2 healthy children that would survive to maturity and be fertile enough to reproduce. A birth rate of 2.05 would not accomplish that, given infant mortality (about 7%) and infertility (about 7% US).
Ok, read your first sentence and i’d like to point something else.
Population rise and fall is a lagging factor, the people who had 7 or 8 children to a family on a normal basis are still alive, while people having only 2 or so children have come about fairly recently.
Give it 50 years, and the population will drop down to a reasonable number because the norm is becoming 2 or 3 to a family.
But that’s not enough to make the population *drop* at all. If the norm is 2 children per couple, then that’s enough to make the population stable; if it’s 3, then the population will rise, just more slowly than before. In any case, there will always be outliers in both directions, but since nobody can have negative children, it takes more people not having children at all to balance out the ones who have a lot. Knocking people because they’re not reproducing is pretty foolish when we have a population as big as we do. Even if it did start to shrink, humanity’s hardly going to go extinct because a portion of the population is having non-reproductive sex.
If norm were 2 children-that-survive-to-adulthood-and-in-turn-produce-their-own-children per couple, I would agree that the population would remain stable. If it’s just 2 children per couple, that would represent a population drop, just due to early death, sterility, or the fact that some people never have their own children…
If the *average* is two children per couple, that already accounts for sterility and choosing not to have children. I suppose there *would* be a slight decline due to people dying before they’re counted as part of a “couple”, but it would take many generations for that alone to make the population shrink noticeably.
Xenon is wrong. How has everybody forgotten this in the past few days?
Me no agrees. Manman and girlgirl is badbad.
Not necessarily true, sometimes girlgirl is f’ing awesome.
Logical reasons to post a graph on your homepage that will do nothing but start arguments and really isn’t that funny in the first place — uhhh…
To promote your own personal agenda and not even hint at neutrality on the subject.
Kinda like liberals do on a daily basis about everything else….. makes me wonder if this site was ever really funny and not just a breeding ground for liberal hacks.
There is no neutrality on this subject. If you do not support equal rights for gays you are a bigot, and we want you to die. This is the EXACT same as civil rights, there is NO difference, only those who are bigoted want you to believe otherwise. In 30 years, people will look back at you like we look back at the racists who denied blacks equal rights, and we will KNOW you were a moron.
Or they could not of let this graph on.
so if they don’t let this graph through, they are bigots. if they do, they’re neutral. how fair is that???
Basically, this is true. Look at the KKK. Pretty much the laughingstock of the world. But that is true of America at this point. Mostly because we find this issue so contentious. Heck, even the most Catholic countries in the world have gay marriage.
PS. The Bony Man lives in America, but don’t judge him for that.
Don’t trust everything you hear about the pro-gay agenda, peoples…
here’s another graph by the person who made this;
http://cheezburger.com/wtfudgsicle/lolz/View/3869552896
I guess gay supporters just like throwing babies…
Wtfudgesicle was sure a jerk when she made this. Funny thing though, that’s her in the profile, and she’s pretty hot AND straight looking. about my age, too!
The “pro-gay” agenda is a very simple thing to understand: IT IS FREAKING PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL LIKE REGULAR NORMAL SMART PEOPLE DO. F**k’s sake.
You mean, like, “there is a pro-gay agenda”?
The real reason why people don’t support gay marriage; Chuck Norris doesn’t support it, and everyone knows that the world worships Chuck Norris.
Thats just silly, if Chuck Norris didn’t support it there wouldn’t be a debate. Because anyone who disagreed wouldn’t be around long enough to disagree.
Logical reasons to get married – uhh…
Win.
As a Christian. I’d rather be condemned by God for loving and accepting too many people.
Well said, Abyssion. Thank you for that.
Good God. Best way to bring out the idiots and bigots on the internet? Post a logical, intelligent post about gay marriage. F**king lord…
It’s also the best way to bring out people bigotted against christianity and churches and anyone who looks at them funny. Two way street, you hypocrite.
He only said ‘idiots and bigots’, not idiots and bigots against homosexualism. I don’t blame you for getting angry, but it’s a bit silly to call him a hypocrite
Wait wait wait…
So you’re saying that it’s OK for Christians to be bigotted towards , but it’s not OK for anyone to be bigotted towards Christianity and churches?
Talk about hypocrisy.
If you disregard the fact that he posted it, he makes a completely valid point.
The real problem with this graph is that it’s boring and lame. Also, isn’t there a whole blog (pundit kitchen) for the annoying political crap?
I’m homosexual myself, I support gay rights.
But this is getting redundant…
Haven’t there already been several of these? Besides, they legalized gay marriage recently in California and Mexico, you’d think that would at least temporarily satisfy people.
Unfortunately, gay people will NEVER be satisfied.
Because of course grudging legal acknowledgement in one state and one country should be enough to satisfy anyone!
Gay marriage is definately not right, and i really dont approve of it, but i do take pleasure (and approve of) seeing all the gays get made fun of.
Unless you’re a troll, I hope you have fun in hell!
You are assuming hell exists.
I would laugh so hard if you were an atheist. God created h3ll.
You guys do realize that religion should have nothing to do with this argument, right? And I’m not talking about Christianity, I’m talking about ALL religions in the world. This is America. We have Freedom of Religion. We have separation of Church and State. Religion should have no hold over political decisions (though currently it usually does). I’m pretty sure the gays could care less if they were married in a church or not, they just want to be recognized by the government that they are a legally married couple and that they have the rights that every other married couple has. A partnership isn’t the same thing.
Look, I don’t really get why same-sex marriage is a problem. I don’t get why there are still racists out there. As human-beings, I would have thought that we have evolved, mentally, enough to realize that we’re all the same, and s**t like political, or religious, or really any differences we have doesn’t matter.
This is what gets me about it – what the hell difference does it make to anyone else if two menz or two laziez marry each other. I don’t see my straight relationship withering and dying because our lesbian friends married each other. Any kids I have will learn that people love who they love.
Who thought putting political flamebait on the front page was a good idea? I go to GraphJam to take a break from the political websites I visit, not to be exposed to Yankee partisan snipering and badly written strawmen.
Oops, I appear to have stumbled upon a PunditKitchen comments section. I’ll take my hat and be leaving now.
You ask why? -> because human race has NEVER EVER been made for being gay. It’s just not natural. So why should anyone support gay marriages? You are lucky that you are allowed to be together, be hapy about that.
Repeating the same thing again, but anyways: Homosexuality is found in a lot of places in nature. Also, it is a biological phenomenon, with evolutionary benefits and reasons. Therefore, it is natural.
Alright, I’ll settle this. Homosexuality has no scientifically proven benefits for the persons involved. Homosexuality does not ordinarily exist in nature and is thus not natural(by this, I mean that animals do not normally carry out sexual relationships with other animals of the same sex). There are no evolutionary benefits because reproduction is impossible, therefore rendering our species extinct. The only possible benefits might be happiness. Also, there are far too many of these damn graphs about “no reason to ban.” If a state wishes to ban gay marriage out of tradition, get over it and move a different state. it’s not that difficult.
“Homosexuality has no scientifically proven benefits for the persons involved.”
Try, all the exact same benefits as heterosexuality (companionship, happiness, support, etc), with the limited exception of breeding, which heterosexuality does not guarantee and homosexuality does not preclude.
“Homosexuality does not ordinarily exist in nature and is thus not natural(by this, I mean that animals do not normally carry out sexual relationships with other animals of the same sex).”
The study of homosexuality in other animals is in its infancy, so all you can reasonably say is “we have not yet found it”.
In any case, this is wrong. There are plenty of examples of homosexual behaviour, and some of homosexual relationships. And more are being found all the time.
“There are no evolutionary benefits because reproduction is impossible, therefore rendering our species extinct.”
A few things on this: there are several possible evolutionary benefits, including but not limited to kin selection, reducing competition, and the various genes and traits that occasionally result in full-blown homosexuality being beneficial for heterosexual and bisexual individuals possessing those traits.
Secondly, reproduction is not impossible. They are still fully able to reproduce. They just must take different avenues.
Finally, as I’ve said before, there is no way homosexuality could ever, even in the worst-case scenario, cause the extinction of our species. This is because there is absolutely no chance that every human being on Earth could ever be homosexual (and if they were, it would certainly be because of something far more dire than the legalisation of gay marriage) – you may as well argue against a celebate priesthood, because if everyone was a priest it would “render our species extinct”. Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of homosexuals having children, for a variety of reasons, and I’m sure if it was down to teh gayz to repopulate the planet they’d find a way to do it.
“The only possible benefits might be happiness.”
See above re: evolutionary advantages. Also, what’s wrong with happiness as a benefit? I think that’s a pretty major one.
For the rest, maybe. Personally, I found this one quite amusing.
Alright, I’ll settle this. Homosexuality has no scientifically proven benefits for the persons involved. Homosexuality does not ordinarily exist in nature and is thus not natural(by this, I mean that animals do not normally carry out sexual relationships with other animals of the same sex). The only possible benefits might be happiness. Also, there are far too many of these damn graphs about “no reason to ban.” If a state wishes to ban gay marriage out of tradition, get over it and move a different state. it’s not that difficult.
Homosexuality does not ordinarily exist in nature and is thus not natural(by this, I mean that animals do not normally carry out sexual relationships with other animals of the same sex)”
This is wrong
No, it’s right. He said ‘normally’, as in it does happen but it’s not the majority.
Surgery does not exist in nature. Therefore if you have appendicitis you should just die and get it over with.
Good Job at starting a political discussion with a white sheet, the words “umm” and a nice headline xD you sir are epic!
Ooh! Ooh! *Puts up hand*
Marriage is, in essence, a religious ceremony (it’s at least how it started) and as such shouldn’t matter if it’s open to homosexuals or not.
I’m heterosexual, but also non-religious so I see no need to marry.
But then, 1. there shouldn’t be legal status and benefit given to it, and 2. as there are several religions that accept gay marriage, gay members of those religions should be able to have a marriage equal to the others.
You post too fast.
so do I.
but I will say I am trying harder to be logical than she is. 
So, “stabbing” people, arguing points that were never made and alternating between celebrating when people don’t reply and complaining when too many of them do is more logical than actually presenting logical arguments with evidence to back them up? Seriously, point out a post where Serpentine was clearly as illogical as “Jesus is God. Get it through your dang head! (someone already mentioned this, but what the heck.)
I’ll pound it in. BAM!
^
========[|]>
[_]
Hammer it!”
… In response to a post where she did not claim that Jesus was not God.
*snrk*
Oh wait, I just supplied one for him… Dagnabbit!
being ADD and all is hard during this sort of arguement. sometimes, you argue logically, sometimes you just want to hurt people. when regular ehw can’t sit long enough to think, I emerge to hand out an @$$ whoopin’.
Guess what? I have ADD *and* Asperger’s. Yeah, there are plenty of times that I read things that make me want to respond with nothing but insults, but I know that won’t actually help me in the long run, so you know what I do? I save it to reply to later, then I *step away from the computer until I’ve cooled down*. If you would rather be a troll, fine, but don’t tell me you’re trying to be logical.
I see what you’re saying. No matter what, ADD does not leave you unable to CHOOSE. Just like choosing whether or not you’re a homosexual. Well, some things make me angry, too, and I develop a sort of multiple personality syndrom that will either flame or argue logically.
PS I believe that homosexuality is defined by ACTIONS, so if you don’t act gay, you develop the skill of not being gay, which helps you be straight habitually.
Gah, I wasn’t going to respond to your posts anymore, but I just can’t let that one slide. First, comparing the choice to control myself and not turn into a troll to “choosing” which gender you’re attracted to is the logical fallacy known as a “bad analogy”. As I said in the previous thread (in a post you never bothered to respond to), if you think it’s so easy, take gender out of the equation and try to “decide” to be attracted to someone you don’t find attractive to begin with.
Also, getting angry and posting a bunch of nastiness under a different name does not constitute multiple personality disorder (or dissociative identity disorder, as it’s called these days.) At most, you’re having mood swings, but probably, you’re just immature and think you can hide behind a mental illness you don’t actually have.
As far as your idea that homosexuality is basically just a bad habit, how do you explain all the people who were in the closet for years before coming out as gay? Most of the gay people I know went through a time when they pretended to be straight, either because they were afraid of their family’s reaction, or because they were in a religion that condemned homosexuality and they were afraid to admit it to themselves. Shouldn’t all that time pretending to be straight have *made* them straight, if your theory was true? And don’t try to feed me something about how they just “decided” to be gay after being straight for a while; most of these people went through a lot of pain, being shunned by their family and former friends, when they finally did “come out”. Nobody would put themselves through that unless lying about who they were was even more painful.
Marriage also includes LEGAL rights and responsibilities. It hasn’t been a purely religious institution for a very long time. Also, there *are* religious homosexuals who would like to be married in religious ceremonies, and not have the state deny them that right because someone *else’s* religion says it’s bad.
tl;dr
Wow, three sentences is tl;dr? Why are you even trying to read this page?
http://cheezburger.com/TBTabby/lolz/View/3134337792
My take on the subject.
*facepalm* – the only thing one can possibly do when reading this discussion.
Now excuse me, I’ll go home to my country that is not ruled by some religious *beeep* and that teaches their children tolerance and love and to not live according to some rules written/declared thousands of years ago. I once thought we all live in the present and not the past – seems I was wrong.
Let the gays marry and be as miserable like the rest of us!
Christians should STFU about gay marriage untill they stop molesting boys
Ditto for Katholics
Muslims…well…I guess they have equal rights as they blow up gays as much as hetero’s
Any other religion just doesnt care
And if you gays cant get married in the ‘Land of the “free”‘ (lmao..) you can come to the beautiful country of Holland, where weed is cool, mills rock, gay marriage is awesome and ninja kicking Spanish footballers is no 1 priority
You had me at ninja kicking Spanish footballers.
Hey Antichrist guess what? you just proved my point! Now people can witness ‘intolerant bigotry’ among the pro-gay side of things at it’s fullest!
PS since you seem to have resulted to trolling about us molesting let me just remind you that the Dutch (they are not called ‘hollanders’) have proven themselves to be lovers of prostituion and have shown it by making the building and owning and running of a brothel legal. well, I guess that means that there will be more legal oppurtinities for gays to work.
P.S.S Don’t you dare diss America, you poo-eating, p1ss-drinking, weed-smoking, tree-humping, dumb-@$$-wooden-shoe-wearing Dutch hippie b@stard!!!!!!!!!!!
Or you’ll what?
+1 for being patriotic, -50 for being a complete a$$hat about it. You do realize that most people around the world roll their eyes at just about EVERY American they see right?
You’re self-centered, intolerant, think your crap don’t stink and can do whatever you want anywhere in the world, while you don’t actually know anything about it or pretend to even WANT to learn.
Sound like any other ragheads you know?
You hate each other because you’re EXACTLY THE SAME, just pushing different sh!t.
*apologies to Americans who don’t fit into this box – I know there are a few*
Lol…
Oh well, I am glad you’re like that. As long as the entire world hates America we can all just sit back and relax.
Haha, allow me to add some facts:
Yes, Prostitution is legal, but it also protects those who use and participate in prostitution. If you want to do it, do it safe.
Yes Soft-drugs are legal, but due to it being legal, there are few true heavily addicted junks and less people who are tempted. The whole taboo ‘Apple of eden’ thing is gone, so why bother?
About the Gays, I am not gay, I do enjoy the gay community as they are normal and fun people like any of us. Why would you deny them happiness? Are they lesser people? no…they are the same flesh and blood you are made of.
Saying you are willing to ban their happiness on the accounts of a 2000 year old book practically saying some kid said his father was a god, then died, then ressurected so we have to now praise a zombie child thinking he was god…while his father was supposed to be a god.
Seriously…
ehw2, I have no problem with Christianity. What I have a problem with is people like you who claim to be Christian yet practice nothing that Christ taught. Where is your charity? Where is your compassion? All I see when I read your posts is a foul-mouthed, hateful, evil-hearted kid who only cares about himself. You FAIL at Christianity and you make the real Christians look bad. Congratulations.
I thought it was because they couldn’t have legitimate sex together.
Meh, but the plus to gay and lesbian marriages are that more orphans and such are adopted.
So it cancels out?
LONGEST PAGE EVAH
It’s scary…
eh, not quite. An earlier graph about gay marriage and such got 1000+!
It IS logical to ban it. There’s plenty of proof of the higher rates of danger and disease than in straight relationships. And it’s also about TRUTH. All that matters is God’s truth and that’s all that will ever matter. You cannot change things just by trying to repackage it or normalize it. SIN is SIN. PERIOD.
So, we shouldn’t encourage monogamy in gay relationships because of STD’s? Why does that seem backwards to me? And as far as the religious arguments go, those are perfectly fine reasons for your church to refuse to perform gay marriages, but it is unconstitutional for a LAW to be based on one religion’s idea of sin, when other religions (and the nonreligious) disagree. If you don’t like it, move to a country that doesn’t have separation of church and state.
Uhh, maybe because it goes against people’s beliefs which is forcing them to alter their religion with the state because church and state is separated, it’s violating laws. Just saying.
Go with your unions, but icsnay on the the marriage.
I have found a gay person who is against gay marriage bytheway.
And who might this person be?
No, it isn’t forcing anybody to change their beliefs. If a church does not want to marry gay couples, it won’t be forced to. However, right now, churches which *do* support gay marriage are prohibited from marrying gay couples, because the state is supporting the religions that are opposed to it. That actually *is* a violation of the separation of church and state.
You’re wrong about that.
Churches who refuse the marry gay couples are having their marriage license revoked, this is just as bad as not having gay marriages at all.
What’s your source for this information? You don’t have one because this is a lie told by the fundamentalists. Churches don’t have marriage licenses. I’m an ordained minister and can freely officiate marriages in every state but Nevada. If I refuse to perform any marriage for any reason, these is no “license” they can take away from me. Absurd.
*there is no “license” they can take away from me.
You know, there are plenty of churches that WOULD marry two gay people and do so joyfully.
The “my hateful church is going to be forced to perform a ceremony” argument is so hollow.
Yeah, just how gay people want to be married… in a hateful church by a minister who doesn’t want to bless anything they’re associated with. That sounds like a great start for a marriage. I can see thousands of gays just flocking in for that treatment.
You know, that’s another thing that’s always bugged me about that argument. Even if churches *could* be forced to perform ceremonies against their beliefs, what couple, gay or straight, would want to have their wedding performed by someone who believes their union is a sin?
Wow, we´re still in this discussion thread. LOLZ.
But yeah, gay people don´t even WANT to be married in churches that don´t recognize their union as truthful and equal to straight unions. That´s a stupid idea that only bigoted ignorant minds could come up with. If you have blue eyes, and there´s a church that says blue-eyed people are the devil, would you want to go anywhere near it, let alone get married in it? Surely not.
In fact, I wouldn´t want to get married in a church at all, ´cause I don´t believe in organized and institutionalized religion, so even if churches were forced to marry me and my gf, I´d rather have a secular ceremony and an after party in a party venue or something.
Bottom line is: Gay people don´t want the religion celebration, they just want the civil rights that are connected to the word “marriage”. Seriously, it´s not so difficult to understand, I´m sure a seven year-old could separate one thing from the another.
Well, the part about gay people not wanting the religious aspect isn’t universally true; as I’ve said in one of these threads (sorry, I lost track of which one’s which, but it was either this one or the adoption one), I know a bunch of gay Christians and a few gay Jews, and they would love to have religious ceremonies. The thing is, all of them go to a church or synagogue that accepts them, with ministers and rabbis who would be happy to marry them if they were allowed to do so. None of them would need or want to go somewhere that has to be *forced* to marry them.
Oh, sorry if I didn´t make my self clear! But that´s exactly what I said:
“But yeah, gay people don´t even WANT to be married in churches that don´t recognize their union as truthful and equal to straight unions”
I didn´t say they don´t want a religious ceremony, I said they don´t want a religious ceremony in a church that doesn´t support them.
Me and my gf, for once, we don´t want the religious aspect, but I know many who do. But they want it to be in a church that embraces them: after all, that´s what a religious ceremony is, a celebration of something by the community you´re in.
Why would I want a community that doesn´t support me and to which I don´t belong to celebrate such an important part of my life?
Same thing goes for straight couples… christians won´t get married in synagogues and vice-versa, for example.
I don´t know a minister or rabbi or priest or whatever who would celebrate a gay marriage, but I know many religious people who, surprisingly, like me for who I am and want me and the woman I love to be happy, no matter what is our sex.
Oh, okay! I read where you said, “Gay people don´t want the religion celebration, they just want the civil rights that are connected to the word “marriage”. “, and I thought you meant that *no* gay couples wanted the ceremony. Sorry, I can get kind of touchy about that because I just get frustrated that so many people see this as a “gay people vs. religious people” fight. It leaves out the people who are both gay and religious (not to mention the straight religious people who are still in favor of gay marriage
), and I don’t think that really does anybody who supports gay marriage any favors, you know?
And, yeah, it can be hard to find accepting religious authorities among all the ones shouting about homosexualtiy being a sin, but they’re definitely out there. Heck, I know at least three ministers who are openly gay themselves. Most denominations I’ve looked into seem to have some sort of group of churches that don’t agree with the idea that homosexuality is a sin; the only one I know off the top of my head is the Welcoming & Affirming Baptists, but there are many others.
all i have to say is that graph wins!!
oh and eat da poopoo
I always wanted to say this, but never had the time. =3 reference FTW.
This graph is all in all true and straight to the point. It’s a basic truth most have. However when dealing with religious people (ehw for example) They have a logic all on there own. They don’t truly see what others are saying and can easily back people up into a corner with logical fallacies. I honestly think that if the bible went into detail why the are what they are people could see better. Back then not my people of a certain religion existed. So how could they get more? Breed. Make a rule saying that people couldn’t “sleep” with the same gender. But that was in the old testemin. Jesus clearly stated that people needed to follow the new testemin in which he never said a word about gay’s being together… I guess my main point is that people shouldn’t pick and choose from there bible. (and i know not everyone follows jesus just and example)
#1 reason for banning gay marriage – To give us ladies a few more hot guys in the world!!!
Hey, I had never thought of that!
…
wait, I am a guy! have you seen recent gay couples? they ain’t THAT good looking.
I don’t know wether to applaud or boo the preposition.
´cause it´s “Adam and Eve” , not “Adam and Pete”…
Um… wow that’s a fail
it goes “it’s Adam and Eve and Adam and Steve”
If you are going to pull a dumb excuse at least do it right
I can think of two:
1. We’re doing these people a favour by not letting them marry. Marriage is horrible. It’s a terrible thing. You endure years of mutual bitter resentment before inevitably divorcing, at which point half your wealth is unfairly stolen from you.
When we stop anyone marrying for whatever reason, we do them a favour. So what if they personally want to marry? A kid would want all the candy in the world, but we prevent this to stop his teeth rotting and diabetes occurring. Same with this. Believe me, if we did let them marry, they’d only regret it eventually.
2. It’s funny watching homosexual people and their supporters getting all worked up about it.
Yes, because struggles for civil rights are soooo funny…
Marriages only end in divorce so much because it’s so easy to divorce, there are plenty of marriages where they are completely happy with each other their whole lives and only argue about mundane things.
I think it’s so funny that everyone gets so worked up over a fcking book. Seriously?! You believe that there is a God because a book says so? I have an incurable disease, can each one of you Christians give me 50 dollars? I askonly because you are so incredibly gullible that you would probably believe me, and send it. Whatever happened to “WWJD” ? How would you guys feel if suddenly all your decisions were taken out of your hands. OH WELL. At least when your “Judgment Day” comes and all you sorry sacks of sht are not allowed into “Heaven” because “God” said only he was allowed to judge, I’ll be able to laugh at you. And to everyone trying to argue with them: There’s no point. Christians use a reasoning system called “circular reasoning” essentially meaning that they don’t see logic or truth because they will continually make sht up to try and prove a point. Gays FTW!
Ultimately, this is an exercise in futility. One side won’t ever change the other’s opinion. We fundamentally disagree on the nature of the argument itself: one side argues it’s a religious issue, and the other side argues it’s a political/civil issue.
Those against same-gender marriage argue it’s against their religion, marriage is defined by god, and there is no civil element to it. This simply isn’t true. No matter how you try to argue, it is a fact that our society awards over 1,400 rights and privileges to married couples. When you get married in a church, synagogue, or any other religious building, you aren’t necessarily married in the eyes of the state. You have to get a marriage license.
I acknowledge that the institution of marriage has a long, close connection with religion. All religions recognize some form of marriage, and there are many people who find strength in the traditions and tenets there. But religion isn’t the only side of marriage. There are those 1,400-odd civil benefits, so it is also a political being. There is indeed a huge difference between religious marriage and civil marriage.
The vast majority of those in favor of same-gender marriage don’t want to interfere with the religious aspect of it. And, truly, even if we wanted to, we couldn’t. Religion is a private institution and has every right to discriminate within its own borders. But once you step outside your boundary and begin to discriminate within the public sphere, we have a problem.
I couldn’t care less what people think of me marrying another man. I don’t need or want your approval. You can stay in your church all day and yell about whatever you want. I’m going to be over here, happy and in love, raising my family free from bile.
I’m completely in favor of a separation of religious marriage and civil marriage. But calling it a “civil union” has so much baggage. As people have argued here before, it equates to the “separate but equal” BS from our history. This is not acceptable in a free society that is based on the idea that all people are valuable and equal.
Ultimately, marriage is a fundamental civil right that all Americans share. It has nothing to do with the opinions of some conceived “majority.” I don’t get to vote on who a straight man can marry, so you don’t get to vote on who I can marry.
A hundred years from now, when same-gender marriage is legal and common across the entire country (which it will be, I assure you), and people look back on this era in disgust, do you really want to be one of those who allowed hatred to rule your ultimately futile actions?
*claps*
Too long; did not read. well, maybe a little.
When same sex marriage is legal in a hundred years? Yeah right. You are probably in your 30s or 40s and I am barely 15.5. If I try, I will live to see that “100 years from now” and laugh at how prepostrous you are.
LOL, I’m 23. See you there!
I’m 27, myself. And while you may be an exception, generally there is a correlation between younger age and acceptance of homosexuality. Meaning that eventually, purely from a statistical standpoint, gay marriage will almost certainly be made legal.
Civil Unions (at least in the United States) lack over 1,000 rights that regular marriage (the civil institution, not the religious one) provides. Therefore, they are inherently unequal (see Brown v. Board of Education for the Supreme Court’s opinion on that one).
If Gay Marriage were made legal, the religious institution of marriage would be unaffected. The government (as is required) takes a hands off approach to religion, and therefore will not interfere in the rights of any religious organization. Therefore, your arguments concerning religious contentions to gay marriage are rendered invalid. Besides (I believe this is worth noting) that there are many religions that not only accept, but support loving same-sex relationships. Examples include; Unitarian Universalist or Unity Churches, various Christian sects (often by denomination), Many sects of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Native faiths, and most of modern Paganism and Wicca. All of these are supportive of Gay Marriage. What makes it okay for your religious beliefs to define theirs?
Marriage was not originally a religious institution, and has been around for far longer than Christianity, there are recorded messages dating back to Babylonian times. Therefore, the claims of marriage as a religious institution are bunkum, and even if they were, a civil, non-religious counterpart exists in modern society nee legal marriage.
The only other arguments are based on slippery slope conjectures which are a long-standing logical fallacy. Animals cannot give legal consent, inanimate objects have no legal rights (except in regard to their owners) and children are below the age of consent, therefore none of these are valid for marriage. Polygamy, on the other hand, would be valid, and I for one believe there should be no laws preventing the marriage of more than two persons as well, but this is another debate entirely.
I think that pretty much refutes all arguments that could possibly be used against gay marriage. If anyone has any others, too bad, I’m not wasting more of my time debating idiots on the internet. Bored debates are only fun for so long.
Apologize for the repost. Previous post was too far up in the replies.
Here’s a logical arguement; I don’t want to pay to help support gay people.
yeah, I am STILL arguing. and trollin’.
THAT’S your logical argument?
Your argument is moot. Your taxes, whether you like it or not, are funding hospitals, roadways, electrical lines, government programs, other infrastructure, etc. that are all non-discriminatory. By your way of thinking, you don’t want to pay for the gays to drive on roads that you paid for – but hey, forget that they pay just as much in taxes as you do, and have just as much right to drive on those roads. What if they don’t want to support you as a heterosexual? What if the thought of you being with a woman disgusts them and they think its wrong?
Of course, they’re not people, so who cares.
In the end, IT DOESN’T AFFECT YOU. Marriage as a religious institution need not change; marriage as a civil institution DOES. It’s about equality in the eyes of the law, not God.
You want logic? Fine, I can even play by your rule book. If your version of the truth is actually correct, then in the end God will judge us all. What do you care if the gays go to hell? You weren’t gay, so you won’t. You won’t have to share space with them anymore, your god-taxes won’t go to anything they need, they’ll burn and you’ll float off into the clouds happily. You clearly won’t have any gay friends to care about, you can be happy and know that they got their just desserts: an eternity of damnation for the sins they committed. Even us gay-supporters will clearly go to hell, because we didn’t spend our days hunting and killing those a$$-loving lowlifes.
Get off your pulpit and STFU.
Holy carp. Look at all these comments. It’s been, what, 3 days now?
Right, anyway, I want to know one thing:
Why does anyone care? I support gay marriage because I don’t care that gays are getting married. If God doesn’t like it, that’s His problem. I don’t like salmon, why don’t you guys go on a crusade to ban salmon for me? Seriously though, if it’s not effecting (affecting?) you, then why care?
Overall, there seems to be no reason to let gays get married aside from what people’s personal preferences are.
If god did exist, from what i learned growing up as a christian before i switched leads me to believe it would make no difference to him at all.
I think people are missing the important issue. A few months ago, in Japan, a MAN MARRIED A VIDEOGAME CHARACTER. At least gay marraige is still between two HUMANS. Whats to stop me from moving to Japan and marrying Zelda or Princess Peach, and guess what when I come back to the States my maraige IS LEGAL and I will recieve all of the benefits of an actual marraige, even though its with an inanimate object and lines of code. There is no laws set up that say I can’t marry a female video game character.
Needed to post this so the argument of gay marraige cools down for a bit.
what a load of bs how the cheezburger network pretends that it doesn’t like to get involved in politics. Completely hypocritical
GAH! One simple graph and then 600 comments arguing on gay marriage. Seriously? -_-
And there it isn’t even a real graph
great isn’t, this is just hilarious
it’s a flaming war
srs bizniss, man.
I don’t care about any of this.
Well, so you’ve come back, have you? Bad move, name-stealer.
F off, dipstick. Just because my name is similar to yours doesn’t mean that I stole it!
What is going on here? >.>
after reading a lot of comments here…
…nope, still no logical reason detected.
Chuck Norris is married to Jesus Christ.
Did that hurt your brain?
Chuck Norris is married to Jesus Christ.
Did that hurt your brain?
Sorry about the double post
Holy triple post, Batman!
Erm, because it’s immoral and twisted? The last gay community in history was destroyed by God, if I’m not mistaken. If that doesn’t speak for itself, I don’t know what will.
Totally! And what about the local specialty, the muffuletta-sandwich from New Orleans?! Mixing black and green olives like they were the same thing?!
The community that spawned that sinful piece of bread was destroyed by God, if I’m not mistaken. If that doesn’t speak for itself, I don’t know what will.
There’s very little in the story about Sodom and Gomorrah (sp?) about homosexuality. The main one is about RAPE, not consentual gay sex (and then the guy sent his daughter out to be raped. Nice, huh?).
I thought San Fransisco was the last gay community? 0_0
Reason to ban gay marriage: It exists.
There wouldn’t be a need for a ban for something if it didn’t exist.
(Doesn’t bother reading comments) WHY? WHY did you post something a political issue? You know that spawns a mile-long string of flame-war comments!
sorry, but it was worth making homepage…again
LOL. People still believe in a little story book written 2,000 years ago and still fail to see what´s right in front of them.
Whatever Bible says, homosexuals are human beings. And since LIVES are more important than WORDS, I think this should be an easy debate.
It´s only a big issue for idiots.
Wow. My scroll bar is tiny. It’s dieing! D:
It says logical objection, rather than legal, social, ethical or moral.
Logically speaking, same sex individuals cannot reproduce. Since couples forming at all is supposedly due to an instinctual desire to reproduce, and marriage is the complete stage of being a couple(to many) marriage has no logical meaning to same sex individuals.
Marriage in and of itself is usually performed for social reasons to begin with – the law certainly treats married individuals differently in a number of cases, but for many couples that had nothing to do with their decision to tie the knot. It’s probably the same with most Gays who want to get married – they want a social reaction of some kind. But someone who was thinking from a logical perspective on the matter wouldn’t care about what people thought of it.
lol@christian butthurt
GO READ YOUR BIBLES AND STAY OFF THE INTERNET.
Err, just like to point out, in Canada we allow gays to marry but we have two definitions of marriage. The secular one, which allows gays (and anyone without religion) to be married by a government official, and the religious one which is used for… well, religious people and done by the church. Both are valid, and it keeps the religious folk happy.
Also for anyone using the bible, all the bible says is against guys having sex with other dudes. Whether or not they should isn’t the question, but rather what about chicks? And anyways, it’s not like preventing gay guys from getting married is going to prevent them from having sex.
It’s an old debate that should’ve been solved a long time ago.
I like Canada’s way of doing things when I comes to marriage and I think this would be the perfect solution for us in the USA. The Fundies would still throw a fit over it, though. Canada doesn’t have nearly as many religious nutbags as we do.
*when it comes to marriage
-sigh-
I’m gay and (of course) for gay marriage, but I’m so tired of all the debating. Nobody is going to convince the other side that their views are erroneous.
Because we don’t want nazis riding dinosaurs again
Because there’s no bones in ice cream. Perfectly logical. Well, at least as logical as the reasons I’ve read in the above comments.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs267.snc4/39674_136878356348047_100000776492971_166362_1108726_n.jpg
tl;dr
I was going to provide a logical reason, but then realized I would just be whizzing in the ocean. See the scores of pages of comments above.
yup this page is just one argument over gay marriage
It’s against my religion. There, no long-winded explanation about why it’s not wrong or why people are ignorant, just simply this. You can type about 300 words in an attempt to change my views or make me feel bad, but it’s a waste of your time.
Fine, then don’t do it. However, unless you can come up with some reason why people who don’t follow your religion should be forced to live by it, it’s not a logical reason for a *ban*. It’s against the religion of many people to eat pork or shellfish, after all, but people who don’t follow those religions are still free to eat them if they choose.
There are many religions and religious sects that are just fine with gay marriage (and of course that’s not counting the atheists.) If there is a ban on gay marriage based solely on your religion’s objection to it, that amounts to an official establishment of that religious belief, which is against the first amendment. You don’t have to like it, you don’t even have to allow it in your church, but you can’t refuse those who believe differently their right to freedom of religion.
i dont oppose gay marriage, but if the gay couples increased exponentially, birth rates will decrease, jus sayin.
Why would they increase exponentially? If you assume that homosexuality is not genetic or that gay couples will not have children that are biologically theirs, then the proportion of homosexuals to heterosexuals should stay roughly the same. If you assume that it *is* genetic and gay couples will have children through surrogates/artificial insemination, then the number of gay couples has little or no influence on the birth rate, since they’re having children, too.
Really, the only way gay marriage will lower the birth rate is by increasing acceptance, which means (hopefully) fewer people will spend years “in the closet”, which means there will be fewer people who are actually homosexual getting married to people of the opposite sex and having children (though, again, if they have children through other means, the birth rate still won’t be affected.)
@boinelly I was going to reply to mcjakesrevenge’s comment but then I realized that you already had. You said as much (if not more) than I would have said. I know it’s hard to argue against Sarah Palin mentalilty but at least you tried. *smooch*
Reason : Cuz it’s gay
jk
Who gives a s**t? What’s the difference between being married to each other and being in a relationship with each other but doing everything that a married couple does? If you truly love each other then you can just stay together for life without getting married. And then if it does end up being a mistake, you don’t have to go through a divorce and s**t. There’s no point in fighting for the right of gay marriage, because you’ll probably be too old to have enjoyable gay sex with your partner by the time you can marry them anyways. I have nothing against gay people, I have some gay friends in fact. They can do whatever the hell they want. But if so many marriages now end in divorce, then why would you be so intense about having the right to get married? Just chill with each other like human beings were naturally made to do. BTW, f**k Christianity and rednecks. Will God smite me if I say “F**k God”? Let’s see… waiting… waiting… waiting… damn I feel like i’m just talking to an imaginary friend or something.. oh wait..
There are several important differences. For one, married couples have a lot of rights that unmarried couples don’t. I’m not just talking about tax breaks (although, for the sake of fairness, gay couples really should be able to get those); I’m talking about things like being able to visit their spouse in the hospital, or make decisions on their behalf if they’re unconscious or otherwise unable to do it themselves, or have custody of any children they were raising together if the spouse who was the child’s biological parent dies. Sure, in the normal course of day-to-day life, it might not make much difference, but in an emergency or when someone dies, married couples have serious advantages over couples who just live as if they were married.
And for religious gay people, of course, they would want to get married even if it didn’t make any legal difference, because it does make a spiritual one. You might not care about their religious beliefs, but in a country that’s supposed to have freedom of religion, one group shouldn’t be allowed to prevent another group from performing a religious ceremony simply because they don’t believe in it.
As far as divorce, yeah, unmarried couples don’t have to go through the legal process, which might remove some hassles. On the other hand, they have no legal protections as far as making sure joint property is split up fairly, and if they have children together, then whichever one isn’t counted as the “real” parent has no standing to get custody or even visitation.
“There’s no point in fighting for the right of gay marriage, because you’ll probably be too old to have enjoyable gay sex with your partner by the time you can marry them anyways.” What kind of stupid argument is that? Laws are being passed either allowing or banning gay marriage *now*; of course the couples where it’s being allowed aren’t going to be “too old” by they time they can get married, and the ones where it’s being banned should fight against it. Even in states where it won’t be addressed for a long time, it’s not as if there won’t be gay couples wanting to get married in the future. And in any case, if the only reason you see for getting married is for sex, well, I’m glad you’re so strongly against it.
But really, if you honestly don’t care, then what is your big problem with it? If they want to get married, just let them. The ones who agree with you probably don’t want to get married anyway, and the ones who don’t aren’t going to look at what you wrote and go, “Hey, yeah, forget about all those rights or our religious beliefs or just wanting to be treated the same as a straight couple! Let’s just live together without getting married because some guy on the internet said it’s better!”
Frankly, any explicitly Biblical argument against homosexuality can be countered with the equally Biblical statement that God loves everyone, none any more than another. “Love thy neighbor as thyself”, “treat others the way you’d like them to treat you” — if you were gay, and just as intelligent and well-meaning as any other person, would you want people to bar you from doing things “real couples” can do?
Immanuel Kant for the win.
You just said they were countered and didn’t wait for the other side to counter back. this makes you and imbecile, and a billion other things that would kill you if you tried to survive outside your mom’s house.
… The fact that there have been no counter-counterarguements does not negate the countering of an arguement. Please come back when you have something worthwhile to say.
That was also my way of saying, “Pretty much everything i was going to say about those has already been said in response to them, so I’m just going to skip them and comment on the ones where my arguement hasn’t already been made.”.
well, saying ’3 and 4 have been adequately (sp?) countered’ is unfair to assume without hearing our say first.
Yes, some do. In fact, th “gay” males of some geese sometimes mate with a female, but raise the gosling as their own.
Yo ehw, are you a christian?
… So, if none of the pro-gay marriage people respond to you, it’s time for a victory dance, but if none of the anti-gay marriage people come back to defend an argument, we just need to give them more time?
Again, I was making a reference to the fact that the arguements have already been made. And an adequate counter-arguement is one that may not necessarily win the arguement, but still makes a clear, logical, and valid point.
lol. yes. make something of it.
bionelly, the arguements you are referring to have been left untouched before; the one noone has touched that you may be referring to, I posted it while the arguement was quite alive, and noone touched…twice! I don’t expect anyone to touch it now, who HASN’T been spurred on by this post, and still make a logical return. wanna step up and give it a go?
nope, not me. The internet is just a flimsy medium of communication. I think that this just proves that all you guys are fake. I can’t see, I can’t hear you, and by that logic I know you don’t exist. pretty flimsy excuse for doubting God’s existence, as well.
3) The Bible was written after Abraham; God never told him to not have multiple wives. If a man commits an act that is labeled a crime AFTER he commits the act, he will not be held guilty for that act. I learned about this when we had our test on american laws. forgot where it came from though.
also, PENGUINS!!!! two male penguins adopted a baby. super cute.
then a homewrecking female penguin came and screwed it all up.
Something of it.
ew k, but why take the chance. If it gave diseases only back then, then it Must be safe today, because we got soap and stuff.
I am a straight, female Catholic and I completely agree with you. Marriage is about being with the one you love forever. If the one you love is the same gender, so what?
Considering this is pretty much the logic behind why it wasn’t okay to eat pork and shellfish (both of which will make you horribly sick if handled improperly) and it’s okay now, Gypsy’s argument actually does make a lot of sense. And yes, it is much safer; there are STD’s to worry about (just as there are for straight sex), but you aren’t going to wind up with a massive bacterial infection from tearing your rectum and then getting feces in the wound, then find yourself with no medicine to take for it. This would also explain why the Bible specifically talks about men having sex with each other, and pretty much leaves lesbians out of it.
So here is my one and simple point:
I like having a family. I want my children to have a family like mine. Two parents and children that are direct descendants to both parents.
A homosexual relationhip does not afford this desire. No matter how many studies there have been, no one can predict at birth, who will be homosexual and who will not. There is only a percentage chance that sometimes changes based on either genetics or family history. No one is born gay. It is very difficult for gays to fight their desires.
That being said, if allowing gays to marry increases the likelihood that my children will be gay (which defeats my desire for them to have direct descendants with their lover), then I will be very upset.
Even with that, I don’t think it’s going to help to prevent gays to marry. I don’t believe that it will change the percentage chance. The whole head is sick and banning marriages won’t change that. I want to be in a society that has the same values and ideals that I have.
I’ll accept the fact that I’ll just make people feel bad/angry. Don’t ask me to change what I value. I don’t want to raise my children around them if they don’t share my values. Maybe you think I live in my own litte world. I do. Heaven and hell? Why stop with just two?
I don’t know how happy gays are or would be if allowed to be married. Neither do they know my happiness in my hetero marriage. I have to believe that I have the greatest happiness available to me in my marriage. Otherwise I would not have done so.
Perhaps it is these societal norms that are preventing gays from truly being happy. But then, hormones are incredibly difficult to control from within ourselves. I don’t want to have a harder time controlling my own thoughts, nor my children with theirs. I want to give them every chance they can get.
the aggressors in each situation would call it love. A pedophile could call it ‘love’, and so could a rapist.
I be trollin’ by posting after my going away speech.
“…[E]ven if the perpetrator claims to love the victim, the feeling is not mutual (which really means that rapists and pedophiles can’t love the victim, because if they did, they would not want to cause them pain by forcing sex on them.)”
Please try not to make points that were refuted in the very post you’re replying to.
Pedophiles and rapists are messed up people with messed up ideals of love. unfortunately, bionelly, not everyone is as smart as you. They twist love to their needs. in their eyes, love is not mutual, it does not need two people in their eyes. look at the two most famous examples of this: Linus and Sally, from the peanuts comic. Sally has a lot of ‘love’ for Linus. Linus is not particulary loving back. Sally still perceives ‘love’. While I hate comparing this situation to that of a rapist or pedophile, I would like to say that no, the point was not refuted.
wow I just read my post. Boy do I come off as a jerk.
tl;dr
I’m curious about your logic here. You recognize that there is in fact a biological/genetic factor to sexual orientation, and yet you say no one is born gay?
Also, you’re essentially saying that all forms of adoption are inferior to your genetic relationship with your children. I have an adopted aunt and an adopted cousin, both of whom are incredibly important to me. They are no less my family than anyone biologically related to me, and in fact are more family than a lot of other people who share my genetics. Family isn’t about genetics. Different cultures define family differently. My uncle may in fact be a cousin or a brother in a different society. What makes family is the love we have for each other, formed over time.
Allowing gay people to marry won’t impact in any way the likelihood of your children being gay. Your kid is gonna be gay if she’s gonna be gay. Even you can’t impact her sexuality. Trust me, saying that my parents “made” me gay is giving them WAY too much credit.
I find it unfortunate that you want to control your children to such an extreme degree. They are individual people. The harder you force something down their throats, the quicker they will reject you. But of course, that’s your mistake to make, and you’ll find out soon enough.
The whole point of America (and a lot of other places, too), is that we are a combination of many millions of people, and it is our uniqueness and individuality that make us strong as a whole. Variety is the spice of life, as they say. I don’t hang around only with gay people, because that would get really boring. My closest friend is actually a straight, conservative Christian. We talk about same-gender marriage a lot. But we respect each other enough to not force our ideas on each other. We agree to disagree.
I’m sure if you actually met some level-headed gay people, your views may shift a little. Life is change, whether you like it or not. But all of us change at different paces. I don’t want to make you change your values. All I’m asking is that you respect your fellow humans enough to not force us to change ours.
That’s awfully selfish of you. You value your own happiness over that of your children?
As Gawain said, many people have trouble distinguishing between sexual contact and love. That doesn’t make them right when they claim to love someone when in fact it’s merely lust. As far as Linus and Sally go, I haven’t read Peanuts in a long time, so I don’t know how far she pushes it. I will say that it’s perfectly possible to love someone without them loving you back. However, if someone truly loves someone who does not love them back, they will not force themselves on them, because they will not want to hurt the person they love. Someone may claim to love the person they’re forcing themselves on, but their actions demonstrate that they don’t actually care for the person, they just want to use them to meet their own needs. Therefore, “rapists and pedophiles can’t love the victim, because if they did, they would not want to cause them pain by forcing sex on them.”
I live with my biological mother and biological father. My mom and I don’t get along very well compared to other parents and their children, and my father and I pretty much hate each other (mind you, it isn’t because I’m gay; he doesn’t even know I’m gay).
And are you saying people SHOULDN’T adopt, just because they MIGHT not get very close to the adopted child? Adopting a child is a lot more sensible nowadays due to the high population density in a lot of areas of the world. Orphanages and other places are overcrowded as is (I myself attend a highschool of over 3500 students, and it is EXTREMELY crowded), so procreating will just add to it. We won’t have all these natural resources at our disposal forever, why make them run out even faster?
Redefining marriage does not require any changes to the family unit as far as I can see. We have single mothers, single fathers, as well as “normal” marriages with one wife and one husband, one mother and one father, what would two mothers or two fathers, two wives or two husbands, harm?
a person’s sexuality is affected by experiences and hormones. It is not an illness of any sort because it doesn’t impair the person’s ability to function. It just affects their ability to have a biological child with their lover, but does not render them sterile.
Don’t post personal things unless you want personal answers. It’s always sad to me to hear of families that aren’t full of the love they need.
Adopting is good under the right circumstances to the right people. I can only fix one issue at a time. There are a lot of families that could use some help in many different ways, including mine.
Don’t try to say that being a single mother/father is just as good as having both parents. Most of the time it just creates distance and sadness. Divorce is hardly ever a good thing for children to experence. Likewise, it would not be good for a child to learn how to relate to the opposite sex from gay parents. It isn’t the same. Different body chemistry, hormones, structure, mentality, and probably others. I’m sure they would have a loving home. They just couldn’t re-create it from what they learn at home without being gay. So, they would need to learn those things from someone other than their gay parents. That goes out of the realm of parental control.
It’s anal or oral.
Well, how did I learn about how to be gay from straight parents? I had to learn them for myself. I like to think I turned out pretty well. My parents led by example. They didn’t beat lessons into my head. If I did something wrong, they explained to me why it was wrong. They lived as role models for me to emulate. They treated others with respect and dignity, helped those in need, never lied, and instilled in me the value of education. Those are the things parents should teach you. I can learn for myself what it means to me to be gay, and I can share that knowledge with my parents. I teach them just as much as they teach me.
I wonder what you would do if your child ended up as a lesbian or gay man? Would you try to force them to change who they are? Or would you love them just as much? Either way, they are still your children. They need your support and acceptance. Hell, what if your kid ends up not wanting to do the career you want them to? Square pegs don’t fit into round holes, no matter how hard you hammer them.
Also, I wasn’t saying homosexuality is completely caused by genetics. There is also a huge role environment plays. It’s a combination of nature and nurture. The cause changes from person to person. Same reason people turn out heterosexual. It’s just another location on the multi-dimensional spectrum of human sexuality. Why do you like one type of woman over another? Blonde or brunette? Tall? Short? Smart? Funny? Do you know where your taste in women comes from? Does it matter?
There’s no “thought” about homosexuality not being harmful. It’s plain fact. Psychology doesn’t easily throw things away. Science works by constant examination and testing. Something is only proven true (or untrue) after exhaustive experimentation. It has been proven over and over again that there is nothing inherently harmful about homosexuality. The harm comes from one’s interpretation of said sexuality.
The only reason gay people are unhappy (excepting regular unhappiness caused by spilled milk, bad days, etc.) is that we face constant oppression from the outside. Queer teens are more likely to commit suicide because their peers treat them like scum. Gay men aren’t even the most at-risk group for HIV. You’d be sad, too, if you were constantly told you were “less than.”
The Industrial Revolution changed a lot of things about the family unit and raising children. Have you heard the phrase “it takes a village?” Parenting used to be done by a whole group of people. Of course the biological mother and father played huge roles in the upbringing of their children. But in small communities, adults all adopted the role of parent to the various children in their group. This continues to happen today.
Within the last few hundred years, the family unit has become more and more isolated. How well do you know your neighbors? I live in an apartment building with only 12 units, and I know the name of one person other than my roommates. My point is that I actually think that two parents aren’t enough to raise a well-rounded person. In our culture, we still do have people who take on some of the duties of child rearing: teachers, baby-sitters, neighbors, aunts and uncles. It truly does take a village.
You learn by experiencing things outside of your personal bubble. Most of the things your kids learn won’t be from you. The best thing you can do as a parent is to prepare your child to enter this crazy, complicated world as an adult by arming them with a good education, a strong work ethic, and a respect for others. You have to let them think for themselves and make their own mistakes. It’s not about parental control, but about parental guidance.
How is that bad? A lot of straight married couples don’t have kids for a variety of reasons: age, infertility, money, or simply because they just don’t want to. Marriage is about many things, not just procreation. If it were, then women who no longer ovulate wouldn’t be allowed. Marriage is primarily about the bond between the people who choose it, and sometimes children come from that bond. But not always.
Plus, they’re working on ways to combine the genetic material of any two people, be it both male or both female. If gay people can have children together, doesn’t that kind of sink your argument?
But you’re missing the point. the rapists and pedophiles DO see that as love. you might not think so, but they do.
Ugh, it’s really just not worth arguing with you if you can’t see the difference between an objective definition of love and an individual’s subjective view of “love”. You’re defining “love” differently than most people would, apparently just so that you can twist Spireal’s words (I doubt you would support an actual rapist’s or pedophile’s claim that they love their victim; if you would, then to borrow your words, you are a MOTHER OF SHAME.)
derp.
Thx.
Yay, so we lezzies are free!
You know, if I believe the words of the book of fables.
don’t you mean, comments of fables ppl leave like the one above this one? Sure Lezbians are the only ones in the world that are free and so there are no straight ppl or gay guys that are?
Wow! I tried to say I’m done posting here and tried to put a link up twice and for some reason, they put my message on pending approval when I put up a link to ‘Warriors for Jesus’ from their latest message on Facebook and they never let it go through. It says nothing about this topic but has greater things in mind. Look them up and view under discussions, A powerful vision. Warriors For Jesus on Facebook.