Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[silasinth]

 

 

 

Right. I doubt choice 3 is true. Its a choice, and a bad one. You could get HIV/AIDS if you... you know. Two guys :-X :ohnoes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can still get HIV/AIDS if you have a hetrosexual relationship and dont use protection O_o

 

 

 

I have nothing wrong against homosexuality, people have their own choices, personally I am not a homosexual, but I don't see anything wrong with being one, I don't think they should be discriminated against.

 

 

 

Edit: I forgot to mention, I also have nothing wrong with same gender marriges.

[megakiller32]

I thought of an interesting hypothetical situation:

 

A person who was raised very strictly catholic, and finds he is gay.

 

 

 

Interesting eh? I would think he would probaby deny his homosexuality and force himself into heterosexuality, even if it doesn't feel right for him.

[llcoolguy972]

I haven't started following the challenges, but they may be challenging the amendment with the US Constitution.

 

 

 

That'll fail. There's nothing in the U.S. constitution which guarantees the right to marriage. If you think there is, then find it.

 

 

 

If you're gonna' quote the 14th Amendment I'm gonna' laugh at you, because under that marriage would be classified in the vein as states issuing driver's licenses to a select group of people. But go ahead and show me how you figure :P

 

The 14 Amendment is about citizenship and I don't know what you're talking about. But, although that power isn't specifically granted to Congress, it isn't denied either, and a good enough lawyer could perhaps stretch the elastic clause.

 

Edit: I got a little sidetracked; those cases probably will be shot down pretty fast and I have a lot of faith in the US Constitution, so I do believe that states should resolve issues pertaining to marriage. But what the groups are most likely doing is trying to propose another state amendment that would allow gay marriages.

 

 

 

The 'definition' on the previous page is yours. I can define a traditional marriage as one between a cow and a chicken, but that doesn't mean it's true.

 

You're not being serious, are you? If you live in the U.S., then you should know what's meant by the term "traditional marriage" since it's almost always accompanied by the phrase "One man and one woman".

 

I would read Ginger's post again. Just because something's traditional, doesn't mean it's not outdated and doesn't need changing.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I wonder why I bother writing stuff out 'cuz I, apparently, only do it for my benefit. There was this post-- On the last page, mind you-- Where I said something along the lines of "Traditional marriage =/= Historical marriage". You, though, obviously missed it.

 

 

 

:wall:

 

For the matter I did read it. It's total rubbish.

 

 

 

You obviously cannot understand plain and simple English:

 

WordNet[/url]":3kgrik9h]S: (adj) traditional (pertaining to time-honored orthodox doctrines) "the simple security of traditional assumptions has vanished"

 

You can argue that traditional marriage =/= historical marriage all you like, it doesn't mean you're right in saying so.

 

 

 

While the Church accepts tens of thousands for a luxurious wedding in a picturesque venue in the middle of Cornwall I simple cannot take the "traditional" argument seriously. Even if I did, I still have no idea what relevance it has to the issue of homosexuality.

[Zierro]

I thought my my last post on the last page was pretty clear. I also like how you've tried to shift the focus from "marriage" to just "heterosexual marriage", which is a distinction proponents of traditional marriages don't make. Pretty sly of you ;)

 

 

 

So in other words, gay marriage is wrong only because you say so. Nice.

[Sly_Wizard]

The 14 Amendment is about citizenship and I don't know what you're talking about. But, although that power isn't specifically granted to Congress, it isn't denied either, and a good enough lawyer could perhaps stretch the elastic clause.

 

 

 

*Nudge nudge, hint hint, wink wink*The 14th Amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law.*Nudge nudge, hint hint, wink wink*

 

 

 

Edit: I got a little sidetracked; those cases probably will be shot down pretty fast and I have a lot of faith in the US Constitution, so I do believe that states should resolve issues pertaining to marriage. But what the groups are most likely doing is trying to propose another state amendment that would allow gay marriages.

 

 

 

Of course they'll be shot down. The courts can't overturn an amendment to the constitution, since the constitution is what binds the courts.

 

 

 

I would read Ginger's post again. Just because something's traditional, doesn't mean it's not outdated and doesn't need changing.

 

 

 

*Doesn't know what this has to do with anything he's typed out thus far but, meh, whatever*

 

 

 

I'll bite. Even though I really don't care, lemme' hear why it needs changing.

 

 

 

For the matter I did read it. It's total rubbish.

 

 

 

You obviously cannot understand plain and simple English:

 

WordNet[/url]":1vudf4r7]S: (adj) traditional (pertaining to time-honored orthodox doctrines) "the simple security of traditional assumptions has vanished"

 

You can argue that traditional marriage =/= historical marriage all you like, it doesn't mean you're right in saying so.

 

 

 

While the Church accepts tens of thousands for a luxurious wedding in a picturesque venue in the middle of Cornwall I simple cannot take the "traditional" argument seriously. Even if I did, I still have no idea what relevance it has to the issue of homosexuality.

 

 

 

Oh, now we get to have a lovely dictionary battle. Hooray! Well, actually, we won't because that's a waste of time.

 

 

 

I know what traditional means. I also know what historical means. You, obviously, can't seem to distinguish the two so I'll help you out. Traditional relates to what is/has been for a relatively long period of time (In this case, man and woman). Historical relates to what those marriages have entailed. You seem unable to tell the difference between wanting marriage to stay between a man and a woman and wanting marriage to stay between a man and a woman so you can control her. One of those, opponents of gay marriage want. The other, only you claim they want.

 

 

 

Oh, and you should know that marriages have traditionally been lavish events regardless of the culture.

[folmer_veeman]

call me ignorant, but i think it's wrong.. i mean, why is there no way to procreate for homosexuals (well a natural way at least), right, because god/evolution/whatever ruled it out!

[llcoolguy972]

The 14 Amendment is about citizenship and I don't know what you're talking about. But, although that power isn't specifically granted to Congress, it isn't denied either, and a good enough lawyer could perhaps stretch the elastic clause.

 

 

 

*Nudge nudge, hint hint, wink wink*The 14th Amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law.*Nudge nudge, hint hint, wink wink*

 

Thanks for helping me realize that, although I could have done without the patronizing tone. If no state shall "abridge the privileges of citizens" then the state's amendment is entirely unconstitutional. Congratulations, you just debunked your own argument.

 

 

 

I would read Ginger's post again. Just because something's traditional, doesn't mean it's not outdated and doesn't need changing.

 

 

 

*Doesn't know what this has to do with anything he's typed out thus far but, meh, whatever*

 

 

 

I'll bite. Even though I really don't care, lemme' hear why it needs changing.

 

So you believe that a woman's place is in the kitchen and their sole reason is for breeding and chores?

 

 

 

call me ignorant, but i think it's wrong.. i mean, why is there no way to procreate for homosexuals (well a natural way at least), right, because god/evolution/whatever ruled it out!

 

By that logic, any infertile man/woman shouldn't be allowed to marry. There's more to life than procreation and, if anything, I think the overpopulated Earth could stand to have a couple families that don't have children.

[Sly_Wizard]

Thanks for helping me realize that, although I could have done without the patronizing tone. If no state shall "abridge the privileges of citizens" then the state's amendment is entirely unconstitutional. Congratulations, you just debunked your own argument.

 

 

 

No, I didn't debunk my own argument. Go back and read, more specifically the driver's license analogy (And whatever it was I said about SCOTUS and vested interests).

 

 

 

So you believe that a woman's place is in the kitchen and their sole reason is for breeding and chores?

 

 

 

Yes, that's precisely what I believe.

 

 

 

:lol:

[Howlin0001]

call me ignorant, but i think it's wrong.. i mean, why is there no way to procreate for homosexuals (well a natural way at least), right, because god/evolution/whatever ruled it out!

 

So then sex should only be for people who want to(and have the ability) to bear children and everyone else shouldn't?

[llcoolguy972]

Thanks for helping me realize that, although I could have done without the patronizing tone. If no state shall "abridge the privileges of citizens" then the state's amendment is entirely unconstitutional. Congratulations, you just debunked your own argument.

 

 

 

No, I didn't debunk my own argument. Go back and read, more specifically the driver's license analogy (And whatever it was I said about SCOTUS and vested interests).

 

That's apples and oranges. Marriage is a union between two people in love while being able to drive is equitable to being put in charge of a two ton death machine. Children driving would kill people, gays marrying wouldn't.

 

 

 

So you believe that a woman's place is in the kitchen and their sole reason is for breeding and chores?

 

 

 

Yes, that's precisely what I believe.

 

 

 

:lol:

 

How about you actually address the issue? Just because something's traditional doesn't mean that it should remain the same. For a long time it was tradition for kings to deflower the bride before her wedding. Foot binding took place in China for ten centuries. Dueling took place in western societies for five centuries. Times change.

[venomai]

Sly: Why bring up traditional marriage in the first place? More importantly, why are you repeatedly stressing it as a worthwhile point in this debate?

 

 

 

There are many traditions throughout history that need not be repeated in this day and age for the simple reason that society has since changed. Advocates of traditional marriage mainly argue that "non-traditional marriage is different." This reasoning is not adequate enough to deny rights to those interested in same-sex unions.

[Sly_Wizard]

That's apples and oranges. Marriage is a union between two people in love while being able to drive is equitable to being put in charge of a two ton death machine. Children driving would kill people, gays marrying wouldn't.

 

 

 

Haha! Overanalyzation ftw!

 

 

 

You seemed to miss the point, so I'll explain. States are not required to issue drivers licenses to any specific person, as it's not a Federally mandated right. That is, each state is left to regulate its driving laws as it sees fit. The same thing goes for gay marriage. Because it is not Federally mandated, each state is free to legislate it as they deem fit. Therefore, the 14th Amendment has no bearing. It's simple, really.

 

 

 

How about you actually address the issue? Just because something's traditional doesn't mean that it should remain the same. For a long time it was tradition for kings to deflower the bride before her wedding. Foot binding took place in China for ten centuries. Dueling took place in western societies for five centuries. Times change.

 

 

 

You asked a question, I answered, and then you ask me to address the issue? Mmmkay lol. Personally, I'm not into appeals to novelty. Even though I don't really care, you're going to have to provide an adequate reason to legalize gay marriage. I don't want to hear anything about it being discriminatory because not only is it not, but playing around with the "It's discriminatory line!", it's important to note that the government also discriminates based on age, disabilities, consanguinity, religion, sex, species and quantity.

 

 

 

Sly: Why bring up traditional marriage in the first place? More importantly, why are you repeatedly stressing it as a worthwhile point in this debate?

 

 

 

*He didn't bring it up. Someone else did*

 

 

 

There are many traditions throughout history that need not be repeated in this day and age for the simple reason that society has since changed. Advocates of traditional marriage mainly argue that "non-traditional marriage is different." This reasoning is not adequate enough to deny rights to those interested in same-sex unions.

 

 

 

*See previous response. Not the one directly above. The one two responses up*

[llcoolguy972]

How about you actually address the issue? Just because something's traditional doesn't mean that it should remain the same. For a long time it was tradition for kings to deflower the bride before her wedding. Foot binding took place in China for ten centuries. Dueling took place in western societies for five centuries. Times change.

 

You asked a question, I answered, and then you ask me to address the issue? Mmmkay lol. Personally, I'm not into appeals to novelty. Even though I don't really care, you're going to have to provide an adequate reason to legalize gay marriage. I don't want to hear anything about it being discriminatory because not only is it not, but playing around with the "It's discriminatory line!", it's important to note that the government also discriminates based on age, disabilities, consanguinity, religion, sex, species and quantity.

 

You defined 'traditional marriage' and I refuted that. I said that the 'tradition' was outdated and needed to be changed, and you said you had no idea what I was talking about. I provided examples of outdated traditions, and you blatantly ignored them. You ignore logic and fill your arguments with pseudo lawyer-speak and lead everyone in circles.

 

Post when you actually want to have an intelligent debate.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Oh, now we get to have a lovely dictionary battle. Hooray! Well, actually, we won't because that's a waste of time.

 

 

 

I know what traditional means. I also know what historical means. You, obviously, can't seem to distinguish the two so I'll help you out. Traditional relates to what is/has been for a relatively long period of time (In this case, man and woman). Historical relates to what those marriages have entailed. You seem unable to tell the difference between wanting marriage to stay between a man and a woman and wanting marriage to stay between a man and a woman so you can control her. One of those, opponents of gay marriage want. The other, only you claim they want.

 

There's no battle to be had with a set definition. I would think someone supposedly studying a science would understand that. All you're proving is that you have absolutely no idea what the word "historical" actually means, and instead of addressing perfectly constructed points made against you, you'd rather mess around with definitions to make it seem like you have a point.

 

 

 

Anyways, now we've established that, basically your argument is this: Marriage is only marriage because I say so.

 

 

 

The concept of subjectivity flew out the window when you were born, amirite? If we accept that marriage is more than just a contract between two people and a ring, marriage becomes something completely different depending on the person you are and the person you're in wedlock with. Some marriages may involve the woman sitting at home doing housework. Others (thankfully these days, I'm glad to say, the majority) consist of both partners agreeing to each others life choices in relation to the interests of the whole family.

 

 

 

You have no right to decide what does and does not constitute a marriage. I don't, the Church doesn't, God doesn't, only the state can legislate. End of.

[Sly_Wizard]

You defined 'traditional marriage' and I refuted that. I said that the 'tradition' was outdated and needed to be changed, and you said you had no idea what I was talking about. I provided examples of outdated traditions, and you blatantly ignored them. You ignore logic and fill your arguments with pseudo lawyer-speak and lead everyone in circles.

 

Post when you actually want to have an intelligent debate.

 

 

 

Let's see here... A refutation "I disagree" does not make. A refutation requires you to refute the notion that marriage has, keyword coming up here, traditionally been between one man and one woman-- ESPECIALLY in Western society. Secondly, I didn't ignore anything, henceforth the whole "I'm not into appeals to novelty. Even though I don't really care, you're going to have to provide an adequate reason to legalize gay marriage" portion of my post (Which I'm guessing you're not going to answer). Third of all, you REALLY don't want to get into a whole debate on logic, 'cuz you'll lose. And bad. Oh and, you know, just because I want to ---> "...it's important to note that the government also discriminates based on age, disabilities, consanguinity, religion, sex, species and quantity".

[Sly_Wizard]

There's no battle to be had with a set definition. I would think someone supposedly studying a science would understand that.

 

 

 

All you're proving is that you have absolutely no idea what the word "historical" actually means, and instead of addressing perfectly constructed points made against you, you'd rather mess around with definitions to make it seem like you have a point.

 

 

 

Okay. Let's see:

 

 

 

A.) I know perfectly well that traditional means. I know perfectly well what historical means. You're the one who doesn't seem to understand. So I can simplify this even further for you. Traditionally, marriage has been between one man and one woman. Historically, marriage has been used as a means of trade. You've never seen a proponent of traditional marriage running around claiming that marriage should be used to control women, have you? Nope. The ONLY people who claim as much are those who try to misrepresent the stance the proponent of traditional marriages is actually taking.

 

 

 

B.) You have no point, except to claim that proponents of traditional marriage want to exercise what you want them to exercise (i.e., the things they really don't want to exercise but you want to claim they do in order to make their position look worse than what it actually is).

 

 

 

The concept of subjectivity flew out the window when you were born, amirite? If we accept that marriage is more than just a contract between two people and a ring, marriage becomes something completely different depending on the person you are and the person you're in wedlock with. Some marriages may involve the woman sitting at home doing housework. Others (thankfully these days, I'm glad to say, the majority) consist of both partners agreeing to each others life choices in relation to the interests of the whole family.

 

 

 

Uno momento.

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

*See above*

 

 

 

Traditional marriages involve one man and one woman. Nothing more, nothing less. Now are you gonna' try to redefine what a traditional marriage is by what actions are taken once two people are married? 'Cuz, if you are, I'll just ignore you as that's not what the term traditional marriage is referring to. Just who is married, not what roles they take once they are married. Get it?

 

 

 

You have no right to decide what does and does not constitute a marriage. End of.

 

 

 

Irony <_<

[Ginger_Warrior]

The concept of subjectivity flew out the window when you were born, amirite? If we accept that marriage is more than just a contract between two people and a ring, marriage becomes something completely different depending on the person you are and the person you're in wedlock with. Some marriages may involve the woman sitting at home doing housework. Others (thankfully these days, I'm glad to say, the majority) consist of both partners agreeing to each others life choices in relation to the interests of the whole family.

 

 

 

Uno momento.

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

*See above*

 

 

 

Traditional marriages involve one man and one woman. Nothing more, nothing less. Now are you gonna' try to redefine what a traditional marriage is by what actions are taken once two people are married? 'Cuz, if you are, I'll just ignore you as that's not what the term traditional marriage is referring to. Just who is married, not what roles they take once they are married. Get it?

 

I'm not talking about "traditional" marriage. None of the rest of us are. It seems to be a tangent you persist in following on your own.

 

 

 

Marriage means different things to different people. If you think there's one set meaning of marriage, and that meaning applies to every single married person, then I regard you an incredibly narrow-minded being.

 

 

 

You have no right to decide what does and does not constitute a marriage. End of.

 

 

 

Irony <_<

 

Do you see me sat here saying "No gays should be allowed to marry"? I'm more than happy to leave that decision to the state, given they have to make legislation based on common sense rather than blatant homophobia.

[magekillr]

No same-sex marriage, no more tax dollars from Melissa Etheridge.

 

 

 

That's the defiant stand taken by the 44-year-old singer in a new blog post on The Daily Beast following the passage of California's Proposition 8.

 

 

 

Etheridge declares that if she's not "allowed the same right [to marry] under the state constitution as any other citizen. ... I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes, because I am not a full citizen."

 

 

 

"Okay," she continues. "There is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California."

 

 

 

Etheridge opposed the ballot measure along with Brad Pitt, Mary J. Blige, Ellen DeGeneres, and Sacha Baron Cohen.

 

 

 

The controversial constitutional amendment, which overturns a California Supreme Court decision that allowed for same-sex marriages, may retroactively invalidate the unions of DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi, who tied the knot in August, and George Takei and Brad Altman, who married in September, as well as the hundreds of regular people who were able to legally take their vows for a brief few months this summer.

 

 

 

Etheridge ends her blog with a message for Prop 8 supporters: "Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away."

 

 

 

Melissa, you tell them! You are a citizen and deserve the same rights that I do. You're paying your entry fee, now sock it to 'em!

 

 

 

Although, you probably will be arrested :(

[jackattack]

In California this isn't a rights issue.

[I_am_Geed]

i believe that if a man loves another man, or if a woman loves another woman, that they should not have restrictions or harassment because of that.

 

 

 

I AM in support of gay rights, even though im not gay myself. Everyone has the right to be what they want.

[Tetsuya]

In California this isn't a rights issue.

 

 

 

California is part of the United States as far as I know. So, it should be a rights issue.

[venomai]

Even though I don't really care, you're going to have to provide an adequate reason to legalize gay marriage.

 

Marriage is a socially and legally binding contract between individuals. Denial of this "basic civil right"[1] creates a clear discrimination and removes the right to equal protection. Legalizing gay marriage will help to curb discrimination and homophobia in a similar way that legalizing interracial marriage will help to curb racism.

 

 

 

Legalization of gay marriage also helps to separate church from state, removing the religious undertones of the "Man and Woman" morality.

 

 

 

[1] This quote is drawn from Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court ruled that restrictions on interracial marriage was unconstitutional (and the restrictions were subsequently overturned). Here is the full quote, taken from Wikipedia:

 

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival ... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

 

 

I'm curious to understand your reasons for not wanting to legalize gay marriage. More specifically, what is the basis on which it should be prohibited (or remain unsanctioned)? Other than, of course, the destruction of beloved "tradition." :)

 

 

 

it's important to note that the government also discriminates based on age, disabilities, consanguinity, religion, sex, species and quantity.

 

This is irrelevant to the question of gay rights. It's also strikingly similar to the beginnings of a slippery slope argument.

[J a m e s]

Is there anyone on the face of the earth that believes homosexuality/gay marriage is wrong that doesn't practice a bigoted religion like Christianity?

[Sly_Wizard]

I'm not talking about "traditional" marriage. None of the rest of us are. It seems to be a tangent you persist in following on your own.

 

 

 

I didn't bring it up. Someone else did. I commented, and people keep talking about it as if I initially brought it up.

 

 

 

Marriage means different things to different people. If you think there's one set meaning of marriage, and that meaning applies to every single married person, then I regard you an incredibly narrow-minded being.

 

 

 

I don't play the "Everything is relative/subjective game". You should know that by now.

 

 

 

Do you see me sat here saying "No gays should be allowed to marry"? I'm more than happy to leave that decision to the state, given they have to make legislation based on common sense rather than blatant homophobia.

 

 

 

Ummm... No. States only have to make legislation which are in their best interest.

 

 

 

And lol @ the pejorative. Ah well... At least you didn't use the word "bigot".