Same-Sex Marriage

[Rebdragon]

Socc, babe, wtf.

 

Rex, why not call it a civil union and give those unions the same benefits of a married couple? That way no ones beliefs are infringed upon (marrige is still kept as between a mans and a woman), nothing illegal is done, things stay somewhat secular and gays get the benefits that are the root of their cause for fighting for gay marriage.

 

And, wait, who doesn't get married by the Church, or some religious figure...?

[RexMilotic]

Socc, babe, wtf.

 

Rex, why not call it a civil union and give those unions the same benefits of a married couple? That way no ones beliefs are infringed upon (marrige is still kept as between a mans and a woman), nothing illegal is done, things stay somewhat secular and gays get the benefits that are the root of their cause for fighting for gay marriage.

 

Marriage isn't religious though, and if it was religious then it shouldn't give legal benefits and everyone should be forced to be married through civil unions. What you're suggesting is that people are separate but equal, which was used to support segregation of communities. If you keep this things separated, then the whole between them can never be ignored.

 

 

Marriage can be done by a judge in court.

[Dizzle229]

And, wait, who doesn't get married by the Church, or some religious figure...?

 

I think if you don't want it done by the Church you can do it in a courthouse, but I've never heard of anyone actually doing it.

[Skull]

I think my dad and stepmom did. Not sure.

[RexMilotic]

And, wait, who doesn't get married by the Church, or some religious figure...?

 

I think if you don't want it done by the Church you can do it in a courthouse, but I've never heard of anyone actually doing it.

 

Where and how people marry isn't something that's all to common, and being married in a court house doesn't really have much to brag about anyways, so I would assume it's not often brought up. That's not the same as people not doing it however.

[Rebdragon]

But the problem is the main root of the oppositions personal beliefs. The core of most opposition is that once you start changing the definition of marriage, who's to say that the changes have to stop? Polygamy would have an argument for gaining legal rights as well, and there is, you have to admit, a potential for snowball effect. This country is getting more left with each passing generation, so people against gay marriage tend to feel that if the definition is changed now it can never go back.

 

Gays mainly want the legal benefits of a union, which are fine with me personally. But they're stomping on the beliefs of the majority by trying to change marriage, and that's not gunna get the agenda far.

[RexMilotic]

But the problem is the main root of the oppositions personal beliefs. The core of most opposition is that once you start changing the definition of marriage, who's to say that the changes have to stop? Polygamy would have an argument for gaining legal rights as well, and there is, you have to admit, a potential for snowball effect. This country is getting more left with each passing generation, so people against gay marriage tend to feel that if the definition is changed now it can never go back.

 

Gays mainly want the legal benefits of a union, which are fine with me personally. But they're stomping on the beliefs of the majority by trying to change marriage, and that's not gunna get the agenda far.

 

Your snowball argument avoids the main point of discussion, because we're discussing two entirely different things. Your argument is for its own topic, and will not be discussed by me on this topic.

 

 

Now, whether or not the definition is changed is not something bad. Previously the definition of marriage meant only two people of the same race are allowed to marry, but now we are allowed to have multiracial marriage. To have that happen, a majority of people's beliefs were crushed, by now we have no problem with that type of marriage. Just because it's a belief doesn't mean it's right, or at least I would assume that the belief that marriage should only be between a single race and opposite genders is something that could be considered wrong. Your problem is that you believe marriage is something religious, which it's not. It's a legal contract, in which the beliefs of religious people don't matter, because it's something the State deals with.

[Giordano]

But the problem is the main root of the oppositions personal beliefs. The core of most opposition is that once you start changing the definition of marriage, who's to say that the changes have to stop? Polygamy would have an argument for gaining legal rights as well, and there is, you have to admit, a potential for snowball effect. This country is getting more left with each passing generation, so people against gay marriage tend to feel that if the definition is changed now it can never go back.

 

Gays mainly want the legal benefits of a union, which are fine with me personally. But they're stomping on the beliefs of the majority by trying to change marriage, and that's not gunna get the agenda far.

 

Your snowball argument avoids the main point of discussion, because we're discussing two entirely different things. Your argument is for its own topic, and will not be discussed by me on this topic.

 

 

Now, whether or not the definition is changed is not something bad. Previously the definition of marriage meant only two people of the same race are allowed to marry, but now we are allowed to have multiracial marriage. To have that happen, a majority of people's beliefs were crushed, by now we have no problem with that type of marriage. Just because it's a belief doesn't mean it's right, or at least I would assume that the belief that marriage should only be between a single race and opposite genders is something that could be considered wrong. Your problem is that you believe marriage is something religious, which it's not. It's a legal contract, in which the beliefs of religious people don't matter, because it's something the State deals with.

You're sort of reinforcing the point of the snowball effect there. Wealth, race, sex, ???, ???. Technically I can marry my keyboard if I wanted to, it would be in my rights to do so. But that sounds stupid. In society there will have to be limits and for the sake of tradition (NOT religion) marriage should be based on a man and a woman. Civil unionships for legal rights should be given to all partners regardless of sexual orientation of course.

 

But homosexuality isn't the "norm" as you people would like to think. Being born without legs isn't something you can live a "normal" life with. Homosexuals can't marry like hetrosexuals do like as handicapped people can't run like non-handicapped people do. It's a struggle of life.

 

As for the churches right to marry those who they choose, do they get special benefits of taxes or not?!

[Madmanpur3]

Many private practices only offer benefits to those who are married with a church recognized marriage, and not just a civil union. And as far as the benefits provided by the state/federal government, again those benefits for extra people don't just spawn out of nowhere. One could argue that giving gays the same benefits would "harm" others, because it would harm people financially.

 

I'm not against gay marriage by any means, I just don't see it happening until we're a financially stable country once again.

[RexMilotic]

But the problem is the main root of the oppositions personal beliefs. The core of most opposition is that once you start changing the definition of marriage, who's to say that the changes have to stop? Polygamy would have an argument for gaining legal rights as well, and there is, you have to admit, a potential for snowball effect. This country is getting more left with each passing generation, so people against gay marriage tend to feel that if the definition is changed now it can never go back.

 

Gays mainly want the legal benefits of a union, which are fine with me personally. But they're stomping on the beliefs of the majority by trying to change marriage, and that's not gunna get the agenda far.

 

Your snowball argument avoids the main point of discussion, because we're discussing two entirely different things. Your argument is for its own topic, and will not be discussed by me on this topic.

 

 

Now, whether or not the definition is changed is not something bad. Previously the definition of marriage meant only two people of the same race are allowed to marry, but now we are allowed to have multiracial marriage. To have that happen, a majority of people's beliefs were crushed, by now we have no problem with that type of marriage. Just because it's a belief doesn't mean it's right, or at least I would assume that the belief that marriage should only be between a single race and opposite genders is something that could be considered wrong. Your problem is that you believe marriage is something religious, which it's not. It's a legal contract, in which the beliefs of religious people don't matter, because it's something the State deals with.

You're sort of reinforcing the point of the snowball effect there. Wealth, race, sex, ???, ???. Technically I can marry my keyboard if I wanted to, it would be in my rights to do so. But that sounds stupid. In society there will have to be limits and for the sake of tradition (NOT religion) marriage should be based on a man and a woman. Civil unionships for legal rights should be given to all partners regardless of sexual orientation of course.

 

As for the churches right to marry those who they choose, do they get special benefits of taxes or not?!

 

Actually, what he was arguing and I'm arguing are two different things. He is arguing about using polygamy for more than two consensual adults, while I'm arguing for two. Arguing for more than two is taking things too far off topic to be used as a defense, and your argument is an adult and a consensual object. You can't technically marry your keyboard, because it simply can't even sign the marriage license. I'm suggesting limits also, but those limits should be between two consensual adults, whether they be gay/lesbian/straight or any other. The reason I say this is because in polygamy, divorce and other legal benefits would be an issue that would be too confusing for things to work, while two consensual adults allow for both easy marriage, divorce and legal benefits to work out.

[Giordano]

 

You're sort of reinforcing the point of the snowball effect there. Wealth, race, sex, ???, ???. Technically I can marry my keyboard if I wanted to, it would be in my rights to do so. But that sounds stupid. In society there will have to be limits and for the sake of tradition (NOT religion) marriage should be based on a man and a woman. Civil unionships for legal rights should be given to all partners regardless of sexual orientation of course.

 

As for the churches right to marry those who they choose, do they get special benefits of taxes or not?!

 

Actually, what he was arguing and I'm arguing are two different things. He is arguing about using polygamy for more than two consensual adults, while I'm arguing for two. Arguing for more than two is taking things too far off topic to be used as a defense, and your argument is an adult and a consensual object. You can't technically marry your keyboard, because it simply can't even sign the marriage license. I'm suggesting limits also, but those limits should be between two consensual adults, whether they be gay/lesbian/straight or any other. The reason I say this is because in polygamy, divorce and other legal benefits would be an issue that would be too confusing for things to work, while two consensual adults allow for both easy marriage, divorce and legal benefits to work out.

Okay, so you got limits. That's good. As for homosexual marriage, I am heavily in favour for them to have legal rights the same as hetrosexual couples. But crying because some private institution (unless they get tax reductions, then [bleep] them) won't let them marry isn't what I want.

 

Truthfully, now that I think about it, what the [bleep] is a marriage? Other than legalized benefits for taxes and such, couldn't a homosexual couple make a "mock" Christian wedding without actually "doing it in the name of God"? It's for looks rather than actual benefits.

 

Then what are we arguing here? The right to conduct marriage ceremonies or the right for same legal rights as hetrosexuals? (this goes for the entire thread, not just you Rex, btw)

[RexMilotic]

 

You're sort of reinforcing the point of the snowball effect there. Wealth, race, sex, ???, ???. Technically I can marry my keyboard if I wanted to, it would be in my rights to do so. But that sounds stupid. In society there will have to be limits and for the sake of tradition (NOT religion) marriage should be based on a man and a woman. Civil unionships for legal rights should be given to all partners regardless of sexual orientation of course.

 

As for the churches right to marry those who they choose, do they get special benefits of taxes or not?!

 

Actually, what he was arguing and I'm arguing are two different things. He is arguing about using polygamy for more than two consensual adults, while I'm arguing for two. Arguing for more than two is taking things too far off topic to be used as a defense, and your argument is an adult and a consensual object. You can't technically marry your keyboard, because it simply can't even sign the marriage license. I'm suggesting limits also, but those limits should be between two consensual adults, whether they be gay/lesbian/straight or any other. The reason I say this is because in polygamy, divorce and other legal benefits would be an issue that would be too confusing for things to work, while two consensual adults allow for both easy marriage, divorce and legal benefits to work out.

Okay, so you got limits. That's good. As for homosexual marriage, I am heavily in favour for them to have legal rights the same as hetrosexual couples. But crying because some private institution (unless they get tax reductions, then [bleep] them) won't let them marry isn't what I want.

 

Truthfully, now that I think about it, what the [bleep] is a marriage? Other than legalized benefits for taxes and such, couldn't a homosexual couple make a "mock" Christian wedding without actually "doing it in the name of God"? It's for looks rather than actual benefits.

 

Then what are we arguing here? The right to conduct marriage ceremonies or the right for same legal rights as hetrosexuals? (this goes for the entire thread, not just you Rex, btw)

 

I'm arguing for equality. Marriage is not a religion specific thing, and for that reason religion should have no say in who is allowed to marry. That is up for the state to decide, in which same-sex marriage should be allowed because denying two consensual adults the right to marry is unconstitutional. The fact that some churches may not allow marriage inside of a church doesn't matter, but instead I'm arguing for the same legal rights (which includes the term "marriage" because excluding gays that right would contribute to "separate but equal" and would allow the rift between straights and gays to remain open).

[Nenga]

 

You're sort of reinforcing the point of the snowball effect there. Wealth, race, sex, ???, ???. Technically I can marry my keyboard if I wanted to, it would be in my rights to do so. But that sounds stupid. In society there will have to be limits and for the sake of tradition (NOT religion) marriage should be based on a man and a woman. Civil unionships for legal rights should be given to all partners regardless of sexual orientation of course.

 

As for the churches right to marry those who they choose, do they get special benefits of taxes or not?!

 

Actually, what he was arguing and I'm arguing are two different things. He is arguing about using polygamy for more than two consensual adults, while I'm arguing for two. Arguing for more than two is taking things too far off topic to be used as a defense, and your argument is an adult and a consensual object. You can't technically marry your keyboard, because it simply can't even sign the marriage license. I'm suggesting limits also, but those limits should be between two consensual adults, whether they be gay/lesbian/straight or any other. The reason I say this is because in polygamy, divorce and other legal benefits would be an issue that would be too confusing for things to work, while two consensual adults allow for both easy marriage, divorce and legal benefits to work out.

Okay, so you got limits. That's good. As for homosexual marriage, I am heavily in favour for them to have legal rights the same as hetrosexual couples. But crying because some private institution (unless they get tax reductions, then [bleep] them) won't let them marry isn't what I want.

 

Truthfully, now that I think about it, what the [bleep] is a marriage? Other than legalized benefits for taxes and such, couldn't a homosexual couple make a "mock" Christian wedding without actually "doing it in the name of God"? It's for looks rather than actual benefits.

 

Then what are we arguing here? The right to conduct marriage ceremonies or the right for same legal rights as hetrosexuals? (this goes for the entire thread, not just you Rex, btw)

Churches shouldn't have to preform homosexual marriage because of the 1st amendment thing. Though the same statement dispels any religious argument against homosexual marriage. And i'm pretty sure it's the rights, but when you say marriage you think of the event and the legal benefits. Really combine the 1st, 9th, and 14th amendments and it's already in the constitution. 1st is freedom from religion, stating we don't have to follow one religion and their rules, 9th is rights of the people not specifically stated in the constitution before that, while not defined I'm betting courts would find it tough to ignore "the pursuit of happiness" on the deceleration of independence, and of course 14th guarantees that people with United states Citizenship will all have the same rights.

[Saru Inc]

What I want to know is why does the definition of marriage itself, have to belong to Christian/Islam/Judaic teachings? Marriage ceremonies are pretty universal in every single culture and existed long before any Christian, Islam, or Judaism beliefs. Even here in America, us Native Americans accepted same sex couples and marriages, we had weddings ceremonies for all couples no matter what the genders.

 

So when our government backs up that statement about it only being between a man and a woman, your applying specific religious beliefs/traditions to the definition, and trying to pass laws in a country where the church and state are supposed to be separate. If someone truly loves someone, they should have every right to be legally recognized as a couple like anyone else. Marriage should have nothing to do with government period, but unfortunately it does nowadays.

 

 

Gay marriage will be legal eventually. It's just a matter of time. Slaves were freed, us Natives got our rights back to practice our culture, women got the right to vote....and gays will get to marry legally.

 

 

@ bolded. whattttttttttt? You sure?

 

 

I whole heartedly support, I believe that God exists, and I believe God made me gay. So, I also believe that God loves me, and wants me to be happy with what I choose. So even though it may state that Marriage is between a man and a woman, who says that can't change? Surely the Christian church doesn't follow EVERYTHINg the Bible says. Hell, not even the Westboro Baptist Church does.

[Arcantica]

^ Yea there are a lot of gay Christians, as there is in every religion, be it accepted or not by the faith itself. I'm rather glad that more are coming out and and confronting it, as there are many gay Christian churches in America now popping up all over the place.

 

 

But there have been marriage ceremonies throughout the world for thousands of years, long before those three religions gained dominance in the religious world. So to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman because the bible says homosexuality is wrong, would be to say all those other groups who have had weddings before the bible even existed, would not be true marriages, even though those cultures believe so.

 

 

I'm Native American. We accepted homosexuality in our cultures. So same sex marriage is nothing new to this country. We have been having them for thousands of years, and just because we have cultures and religions that differ a little bit in beliefs, does not make our marriage ceremonies any less valid than the Christian ones, or any other religion or culture.

 

 

and to everyone else who says we should just accept civil unions and shut up, well to just accept something, is like the government just saying "here this is good enough for you". People don't want to just be good enough, they want to be equal in every way, regardless of what their religious beliefs are. There are gay Christians, and maybe they do want a church wedding, and as long as there are churches and ministers ready to allow and accept that, as is the case, then they have every right to be married in the way of their beliefs.

 

The definition of marriage itself, can vary person to person all it wants. But where I see the problem, is the government trying to actually back one group of people's definition of it, over another. We don't need our government to say "marriage is only between a man and a woman, because so and so, believe so".

[magekillr]

There's no "snowball" effect. You're not going to marry your keyboard, you're not going to marry a 12 year-old, and you're not going to marry your cat; none of these objects or animals or people can consent to a relationship, let alone a marriage. A marriage is a contract.

 

The only other area would be incestuous marriage, and I support legalizing that as well.

[OldJoe]

The only other area would be incestuous marriage, and I support legalizing that as well.

Uh, why?

[obfuscator]

The only other area would be incestuous marriage, and I support legalizing that as well.

Uh, why?

 

This is magekillr we're talking about, pretty sure he wants to legalize everything. ;)

 

I have a few issues with homosexual marriage.

 

Kids - are the most basic, most natural reason for sex. Since gays can't produce kids through sex, then they've made the act illegitimate. They've stripped it of its natural purpose and are using it only for pleasure (something which unfortunately many others do as well).

 

Some may say: "Some couples may chose not to have kids". I think that's selfish - the world needs children to survive. People forget that they too were kids once, and if they never have any..well lets just say this is far more of a threat to our future as a race than aids or "global warming".

 

I also have an issue with the way homosexuals tend to force themselves onto everyone. I don't know what ammendment it is in the states, but it seems like "freedom of orientation" (something which, btw, is not in the original charter) supercedes all other freedoms. For example, a few years back a lesbian couple wished to have their wedding reception at a knights of Columbus hall. (For those who don't know, the knights of Colombus are a cathoic mens group) They were refused. They took the KOC to court, and while they didn't win an outright victory, COK had to pay the couple several thousand dollars for "hurt feelings". This just goes to show how one right (right to orientation) is superceding freedom of religion (much more widely used and mature in its practice).

 

On the flip side, however, I also firmly beleive homosexual activity and "relationships" should not be illegal or in any way restrained by law. While I may have my personal beleif that homosexuality is wrong and inappropriate, people do have freedom to do what they want. They should be allowed to. I just don't beleive that further threatening the state of marriage in society is beneficial or necessary.

[magekillr]

The only other area would be incestuous marriage, and I support legalizing that as well.

Uh, why?

 

Uh, why not? Why shouldn't they be able to marry even if they love each other? The "ew that's gross" factor doesn't apply here; it really doesn't matter if people find it gross.

 

There's also levels and degrees with which this needs to be discussed. For example, an adult/child relationship, even when the child is of age, could in fact be the result of abuse and forced coercion without the son/daughter even being aware of it. I am skeptical of it being legal in this type of relationship, specifically because the odds are on the side of it being forced coercion and not the result of true consent, and is therefore a form of rape.

[obfuscator]

The only other area would be incestuous marriage, and I support legalizing that as well.

Uh, why?

 

Uh, why not? Why shouldn't they be able to marry even if they love each other? The "ew that's gross" factor doesn't apply here; it really doesn't matter if people find it gross.

 

There's also levels and degrees with which this needs to be discussed. For example, an adult/child relationship, even when the child is of age, could in fact be the result of abuse and forced coercion without the son/daughter even being aware of it. I am skeptical of it being legal in this type of relationship, specifically because the odds are on the side of it being forced coercion and not the result of true consent, and is therefore a form of rape.

 

There are a lot of "why nots". Genetic mutation, degredation of moral standards in society for instance.

 

And to play devils advocate - what if the child actually wants it? Then why not? Shouldn't we just allow it? Same goes for polygamy.

[SeanCalibur]

 

I have a few issues with homosexual marriage.

 

Kids - are the most basic, most natural reason for sex. Since gays can't produce kids through sex, then they've made the act illegitimate. They've stripped it of its natural purpose and are using it only for pleasure (something which unfortunately many others do as well).

 

Some may say: "Some couples may chose not to have kids". I think that's selfish - the world needs children to survive. People forget that they too were kids once, and if they never have any..well lets just say this is far more of a threat to our future as a race than aids or "global warming".

 

I'm sorry, but i hardly think the world's population is going to decrease dramatically if same sex marriage is approved.

 

I for one support same sex marriage, people in a relationship of any orientation should have the opportunity to solidify their commitment to one another and declare their love for one another as true. If a man and a man or a woman and a woman get married, it shouldn't create such an uproar IMO.

[Romy]

Some may say: "Some couples may chose not to have kids". I think that's selfish - the world needs children to survive. People forget that they too were kids once, and if they never have any..well lets just say this is far more of a threat to our future as a race than aids or "global warming".

 

The fact that (you think) it's selfish doesn't apply here, people are entitled to be selfish.

 

 

Also, I'm thinking the other way around- Having children is selfish. I know many wouldn't agree with me here, but the world we currently live in is a terrible world in many ways. Brigning new life that will 100% be either a cause to a terrible world, or harmed by the terrible world, or both, seems selfish to me. Remember that giving birth and parenting are both biglogical (and as for tradition and the consensus of most societies, possibly pyschological aswell) needs, and the only way to fulfill said needs is to accomplish them (obviously without asking the child in advance- that's impossible, but still, no one has asked me or you if we ever wanted to live), which also seems selfish to me.

 

Lastly, most of the rest of your post seems pejudice, and frankly, primitive aswell. I'm not going to argue that here, so don't bother commenting on my last sentence.

[Saru Inc]

The only other area would be incestuous marriage, and I support legalizing that as well.

Uh, why?

 

This is magekillr we're talking about, pretty sure he wants to legalize everything. ;)

 

I have a few issues with homosexual marriage.

 

Kids - are the most basic, most natural reason for sex. Since gays can't produce kids through sex, then they've made the act illegitimate. They've stripped it of its natural purpose and are using it only for pleasure (something which unfortunately many others do as well).

 

Some may say: "Some couples may chose not to have kids". I think that's selfish - the world needs children to survive. People forget that they too were kids once, and if they never have any..well lets just say this is far more of a threat to our future as a race than aids or "global warming".

 

I also have an issue with the way homosexuals tend to force themselves onto everyone. I don't know what ammendment it is in the states, but it seems like "freedom of orientation" (something which, btw, is not in the original charter) supercedes all other freedoms. For example, a few years back a lesbian couple wished to have their wedding reception at a knights of Columbus hall. (For those who don't know, the knights of Colombus are a cathoic mens group) They were refused. They took the KOC to court, and while they didn't win an outright victory, COK had to pay the couple several thousand dollars for "hurt feelings". This just goes to show how one right (right to orientation) is superceding freedom of religion (much more widely used and mature in its practice).

 

On the flip side, however, I also firmly beleive homosexual activity and "relationships" should not be illegal or in any way restrained by law. While I may have my personal beleif that homosexuality is wrong and inappropriate, people do have freedom to do what they want. They should be allowed to. I just don't beleive that further threatening the state of marriage in society is beneficial or necessary.

 

Wow. Ok. First off:

 

Kids - are the most basic, most natural reason for sex. Since gays can't produce kids through sex, then they've made the act illegitimate. They've stripped it of its natural purpose and are using it only for pleasure (something which unfortunately many others do as well).

 

Wrong. We do it, because we love our partner. Not only for pleasure, but because we, like all humans need a companion to help us get through life. And to the response of your next paragraph; even if we don't get married its not like we're going to have kids anyways. I mean if either way we won't have kids, why even bring kids into it? And also, there are many wonderful gay couples who adopt kids off of the street, and give them great lives and are superb fathers, or mothers to them.

 

I also have an issue with the way homosexuals tend to force themselves onto everyone. I don't know what ammendment it is in the states, but it seems like "freedom of orientation" (something which, btw, is not in the original charter) supercedes all other freedoms. For example, a few years back a lesbian couple wished to have their wedding reception at a knights of Columbus hall. (For those who don't know, the knights of Colombus are a cathoic mens group) They were refused. They took the KOC to court, and while they didn't win an outright victory, COK had to pay the couple several thousand dollars for "hurt feelings". This just goes to show how one right (right to orientation) is superceding freedom of religion (much more widely used and mature in its practice).

 

Whatt? They wanted to have their wedding ceremomy at a location. The location didn't allow, it discriminated based on their orientation. If a Latino Man wanted to work at my location, and I said no cuz you're latino. I would be sued. Do you see a difference? I don't. While yes business to have he right to not "serve" people; there's most likely more to the story then you're telling us.

 

On the flip side, however, I also firmly beleive homosexual activity and "relationships" should not be illegal or in any way restrained by law. While I may have my personal beleif that homosexuality is wrong and inappropriate, people do have freedom to do what they want. They should be allowed to. I just don't beleive that further threatening the state of marriage in society is beneficial or necessary.

 

First off, I'd like to thank you for granting us use of the word "relatioships". I mean what? Are the quotation marks really necessary?

 

Second, I'd like to thank you for your permission for us to be in a relationship.

 

Third, I'd like to warn you. WATCH OUT! We are a threat to your marriage! We're out for blood!

 

Sorry for the sarcasm, I couldn't resist XD

[obfuscator]

I'm only going to reply to Saru's post, as what the rest are saying is pretty much covered/its going to get long

 

 

 

Wow. Ok. First off:

 

Kids - are the most basic, most natural reason for sex. Since gays can't produce kids through sex, then they've made the act illegitimate. They've stripped it of its natural purpose and are using it only for pleasure (something which unfortunately many others do as well).

 

Wrong. We do it, because we love our partner. Not only for pleasure, but because we, like all humans need a companion to help us get through life. And to the response of your next paragraph; even if we don't get married its not like we're going to have kids anyways. I mean if either way we won't have kids, why even bring kids into it? And also, there are many wonderful gay couples who adopt kids off of the street, and give them great lives and are superb fathers, or mothers to them.

 

Yes, you do it because you love your partner - an admirable feat regardless of orientation. But it doesn't change the fact that you've stripped the act of its natural purpose - children. I'll liken it to this. You rob a bank to donate a large sum of money to Haiti. Is donating a large sum of money to Haiti a great, honourable, respectable thing to do? Absolutely. But you've warranted the act invalid by taking away the natural purpose - giving from yourself. One wrong and a right don't make a right, if you will.

 

Oh, and gays are superb fathers and mothers, right? I agree...they definitely can be. But there's a reason why we're naturally made to have a significant male and female in our lives. A huge amount of people in jail were born with only one parent - aka missing influence of a solid family grounded with a male and female perspective.

 

 

I also have an issue with the way homosexuals tend to force themselves onto everyone. I don't know what ammendment it is in the states, but it seems like "freedom of orientation" (something which, btw, is not in the original charter) supercedes all other freedoms. For example, a few years back a lesbian couple wished to have their wedding reception at a knights of Columbus hall. (For those who don't know, the knights of Colombus are a cathoic mens group) They were refused. They took the KOC to court, and while they didn't win an outright victory, COK had to pay the couple several thousand dollars for "hurt feelings". This just goes to show how one right (right to orientation) is superceding freedom of religion (much more widely used and mature in its practice).

 

Whatt? They wanted to have their wedding ceremomy at a location. The location didn't allow, it discriminated based on their orientation. If a Latino Man wanted to work at my location, and I said no cuz you're latino. I would be sued. Do you see a difference? I don't. While yes business to have he right to not "serve" people; there's most likely more to the story then you're telling us.

 

Yes, and suing them for it was discriminating based on their religion. They have the right to practice it, and while you may think its stupid, freedom of religion is protected, but here we see it being shafted over a new freedom - I don't call that fair.

 

The whole story? That's it, that's whats so remarkable.

 

On the flip side, however, I also firmly beleive homosexual activity and "relationships" should not be illegal or in any way restrained by law. While I may have my personal beleif that homosexuality is wrong and inappropriate, people do have freedom to do what they want. They should be allowed to. I just don't beleive that further threatening the state of marriage in society is beneficial or necessary.

 

First off, I'd like to thank you for granting us use of the word "relatioships". I mean what? Are the quotation marks really necessary?

 

Second, I'd like to thank you for your permission for us to be in a relationship.

 

Third, I'd like to warn you. WATCH OUT! We are a threat to your marriage! We're out for blood!

 

Sorry for the sarcasm, I couldn't resist XD

 

You're correct on the first point, they weren't necessary. I conceded that many homosexuals have real relationships. Secondly, you're welcome. Thirdly, yes, you are a threat. Look what happened when probibition stopped.. more people drank. When something is seen as acceptable in society, people are going to do it more. Now we won't see results now, and yes, homosexuals are a small % of the population, but as more and more people become gay having children is something that becomes less and less important. Already due to the baby boomers getting old america and the west are facing a huge healthcare/economic crisis, as spending power is being hugely decreased due to an aging population. This contributes, or at least will.

 

And ps.

 

The fact that (you think) it's selfish doesn't apply here, people are entitled to be selfish.

 

This is a result of the society today - where advertizing preaches a philosphy of "take what you want, when you want, with no regard to others".

Selfishness is the root of all the evil and unrest in society today. Why are there wars? Because countries are too selfish to see anything but their own interests. Why is there world hunger? Because people are too selfish to go without to help someone less fortunate.

[Saru Inc]

OK Y guy, I see what you're saying. I mean in that case, then yes the Lesbian couple was wrong to sue, but people are douches everywhere. XD And while I do agree that God made marriage to have Children, God also made gays, so I'm sure they work themselves in there somehow.