Same Sex Marriage... Good or Bad [Archive] - Whistle Stopper Political Forums

Sly Limey

10-05-2003, 01:20 AM

Ok, time for my two cents.

I agree that a loving relationship should not be viewed as being exclusive to heterosexual couples. Everyone has a right to be in love and lead a healthy loving relationship, irrespecive of gender or sexuality.

However...

Since when the first man married the first woman, marriage has been a sacred arrangement between 1 man, 1 woman and God. It is only within a recently short period of time that homosexuals have been openly lobbying to be able to marry. Well i am sorry but you just can't have it. Marriage is between a man and a woman... there is no other way about it.

Nobody is taking away your right to love. Nobody is taking away your ability to share your life with another person. All that is being said is that we are not allowing homosexuals to enter into a sacred vow that has forever been between a man and a woman.

Here in the US, if you have native american heritage then there are certain funds that can be supplied to you. But like i said, you need to be native american. Now i am a pure blooded english man, i dont have a single ounce of cherokee in me. Not a gram of pawnee! And i certainly dont have enough hair to grow a mohecan!
But I want to be an indian! I dress up in loin cloth and sleep in a teepee! I hunt deer with a bow, i smoke tobacco in my peace pipe and i always put my ear to the floor at opportune times and say "Someone coming!". So really i have just as much right to their benifits as any other native american... dont i? I "feel" like a native american. I even "look" like a native american (when you squint reallll hard) and i certainly act like a native american! So why cant i have what the native americans are entitled to?

BECAUSE I AM NOT A NATIVE AMERICAN!!!!!

People need to realise that you dont have a "right" to everything in this world. Sometimes things just arent meant for you, no matter how much you want them. Homosexuals may live in loving relationships. They may feel the same about eachother as my wife and i feel. But they should NEVER be allowed to marry as marriage is a sacred and special bond that is meant to be shared between a man and a woman.

Moving on to the multiple partners topic as mentioned by James. Unfortunately attached to the serious and sensible homosexual groups are a plethora of outlandish and sub cultural fringe groups. ie transgender, transexual, S&M and many many others including those who lobby for poligamy.
It is a sad fact that if we open the door for one of these groups we are opening the door for all of them. And not just for marriage. Whilst i whole heartedly feel that marriage should not be extended to same sex relationships i COMPLETELY feel that we should not give societal fringe groups yet more reign to degrade our societies already fragile and dying moral structure.

up2date

10-05-2003, 05:06 PM

I do not consider myself the ultimate authority on marriage, so I would not feel comfortable defining who can and can't be married. Luckily I don't have to. That is up to the churches, mosques, temples, etc to decide. Plus of course the state, and I can't see the state having a problem the activists groups couldn't eventually overcome.

Also, allowing homosexual marriages will not open the door to polygamy,

Sly Limey

10-05-2003, 06:43 PM

Being happily married i do in fact consider myself an authority on marriage.... and i say that homosexuals can't marry!

And allowing homosexual marriage WILL open the door to poligamy and a whole host of other detrimental things.

JD3

10-05-2003, 07:32 PM

1st. I am not sure the bible has anything to say about homosexuality. And whether it did or didn't, I still would not demand that any church have to marry anyone. Faith is personal. Marriage can be civil and not religious. In a country where individuals are free not to believe, they should also be free to define marriage for themselves within reason. Certainly there are concerns about abuse and harming nonconsenting groups and societal concerns. Having homosexuals marry would encourage committment and decrease multiple partners. This would help society.

2nd. It is odd that it may well be homosexuals who save marriage as an institution. Divorce rates are high and the only people fighting to be married are homosexuals.

3rd. Dobson is just wrong.

4th. I too am married and I have been for over 20 years. I too am an expert. Love and respect are what is required. Not gender or sex.

dreamin penguin

10-07-2003, 06:33 PM

First of all, I'd like to take a second to introduce myself. This is my first post, so I'd just like to say hi to everyone before I get going. Just to let you all know, my goal is not to offend anyone, but if it happens, sorry about your luck- I'm a very straight forward person that sticks to her beliefs.

Wow- after reading everyone's opinions about this topic I really don't know what to say. First of all, I'll answer the original question at hand. I think that homosexuals have just as much right to marry as anyone else. If love happens to fall between people of the same sex so be it. Why should anyone be able to keep them from joining into a "sacred bond" with one another just as their heterosexual counterparts? I realize that it has been tradition for a man and woman to marry, but traditions change with time. It was also once tradition for husband and wife to be married till "death do us part." However, as anyone can see, this has changed over time.

And just because someone has been married for a given amount of time doesn't mean that they are an expert on anything. Marriage is personal, not universal.

JD3

10-07-2003, 08:37 PM

I'm with you. Good job. By the way it'd be a good job even if I wasn't with you. I just wouldn't tell you. :)

dreamin penguin

10-07-2003, 08:39 PM

Thanks Joe :) I thought I did a pretty good job :)

NetxMan

10-07-2003, 09:24 PM

Well, I to have Homesexual friends, and most of them do not have single partners, and live a lifestyle that isn't, how do you say, moral.

I think we have to look at it, maybe in a different way. what if all marraiges were gay marraiges? What would the world be like?

There would be no real birth of childern, they would have to go to the other sex just to have children. Which I don't think is very natural, do you? Then the children would be raised with just one viewpoint on life, which again, isn't natural.

I could go on and on. I mean it just isn't natural at all for 2 people fo the same sex to even be together. I think that the human anatomy explains this in a pretty simple way.

JD3

10-07-2003, 09:48 PM

. . . Similar to ancient Greece? I understand it was comman for "LOVE" to be expressed between men. Women were more for breeding.

In any case, I think whatever the "norm" is, most people will try to match it. However, there will always be about 10% of the population that is "wired", for lack of a better word, to be different.

If they, homosexuals, want to settle down and be true to one partner, I think it benefits society for the same reasons it benefits society for a hetrosexual couple to marry. I don't think it makes a difference and I certainly don't think I will stop be hetrosexual just because they can marry.

I promise the species will go on!

dreamin penguin

10-07-2003, 11:14 PM

Netxman, I have a couple of questions for you. First, why are you friends with people that are homosexual if you think that they lack morals? I mean, honestly, don't you find everything they do to be utterly wrong? Friends support one another in the choices that build their lives. You don't sound like you're supporting these "friends." Second, I guess really isn't a question as much as a comment. You can't go looking at things in a "what if" sense. Not all marraiges are homosexual. Therefore, you can't say what would be life like if they were. Don't make generalizations about things you don't understand, or in this case, don't exist.

america

10-08-2003, 07:23 AM

JD3 that was funny your remark about "with you and not telling you." :D
Homosexuality is against my beliefs but! who am I to say what people do and don't do? Am I God? no. :eek:
Most of the time I think people are born that way therefore they are part of our kingdom, for example, maybe God made them to take care of all the orphans that are discarded by careless and neglectful heterosexual couples? who knows?
As with heterosexual people there are those who do anything for a cheap sex thrill and never have enough of it but that is another topic and may just be heterosexuals trying something new.
I guess I could say, IF you are true blue gay then I am for you, ha.
I DON'T think churches should be forced to marry couples if it is against their doctrine, now that really is stepping into the seperation of church and state.
If they can find a church fine, if not, a civil ceremony would have to do.

dreamin penguin

10-09-2003, 11:26 PM

This get's off topic just a little, but I was wondering what everyone's view was on homosexual couples adopting children and raising families?

up2date

10-10-2003, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by dreamin penguin
This get's off topic just a little, but I was wondering what everyone's view was on homosexual couples adopting children and raising families? An excellent segue, perhaps deserving of its own thread...

dandmasc

10-10-2003, 12:30 AM

I want to be as sensitive and gentle about these subjects as I can. If one believes in the God of the Bible, then one should abide by it's precepts. Regarding marriage, refer to Genesis 2:24 man and woman as one flesh. Regarding homosexuality and the eventual sodomy, refer to Leviticus 18:22-23.

If you do not believe in the God of the Bible and the moral guidelines, then you may have the misfortune of facing the eventual consequences.

The issue is raised on a public forum. I do not present this in order to be stodgy, but I am bound to abide by and follow my beliefs.

NetxMan

10-10-2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by dreamin penguin
Netxman, I have a couple of questions for you. First, why are you friends with people that are homosexual if you think that they lack morals? I mean, honestly, don't you find everything they do to be utterly wrong? Friends support one another in the choices that build their lives. You don't sound like you're supporting these "friends." Second, I guess really isn't a question as much as a comment. You can't go looking at things in a "what if" sense. Not all marraiges are homosexual. Therefore, you can't say what would be life like if they were. Don't make generalizations about things you don't understand, or in this case, don't exist.

What don't I understand? Anything more and less than you?

JD3

10-10-2003, 10:49 AM

There is some doubt concerning the translation of the bible concerning this issue. As a christian, I find that interesting. I will not tell people what to believe, that is private and a matter of faith. But I think this issue and the translation of what we accept is worth investigating. There are several good books and you can do an easy internet search that can point you on your way if you are interested.

This, by the way is the root of the problem (I think) with the Episcopal Church.

Blueangel

10-15-2003, 04:59 AM

Firstly, it always tickles me when someone quotes Leviticus.
2,000 year old laws for 2,000 year old people.
The problem with Leviticus today is that people who quote it tend to be very selective. I'm sorry, but you either believe it all or none of it and I'm definately the latter...probably because I'm an independant woman.

Back to the topic...
Ten years ago, I filmed a friends gay wedding at her request. She and her partner were married by an Anglican vicar. I even went with her to meet the vicar and arrange the ceremony, and was very impressed by him and his motives for performing the ceremony. It was a lovely Christmas wedding by candle light and made her parents very proud.
Ten years later, my friend is on her second marriage...again, to a woman...and is extremely happy. She has a solid, loving relationship and has built a very comfortable life for herself and her partner. I am very happy for her and hope that they have many happy years together. To be honest, they have a stronger, more commited relationship than the vast majority of hetrosexual marriages that I know.
When she first decided to get married, I questioned her at length as to why she wanted to emulate a hetrosexual institution that was particularly prejudice against homosexuals.
Her answer was simply, that she wanted to make a public declaration of her love for her partner. No fancy white dress...no hundreds of people at the reception...just a simple and memorable declaration in front of the family and friends that had always cared for her and supported her.
THAT is why people should marry! I could never fault her motive.

When many people decry homosexuals for alleged promiscuity, shouldn't we celebrate those who wish to make a commitment?

My only reservation is that I don't believe there are any divorce laws regarding these ceremonies. I'm aware that gay marriages are legal in Hawaii, but does legislation cover the breakdown of a marriage?

JD3

10-15-2003, 12:26 PM

Nice post. I agree.

lawman

10-16-2003, 06:07 AM

Sly Limey wrote:
Since when the first man married the first woman, marriage has been a sacred arrangement between 1 man, 1 woman and God. It is only within a recently short period of time that homosexuals have been openly lobbying to be able to marry. Well i am sorry but you just can't have it. Marriage is between a man and a woman... there is no other way about it.

Let me take a more historical/anthropological approach here. I submit that since time immemorial, marriage has been an institution between two (or quite often more) people and the state (usually some form of monarchy, of course). This institution developed because (A) rulers discovered that a monogamous couple raising children was a good way to keep society orderly (and, by limiting the availability of sex, a particularly good way to keep rambunctious young males orderly), and (B) giving it the imprimatur of religion helped perpetuate the institution (just as the ruler himself was almost always "divine," of course).

Today, thankfully, there's nothing necessarily "sacred" about marriage. It's a civil contract, pure and simple. Any given private religious institution is of course free to impose additional constraints upon its members (who can freely choose either to abide by those constraints, as Dandmasc chooses, or to leave the institution), but the state should have no business endorsing or adopting any of those religious constraints.

It's a contract -- one that endows the parties with certain legal benefits on the part of the state, however, and as such it's prima facie discriminatory to say that some people can avail themselves of the institution and others can't based on a distinction (sexual preference) that should be no business of the state.

And speaking as a straight male in a long-term relationship, I honestly can't imagine why any other straight couple would find their own choices somehow "threatened" by having those choices available to gay couples as well. Whether your relationship succeeds or fails is up to nobody but you.

lawman

10-16-2003, 06:19 AM

As for what NetxMan apparently doesn't understand about what he wrote...
Well, I to have Homesexual friends, and most of them... live a lifestyle that isn't, how do you say, moral.

First... most of my gay friends over the years have been in monogamous relationships. In my case as in yours, though, that's anecodatal evidence; it's basically irrelevant.

Second... whether or not you consider their private lives "moral" is up to you, I suppose, but as long as they're consenting adults it shouldn't matter to the state.

what if all marraiges were gay marraiges? What would the world be like?

Dunno. What would the world be like if over 50% of straight marriages ended in divorce? Oh, wait, that's already happened. Never mind.

Seriously, this is an obvious straw man question. It has nothing to do with any actual social consequences of gay marriage, because nothing about gay marriage would impinge on the rights of straights.

I could go on and on. I mean it just isn't natural at all for 2 people fo the same sex to even be together.

All I can say is that this remark demonstrates a remarkable ignorance both of nature and of human cultural history.

Blueangel

10-16-2003, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by lawman
It's a contract -- one that endows the parties with certain legal benefits on the part of the state, however, and as such it's prima facie discriminatory to say that some people can avail themselves of the institution and others can't based on a distinction (sexual preference) that should be no business of the state. Very well put.
It is still the case in the U.K., that a homosexual couple can only endeavour to protect each other in law, by having a very good Will and naming each other as pension beneficiaries.
Even so, it is still the case that the kin of a gay person can contest the Will of the deceased based on their marriage/relationship not being legally binding. It's a legal minefield.
Thankfully, new employment laws(that only became statute this month) afford homosexual couples some of the workplace benefits that have, until now, only been available to their hetrosexual colleagues.

If government can legally recognise the rights of homosexuals in the workplace, isn't it about time they recognised and resolved some of the other issues?

I don't expect organised religion to rush to follow suit, but the world would be a better place if they did.
It's difficult to preach compassion when you deliberately ostracize such a large proportion of your congregation.

NetxMan

10-17-2003, 12:06 AM

You don't conform religion to fit your ideas, you conform your ideas to fit religion.

Blueangel

10-17-2003, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by NetxMan
You don't conform religion to fit your ideas, you conform your ideas to fit religion. Then why did God give us free will?
Why have the capacity to think for yourself, only to stiffle it to suit a dogma with more basis in ancient politics than any form of faith?

lawman

10-17-2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by NetxMan
You don't conform religion to fit your ideas, you conform your ideas to fit religion.

Well, yes and no.

On the one hand, within the context of any given religion, it does make sense for believers to abide by the core beliefs of that religion; to do otherwise begs the question (at least in a pluralist society) of why they count themselves as believers in the first place.

(This is not to deny that believers differ in interpretation -- e.g., some Christians feel obliged to accept "Creationism" while others accept modern theories of cosmology and evolution; nor to deny that "core beliefs" change over time -- Christianity today is certainly different from what it was in the first century, or the 11th. But let's sideline those issues for now.)

On the other hand, thankfully, our government and the laws we live by don't operate within the context of any given religion. Thus, they are not obliged to "conform" their ideas to any preordained doctrines, except those set forth in the Constitution (which itself is able to evolve), and we as citizens remain free to think for ourselves.

NetxMan

10-17-2003, 01:41 PM

Lawman I don't know if you follow me around on purpose or not, because I feel like you do, but I never said anything about government in my statement.

mspresident

10-21-2003, 06:04 PM

What is sex? what is love? what does it matter? Things like sex, love, marriage, poligamy, monogamy, etc. are defined indivdually. The one thing I do appreciate about this country is that religion and state are ( for the most part) separated, and for good reason. Society instills morals in people, like marriage. Just because you are gay does not mean that your morals change therefore, gay people may want to get married to a same sex partner and what is wrong with that? Everyone uses the " poor children" as an excuse while underestimating the damage that a "traditional family" composed of a mother a father and possible siblings can have over a child. Why not take care of the mothers on crack and the children on the street and leave Gay people alone. There are horrible people in this world, why should we give them more rights to have children and to get married then a gay person? If being gay and married is illegal then what is to stop the government, holding hands with the church of course, not to say, " people with tatoo's can't get married or raise children," or, "people who have ever had a same sex experience EVER! cannot marry etc etc." By denying certain freedoms ( like the freedom to get married) to "certain people" because of their sexual orientation, we end up giving away more of societies freedoms as a whole. But who cares right? Everyone just go have a cheeseburger and watch your droaning soap opras and not give a flying jellybean about whether in twenty years or so I won't be able to sneeze because " its not morally right." People! stand up for the love of somthing!!! I also think its funny that people always bring up children along with gay marriages, I think its more of an excuse for people so they don't have to come out and say that gay people make them uncomfortable. Children from gay parents aren't any worse off from it, thats just ignorant to claim , " the poor children will suffer," Shame on you, if gay people make you uncomfortable, fine, have some balls and say it. I'll tell ya somthing, Gay people don't make me uncomfatable but ya know what? People how say that gay people should'nt get married....why? ......" ahhhh ahhhh....cause there gay" make me uncomfortable.

KWJams

10-21-2003, 06:30 PM

What I find confusing is that a segment of society that for the most part is very vocal in regards to the separation between church and state is asking for societies acceptance of same sex marriages which is a religious endorsement??:confused:

mspresident

10-21-2003, 06:46 PM

It would AWSOME if church and state were two separate things on the issue of marriage, the state recognizes marriage in general as a legal binding contract because it is through the church, therefore, one is not without the other. Point is, Gay couples should have the right for their marriage to have the same impact as a straight union in the eyes of the law and state. :cool: boo ya!

KWJams

10-21-2003, 07:07 PM

One is in front of God while the other is in front of a court of law.

Why is it so important that it is called a marriage when the definition of the word indicates the union between a man and a woman.

It would seem more prudent to lobby for legal recognition of same sex partnerships.

Is the purpose to get legal recognition?

Or to get a thrill out of rattling the cages of the religious crowd?

up2date

10-21-2003, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by KWJams
One is in front of God while the other is in front of a court of law.

Why is it so important that it is called a marriage when the definition of the word indicates the union between a man and a woman.

It would seem more prudent to lobby for legal recognition of same sex partnerships.

Is the purpose to get legal recognition?

Or to get a thrill out of rattling the cages of the religious crowd? You're right about this:

Legal recognition and religious acceptance are two different things. Personally, I believe the government should recognize same sex unions. But religions are free to make that choice for themselves and can't be legislated to do so.

No doubt some just get that thrill of bucking the system, but I doubt that is the motivation for all, or even most.

mspresident

10-21-2003, 10:13 PM

Marriage has a couple different of definations, although one clearly says a union between a man and a woman, it also says, according to www.dictonary.com, that marriage is a " any intimate or close union." Can someone who is gay or lesbian not be close to someone, can they not love or feel the same emotions that a straight person can? I'll answer this question for you guys cause it seems that your having trouble....the answer is YES YES YES YES YES!!! Of course they can! A gay person can have a " intimate or close union" just like a straight person can, therefore gays are intitled to marriage just as anyone else would be. You ask why its so important that it be called " marriage." Let me reiterate from my previous posts, just because someone is gay does not mean that the morals instilled in them by society have dissapeared, they still want to be married like anyone would. I would also like to express my outrage when I read from both of the newer posts from people, that they actually thought that gay people were just trying to get a rise out of the government by pursuing gay marriage, please think about what you just said and try to have a little maturity and use reason PLEASE! Ever think that gay people, in a commited relationship, that wanted to be married, might want the same legal recongition or tax breaks etc. as stright couples, and why not? In this country aren't we supposed to be big on equailty?????? *cups hands to mouth, stands up and screams, "DISCRIMINATION DISCRIMINATION!!!!!"*

NetxMan

10-21-2003, 10:30 PM

"And the LORD God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: 'This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
-Genesis 2:18-25 (NKJV)

If God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural. Homosexual anal intercourse carries a high risk of disease, this is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error.............

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet

Romans 1:27

KWJams

10-21-2003, 10:39 PM

I am not arguing against it, I am trying to understand the issue.

just because someone is gay does not mean that the morals instilled in them by society have dissapeared,

The way I understand it is that one of the main reasons of society's rejection of homosexuality is because of the tenets in the Bible that it is a sin. :confused:

I guess where I am confused is how can a gay person be comforted by a religion that considers their actions as a sin?

Debating the modern interpretation of the meaning of a word would be out of the context of the real issue it would seem.

NetxMan

10-21-2003, 11:35 PM

You just answered your own question.

mspresident

10-21-2003, 11:51 PM

ok, hahah, ok. I guess this comes down to whether you believe the bible or not so let me just offer these facts. If God didn't create homosexuality and its so wrong like some would like to believe then why!? someone tell me WHY!?! is 17% of the animal population homosexual, animals are part nature, created by "God." You don't see a gay bambi bouncing down the street and bursting into flames, struck down by the wrath of God now do ya?
"Homosexual and **** sex carries a higher risk of diseses." This grossly inacurate statement is completely untrue. Sex, either heterosexual or homosexual, carries the same risk, whether gay or straight, protection is the only thing that stops potentail dieses, just because someone has **** sex does not mean that they are any more subsuptible. Please educate yourself on that for your saftey if nothing else.

KWJams

10-22-2003, 12:24 AM

I did not say that, I just am saying if you look at the original meaning of the word marriage, it comes from religion just like the word Bambi is Disney in origin. ;)

I would gladly debate with you in another thread on the concocted percentages you presented about animal populations and point out that feces is simply waste.

NetxMan

10-22-2003, 12:31 AM

We aren't animals, sorry That is the worse argument I ever heard. It is out right degrading and stupid.

Second let me ask you a question mspresident. And I want a educated answer.

With out protection, which sexual act is medically the safest?
A) **** Sex
B) Heterosexual Sex

Blueangel

10-22-2003, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by NetxMan
With out protection, which sexual act is medically the safest?
A) **** Sex
B) Heterosexual Sex The answer is lesbian sex!

As for the marriage question...
Hand on heart, I think marriage is a crock!
Been there...done that...and I WON'T be doing it again!

I was 29 when I got married. I'd been with my husband for 7 years and honestly believed nothing could change our relationship (other than having kids).

Man! Was I wrong!

After being a single, capable woman for 29 years, I suddenly became a second class citizen in the eyes of most business and authoritarian bodies that I dealt with.
Those three little letters (Mrs), changed everybody's attitude towards me and I hated it.

More to the point, anyone with a basic knowledge of genealogy will know that marriage has only been common in the working classes of the U.K. for little over 100 years. Before then, it was only available to the middle and upper classes.

Tico

10-22-2003, 02:14 AM

When I got married in a Catholic church the priest needed to see the state license first and the state charged me to get married so the notion of separation of church and state regarding marriage is bogus. They are both very much intertwined.

Tico

10-22-2003, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Blueangel
The answer is lesbian sex!

As for the marriage question...
Hand on heart, I think marriage is a crock!
Been there...done that...and I WON'T be doing it again!

I was 29 when I got married. I'd been with my husband for 7 years and honestly believed nothing could change our relationship (other than having kids).

Man! Was I wrong!

After being a single, capable woman for 29 years, I suddenly became a second class citizen in the eyes of most business and authoritarian bodies that I dealt with.
Those three little letters (Mrs), changed everybody's attitude towards me and I hated it.

More to the point, anyone with a basic knowledge of genealogy will know that marriage has only been common in the working classes of the U.K. for little over 100 years. Before then, it was only available to the middle and upper classes. Just because your marriage failed doesn't make it a crock for everyone else.

up2date

10-22-2003, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by Tico
Just because your marriage failed doesn't make it a crock for everyone else. That is a little harsh.

I think the point she is making is that many people have claimed same sex marriages would make a mockery of the institution of marriage, yet us straight people are already doing that. No doubt many same sex unions will fail. But I bet it would be at about the same rate as heterosexual marriages.Originally posted by Tico
When I got married in a Catholic church the priest needed to see the state license first and the state charged me to get married so the notion of separation of church and state regarding marriage is bogus. They are both very much intertwined. Actually, they are different. All you need to be married is that piece of paper from the state. For your religion to consider you married you need a priest, rabbi or whatever.

Blueangel

10-22-2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Tico
Just because your marriage failed doesn't make it a crock for everyone else. And where in that post did I say my marriage failed?
I fully accept that many couples have long, happy marriages and good luck to them!

My point is, society still treats women in a patronising manner when they marry.

Case in point...
I'd been married 6 months and wanted to change my bank savings account to get a better rate of interest.
This was an account I'd held for a number of years and my husband was not a customer of the bank in question.
The bank manager refused to release the funds until I'd "gone home and discussed it with my husband over the weekend."
Least to say, I raised holy hell, had a blazing row with the manager in front of his customers and reported him to the Banking Ombudsman.

If only this was an isolated example. Unfortunately it was just one of very many.

NetxMan

10-22-2003, 03:34 AM

Blue Honey,

Could you answer my question in a true educated manor?

With out protection, which sexual act is medically the safest?
A) **** Sex
B) Heterosexual Sex

**Let me verify I am talking about Anal sex between men.

Also I would like to post the facts on AIDS transmitted between male homosexuals.

Men who have sex with men = 368,971

Heterosexual contact = 90,131 (do note this is both men and women)

This report was done in 2001, but still shows a significant difference.

up2date

10-22-2003, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by NetxMan
**Let me verify I am talking about sex between men. Why? Is it any less dangerous between a man and woman?

Also, I fail to see how this factors into whether same sex marriages should be allowed.

Unprotected sex between straight couples often results in teenaged pregnancies, therefore straight marriages should not be allowed. Doesn't make sense, does it?

lawman

10-22-2003, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by NetxMan
[Genesis quote snipped]

If God had intended the human race to be fulfilled through both heterosexual and homosexual marriage, He would have designed our bodies to allow reproduction through both means and made both means of sexual intercourse healthy and natural. Homosexual **** intercourse carries a high risk of disease, this is recognized in Scripture where gay men are said to receive in their bodies the due penalty for their error.............

A few points...

1) Marriage as a social institution, in all its permutations -- heterosexual or otherwise, permanent or otherwise, religious or otherwise, monogamous or (quite frequently!) otherwise -- predates the book of Genesis by a considerable span. It in no way depends on what "God intended." (Except, perhaps, for people who voluntarily choose be to be evangelical Christians.)

2) God didn't design our bodies, evolution did. Evolution (being a natural phenomenon) is often preoccupied with reproduction, but not exclusively so; marriage (being a human construct) need only be concerned with reproduction if and when we want it to be.

3) As others have already pointed out, your argument about what's "natural" is baseless, as alternative sexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom. (Thus proving, as noted, that even evolution isn't completely constrained by reproductive needs.) If you've never heard of this before and insist on corroboration, check out Bruce Bagemihl's book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, or at least this handy review of it: http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

4) Scripture is not the best place to look for up-to-date public health advice.

5) Many of us have already acknowledged that religions are free to set their own rules (for internal use only)... but the state is obliged to be more evenhanded, so what relevance does any of this have for society at large?

lawman

10-22-2003, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by Tico
When I got married in a Catholic church the priest needed to see the state license first and the state charged me to get married so the notion of separation of church and state regarding marriage is bogus. They are both very much intertwined.
No, actually, this demonstrates the distinction. Modern marriage is a contract between equals, licensed by the state, under the auspices of the law like any other contract. A ceremonial religious endorsement of that marriage, OTOH, is a completely optional process with its own rules... with the caveat that a church can't formalize a marriage that the state hasn't licensed. See?

lawman

10-22-2003, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by up2date
Why? Is it [**** sex] any less dangerous between a man and woman?

Also, I fail to see how this factors into whether same sex marriages should be allowed.

Unprotected sex between straight couples often results in teenaged pregnancies, therefore straight marriages should not be allowed. Doesn't make sense, does it?
Excellent point! I would only add that, furthermore, it's not the state's business to dictate what health risks one can and cannot choose to take for oneself.

(There's a valid rationale for blocking marriage between fertile relatives with a degree of consanguinity determined to be unsafe for potential offspring -- but that's different; it's a matter of preventing a risk from being imposed on someone not in a position to decide for him/herself.)

mspresident

10-22-2003, 11:33 AM

Listen here Netxman, whether its heterosexual or homosexual sex, the point is that without PROTECTION as in condoms, diesase can be transfered. Gay sex is not more diesease prone just because its gay, thats my point. You can sit in your mom's basement all night on your computer looking up stats but the fact remains that Gay sex is not any more risky than any other sex. Your comment reminded me of my little sister when she was mad at something, "Thats just stupid" Why? " just cause its just is!! so there" Please get a grasp on reality if not for yourself, then for the rest of the intelligent people in the room * which by the way is everyone else, nice comments and thanks for provoking me:) *

Blueangel

10-22-2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by NetxMan
Blue Honey,

Could you answer my question in a true educated manor? :D
And your implication is...?

The figures you have quoted would be drastically reduced if people, of all sexualities, were encouraged to develop faithful, committed relationships.

As subsequent posts have pointed out, all sexual contact carries an element of risk, regardless of sexuality.

It bugs me when people see the only risk as being Aids.
As an educated woman, I see many risks of unprotected sex.

Besides the obvious risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, the most startling proven statistic I've seen, is the direct correlation between teen sex and the incidences of cervical cancer.

Women who have unprotected sex before the age of 19 (which is roughly the age when women reach full biological maturity), are 10+ times more likely to be diagnosed as having abnormal cervical cells by the age of 40.

mspresident

10-22-2003, 12:09 PM

thank you blueangel, well said:)

The Man

10-22-2003, 06:02 PM

Did any of you see the time Dr. Dobson went on Larry King Live? They talked about that issue, and I would have to say I agree with Dr. Dobson. He said that the homosexuals are not striving for one on one marriage, but are wanting to end up with multiple partners.Yes I did see the program. Dr. Dobson is more of a characture of a psychologist than an authnetic psychologist. He has absolutely nothing to back up this claim other than his own prejudiced opinion. Living in Florida I have come to know many homosexual couples. But I don't know any who are as sexually free than the hetrosexuals I know!

Any psychologist should have learned that stereotyping is absurd!

The Man

10-22-2003, 06:06 PM

LAWMAN. . . .God I love your brain and I'm not homosexual! Thanks for sanity!

NetxMan

10-22-2003, 06:38 PM

All of you are dodging the points that I am trying to make. So let me make myself clear.

AIDS, a horrible disease, is more prominent in Gay relationships. Why, because of the nature of the sexual acts, and because a larger percentage of these relationships are not single partnerships.

And, mspresident I think those stats prove the opposite of your "Gay sex is not any more risky than any other sex."

Whether made by God or whom ever you want to say our maker is, we were not intended biologically to have sex with the same sex partners. Because if we all did this, then there would be no natural reproduction. Lets take this to the simplest example. Adam and Eve, were not adam and adam, if they would have the human race wouldn't have been.

Don't believe in the bible or Adam and Eve? Then tell me how the world started? And explain to me how many people you think were on it(the first people). If only a few thousand, and a large percentage of them were gay carrying over generation after generation, wouldn't the human race have died off?

Now if you want to make the argument that marriage isn't about sex you are correct, but do most married couples have sex? I think they do. (at least in the early years)

This is all so common sense. It like if you spit in the wind, it will come back at you. Men weren't made to sleep with men, and women with women. Look in the mirror, and tell me that you were made to sleep with the same sex. Your trying to put two puzzle pieces together that don't go.

lawman

10-22-2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by NetxMan
All of you are dodging the points that I am trying to make. So let me make myself clear.

Not at all. I (and several others) have addressed them quite directly.

AIDS, a horrible disease, is more prominent in Gay relationships. Why, because of the nature of the sexual acts, and because a larger percentage of these relationships are not single partnerships.
True, as far as it goes. This would constitute an argument for better public health information, and/or for monogamous relationships (like, say, marriage). It doesn't constitute an argument against gay marriage.

Whether made by God or whom ever you want to say our maker is, we were not intended biologically to have sex with the same sex partners. Because if we all did this, then there would be no natural reproduction...
Flawed logic: you're assuming an all-or-nothing choice between polar alternatives. What nature actually delivers is a broad spectrum of sexual behavior, with enough reproduction taking place along the way to keep the species doing just fine.

Don't believe in the bible or Adam and Eve? Then tell me how the world started? And explain to me how many people you think were on it(the first people). If only a few thousand, and a large percentage of them were gay carrying over generation after generation, wouldn't the human race have died off?
"How the world started" is rather a large topic for a single post; I'd suggest a visit to the wonderfully encyclopedic and user-friendly http://www.talkorigins.org.

As for your logic here, you should re-examine it, and ask yourself: if (premise) homosexuals don't reproduce, then how can you assert (conclusion) that the tendency is passed genetically to succeeding generations?

This is all so common sense. It like if you spit in the wind, it will come back at you. Men weren't made to sleep with men, and women with women.
What's common sense is that people ought to be free to make their own decisions about their personal lives, and let others do the same. Gays clearly do exist, despite your assertions that people "weren't made" to be that way, so why should they not enjoy that same freedom?

KWJams

10-22-2003, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by lawman
What's common sense is that people ought to be free to make their own decisions about their personal lives, and let others do the same. Gays clearly do exist, despite your assertions that people "weren't made" to be that way, so why should they not enjoy that same freedom?

Even though I am hesitant to reply and risk having comments I made back in 7th grade drug up and used in your reply - ;)

Why is it so important for Gay's to proclaim their existence?

In your own words --- they clearly do exist which everyone is fully aware of, so why not just exist and leave it at that instead wanting some sort of special acceptance by society?

The same with this desire to have a marriage license when it is a instrument recognized by religion -- which should always be held separate from state --- right?

Do you see how silly this all sounds?

Blueangel

10-22-2003, 10:52 PM

Some excellent comments from Lawman there.

Netxman...thanks for the giggle.

Originally posted by KWJams
The same with this desire to have a marriage license when it is a instrument recognized by religion -- which should always be held separate from state --- right?

Do you see how silly this all sounds? Totally!

There seems to be a difference between U.S. and U.K. thinking in this area.
I'm aware that gay marriage is legal in Hawaii, but I'm unsure as to whether your church leaders condone this.
In the U.K., it's long been the case that gay marriages have been performed by the clergy of various religions (mostly in secret), and it's the state that refuses to recognise them.

Over here, there is a sector of business that personify the power of 'The Pink Pound'. These people have become very vocal in instigating social change for homosexuals.

One of the arguements I've heard in favour of homosexual marriage is, the state can't prevent homosexuals from becoming parents, so why deny their family unit the legal security offered by marriage?

up2date

10-22-2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Blueangel
In the U.K., it's long been the case that gay marriages have been performed by the clergy of various religions (mostly in secret), and it's the state that refuses to recognise them. Here, too, to some degree. There have been clergy of various religions performing same sex marriages for years. The marriages had no legal weight since the state did not recognize them, though.

But that's part of the point. There's marriage in the eyes of the state and in the eyes of various religions.

lawman

10-22-2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by KWJams
...Why is it so important for Gay's to proclaim their existence?

In your own words --- they clearly do exist which everyone is fully aware of, so why not just exist and leave it at that instead wanting some sort of special acceptance by society?...

I've encountered this argument many times, and I frankly still don't see how it pertains to anything real. What "special acceptance" (or, as it's often put, "special rights") do you see gays asking for? All I've ever seen is the desire to not have to hide their existence, to be who they are and still be able to enjoy equal rights under the law just like everybody else. (E.g., adopting children, sharing insurance, and a whole passel of other "rights" that straights enjoy without thinking twice.)

NetxMan

10-22-2003, 11:28 PM

I am sorry blue I failed to find the humor in my last post, I was wondering if you might enlighten me.

up2date

10-23-2003, 12:00 AM

KWJams

10-23-2003, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by lawman
I've encountered this argument many times, and I frankly still don't see how it pertains to anything real. What "special acceptance" (or, as it's often put, "special rights") do you see gays asking for? All I've ever seen is the desire to not have to hide their existence, to be who they are and still be able to enjoy equal rights under the law just like everybody else. (E.g., adopting children, sharing insurance, and a whole passel of other "rights" that straights enjoy without thinking twice.)

**WHISTLE**

No fair lawman -- ;) -- I deliberately chose the words < special acceptance > for a reason. It is unfair to change the intended meaning of my choice of words to infer that I meant to say "special rights".

This entire subject boils down to homosexuals wanting society to make cultural concessions that would legitimize gay marriages for the purpose of religious acceptance.

The other points you made are worth pursuing within the legal system.

lawman

10-23-2003, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by KWJams
**WHISTLE**

No fair lawman -- ;) -- I deliberately chose the words < special acceptance > for a reason. It is unfair to change the intended meaning of my choice of words to infer that I meant to say "special rights". ...The other points you made are worth pursuing within the legal system.
Okay, no misrepresentation intended; I'll take a narrower approach.

This entire subject boils down to homosexuals wanting society to make cultural concessions that would legitimize gay marriages for the purpose of religious acceptance.
I disagree. In my experience (granting yours may differ), and as I've seen this subject covered in the press, most gays who want to marry don't give a hoot about religious acceptance (and for those few who do, there are accepting congregations they can find in almost every faith -- at least, in a city this size)... they just want recognition from the state, and the legal rights that come with it.

You as a private person (or your church as a private entity) obviously can't be compelled to "accept" anyone you don't like; your only obligation is the same general respect the law requires you to afford all strangers (e.g., no assault, no defamation, etc.). The government, OTOH, as the embodiment of the entire public will, is obliged to extend "acceptance" -- i.e., equal protection of the law -- to everyone, and has no excuse for discrimination on matters such as this. That's the real crux of this debate.

When I see politicians pandering to the fearful and intolerant among us with phrases like "Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman," I see them betraying the public trust. Consider: time was when miscegenation laws prohibited interracial marriage, because marriage by the "definition" accepted by most people was between a man and a woman of the same race. That didn't make it right. The institution of marriage is only what the law says it is, and if that law is unfair or discriminatory, it should be changed.

KWJams

10-23-2003, 05:08 AM

There lays the problem--the origin of the word "marriage"

It's definition comes from Biblical origins and defines a religious ceremony joining man and woman in holy matrimony.

Changing the meaning of the word into modern definitions does not remove it's association from it's origin in religious ceremony.

State recognition is not the problem, I would imagine any competent attorney can draw up legal documents that would be recognized in any court of law establishing a legal partnership between two people.

The gay community is fighting the wrong battle, instead of fighting over a "word" with religious connotations they should be pursuing state recognition of partnership contracts.

Blueangel

10-23-2003, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by KWJams
The gay community is fighting the wrong battle, instead of fighting over a "word" with religious connotations they should be pursuing state recognition of partnership contracts. Very well said!

Take religion out of the equation and the solution becomes far more apparent.
I feel the Gay community has taken on too many battles at once.
Legal recognition of a union should be the ultimate aim and any religious connotations should be a matter for the individual and their spiritual leader.

JD3

10-23-2003, 11:37 AM

I am not sure a legal document can make employers respect bereavement rights or insurance rights. However, I don't object to calling it a civil union.

Blueangel

10-23-2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by JD3
I am not sure a legal document can make employers respect bereavement rights or insurance rights. However, I don't object to calling it a civil union. Those very ammendments to the Employment Act have just become statute this month in the U.K.

Over the last year, I have repeatedly had to fight for the rights of a gay couple that I worked with. Rights which were not actually there in law.
Luckily, my employer had a Family Friendly policy in operation and the wording was loose enough to accomodate the needs of this couple.
Admittedly, I had great fun in taking my employers flagship idea and using it against them for the benefit of the employees.

booboohead

10-29-2003, 04:52 PM

Whew. I've just read and enjoyed all of the comments here. It sounds like there is agreement on the following:

1) 'gay marriage' as it pertains to religion is up to the individuals and their respective churches (religions)

2) gay people are welcome to fall in love, and to establish permanent relationships.

3) WRTO 'gay marriage' as it pertains to state law and the rights therein... people seem to be in 2 camps:

Camp 1: fears that sanctioning gay marriage will erode our social fabric. is therefore against gay marriage.

Camp 2: does not believe gay marriage will have any detrimental effects on our social fabric. therefore, is supportive or indifferent.

We are now dealing with 'the future', and so its all about 'risk/reward' and 'risk assessment'.

The perceived reward for most non-gay people is nominal. They feel it is the 'just' thing to do, but it does not effect their daily life.

The perceived risk for those against it is huge. They feel it will compromise our social fabric and tear at marriage, child rearing, morals, health, etc.

Since the potential reward is small, any attempt to sway someone by arguing that it is 'just' or 'right' or 'fair', is going to have NO impact on them. The potential reward you are trying to sway them with ('a more fair world') is NEVER going to overcome their perceived risk.

Its NOT like bungee jumping; where you can convince someone to jump by BOTH increasing reward (fun thrill adventure) AND decreasing fear (safety, knowledge, statistics).

There is no upside here, and lots of potential downside.

The only way gay marriage will be supported or tolerated by these people is by easing their fears to the point where the percieved 'risk' is no longer so much greater than the potential 'reward'. This is happening, slowly, over time, as more gays come out of the closet; more people have gay friends (even immoral ones), more people get comfortable living with and around gay's, and not freaking out.

This is a case where many people have a position which is not based on their arguments; rather, their arguments are based on the necessity to defend their pre-existing position.

Drache-Engel

10-29-2003, 05:58 PM

Homosexuals, are criminals because they do not physicaly advance the human race, therefore the are slowly killing humanity. I say get ride of them, somehow. What I said here I will not apologize for, because, what I say is true.

Feralboy

10-29-2003, 07:58 PM

The more you say, Drache, the more stupified I become.

It is no ones DUTY to have children. It is a choice. This planet is overpopulated enough as it is.

Get rid of them? Is that an incinuation to Murder? If it is...well...Im just sickened.

Oh, and by the way Drache, many of the greatest minds of our time, or of any time, have been homosexual. So do not say that they do not further the culture.

Once again, I'm sorry if I went out on a tangent. Its just that I have many friends who are homosexual, and this is a very touchy issue with me.

up2date

10-29-2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Drache-Engel
Homosexuals, are criminals because they do not physicaly advance the human race, therefore the are slowly killing humanity. I say get ride of them, somehow. What I said here I will not apologize for, because, what I say is true. Your ignorance is on display for all to see. It is people like you who do not advance the human race.

Blueangel

10-30-2003, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by booboohead
This is a case where many people have a position which is not based on their arguments; rather, their arguments are based on the necessity to defend their pre-existing position. It's good to see someone really thinking about this, though I don't agree with all you have said.
But that was inevitable...wasn't it! :p

I'd like to add an 'upside'.
Marriage is an institution that society takes for granted. It's expected that we will pair off and procreate.
There are many legal and financial benefits to marriage, one of the biggest being the ability to protect the interests of your partner, within law, when you die.

I just feel it to be wrong that we deny these rights and privileges to a fifth of society. That's a hell of a lot of people who are yearning for a bit of respect and security.

KWJams

10-30-2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Blueangel

Marriage is an institution that society takes for granted.

Whether it is tyeing Virgins to a stake as a sacrifice to Dragons, dancing around a corn field for a blessing of a bountiful harvest or circumcising baby's, ceremony's are a part of the fabric of our origins.

When the sacred becomes passé -- then the ceremony of marriage is nothing more than an institution with some great tax benefits. :(

lawman

10-30-2003, 06:31 PM

marriage is nothing more than an institution with some great tax benefits.
Bing! Two points.

"Sacred" is a meaningless term in the context of a modern, pluralist, secular society.

This is not a bad thing. Looks to me like progress.

Blueangel

10-30-2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by KWJams
When the sacred becomes passé -- then the ceremony of marriage is nothing more than an institution with some great tax benefits. :( I really wasn't thinking that way KW.
Married persons tax allowance was abolished a couple of years ago in the U.K., so it really isn't an issue for us.

Also, all state benefits and pensions here are less for a married couple than a co-habiting couple, so no gain there either.

The point I wish to make is, when you love someone, all your protective instincts come to the fore.
A primary desire is that you are able to protect the welfare of your loved ones if you are incapacitated or die.
Much of this can be automatically provided if you are married.
The main issues for the gay couples I know, is that they wish their partner to be named the beneficiary of their pension or will.
Currently, the deceased's blood relatives still have more rights to the estate than a co-habiting partner, and often contest a will that cuts them out.
Basically, it's the same risks that affect a hetrosexual co-habiting couple, but at least they have the choice of marriage.

KWJams

10-30-2003, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by lawman
Bing! Two points.

"Sacred" is a meaningless term in the context of a modern, pluralist, secular society.

This is not a bad thing. Looks to me like progress.

Just as long as we don't forget where we came from

I wonder what will be next thing that will not mean anything anymore?

Blueangel,
What you said is sadly true, that is why I quoted you, not because I thought that is what you meant.

For a long time now people have taken what is sacred and have corrupted it for their own pleasure. :(

Captain America

10-30-2003, 10:31 PM

Topic: Same Sex Marriage... Good or Bad

Having only been married to my wife (who happens to be of the opposite sex:p ) I am not qualified to answer that question.

Blueangel

10-31-2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by KWJams
Blueangel,
What you said is sadly true, that is why I quoted you, not because I thought that is what you meant.

For a long time now people have taken what is sacred and have corrupted it for their own pleasure. :( D'oh!
Prime example of me jumping the gun.
Sorry.

PatriotChick

11-01-2003, 04:06 PM

I agree. I don't think there is anything wrong with same-sex marriages.
What gives us the right to tell people that they can't marry
whoever they want to. It doesn't matter to me if they happen
to be the same sex. What really matters is that they love each
other, and want to make that bond official.

Captain America

11-01-2003, 05:11 PM

I think it is absurdly arrogant to dictate to another person whom they should love and marry. I could care less if it's Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve. None of my cotton-pickin' business!:argue:

KWJams

11-02-2003, 02:26 AM

I don't really see any argument from anyone -- the hangup on both sides of the issue seems to be only over the use of the word-"marriage".

Duo_Maxwell

11-04-2003, 02:14 AM

Transcending religious beliefs, is there anything of substance beyond people's own discrimnatory beliefs that hold back same sex marriage?

Dissent

11-04-2003, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by KWJams
I don't really see any argument from anyone -- the hangup on both sides of the issue seems to be only over the use of the word-"marriage".

Shouldn’t we be encouraging the fact that changes in beliefs throughout the world is a good thing?
As people evolve constantly, our beliefs and spirituality do as well.
So do the meaning of words over time.
Maybe we should embrace this instead of fighting.

I didn’t think that whatever the kind of commitment an individual has with their partner (whatever the genders) or whatever they choose to call that commitment was anyone’s business but their own. If they do believe in God or religion then that is also personal as well.
Who are we to say otherwise?

Simon666

11-16-2003, 10:10 AM

I would like to say a couple of things. first thing is : gays want marriage for the law, not for the church, keep your faith out of this. If you don't want them to be married for God, fine, but this is not about marrying for God but before the state. Or at least I presume this is what is wanted.

There have been several arguments here based on the promiscuity of gays, but I thought we were talking about marriage. Marriage involves inheritance and other things, so I don't think any gay person would want to be financially responsible and leave his fortune to someone that constantly sleeps around with other people. And as far as the promiscuity of gay men is concerned : I believe this is not any greater than that of straight men, but as women play or are harder to get it is far more easy for them to have multiple sex partners. If straight men had enough willing women around, I believe they would be just as promiscuous.

There have also been several arguments here about gay sex being more risky. That is true, but therefore you need promiscuity as to have a chance of getting infected and leads us back to the previous point, already discussed. Some things I like to add, it is claimed here the majority of Aids patients are gay. This may be true in western countries but globally, the vast majority is straight. The Aids virus has no brain so it doesn't make a choice who to infect based on sexuality. It is a fake argument to hold it back, the people who use this are also against lesbians although lesbian sex gives a lower chance of transmission as has already been pointed out.

There have also been several arguments about children. Usually based on nothing other than unbased fear and prejudices. It is another fake argument as there have been objective studies that show children raised in same sex marriages are happy to and grow up as average individuals. There is no reason why same sex couples can't raise children properly. For some questions and answer about children in same sex marriages, go here (http://www.allianceforsamesexmarriage.org/facts2.htm).

There have also been arguments about sex being unnatural. It is not intended by nature. It is an argument frequently used by people who have been dismissed with coming up about God, want to convince atheists. Nature doesn't say anything nor intends anything, nature is a concept and not something with an opinion. Gay animals occur in nature too. And even if nature would be something that had an opinion or an intention, it would have made the mouth so small and the tongue so small it could not be used for oral sex and the same for the anal orifice. Sex has a reproductive function in nature, but among many animals, especially the bonobo for example, as well as among humans, sex also serves a social function of keeping the group together. So there goes the argument sex is intended for reproduction only. I honestly question whether the dubious types who claim this, have just as many children as they have had sex in their life. In case they don't have, they are hypocryts at least and probably even liars.

There have also been argument about it being against God, the most notorious one. The argument that is usually in the back of the mind by the antis. We have some things in the Bible (http://www.mccmanchester.co.uk/bible.htm), but these can be refuted. The Sodom and Gomorra story for example, those were destroyed for other reasons than for having gay sex. Also note the passage where Lot offers his daughters to appease the crowd, the Old testament is notoriously sexist, women are only good for sex, giving birth to children and household duties. Then some obscure passages from the Book of Leviticus, but probably all christians do not keep to what else is in there, for example : not cutting men's hair, not eating meat with blood in it (eg: rare steak), not eating rabbit or certain kinds of seafood (like mussels or shell fish), not cross breeding cattle, not wearing garments made out of more than one material and women or worth less than men. Then we also have some expressions by Saint Paul, not an original apostle but a Jewish convert who claimed he saw the light. If we are to take this guy serious, then we will also have to condemn men with long hair, state that women will only get to Heaven if they have babies and women should wear veils in church (http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/corinthians/veils.stm), among others. So far for the Bible.

There have also been arguments about a moral stepping stone theory that would lead to a total decay of civilisation and possibly life as we know it, if you have to believe these types. Prime argument and starting point is that it is amoral, and thus allowing something amoral will open the box of Pandora about other amoral things. First I would like to point out that it is not amoral in itself, it is by those who believe it is against God, nature, spreads disease, corrupts children and promotes promiscuity. Those have already been refuted. But let's say they are right and it is amoral. Why would this open the door to for example incest and pedophilia, as these pilarbiters claim? These are totally uncomparable, the sex is not consenting and disapproved by all people except those who commit or plan to commit them perhaps. As I understand it the US is a democracy and if 99.9% of the population is against it, I don't think this has any chance of being legalized. Except if you believe if gays were allowed to marry then >50% of the US would turn into gay loving, incest hungry and child craving people, which I think is an insult to their own country.

Simon666

11-16-2003, 10:11 AM

So, that were some arguments which I want to give my opinion on. The underlying argument of those who use the above arguments would be if they were honest : I hate them or severely dislike them, think it is disgusting and as I hate it, the invisible man who I believe in must hate it too so I can't possibly be wrong.

america

11-16-2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Simon666
So, that were some arguments which I want to give my opinion on. The underlying argument of those who use the above arguments would be if they were honest : I hate them or severely dislike them, think it is disgusting and as I hate it, the invisible man who I believe in must hate it too so I can't possibly be wrong.

wow the above was a mouthful

but let me say this

a civil ceremony should be okay according to man's law and would cover property issues.
a church should not have to sanction the marriage of two gay people if it goes against the doctrine
a church would not sanction a relationship of domestic partners regardless of their sexual status.
that would be like if i were the town prostitute that I would go to church and expect some ceremony honoring it. If it goes against the doctrine.
sinners go to church sure, but they usually hide their sin or confess it and do not expect a blessing.

the bible states sex between man and man or woman and woman is wrong
however it states in the last days men will become lovers of themselves
and it states women will do what is unnatural to them and men will be with men
so as wrong as it is according to biblical scripture it seems it is highly expected to be going on.

to me it is a mystery of life that I rarely chose to think about because I don't have any answers. It does not affect the masses as long as they don't force the issue against churches who do not believe in it
we are not to judge others so really unless laws are passed and people who do not believe in it are forced to live it then we as people should not get in other peoples business.
yet I don't see the need for all the gay talk at times, why define yourself with the way you have sex?
I dont go around say I am a hetro or an abstinence or a multi hetro, how silly.