Are you for or against gay marriage?

Opium:

registered on 2008-08-19 01:51:50 pm.

Gender: female

view all posts by Opium

Opium

2009-05-22 01:08:31 am

Servin' you realness!!

Quote from Poision Envy:

Quote from Opium:

Quote from Poision Envy:

Quote from Opium:

Gays are not asking that the law require any church to condone gay marriage, they just want the government to recognize their marriage as a lawful union with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it.

I have no problem with that, in fact I think they SHOULD have that, but I don't think it should be called marriage. Like before, I say the definition of marriage should be kept to between a man and women, and homosexual marriage should be kept to whatever else its called, but it should also have all the same rights as a normal marriage.

Different is never equal, and thats just the way it is. You have presented no sound argument for exactly why it shouldn't be called marriage other than 'just because'. The church can define marriage however they want. We're talking about the law now.

It shouldn't be called marriage because marriage is between a man and women, that is just the term of it. Now if there was a different term for homosexual marriages then that would be the term for it. Two separate words for two separate things.

We don't call lemons and oranges the same thing just because they kinda look and seem the same, we call them two different things because they are two different things.

So do we need different terms for interracial marriages? The term would define based upon the similarities, not the differences. Lemons and oranges are simply FRUIT (no pun intended). Besides, you know darn well that if it weren't called marriage then it wouldn't BE marriage, regardless of what anyone says. If you come up with some new term then a couple years later the fight would start all over again to change it. Just like 'dont ask dont tell' didnt solve anything, now we're fighting over that years after it was passed.

[quote="Poision Envy"]
[quote="Opium"]
[quote="Poision Envy"]
[quote="Opium"]
Gays are not asking that the law require any church to condone gay marriage, they just want the government to recognize their marriage as a lawful union with all the rights and responsibilities that come with it.
[/quote]

I have no problem with that, in fact I think they SHOULD have that, but I don't think it should be called marriage. Like before, I say the definition of marriage should be kept to between a man and women, and homosexual marriage should be kept to whatever else its called, but it should also have all the same rights as a normal marriage.
[/quote]

Different is never equal, and thats just the way it is.  You have presented no sound argument for exactly why it shouldn't be called marriage other than 'just because'.   The church can define marriage however they want.  We're talking about the law now.
[/quote]

It shouldn't be called marriage because marriage is between a man and women, that is just the term of it. Now if there was a different term for homosexual marriages then that would be the term for it. Two separate words for two separate things.

We don't call lemons and oranges the same thing just because they kinda [i]look[/i] and [i]seem[/i] the same, we call them two different things because they are two different things.
[/quote]

So do we need different terms for interracial marriages?  The term would define based upon the similarities, not the differences.  Lemons and oranges are simply FRUIT (no pun intended).  Besides, you know darn well that if it weren't called marriage then it wouldn't BE marriage, regardless of what anyone says.  If you come up with some new term then a couple years later the fight would start all over again to change it.  Just  like 'dont ask dont tell' didnt solve anything, now we're fighting over that years after it was passed.

Opium:

registered on 2008-08-19 01:51:50 pm.

Gender: female

view all posts by Opium

Opium

Edit history:

Opium: 2009-05-22 01:21:16 am

2009-05-22 01:17:47 am

Servin' you realness!!

Quote from arkarian:

Quote:

the founding fathers KNEW that religion and government simply do not mix and always cause discord.

wonder where people got that idea. the "founding fathers" were all or mostly all christian and wrote many christian ideas into the constitution (separation of church and state was not in the original constitution. seems like jackson pushed for it due to pressure from others). yes, they made the christian religion and bible an integral part of law. that's part of why the us is having such trouble with separation of church and state now— because of how the country was originally set up. america was not originally intended to be a "land for everyone" and anyone who thinks that is a fool. it was founded by christians for christian people. only later did its citizens start to come to their senses; it's a shame the law hasn't yet followed suit.

But they knew that the church and the government must remain separate in order to have peace. Washington, Jefferson, and others have written repeatedly that this was fundamental, in fact this was the driving philosophy behind the concept of the US and was the main reason that people left England to start a new nation.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State." - Thomas Jefferson

[quote="arkarian"]
[quote]the founding fathers KNEW that religion and government simply do not mix and always cause discord.[/quote]

wonder where people got that idea. the "founding fathers" were all or mostly all christian and wrote many christian ideas into the constitution (separation of church and state was not in the original constitution. seems like jackson pushed for it due to pressure from others). yes, they made the christian religion and bible an integral part of [i]law[/i]. that's part of why the us is having such trouble with separation of church and state now— because of how the country was originally set up. america was not originally intended to be a "land for everyone" and anyone who thinks that is a fool. it was founded by christians for christian people. only later did its citizens start to come to their senses; it's a shame the law hasn't yet followed suit.
[/quote]

But they knew that the church and the government must remain separate in order to have peace.   Washington, Jefferson,  and others have written repeatedly that this was fundamental, in fact this was the driving philosophy behind the concept of the US and was the main reason that people left England to start a new nation.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State."  - Thomas Jefferson

Boris:

registered on 2009-03-02 11:03:21 am.

view all posts by Boris

Boris

2009-05-22 01:31:29 am

The Overlord of All Acorns.

Marriage is not a simply Christian concept. Treating it like it is results in unequal rights.

Now, I can see your point if homosexuals want to be married in a christian church under christian law, etc. That's just being a dick on their part. But to disallow them the legal rights of marriage is unfair, and, as has been said, "un-American".

Civil Union =/= Marriage.

Poision Envy:

registered on 2008-10-25 08:56:26 pm.

Gender: female

Location: I'm outta place, I'm in outer space

view all posts by Poision Envy

Poision Envy

2009-05-22 01:36:03 am

Death to skinfags, sieg heil.

Quote from Boris:

Marriage is not a simply Christian concept. Treating it like it is results in unequal rights.

Now, I can see your point if homosexuals want to be married in a christian church under christian law, etc. That's just being a dick on their part. But to disallow them the legal rights of marriage is unfair, and, as has been said, "un-American".

Civil Union =/= Marriage.

very well put.

I don't see why Homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed the same rights as a married couple. I don't see anything wrong with them adopting, as long as they are ready for a kid. I don't think a lack of a true 'father' or 'mother' would really be a problem at all, but I do think it would be kind of weird for a gay couple to adopt a girl, or a lesbian couple to adopt a boy.

Opium:

registered on 2008-08-19 01:51:50 pm.

Gender: female

view all posts by Opium

Opium

2009-05-22 01:37:41 am

Servin' you realness!!

Quote from Poision Envy:

Quote from Boris:

Marriage is not a simply Christian concept. Treating it like it is results in unequal rights.

Now, I can see your point if homosexuals want to be married in a christian church under christian law, etc. That's just being a dick on their part. But to disallow them the legal rights of marriage is unfair, and, as has been said, "un-American".

Civil Union =/= Marriage.

very well put.

I don't see why Homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed the same rights as a married couple. I don't see anything wrong with them adopting, as long as they are ready for a kid. I don't think a lack of a true 'father' or 'mother' would really be a problem at all, but I do think it would be kind of weird for a gay couple to adopt a girl, or a lesbian couple to adopt a boy.

I don't think that's any more or less relevant than when a single father raises a daughter or a single mother raises a son. Besides, television and the public school system is who really raises children these days.

[quote="Poision Envy"]
[quote="Boris"]
Marriage is not a simply Christian concept.  Treating it like it is results in unequal rights.

Now, I can see your point if homosexuals want to be married in a christian church under christian law, etc.  That's just being a dick on their part.  But to disallow them the legal rights of marriage is unfair, and, as has been said, "un-American".

Civil Union =/= Marriage.
[/quote]

very well put.

I don't see why Homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed the same rights as a married couple. I don't see anything wrong with them adopting, as long as they are ready for a kid. I don't think a lack of a true 'father' or 'mother' would really be a problem at all, but I do think it would be kind of weird for a gay couple to adopt a girl, or a lesbian couple to adopt a boy.
[/quote]

I don't think that's any more or less relevant than when a single father raises a daughter or a single mother raises a son.  Besides, television and the public school system is who really raises children these days.

Super KB:

registered on 2009-03-21 03:04:59 am.

Gender: male

Location: Tennesse

view all posts by Super KB

Super KB

2009-05-22 01:59:06 am

ϟ

its offical,
Love can corrupt anything

DJGrenola:

is in the group Global Moderator.

registered on 2004-10-11 03:16:49 am.

Location: ein Banning

view all posts by DJGrenola

DJGrenola

Edit history:

DJGrenola: 2009-05-22 02:55:58 am

2009-05-22 02:51:51 am

urmom

urdad

Quote:

un-American

hahaha

THE EIGHTH DEADLY SIN

Quietus:

registered on 2008-09-13 07:03:27 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Quietus

Quietus

2009-05-22 03:56:06 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

I don't have any problem with it at all, as long as they call it marriage. I often find it irksome that gay people fight so hard to be treated equally, and then decide that they want a separate name for the ceremony, and then they want to refer to each other as 'life partner', rather than husband / husband, or wife / wife, which only marks them out as different.

[rant] On a similar note, why are they allowed to have Gay Pride marches and parades? If the straight people walked around shoving the fact that they're straight in gay people's faces, they'd be crucified immediately. You want to be gay, fine - we don't care, but don't shove it in our faces. [/rant]

I once again can't see that religion has any relevance to marriage in a modern society, so the name 'marriage' has no religious significance at all. It simply relates to anybody that goes through the ceremony.

Jerry9:

registered on 2007-05-29 08:30:23 pm.

view all posts by Jerry9

Jerry9

2009-05-22 04:35:54 am

not evil,just hungry

the real question isn't should it be legal, but when. the marriage barriers between race, social status, etc. have all fallen. gay marriage will follow suit. It's only a question of if the current opposition lives to see the day. At the worst, it gets passed when they die off. it seems that most of the younger generations realize that there are bigger problems to eat at eachother's thoats over.

also, this is one of these issues where I really don't understand some of the arguments. banning the marriage doesn't stop the 'sin' of one guy poking the other or 2 girls doing whatever. saying that a 'sinful' person isn't allowed joint property, visitation rights, etc. seems to go against some core religious principles, like forgiveness or "throwing the first stone". rubbing salt in a person's wounds isn't a good way to convince them you are right. I guess I'm saying that seperating the legal and religious sides solves everything for me. If your religion/denomination doesn't want to recognize it, then it doesnt. If it wants to call it something else to protect the definition of marriage, it can. Everyone gets/keeps their legal rights and protection. If you aren't gay, you might have to fill out an extra paper (oh the horror).

also, what's up with the idea to use the constitution to define a word in order to preserve it for ever. that really makes no sense to me. even dictionaries don't try to set a word's meaning in stone for all eternity. and the constitution isn't exactly know for holding a consistent interpretation through time. we'd have to define man and woman or someone will end up marring a turtle.

the real question isn't should it be legal, but when.  the marriage barriers between race, social status, etc. have all fallen.  gay marriage will follow suit.  It's only a question of if the current opposition lives to see the day.  At the worst, it gets passed when they die off.  it seems that most of the younger generations realize that there are bigger problems to eat at eachother's thoats over.

also, this is one of these issues where I really don't understand some of the arguments.  banning the marriage doesn't stop the 'sin' of one guy poking the other or 2 girls doing whatever.  saying that a 'sinful' person isn't allowed joint property, visitation rights, etc. seems to go against some core religious principles, like forgiveness or "throwing the first stone".  rubbing salt in a person's wounds isn't a good way to convince them you are right.  I guess I'm saying that seperating the legal and religious sides solves everything for me.  If your religion/denomination doesn't want to recognize it, then it doesnt.  If it wants to call it something else to protect the definition of marriage, it can.  Everyone gets/keeps their legal rights and protection.  If you aren't gay, you might have to fill out an extra paper (oh the horror).

also, what's up with the idea to use the constitution to define a word in order to preserve it for ever.  that really makes no sense to me.  even dictionaries don't try to set a word's meaning in stone for all eternity.  and the constitution isn't exactly know for holding a consistent interpretation through time.  we'd have to define man and woman or someone will end up marring a turtle.

tomatobob:

registered on 2004-03-27 12:44:30 am.

Gender: male

Location: O'er yon hill

view all posts by tomatobob

tomatobob

2009-05-22 04:47:43 am

Never stressed

Quote from arkarian:

has nothing to do with beliefs.

it's because christians are taught that as long as a union is between a man and a woman (regardless of their beliefs) it's ok to call it marriage. if it's not between a man and a woman, it's still perfectly fine to unite as long as it's not called marriage (since marriage is defined in the christian bible as being between a man and a woman regardless of their beliefs). so yeah there is a difference.

If it is taken as as a religious concept, it has everything to do with beliefs. That's the whole problem. The Christian definition applies to a select group of people and it is not their place to stop anyone from using the word marriage to describe their union. The point was that if they want to keep so strongly their definition and the inherent religious connotations they should be pretty ticked that people outside the faith are using it in an entirely secular way. If they want it to be a religious issue they should go all out and not bother with this cherry picking "They can but, they can't" bull shit. It's just half assed and stupid.

Though I guess before that happens they'd have to stop cherry picking what parts of Leviticus, hell the Old Testament as a whole, still apply.

Quote from Poision Envy:

It shouldn't be called marriage because marriage is between a man and women, that is just the term of it. Now if there was a different term for homosexual marriages then that would be the term for it.

Says who? That just goes back to semantics, you call it something else because it just makes you feel better or whatever and it's entirely pointless. Just call it all marriage and let God sort it out, I can't see why this shit matters so much to people.

[quote="arkarian"]
has nothing to do with beliefs.

it's because christians are taught that as long as a union is between a man and a woman (regardless of their beliefs) it's ok to call it marriage. if it's not between a man and a woman, it's still perfectly fine to unite as long as it's not called marriage (since marriage is defined in the christian bible as being between a man and a woman regardless of their beliefs). so yeah there is a difference.
[/quote]

If it is taken as as a religious concept, it has [i]everything[/i] to do with beliefs. That's the whole problem. The Christian definition applies to a select group of people and it is not their place to stop anyone from using the word marriage to describe their union. The point was that if they want to keep so strongly their definition and the inherent religious connotations they should be pretty ticked that people outside the faith are using it in an entirely secular way. If they want it to be a religious issue they should go all out and not bother with this cherry picking "They can but, [i]they[/i] can't" bull shit. It's just half assed and stupid.

Though I guess before that happens they'd have to stop cherry picking what parts of Leviticus, hell the Old Testament as a whole, still apply.

[quote="Poision Envy"]
It shouldn't be called marriage because marriage is between a man and women, that is just the term of it. Now if there was a different term for homosexual marriages then that would be the term for it.
[/quote]

Says who? That just goes back to semantics, you call it something else because it just makes you feel better or whatever and it's entirely pointless. Just call it all marriage and let God sort it out, I can't see why this shit matters so much to people.

Metroid-X:

registered on 2009-04-30 03:24:00 pm.

view all posts by Metroid-X

Metroid-X

2009-05-22 04:55:51 am

I am for gay marriage. People should be allowed to marry who they wish, and to be honest, I do not really give a damn about the Bible or peoples' religious views when it comes to this issue. If a man is allowed to marry a woman, then a man should be able to marry a man and a woman should be able to marry a woman if he or she chooses to do so. Homosexuals and lesbians are people just like everyone else, so I believe they should have the right to marry. It's not right for me to be able to marry a female partner, while a lesbian cannot marry her partner in my opinion.

KennyMan666:

is in the group Global Moderator.

registered on 2004-02-28 08:24:37 am.

Gender: male

Location: Otokojuku

view all posts by KennyMan666

KennyMan666

2009-05-22 05:32:16 am

Viking

Avatar!

Fully support it. Sweden legalized it recently, which I thought was awesome.

BioSpark:

is in the group Global Moderator.

registered on 2005-08-07 09:14:49 pm.

Gender: male

Location: urbana, il, usa

view all posts by BioSpark

BioSpark

2009-05-22 07:09:38 am

hʌŋ laɪk

ə hɔːrs

Quote from Poision Envy:

should be kept to between a man and women

since when is this about polygamy?

horscht(i):

registered on 2007-02-19 06:19:27 pm.

Gender: male

Location: Germany

view all posts by horscht(i)

horscht(i)

Edit history:

horscht(i): 2009-05-22 08:35:16 am

2009-05-22 08:20:21 am

defrag in progress

I have to go with BioSpark`s opinion on this question: It simply doesn`t concern me.
In Germany we have corresponding laws since several years: gay marriage is treated like a "normal" marriage.
Actually, it`s not called marriage, but homosexual partnerships are officially recognized and have the same rights and duties as a normally married couple. The churches are, however, still fully against it.
And? Heaven and Hell haven`t turned up side down and consumed us. Therefore, I see no major advantage or disadvantage if it was legalized in the US.

If there`s a poll about polygamy, I`d most probably tend to yes. grin new

/E: Just to make sure I don`t write bullshit here, I just googled a bit.

Poision Envy:

registered on 2008-10-25 08:56:26 pm.

Gender: female

Location: I'm outta place, I'm in outer space

view all posts by Poision Envy

Poision Envy

2009-05-22 09:46:13 am

Death to skinfags, sieg heil.

Quote from horscht(i):

In Germany we have corresponding laws since several years: gay marriage is treated like a "normal" marriage.
Actually, it`s not called marriage, but homosexual partnerships are officially recognized and have the same rights and duties as a normally married couple. The churches are, however, still fully against it.
And? Heaven and Hell haven`t turned up side down and consumed us. Therefore, I see no major advantage or disadvantage if it was legalized in the US.

I think that's how it should be.

But I was thinking, does the church have a right to reject a homosexual couple getting married in thier church, or would there be a law stating that all churches MUST allow homosexual people to get married in their church if they want to? If the churches CAN reject a homosexual couple getting married in their church, and homosexuals still get all the same rights as a normal married couple, then everything works out fine in the end right?

Cpadolf:

registered on 2007-02-14 03:32:46 am.

Gender: male

Location: Sweden

view all posts by Cpadolf

Cpadolf

2009-05-22 10:02:53 am

Hurr Durr

Quote from KennyMan666:

Fully support it. Sweden legalized it recently, which I thought was awesome.

I'm kind of ashamed that it didn't happen until just recently though, it should have happened a long time ago. It's good that it finally did happen thoguh. But I'm fully for priests having the choice to refuse marrying gays/hetrosexuals/vegetarians and so on, they shouldn't be forced to do anything.

Quote from Jerry9:

or 2 girls doing whatever.

Scissoring.

JaggerG:

is in the group Global Moderator.

registered on 2004-03-31 07:12:40 pm.

Gender: male

Location: #metroid

view all posts by JaggerG

JaggerG

2009-05-22 10:43:26 am

Shifty Leader

That M2k2 guy

Quote from DJGrenola:

Quote:

un-American

hahaha

THE EIGHTH DEADLY SIN

Nicely put. Is this debate as big an issue in other major countries? I haven't personally looked into the rules of marriage outside of the US, but it's apparently one of the HUGE ISSUES that tears this country apart. I give you my blessing to laugh your ass off at us for it.

You have a point, though. Religious bodies really don't give a damn if anything is Un-American. Sure, some individuals are going to stand up and cry that the country is founded by those of their religion, and they believe times should never change because it started like that. Then if you use that against them, you're so clearly mistaken and just making stuff up to prove your point. If you have cold, hard facts, then it isn't even relevant, because this is BIGGER than America! This is God's bidding, damn it, and they're going to defend the hell out of it!

The problem is, this relies on Faith, and not only are there many non-believers, but it also cannot even be proven to be so, even assuming God exists in the first place. So they say it's moot because Marriage is defined in The Bible as hetero-specific? Even if it isn't an oversight in publishing and actually does intend to exclude homosexuals' right to their mutual desires, and even if it's better not to change the legal definition because semantics are serious business, the government doesn't even have to use the term "Marriage" in their system. Religious folk are so bent on the idea that homosexuality is a sin that they refuse to even consider the possibility that gays could have the exact feelings for the same sex that they do for the opposite. For some reason, to them, it's just so repulsive to the point of being almost inhuman.

Quote from Gaius_4:

And if the parts were designed to fit together - it must mean they had a specific purpose.

If that's absolutely true, that must justify people sticking their finger up their nose. It just fits so perfectly. Considering the vast amount of mental illnesses that haven't had an apparent cause, and that there's even an organ that seems to do more harm than good, not to mention the fact that other sexual acts turn some people on more than the "normal" ones, I have great trouble accepting that Male on Female is the only acceptable choice because it makes sense to help us just like all His other creations do. But don't take this as an attack on the entire idea of God. As they say, His true intentions are more mysterious than people are capable of comprehending. Perhaps this oppression is something people tried to learn, but failed to understand.

If you're talking specifically about reproduction, then yes, that's the reason babies are formed like that. Does this automatically mean a person's primary objective in life is to make babies? Considering that overpopulation is becoming an issue, it just no longer seems all that relevant. Our drive for producing children has given us great numbers, so I don't think reproduction is inherently a bad thing, obviously. It's just severely overrated.

Quote from Quietus:

[rant] On a similar note, why are they allowed to have Gay Pride marches and parades? If the straight people walked around shoving the fact that they're straight in gay people's faces, they'd be crucified immediately. You want to be gay, fine - we don't care, but don't shove it in our faces. [/rant]

I don't even believe there's anything directly immoral about a Straight Pride parade. Some friends and I joked about hypothetically marching and asking a lesbian friend of ours to support our rights. The joke didn't mean to belittle Gay Rights at all. All that I mean is that it's not because straight people CAN'T have a parade. It's just that heterosexuality is so accepted that there's really no point in it. It's like having a pepsi lovers parade. It's already accepted that some people actually prefer the taste of pepsi over coke. A parade just isn't called for. Although if there is a Straight Pride parade in my area, if I'm not too busy or lazy to join it, I actually might, and I hope my lesbian friend does come to support me like she promised, if she's not too busy or lazy to.

Quote from BioSpark:

Quote from Poision Envy:

should be kept to between a man and women

since when is this about polygamy?

Since you mention it, I don't think anyone actually excluded it specifically, so I guess it could be involved here.

[quote="DJGrenola"]
[quote]un-American[/quote]

hahaha

THE EIGHTH DEADLY SIN
[/quote]
Nicely put. Is this debate as big an issue in other major countries? I haven't personally looked into the rules of marriage outside of the US, but it's apparently one of the HUGE ISSUES that tears this country apart. I give you my blessing to laugh your ass off at us for it.

You have a point, though. Religious bodies really don't give a damn if anything is Un-American. Sure, some individuals are going to stand up and cry that the country is founded by those of their religion, and they believe times should never change because it started like that. Then if you use that against them, you're so clearly mistaken and just making stuff up to prove your point. If you have cold, hard facts, then it isn't even relevant, because this is BIGGER than America! This is God's bidding, damn it, and they're going to defend the hell out of it!

The problem is, this relies on Faith, and not only are there many non-believers, but it also cannot even be proven to be so, even assuming God exists in the first place. So they say it's moot because Marriage is defined in The Bible as hetero-specific? Even if it isn't an oversight in publishing and actually does intend to exclude homosexuals' right to their mutual desires, and even if it's better not to change the legal definition because semantics are serious business, the government doesn't even have to use the term "Marriage" in their system. Religious folk are so bent on the idea that homosexuality is a sin that they refuse to even consider the possibility that gays could have the exact feelings for the same sex that they do for the opposite. For some reason, to them, it's just so repulsive to the point of being almost inhuman.

[quote="Gaius_4"]
And if the parts were designed to fit together - it must mean they had a specific purpose.
[/quote]
If that's absolutely true, that must justify people sticking their finger up their nose. It just fits so perfectly. Considering the vast amount of mental illnesses that haven't had an apparent cause, and that there's even an [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix]organ that seems to do more harm than good[/url], not to mention the fact that other sexual acts turn some people on more than the "normal" ones, I have great trouble accepting that Male on Female is the [i]only[/i] acceptable choice because it makes sense to help us just like [i]all His other creations[/i] do. But don't take this as an attack on the entire idea of God. As they say, His true intentions are more mysterious than people are capable of comprehending. Perhaps this oppression is something people tried to learn, but failed to understand.

If you're talking specifically about reproduction, then yes, that's the reason babies are formed like that. Does this automatically mean a person's primary objective in life is to make babies? Considering that overpopulation is becoming an issue, it just no longer seems all that relevant. Our drive for producing children has given us great numbers, so I don't think reproduction is inherently a bad thing, obviously. It's just severely overrated.

[quote="Quietus"]
[rant] On a similar note, why are they allowed to have Gay Pride marches and parades?  If the straight people walked around shoving the fact that they're straight in gay people's faces, they'd be crucified immediately.  You want to be gay, fine - we don't care, but don't shove it in our faces. [/rant]
[/quote]
I don't even believe there's anything directly immoral about a Straight Pride parade. Some friends and I joked about hypothetically marching and asking a lesbian friend of ours to support our rights. The joke didn't mean to belittle Gay Rights at all. All that I mean is that it's not because straight people CAN'T have a parade. It's just that heterosexuality is so accepted that there's really no [i]point[/i] in it. It's like having a pepsi lovers parade. It's already accepted that some people actually prefer the taste of pepsi over coke. A parade just isn't called for. Although if there is a Straight Pride parade in my area, if I'm not too busy or lazy to join it, I actually might, and I hope my lesbian friend does come to support me like she promised, if she's not too busy or lazy to.

[quote="BioSpark"]
[quote="Poision Envy"]
should be kept to between a man and women
[/quote]
since when is this about polygamy?
[/quote]
Since you mention it, I don't think anyone actually excluded it specifically, so I guess it could be involved here.

Tyjet66:

registered on 2008-06-12 07:12:15 am.

Gender: male

Location: United States, Minnesota

view all posts by Tyjet66

Tyjet66

2009-05-22 11:00:24 am

Where am I?

I'm kind against it, I don't necessarily have a problem with it, I just don't really like the aspect. But also, being a straight male, lesbian marriage isn't as big of a deal to me. Wink

horscht(i):

registered on 2007-02-19 06:19:27 pm.

Gender: male

Location: Germany

view all posts by horscht(i)

horscht(i)

2009-05-22 11:41:25 am

defrag in progress

Quote from Poision Envy:

But I was thinking, does the church have a right to reject a homosexual couple getting married in thier church, or would there be a law stating that all churches MUST allow homosexual people to get married in their church if they want to? If the churches CAN reject a homosexual couple getting married in their church, and homosexuals still get all the same rights as a normal married couple, then everything works out fine in the end right?

The churches are independent institutions and can refuse to do so, yes. And they do refuse!
However, to be officially "married" the couple has to get married in the registry office. It has become a common practice to just do so and skip the churchly (is that correct?) marriage. So no priest is necessary to achieve the official status "married".

Tyjet66:

registered on 2008-06-12 07:12:15 am.

Gender: male

Location: United States, Minnesota

view all posts by Tyjet66

Tyjet66

2009-05-22 11:45:15 am

Where am I?

Quote from horscht(i):

So no priest is necessary to achieve the official status "married".

Well obviously, what if you follow a religion that doesn't have priests?

arkarian:

is in the group Administrator.

registered on 2004-09-01 04:15:32 pm.

Gender: male

Location: ellicott city, md, usa

view all posts by arkarian

arkarian

2009-05-22 12:36:37 pm

mindfulness

fully erect

Quote from Poision Envy:

But I was thinking, does the church have a right to reject a homosexual couple getting married in thier church, or would there be a law stating that all churches MUST allow homosexual people to get married in their church if they want to?

sure they do, and such a law would be extraordinarily unconstitutional. if people want separation of church and state they'll need to keep them separate in all respects.

Opium:

registered on 2008-08-19 01:51:50 pm.

Gender: female

view all posts by Opium

Opium

2009-05-22 01:43:39 pm

Servin' you realness!!

Quote from Poision Envy:

But I was thinking, does the church have a right to reject a homosexual couple getting married in thier church, or would there be a law stating that all churches MUST allow homosexual people to get married in their church if they want to? If the churches CAN reject a homosexual couple getting married in their church, and homosexuals still get all the same rights as a normal married couple, then everything works out fine in the end right?

The government never tells the church what to do, that's not what this is about. Legal marriage has NOTHING to do with the church, or religion. Opponents of gay marriage always seem to be incapable of grasping this. In fact, the church has totally different rules for marriage than the law does, and nobody has freaked out about that so far, so what's one more difference? For example, the catholic church condemns divorce. If you get divorced then you go to hell - end of story. The LAW on the other hand protects your right to get a divorce whenever you want for whatever reason you want. Why isn't the church screaming about that discrepancy? Because they recognize that legal marriage and the sacred union within their church are two different things. The reason they refuse to apply the same rationale to the issue of gay marriage is based solely on homophobia and hatred.

[quote="Poision Envy"]
But I was thinking, does the church have a right to reject a homosexual couple getting married in thier church, or would there be a law stating that all churches MUST allow homosexual people to get married in their church if they want to? If the churches CAN reject a homosexual couple getting married in their church, and homosexuals still get all the same rights as a normal married couple, then everything works out fine in the end right? 
[/quote]

The government never tells the church what to do, that's not what this is about.  Legal marriage has NOTHING to do with the church, or religion.   Opponents of gay marriage always seem to be incapable of grasping this.  In fact, the church has totally different rules for marriage than the law does, and nobody has freaked out about that so far, so what's one more difference?  For example, the catholic church condemns divorce.  If you get divorced then you go to hell - end of story.  The LAW on the other hand protects your right to get a divorce whenever you want for whatever reason you want.  Why isn't the church screaming about that discrepancy?  Because they recognize that legal marriage and the sacred union within their church are two different things.   The reason they refuse to apply the same rationale to the issue of gay marriage is based solely on homophobia and hatred.

ryu:

is in the group deutschsprachiger Moderator.

registered on 2004-02-10 05:03:19 pm.

Gender: male

Location: germany

view all posts by ryu

ryu

2009-05-22 01:59:33 pm

Quote from JaggerG:

Quote from DJGrenola:

Quote:

un-American

hahaha

THE EIGHTH DEADLY SIN

Nicely put. Is this debate as big an issue in other major countries? I haven't personally looked into the rules of marriage outside of the US, but it's apparently one of the HUGE ISSUES that tears this country apart. I give you my blessing to laugh your ass off at us for it.

I can't speak for any other countries, but it's definitely not that much of a deal in germany. Actually, politicians over here generally don't seem to be dealing much with ethnical questions based on christianity.

They're currently all over an automobile brand going downhill.

Outburn3:

registered on 2009-02-03 02:59:13 pm.

Gender: male

view all posts by Outburn3

Outburn3

2009-05-22 02:22:10 pm

Well, you can be gay and I will accept you for the person you are, but I do believe it is a sin to be gay. Marriage is made to be for a man and a woman. I will have to say that I am against gay marriage. That is what I believe.

Opium:

registered on 2008-08-19 01:51:50 pm.

Gender: female

view all posts by Opium

Opium

2009-05-22 02:46:16 pm

Servin' you realness!!

Quote from Outburn3:

Well, you can be gay and I will accept you for the person you are, but I do believe it is a sin to be gay. Marriage is made to be for a man and a woman. I will have to say that I am against gay marriage. That is what I believe.

So if you had been born gay would you walk around feeling like someone who was an abomination?