Ok and i read one of those articles. let me just say, if you think for one
moment that alot of heterosexual marriages arent just for the "legal
benifits" your completly and utterly wrong. Why do you think the rate of
divorces in the USA has increased so much? That artice was so obviuosly biased
that its hard to believe they were published. Thanks for the ammusing story
though.
Actually, the reason for the majority of heterosexual divorces, and I had to
attend a seminar on this before I got married, are due to the
following:
1. The couple got married because the woman had become pregnant, and the man
felt he had been trapped into marriage, and eventually leaves.
2. They married for lust.
3. They didn't get to know each other's idiosyncrycies and drove each other nuts
with them.
4. Infidelity
And you missed the thrust of the articles, the statistics, which are not biased,
but proven fact, that in nations where gay marriage is legalized, only a small
percentage of the gay populace actually get married at all.
The article doesn't agree with your viewpoint, so you label it as biased, but
those cold facts speak for themselves.
Quote by xandmani mean, who cares? Why is
gay marriage such a big subject anyway? Homosexual people are humans like
everyone of us. They can do whatever hell they wanna do, man... If they love
each other, they love each other, what are ya gonna do about it? Nothing. What
can you do about it? Nothing. Just let them be for the sake of freedom.
and if ppl think that following a book that says gay marriage is not allowed,
then f*ck you! It's just a goddamn book.
Let's forget the book, then, and look at what the Leftists ultimate goal really
is.
The biggest obstacle to the Left is the Family, the traditional family, a
Father, Mother, and Children, raised to believe certain ethical and moral
standards.
The Left cannot say, "We don't like the Family, so we want to get rid of
it."
What they can do is redefine it out of existence.
First they encourage promiscuity and promote abortion. They tell men that it's
not their responsibility to stick around and help raise the kids, they tell
women it's okay to sleep with multiple partners outside of marriage, and they
promote the use of drugs that loosen inhibitions. Just look at their efforts to
legalize marijuana and other drugs.
Then you have a sudden rise in single parent families, and so the definition of
a Family changes.
Then they allow the gay marriages, saying, "They love each other, so they
should be allowed to marry." This redefines marriage and so the concept of
the Family begins to shift and change.
Then they try to allow what they call "Polyamorous" marriages, which
is marriage to more than just one other person. Want three wives? Six husbands?
Two of each? Go right ahead. Except that now there is no reason to promote
fidelity, and with such relationships legitimized, the concept of fidelity is
taught to children as being pointless and outmoded. The idea of binding yourself
to one person in "Love" is considered limited and restrictive. And so
again, the family changes.
And then, we begin to lose control of our children. The schools begin teaching
them things that we don't necessarily feel are appropriate. Giveing them surveys
about sex as early as second grade (It's already happened, by the way), or
reading them fairy tales in kindergarten that tell them that being gay is not
only ok, it's normal (Again, already happened), and then the courts start
telling parents that the control they have over their kids, like the mother in
Washington who listened in on her son's phone calls to a drug dealer and then
reported it to the police. The 9th circuit Court of Appeals stated that the
woman had no legal right to listen in on her son's phone calls. Already
happening.
And once that final pillar is gone, the Family is no more. Then, the Leftists
ultimate wet dream, a State Run Family, where the children are all brought up
together in a State Facility with The State as the only parent.
And THAT is why we need to stop them from redefining marriage, because their
ultimate goal is to destroy it. They just use groups like the gays and the
polygamists to aid their cause. It's not even necessarily the gays or
polygamists who do it. They're probably not aware of the goals of their Leftist
allies, but they are pawns of such dark machinations.
buddy, i didn't even read what you wrote, but i saw that you quoted me and
noticed the goddamn bible you just wrote. For your information, i'm a
simple-minded dude and couldn't care any less about this shit, let alone read
all that crap. I fell asleep reading the blank page of the bible, that says
pretty much.
but, gays and gay marriage exists, and if ppl doesn't like it? Then too bad for
them. Ppl should get a life instead of complaining and whining about whether
homosexuals should have the right to marry each other or not. We ain't got sperm
donors and all that crap for nothing, so lesbians will do juz fine.
Think for youself instead of putting down every person who disagrees with you
xandman. Surely gays have the right to do whatever they want, but is gay
marriage something that we should encourage?
What is the purpose of a gay marriage? http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTVjMzA5NzNkZmU0YWMxMjQ4NDk1YjFkZGQ4YjQ5NzQ=
suggests that gay marriages are just not beneficial to society. So should we
encourage it by making it legal? Aren't laws made to help society? Why should we
encourage something that isn't beneficial to society.
Marriage itself is a social institution. What gays want to do they can always do
without marriage. If they so desire marriage they can get married well, just
that it isn't recognised by the state. Is is so much of a crime to discourage
gay marriages for the sake of society?
i do whatever i want to do, say whatever i want to say. If you got probs with
that, then kiss my ass.
besides, i did think for myself didn't i, if you could read. It's my opinion
that homosexual people should have the right to do whatever hell they want,
including marriage. They're humans, we're humans. And it's my opinion that all
of you should do something better with your lives than discuss if gays should be
able to marry each other or not when there's much worse things going on on our
dying little planet. I rest my case. Next time, write a note that says
"xandman", stick it on a wall and start talking. That's how much i
care about ppl trying to correct me.
Quote by xandmanbuddy, i didn't even read
what you wrote, but i saw that you quoted me and noticed the goddamn bible you
just wrote. For your information, i'm a simple-minded dude and couldn't care any
less about this shit, let alone read all that crap.
.
Then why bother responding in a forum? The purpose of discourse is to examine
the points of an opponents arguements and respond to them.
By failing to do so, all you're doing is saying that you care nothing for
rational thought or reason. And that being the case, you're hardly the ideal
advocate for gay marriage.
I've presented arguements against gay marriage, and the best you've come up with
is "Gays should be allowed to marry so there." I stand dazzled by your
skills at debate.
i think it should be legal. i dont no y people think its bad or that they're bad
to the world or wah ever because they're humans just like everybody else and
they should be able to love who they want to love even if its a guy and a guy
and a girl and a girl. they just want to be able to someone that they like and
people are trying to stop them .. and i think that's wrong.
so i say it should be legal ! ^^
I believe gay marriage should be legal. Quite frankly, homosexuality isn't
hurting anyone. While it offends some people, those people haven't been caused
any kind of pain and/or suffering by it. Remember that homosexuals are people,
therefore they have the right to engage in the same priveleges as heterosexuals.
After all, is marriage not a right?
Remember the words of John F. Kennedy: "The rights of all men are
diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." Not allowing the
right of marriage based on sexual orientation is not better than discrimination
based on race.
P.S.
Regardless of any traditional or "established" definition, I view
marriage as a legal contract between two
people. Thus, it may or may not have anything to do with love. The definition of
love is varied, and is up to the participants to define.
dear lord. people, honestly, homosexual marriages isnt harming anyone other then
people's religion of ideology, like isaid earliy. also when i was taking about
you should only care about homosexual marriages if it personally affects you...i
didnt mean it that interpetation by whoever it was. i total forgot who; shows
how important you are. just joking i forgot who and i just wanted to add a witty
comment, but in all seriousness of this; think about it. do they honestly care what you are thinking? is
what you are saying going to affect them in anyway? are they all of a sudden
going to go "oh geez i was wrong for being a homosexual" and change
their way?
no they are not. they dont care what you have to say because they have already
pick the life they want and they are, chances are, going to stick with that
life. so why are you still complaining? yes you may be able to get homosexual
maggiage banned but do you honestly think that you can stop homomsexual
relationship? i am sorry but they are here to stay and so is the push to accpet
homosexual marriages. weather you encourage it or not its going to
stay.
You all keep saying that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. I've posted to the
contrary, explaining the destruction of the very concept of Family by redefining
it out of existence. Either you've chosen to ignore what I've said, or you're
blind to the facts.
In countries where gay marriage has been legalized, only a small percentage of
those nations gays DO marry, and their divorce rate is higher than that of
hetero couples. But those nations are now trying to legalize polyamorous
relationships as well.
It's all a part of the efforts of the Left to remove the traditional Family, and
that does hurt us.
My arguements aren't based on the Bible, but on an understanding of the
Leftists, the Marxists, who are fascilitating such movements.
And when you try to interfere with a functional society, you'd better come up
with a better reason than "Oh, it doesn't hurt anybody", which isn't
true anyway.
And in this nation, it is NOT going to be tolerated for much longer. The efforts
of the gay community to force change that IS harmful to the Family have earned
our attention and our ire. We will deal with this. We have already begun to.
Laws are going into place in state after state to prohibit gay marriage. And the
gay community has only itself to blame, because those laws weren't even on the
ballot until Massechusetts's Supreme Court forced the issue.
I think it's more a question of COULD rather than SHOULD. In a perfect,
understanding, tolerant and indiscriminate world, yes, it SHOULD be legal
everywhere, the union of two persons who love each other enough to marry and
dedicate and share the rest of their live together should NOT be limited to
heterosexuals. Homosexuals have as much right as anyone to marry, they are in no
way inferior to heterosexuals, and even their marriage is not recognised by
churches, it should at least be acknowledged legally and they should NOT be
excluded and discriminated against and given mere 'civil unions'. Civil unions
between two persons of the same sex go WAY BACK, where women who were unmarried
but wished to be independent of their families would be civilly unified with
another woman, often a friend or relation, so they might live together apart
from their families. Very few of these civil unions were in fact lesbian
relationships, so why, after decades and decades of civil unions between two
women, is it only NOW that there has been an outcry? It's ridiculous, recently
here in Australia in the ACT, the civil union legislation was passed by the
Lower House but not in the Senate. The reason? Religion is beginning to make its
way (or is at least more visible as an influence in politics) into politics. Who
are politicians or the church for that matter to claim that God discriminates
against and categorises people according to their sexuality? I think this is all
just about religious crap, some people (I realise that not all Christians
[myself being one] believe this, I apologise if this statement is too blunt or
unsympathetic, I just feel so angry about it) somehow believe that in being
heterosexual, they become a part of the exclusive 'club' that is Christianity.
God does NOT limit his love to homosexuals, and this belief that somehow God
only sanctions heterosexual marriages is ridiculous. If two people love each
other and want to demonstrate that love in the act of marriage, be they
heterosexual or homosexual, they should be allowed to. The Church does not speak
for God, though some people do claim that, it is a human [and therefore
imperfect] creation, and politicians don't speak for everyone either. It should
be legal.
[Sorry I went on for so long...I just get so passionate about it!]
EDIT: There is no evidence to suggest that the children of homosexual couples
turn out to be gay, I mean, the idea of adoption of children by homosexual
couples hasn't exactly been welcomed in most countries, so how the hell are we
supposed to know exactly what kind of influence it has on the children? I mean,
before we start criticising homosexual couples with children we should maybe
examine more closely the heterosexual couples with children that are regularly
abused both physically and sexually by their parents, and concentrate less on
condemning the gay community. There are many terrible things that occur within
heterosexual marriages and families (my friend recently committed suicide
because his father was a drunkard and beat he and his mother regularly) and just
because you're surrounded by heterosexual people doesn't mean YOU'RE going to be
heterosexual. Another one of my friends is a lesbian, and her father found it
really difficult to comprehend, seeing as the whole family was heterosexual. He
was so homophobic he forbade any of the family to put ribbons in his sons hair
when he was little because he claimed he'd 'turn out gay' if they did. And he
was serious, even now he still has that outlook. It's interesting that
heterosexual couples are the ones pointing the finger at homosexual couples,
couples that don't give a sh*t about their marriages, their partners or
children, and yet they still crap on about this 'sacred act' business. Not so
sacred to them I'd say. We're not in the Middle Ages anymore, let's match our
actions to our words, and instead of preaching about tolerance and
indiscrimination let's actually BE TOLERANT and understanding and
indsicriminate. Like the fable about the great big oak tree and the reed, when
the storm comes the plant that bends with the wind survives, not the enormous
100 year old oak tree that refuses to bend.
First of all, immediate FAMILY consists of parents and children. Second, it is a
FACT that children raised in homosexual families are just as likely to be
"ordinary" as children raised under "ideal" conditions as
they are called (merely a pomp filled term for heterosexual families.) If they
are more likely to divorce, then so be it. Homosexuals usually adopt, unless
they become so after having a heterosexual lifesytle and/or marriage. So this
"family" business is all rubbish.
Society is created by people, people who all appease it. Since society does
nothing to celebrate its creators, the individuals (all people included) and
since the individual is the creator, as individuals, homosexuals reserve the
RIGHT to alter or attempt to alter society as much as heterosexuals have the
right to do so. Thus, society may be altered by anyone for any reason, positive
or negative. This aside, our society is one where discrimination is intolerable.
The accusation of perversion of society and "the family" is only a
cleverly disguised excuse for discrimination.
Of course, for those religiously motivated. Most of the religious based claims
are unbacked. People who make those claims don't even quote directly from their
"holy books." Christians especially. I will understand their
resistance if they actually took the time to FIND their phrases, though I find
the notion religion absurd in modern life. But the fact remains that there is
supposed to be some degree of tolerance of others in most religions. Of course,
if one could get upset in their neighbor praying to another "god" (or
goddess), then hearing their "priests" shout how unnatural and
grotesque homosexuality is would drive these people to a zealous rage. If you
truly believed, then you won't be swayed, of course.
In short, the legalization of homosexual marriage should be done. At least, let
it be an act of looking good for the public, for these excuses for being able to
discriminate against others is pitiful. Is there not enough stigma against these
people in our society already?
Quote by bwebYou all keep saying that gay
marriage doesn't hurt anyone. I've posted to the contrary, explaining the
destruction of the very concept of Family by redefining it out of existence.
Either you've chosen to ignore what I've said, or you're blind to the facts.
In countries where gay marriage has been legalized, only a small percentage of
those nations gays DO marry, and their divorce rate is higher than that of
hetero couples. But those nations are now trying to legalize polyamorous
relationships as well.
It's all a part of the efforts of the Left to remove the traditional Family, and
that does hurt us.
My arguements aren't based on the Bible, but on an understanding of the
Leftists, the Marxists, who are fascilitating such movements.
And when you try to interfere with a functional society, you'd better come up
with a better reason than "Oh, it doesn't hurt anybody", which isn't
true anyway.
And in this nation, it is NOT going to be tolerated for much longer. The efforts
of the gay community to force change that IS harmful to the Family have earned
our attention and our ire. We will deal with this. We have already begun to.
Laws are going into place in state after state to prohibit gay marriage. And the
gay community has only itself to blame, because those laws weren't even on the
ballot until Massechusetts's Supreme Court forced the issue.
Bweb,
Personally I think your afraid of change. Does it really ACTUALLY matter what
the concept of a "family" is. Things change. Why can't the concept of
a family change. If two same sex people get married and go addopt a child, then
guess what we have... a family. Just because the child grows up with two same
sex parents does not change his gender preferences. Also, changing the
"traditional family" does NOT hurt you. As long as you marry the
opposite sex then everything is good. Your family can grow up
"normal".
Secondly, if in countries where it is legal, alot of the people arent getting
married... doesnt that say something. Just becuase they can, doesnt mean they
will. Your precious "traditional family" will for the majority, remain
the same.
Thirdly, in comment to those articles. I most certainly did not label him biased
because i think differently than him. I am a VERY open minded person and when
reading something like that I dont start off reading with judgements. However,
avter finishing reading that article I strongly believe it was written with
complete opposition of gay mariage in mind even if statistics did turn out in
favor. Im not one to label a person for no reason, trust me.
fourthly, in comment to all bible rlated talk. I am a strong catholic christian
and it is my personal beliefe that the bible, as it is spoken today, is just one
giant story that most people worship. Dont get me wrong, i believe in god,
jesus, the comandments, and all that good stuff... but after listening to my
preists every sunday for my whole life I noticed that every so often things
would be re-written so sound a little more "modern". The bible should
not ever be updated like that. If im going to worship a book, i want to worship
the original. Not some cracked up version someone wrote to keep everyones
interest because it is modern. Also, to back this up a little, if you go to a
search on google you'll find out that a prettly large part of the bible was
completly taken out when a certain roman emperor came to power... and it was
just because he didnt like it. We still use this version in our churches today.
This topic should have never been opened. This subject is pointless and as i
said before, people have more important things to worry about. Things that could
actually harm us in coming years.
Does it really ACTUALLY matter what the concept of a "family" is.
Things change. Why can't the concept of a family change.
.
Because the ultimate goal of those who are attempting to facilitate the
homosexual marriage, the Leftists, is to destroy the famlily, and the easiest
way to do that is to redefine it out of existence.
In EVERY nation where gay marriage has been legalized, there are now pushes to
legitmize Polyamorous marriages. This eliminates the concept of fidelity, and
the use for a "marriage" between two people in the first place.
And in the meanwhile, the same politicians advocating gay marriage are also
backing initiatives that limit parental rights over children.
The final goal is a Leftist society where Children are not raised by Families,
but by the State.
I have no problem with Change, when that Change facilitates positive outcome. In
this case, however, I know what the endgame is going to be, and it is the
deathknell of the family.
And in any event, the pro-gay-marriage side has lost this particular issue. Gay
marriage is legal in Massechusetts and ONLY in Massechusetts, and we have taken
the steps to keep it there, and we are taking steps to remove it from there. We
already won a major victory in New York, and I assure you that the United States
Supreme Court will not side with the Gay Marriage agenda.
Does it really ACTUALLY matter what the concept of a "family" is.
Things change. Why can't the concept of a family change.
.
Because the ultimate goal of those who are attempting to facilitate the
homosexual marriage, the Leftists, is to destroy the famlily, and the easiest
way to do that is to redefine it out of existence.
In EVERY nation where gay marriage has been legalized, there are now pushes to
legitmize Polyamorous marriages.
The concept of family is in no way being redefined out of existence, it is
merely evolving. I find it offensive that you could suggest that somehow people
(homosexuals in this case) fighting for their rights as functional members of
society are trying to destroy the family. In fact they are trying to extend the
concept of family and include homosexuals. Single parent families also changed
the concept of family, and feminism drastically altered people's perception of
women and their roles in society and family, and now it's time for the concept
of family to evolve AGAIN, this time in favour of homosexual couples. Families
no longer always consist of one heterosexual male who works and one heterosexual
female who takes care of the house and multiple children, families can have one
parent, one or no children, and the woman can work while the man stays at home.
The nuclear family is no longer the ONLY type of family. The legalisation of
homosexual marriages is creating another type of family, and evolving the
concept of family, not destroying it. And unless you can somehow see into the
future with your conservative crystal ball, I seriously doubt you have a f*cking
clue as to how it's all going to turn out. Not all change is something you're
going to agree with, so deal with it.
i really dont care if adam marries steve or vice versa im not to judge. Non us
of should be, sure most of us don't see it as a "normal" marriage but
come if two who love each other, they have ask themselves if they are ready for
a new world to treat them differently from all sides.
those are my thoughts, If their willing to go through the pain,I saw let them
get married.
I think it should be legal...
Maybe it sounds wierd, but we can't hold them if they're loving each
other...
It is like a normal marriage, there are two people loving each other, promising
together, and etc...
One thing that makes it different is that the two people are man and man, not
man and woman...
How do you feel if you love a person (your boyfriend or your girlfriend), and
you want to married him/her, but you can't married them ?
Quote by AzirkFirst of all, immediate
FAMILY consists of parents and children. Second, it is a FACT that children
raised in homosexual families are just as likely to be "ordinary" as
children raised under "ideal" conditions as they are called (merely a
pomp filled term for heterosexual families.) If they are more likely to divorce,
then so be it. Homosexuals usually adopt, unless they become so after having a
heterosexual lifesytle and/or marriage. So this "family" business is
all rubbish.
Society is created by people, people who all appease it. Since society does
nothing to celebrate its creators, the individuals (all people included) and
since the individual is the creator, as individuals, homosexuals reserve the
RIGHT to alter or attempt to alter society as much as heterosexuals have the
right to do so. Thus, society may be altered by anyone for any reason, positive
or negative. This aside, our society is one where discrimination is intolerable.
The accusation of perversion of society and "the family" is only a
cleverly disguised excuse for discrimination.
Of course, for those religiously motivated. Most of the religious based claims
are unbacked. People who make those claims don't even quote directly from their
"holy books." Christians especially. I will understand their
resistance if they actually took the time to FIND their phrases, though I find
the notion religion absurd in modern life. But the fact remains that there is
supposed to be some degree of tolerance of others in most religions. Of course,
if one could get upset in their neighbor praying to another "god" (or
goddess), then hearing their "priests" shout how unnatural and
grotesque homosexuality is would drive these people to a zealous rage. If you
truly believed, then you won't be swayed, of course.
In short, the legalization of homosexual marriage should be done. At least, let
it be an act of looking good for the public, for these excuses for being able to
discriminate against others is pitiful. Is there not enough stigma against these
people in our society already?
thank you. these things crossed my mind as i read one of those articles posted
earlier.
Quote by Mischa[
The concept of family is in no way being redefined out of existence, it is
merely evolving. I find it offensive that you could suggest that somehow people
(homosexuals in this case) fighting for their rights as functional members of
society are trying to destroy the family. In fact they are trying to extend the
concept of family and include homosexuals. Single parent families also changed
the concept of family, and feminism drastically altered people's perception of
women and their roles in society and family, and now it's time for the concept
of family to evolve AGAIN,
You're only proving my point. The family as it was is being defined out of
existence, and in exactly the steps you mentioned. I cited that earlier in
another post.
And the same groups who are pro-gay marriage, like the ACLU, are sponsoring laws
and lawsuits that limit a parent's rights over their own children.
It is all part of a larger agenda to turn the State into the sole proprietor of
the nation's youth.
Here in Texas, we have people trying to push for gay couples to raise children
in Foster care. But gays can't marry in Texas. So they are saying that they want
unwed couples of the same sex to serve as guardians and role models for
children.
Do you know how many of those kids in Foster care came from those "single
parent" families you mentioned? They make up an inordinate number of them.
There is no substitute for the concept of the Traditional Family. Note, not
Nuclear, Traditional. I am not saying that the model where women stayed at home
and men worked is the only feasible one. You tried to imply that this is what I
said, but it is not.
And yes, I can see into the future. I can see that a great many gays are going
to be VERY disappointed, because they aren't going to get their way. The Voters
have spoken.
And stop saying that it's their civil right, because it's not. We're not talking
about a race of people wrongfully persecuted for the color of their skin. And I
know plenty of blacks who get pissed off when the gays suggest this, too.
We're talking about a group that is either the makers of a very poor decision,
or a genetic abberration. They make up, at most 10% of the populace, and most
scientific studies suggest a mere 6%. Why should the rest of us bend over
backwards and redefine society in order to suit a such a small group, just
because they're not happy with over 3000 years of established tradition? Answer,
there's no good reason for us to do it, plenty not to, and so get over it,
you're losing the culture war, and if you want to marry your own gender, move to
friggin' Holland.
Quote by Mischa[
The concept of family is in no way being redefined out of existence, it is
merely evolving. I find it offensive that you could suggest that somehow people
(homosexuals in this case) fighting for their rights as functional members of
society are trying to destroy the family. In fact they are trying to extend the
concept of family and include homosexuals. Single parent families also changed
the concept of family, and feminism drastically altered people's perception of
women and their roles in society and family, and now it's time for the concept
of family to evolve AGAIN,
You're only proving my point. The family as it was is being defined out of
existence, and in exactly the steps you mentioned. I cited that earlier in
another post.
And the same groups who are pro-gay marriage, like the ACLU, are sponsoring laws
and lawsuits that limit a parent's rights over their own children.
It is all part of a larger agenda to turn the State into the sole proprietor of
the nation's youth.
Here in Texas, we have people trying to push for gay couples to raise children
in Foster care. But gays can't marry in Texas. So they are saying that they want
unwed couples of the same sex to serve as guardians and role models for
children.
Do you know how many of those kids in Foster care came from those "single
parent" families you mentioned? They make up an inordinate number of them.
There is no substitute for the concept of the Traditional Family. Note, not
Nuclear, Traditional. I am not saying that the model where women stayed at home
and men worked is the only feasible one. You tried to imply that this is what I
said, but it is not.
And yes, I can see into the future. I can see that a great many gays are going
to be VERY disappointed, because they aren't going to get their way. The Voters
have spoken.
And stop saying that it's their civil right, because it's not. We're not talking
about a race of people wrongfully persecuted for the color of their skin. And I
know plenty of blacks who get pissed off when the gays suggest this, too.
We're talking about a group that is either the makers of a very poor decision,
or a genetic abberration. They make up, at most 10% of the populace, and most
scientific studies suggest a mere 6%. Why should the rest of us bend over
backwards and redefine society in order to suit a such a small group, just
because they're not happy with over 3000 years of established tradition? Answer,
there's no good reason for us to do it, plenty not to, and so get over it,
you're losing the culture war, and if you want to marry your own gender, move to
friggin' Holland.
i don't know why people put so much accent on gay rights and such. we're all
humans, we have the same rights. i don't think there's a valid paper in which
gay are being discriminated, so let them marry freely. it's their choice, not
ours.
Quote by "Rebel428"A
gay or lesbian couple is not a child-birthing family.
you're
right. it is not.... it's a child raising family that can help give
abbandoned/badly treated children a place to call home and save them from
orphanages.
Rebel428 - the line of "marriage" is drawn at straight and homosexual
couples. that is unless tradition says otherwise (harems and marriage between
young children). as long as the other part says yes willingly and is capable of
taking that decision all by himself/herself, it's fine. i don't think a cow, a
corpse or a young girl will agree. the young girl certainly not, cuz she doesn't
know what marriage is, and lying to her is immoral, the cow and corpse can't,
cuz they don't speak. and what dead guy/gal would agree to be married dead with
someone? did i answer your question?
this is why i dont belive in god i dont wanna be tried to stupid things like i
hate same sex marraige people r being stupid of couse it should be legal its a
free *******country thats what america is built on its fine some people like the
same sex let gays belive in what the what to let them marry!
too bad for you then. It happened and it's still happening out there, and there's nothing we can do about it.
Man, i wanna kick all the ppl in this thread right in the face or something. Just let gay people be, let them marry each other, whatever.
Actually, the reason for the majority of heterosexual divorces, and I had to attend a seminar on this before I got married, are due to the following:
1. The couple got married because the woman had become pregnant, and the man felt he had been trapped into marriage, and eventually leaves.
2. They married for lust.
3. They didn't get to know each other's idiosyncrycies and drove each other nuts with them.
4. Infidelity
And you missed the thrust of the articles, the statistics, which are not biased, but proven fact, that in nations where gay marriage is legalized, only a small percentage of the gay populace actually get married at all.
The article doesn't agree with your viewpoint, so you label it as biased, but those cold facts speak for themselves.
Let's forget the book, then, and look at what the Leftists ultimate goal really is.
The biggest obstacle to the Left is the Family, the traditional family, a Father, Mother, and Children, raised to believe certain ethical and moral standards.
The Left cannot say, "We don't like the Family, so we want to get rid of it."
What they can do is redefine it out of existence.
First they encourage promiscuity and promote abortion. They tell men that it's not their responsibility to stick around and help raise the kids, they tell women it's okay to sleep with multiple partners outside of marriage, and they promote the use of drugs that loosen inhibitions. Just look at their efforts to legalize marijuana and other drugs.
Then you have a sudden rise in single parent families, and so the definition of a Family changes.
Then they allow the gay marriages, saying, "They love each other, so they should be allowed to marry." This redefines marriage and so the concept of the Family begins to shift and change.
Then they try to allow what they call "Polyamorous" marriages, which is marriage to more than just one other person. Want three wives? Six husbands? Two of each? Go right ahead. Except that now there is no reason to promote fidelity, and with such relationships legitimized, the concept of fidelity is taught to children as being pointless and outmoded. The idea of binding yourself to one person in "Love" is considered limited and restrictive. And so again, the family changes.
And then, we begin to lose control of our children. The schools begin teaching them things that we don't necessarily feel are appropriate. Giveing them surveys about sex as early as second grade (It's already happened, by the way), or reading them fairy tales in kindergarten that tell them that being gay is not only ok, it's normal (Again, already happened), and then the courts start telling parents that the control they have over their kids, like the mother in Washington who listened in on her son's phone calls to a drug dealer and then reported it to the police. The 9th circuit Court of Appeals stated that the woman had no legal right to listen in on her son's phone calls. Already happening.
And once that final pillar is gone, the Family is no more. Then, the Leftists ultimate wet dream, a State Run Family, where the children are all brought up together in a State Facility with The State as the only parent.
And THAT is why we need to stop them from redefining marriage, because their ultimate goal is to destroy it. They just use groups like the gays and the polygamists to aid their cause. It's not even necessarily the gays or polygamists who do it. They're probably not aware of the goals of their Leftist allies, but they are pawns of such dark machinations.
buddy, i didn't even read what you wrote, but i saw that you quoted me and noticed the goddamn bible you just wrote. For your information, i'm a simple-minded dude and couldn't care any less about this shit, let alone read all that crap. I fell asleep reading the blank page of the bible, that says pretty much.
but, gays and gay marriage exists, and if ppl doesn't like it? Then too bad for them. Ppl should get a life instead of complaining and whining about whether homosexuals should have the right to marry each other or not. We ain't got sperm donors and all that crap for nothing, so lesbians will do juz fine.
Think for youself instead of putting down every person who disagrees with you xandman. Surely gays have the right to do whatever they want, but is gay marriage something that we should encourage?
What is the purpose of a gay marriage? http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTVjMzA5NzNkZmU0YWMxMjQ4NDk1YjFkZGQ4YjQ5NzQ= suggests that gay marriages are just not beneficial to society. So should we encourage it by making it legal? Aren't laws made to help society? Why should we encourage something that isn't beneficial to society.
Marriage itself is a social institution. What gays want to do they can always do without marriage. If they so desire marriage they can get married well, just that it isn't recognised by the state. Is is so much of a crime to discourage gay marriages for the sake of society?
i do whatever i want to do, say whatever i want to say. If you got probs with that, then kiss my ass.
besides, i did think for myself didn't i, if you could read. It's my opinion that homosexual people should have the right to do whatever hell they want, including marriage. They're humans, we're humans. And it's my opinion that all of you should do something better with your lives than discuss if gays should be able to marry each other or not when there's much worse things going on on our dying little planet. I rest my case. Next time, write a note that says "xandman", stick it on a wall and start talking. That's how much i care about ppl trying to correct me.
Then why bother responding in a forum? The purpose of discourse is to examine the points of an opponents arguements and respond to them.
By failing to do so, all you're doing is saying that you care nothing for rational thought or reason. And that being the case, you're hardly the ideal advocate for gay marriage.
I've presented arguements against gay marriage, and the best you've come up with is "Gays should be allowed to marry so there." I stand dazzled by your skills at debate.
i think it should be legal. i dont no y people think its bad or that they're bad to the world or wah ever because they're humans just like everybody else and they should be able to love who they want to love even if its a guy and a guy and a girl and a girl. they just want to be able to someone that they like and people are trying to stop them .. and i think that's wrong.
so i say it should be legal ! ^^
I believe gay marriage should be legal. Quite frankly, homosexuality isn't hurting anyone. While it offends some people, those people haven't been caused any kind of pain and/or suffering by it. Remember that homosexuals are people, therefore they have the right to engage in the same priveleges as heterosexuals. After all, is marriage not a right?
Remember the words of John F. Kennedy: "The rights of all men are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." Not allowing the right of marriage based on sexual orientation is not better than discrimination based on race.
P.S.
Regardless of any traditional or "established" definition, I view marriage as a legal contract between two people. Thus, it may or may not have anything to do with love. The definition of love is varied, and is up to the participants to define.
dear lord. people, honestly, homosexual marriages isnt harming anyone other then people's religion of ideology, like isaid earliy. also when i was taking about you should only care about homosexual marriages if it personally affects you...i didnt mean it that interpetation by whoever it was. i total forgot who; shows how important you are. just joking i forgot who and i just wanted to add a witty comment, but in all seriousness of this; think about it. do they honestly care what you are thinking? is what you are saying going to affect them in anyway? are they all of a sudden going to go "oh geez i was wrong for being a homosexual" and change their way?
no they are not. they dont care what you have to say because they have already pick the life they want and they are, chances are, going to stick with that life. so why are you still complaining? yes you may be able to get homosexual maggiage banned but do you honestly think that you can stop homomsexual relationship? i am sorry but they are here to stay and so is the push to accpet homosexual marriages. weather you encourage it or not its going to stay.
midnightLOVERS
You all keep saying that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. I've posted to the contrary, explaining the destruction of the very concept of Family by redefining it out of existence. Either you've chosen to ignore what I've said, or you're blind to the facts.
In countries where gay marriage has been legalized, only a small percentage of those nations gays DO marry, and their divorce rate is higher than that of hetero couples. But those nations are now trying to legalize polyamorous relationships as well.
It's all a part of the efforts of the Left to remove the traditional Family, and that does hurt us.
My arguements aren't based on the Bible, but on an understanding of the Leftists, the Marxists, who are fascilitating such movements.
And when you try to interfere with a functional society, you'd better come up with a better reason than "Oh, it doesn't hurt anybody", which isn't true anyway.
And in this nation, it is NOT going to be tolerated for much longer. The efforts of the gay community to force change that IS harmful to the Family have earned our attention and our ire. We will deal with this. We have already begun to. Laws are going into place in state after state to prohibit gay marriage. And the gay community has only itself to blame, because those laws weren't even on the ballot until Massechusetts's Supreme Court forced the issue.
YES!
I think it's more a question of COULD rather than SHOULD. In a perfect, understanding, tolerant and indiscriminate world, yes, it SHOULD be legal everywhere, the union of two persons who love each other enough to marry and dedicate and share the rest of their live together should NOT be limited to heterosexuals. Homosexuals have as much right as anyone to marry, they are in no way inferior to heterosexuals, and even their marriage is not recognised by churches, it should at least be acknowledged legally and they should NOT be excluded and discriminated against and given mere 'civil unions'. Civil unions between two persons of the same sex go WAY BACK, where women who were unmarried but wished to be independent of their families would be civilly unified with another woman, often a friend or relation, so they might live together apart from their families. Very few of these civil unions were in fact lesbian relationships, so why, after decades and decades of civil unions between two women, is it only NOW that there has been an outcry? It's ridiculous, recently here in Australia in the ACT, the civil union legislation was passed by the Lower House but not in the Senate. The reason? Religion is beginning to make its way (or is at least more visible as an influence in politics) into politics. Who are politicians or the church for that matter to claim that God discriminates against and categorises people according to their sexuality? I think this is all just about religious crap, some people (I realise that not all Christians [myself being one] believe this, I apologise if this statement is too blunt or unsympathetic, I just feel so angry about it) somehow believe that in being heterosexual, they become a part of the exclusive 'club' that is Christianity. God does NOT limit his love to homosexuals, and this belief that somehow God only sanctions heterosexual marriages is ridiculous. If two people love each other and want to demonstrate that love in the act of marriage, be they heterosexual or homosexual, they should be allowed to. The Church does not speak for God, though some people do claim that, it is a human [and therefore imperfect] creation, and politicians don't speak for everyone either. It should be legal.
[Sorry I went on for so long...I just get so passionate about it!]
EDIT: There is no evidence to suggest that the children of homosexual couples turn out to be gay, I mean, the idea of adoption of children by homosexual couples hasn't exactly been welcomed in most countries, so how the hell are we supposed to know exactly what kind of influence it has on the children? I mean, before we start criticising homosexual couples with children we should maybe examine more closely the heterosexual couples with children that are regularly abused both physically and sexually by their parents, and concentrate less on condemning the gay community. There are many terrible things that occur within heterosexual marriages and families (my friend recently committed suicide because his father was a drunkard and beat he and his mother regularly) and just because you're surrounded by heterosexual people doesn't mean YOU'RE going to be heterosexual. Another one of my friends is a lesbian, and her father found it really difficult to comprehend, seeing as the whole family was heterosexual. He was so homophobic he forbade any of the family to put ribbons in his sons hair when he was little because he claimed he'd 'turn out gay' if they did. And he was serious, even now he still has that outlook. It's interesting that heterosexual couples are the ones pointing the finger at homosexual couples, couples that don't give a sh*t about their marriages, their partners or children, and yet they still crap on about this 'sacred act' business. Not so sacred to them I'd say. We're not in the Middle Ages anymore, let's match our actions to our words, and instead of preaching about tolerance and indiscrimination let's actually BE TOLERANT and understanding and indsicriminate. Like the fable about the great big oak tree and the reed, when the storm comes the plant that bends with the wind survives, not the enormous 100 year old oak tree that refuses to bend.
Yes. Absolutely. And bweb, there's a strong possibility that Abraham Lincoln who you claim dubbed homosexuality a sin, was himself, gay.
http://www.salon.com/books/it/1999/04/30/lincoln/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E5D61439F93AA35752C0A9639C8B63
http://www.slate.com/id/2112313/
First of all, immediate FAMILY consists of parents and children. Second, it is a FACT that children raised in homosexual families are just as likely to be "ordinary" as children raised under "ideal" conditions as they are called (merely a pomp filled term for heterosexual families.) If they are more likely to divorce, then so be it. Homosexuals usually adopt, unless they become so after having a heterosexual lifesytle and/or marriage. So this "family" business is all rubbish.
Society is created by people, people who all appease it. Since society does nothing to celebrate its creators, the individuals (all people included) and since the individual is the creator, as individuals, homosexuals reserve the RIGHT to alter or attempt to alter society as much as heterosexuals have the right to do so. Thus, society may be altered by anyone for any reason, positive or negative. This aside, our society is one where discrimination is intolerable. The accusation of perversion of society and "the family" is only a cleverly disguised excuse for discrimination.
Of course, for those religiously motivated. Most of the religious based claims are unbacked. People who make those claims don't even quote directly from their "holy books." Christians especially. I will understand their resistance if they actually took the time to FIND their phrases, though I find the notion religion absurd in modern life. But the fact remains that there is supposed to be some degree of tolerance of others in most religions. Of course, if one could get upset in their neighbor praying to another "god" (or goddess), then hearing their "priests" shout how unnatural and grotesque homosexuality is would drive these people to a zealous rage. If you truly believed, then you won't be swayed, of course.
In short, the legalization of homosexual marriage should be done. At least, let it be an act of looking good for the public, for these excuses for being able to discriminate against others is pitiful. Is there not enough stigma against these people in our society already?
Bweb,
Personally I think your afraid of change. Does it really ACTUALLY matter what the concept of a "family" is. Things change. Why can't the concept of a family change. If two same sex people get married and go addopt a child, then guess what we have... a family. Just because the child grows up with two same sex parents does not change his gender preferences. Also, changing the "traditional family" does NOT hurt you. As long as you marry the opposite sex then everything is good. Your family can grow up "normal".
Secondly, if in countries where it is legal, alot of the people arent getting married... doesnt that say something. Just becuase they can, doesnt mean they will. Your precious "traditional family" will for the majority, remain the same.
Thirdly, in comment to those articles. I most certainly did not label him biased because i think differently than him. I am a VERY open minded person and when reading something like that I dont start off reading with judgements. However, avter finishing reading that article I strongly believe it was written with complete opposition of gay mariage in mind even if statistics did turn out in favor. Im not one to label a person for no reason, trust me.
fourthly, in comment to all bible rlated talk. I am a strong catholic christian and it is my personal beliefe that the bible, as it is spoken today, is just one giant story that most people worship. Dont get me wrong, i believe in god, jesus, the comandments, and all that good stuff... but after listening to my preists every sunday for my whole life I noticed that every so often things would be re-written so sound a little more "modern". The bible should not ever be updated like that. If im going to worship a book, i want to worship the original. Not some cracked up version someone wrote to keep everyones interest because it is modern. Also, to back this up a little, if you go to a search on google you'll find out that a prettly large part of the bible was completly taken out when a certain roman emperor came to power... and it was just because he didnt like it. We still use this version in our churches today.
This topic should have never been opened. This subject is pointless and as i said before, people have more important things to worry about. Things that could actually harm us in coming years.
Because the ultimate goal of those who are attempting to facilitate the homosexual marriage, the Leftists, is to destroy the famlily, and the easiest way to do that is to redefine it out of existence.
In EVERY nation where gay marriage has been legalized, there are now pushes to legitmize Polyamorous marriages. This eliminates the concept of fidelity, and the use for a "marriage" between two people in the first place.
And in the meanwhile, the same politicians advocating gay marriage are also backing initiatives that limit parental rights over children.
The final goal is a Leftist society where Children are not raised by Families, but by the State.
I have no problem with Change, when that Change facilitates positive outcome. In this case, however, I know what the endgame is going to be, and it is the deathknell of the family.
And in any event, the pro-gay-marriage side has lost this particular issue. Gay marriage is legal in Massechusetts and ONLY in Massechusetts, and we have taken the steps to keep it there, and we are taking steps to remove it from there. We already won a major victory in New York, and I assure you that the United States Supreme Court will not side with the Gay Marriage agenda.
The concept of family is in no way being redefined out of existence, it is merely evolving. I find it offensive that you could suggest that somehow people (homosexuals in this case) fighting for their rights as functional members of society are trying to destroy the family. In fact they are trying to extend the concept of family and include homosexuals. Single parent families also changed the concept of family, and feminism drastically altered people's perception of women and their roles in society and family, and now it's time for the concept of family to evolve AGAIN, this time in favour of homosexual couples. Families no longer always consist of one heterosexual male who works and one heterosexual female who takes care of the house and multiple children, families can have one parent, one or no children, and the woman can work while the man stays at home. The nuclear family is no longer the ONLY type of family. The legalisation of homosexual marriages is creating another type of family, and evolving the concept of family, not destroying it. And unless you can somehow see into the future with your conservative crystal ball, I seriously doubt you have a f*cking clue as to how it's all going to turn out. Not all change is something you're going to agree with, so deal with it.
i really dont care if adam marries steve or vice versa im not to judge. Non us of should be, sure most of us don't see it as a "normal" marriage but come if two who love each other, they have ask themselves if they are ready for a new world to treat them differently from all sides.
those are my thoughts, If their willing to go through the pain,I saw let them get married.
I think it should be legal...
Maybe it sounds wierd, but we can't hold them if they're loving each other...
It is like a normal marriage, there are two people loving each other, promising together, and etc...
One thing that makes it different is that the two people are man and man, not man and woman...
How do you feel if you love a person (your boyfriend or your girlfriend), and you want to married him/her, but you can't married them ?
thank you. these things crossed my mind as i read one of those articles posted earlier.
You're only proving my point. The family as it was is being defined out of existence, and in exactly the steps you mentioned. I cited that earlier in another post.
And the same groups who are pro-gay marriage, like the ACLU, are sponsoring laws and lawsuits that limit a parent's rights over their own children.
It is all part of a larger agenda to turn the State into the sole proprietor of the nation's youth.
Here in Texas, we have people trying to push for gay couples to raise children in Foster care. But gays can't marry in Texas. So they are saying that they want unwed couples of the same sex to serve as guardians and role models for children.
Do you know how many of those kids in Foster care came from those "single parent" families you mentioned? They make up an inordinate number of them.
There is no substitute for the concept of the Traditional Family. Note, not Nuclear, Traditional. I am not saying that the model where women stayed at home and men worked is the only feasible one. You tried to imply that this is what I said, but it is not.
And yes, I can see into the future. I can see that a great many gays are going to be VERY disappointed, because they aren't going to get their way. The Voters have spoken.
And stop saying that it's their civil right, because it's not. We're not talking about a race of people wrongfully persecuted for the color of their skin. And I know plenty of blacks who get pissed off when the gays suggest this, too.
We're talking about a group that is either the makers of a very poor decision, or a genetic abberration. They make up, at most 10% of the populace, and most scientific studies suggest a mere 6%. Why should the rest of us bend over backwards and redefine society in order to suit a such a small group, just because they're not happy with over 3000 years of established tradition? Answer, there's no good reason for us to do it, plenty not to, and so get over it, you're losing the culture war, and if you want to marry your own gender, move to friggin' Holland.
You're only proving my point. The family as it was is being defined out of existence, and in exactly the steps you mentioned. I cited that earlier in another post.
And the same groups who are pro-gay marriage, like the ACLU, are sponsoring laws and lawsuits that limit a parent's rights over their own children.
It is all part of a larger agenda to turn the State into the sole proprietor of the nation's youth.
Here in Texas, we have people trying to push for gay couples to raise children in Foster care. But gays can't marry in Texas. So they are saying that they want unwed couples of the same sex to serve as guardians and role models for children.
Do you know how many of those kids in Foster care came from those "single parent" families you mentioned? They make up an inordinate number of them.
There is no substitute for the concept of the Traditional Family. Note, not Nuclear, Traditional. I am not saying that the model where women stayed at home and men worked is the only feasible one. You tried to imply that this is what I said, but it is not.
And yes, I can see into the future. I can see that a great many gays are going to be VERY disappointed, because they aren't going to get their way. The Voters have spoken.
And stop saying that it's their civil right, because it's not. We're not talking about a race of people wrongfully persecuted for the color of their skin. And I know plenty of blacks who get pissed off when the gays suggest this, too.
We're talking about a group that is either the makers of a very poor decision, or a genetic abberration. They make up, at most 10% of the populace, and most scientific studies suggest a mere 6%. Why should the rest of us bend over backwards and redefine society in order to suit a such a small group, just because they're not happy with over 3000 years of established tradition? Answer, there's no good reason for us to do it, plenty not to, and so get over it, you're losing the culture war, and if you want to marry your own gender, move to friggin' Holland.
i don't know why people put so much accent on gay rights and such. we're all humans, we have the same rights. i don't think there's a valid paper in which gay are being discriminated, so let them marry freely. it's their choice, not ours.
you're right. it is not.... it's a child raising family that can help give abbandoned/badly treated children a place to call home and save them from orphanages.
Rebel428 - the line of "marriage" is drawn at straight and homosexual couples. that is unless tradition says otherwise (harems and marriage between young children). as long as the other part says yes willingly and is capable of taking that decision all by himself/herself, it's fine. i don't think a cow, a corpse or a young girl will agree. the young girl certainly not, cuz she doesn't know what marriage is, and lying to her is immoral, the cow and corpse can't, cuz they don't speak. and what dead guy/gal would agree to be married dead with someone? did i answer your question?
this is why i dont belive in god i dont wanna be tried to stupid things like i hate same sex marraige people r being stupid of couse it should be legal its a free *******country thats what america is built on its fine some people like the same sex let gays belive in what the what to let them marry!