Originally posted by Cleffy

It wasn't involved in religion until Judism.  However, what I think I explained, but not clearly enough is that before its involvement as a bond of love.  It was a bond of convinience to select a strong offspring for families or strengthen family ties.  The people being wed often did not have a choice and frequently had extra-maritial affairs.

The meaning derived for Gay Marriage is pretty much the monogomous form of marriage expressed through religion since the 12th century.  As a said prior to the 12th century, monogamy and love never equated into marriage over family gain.  Just because you can't date the meaning doesn't mean the points invalid.

The point I was trying to make is despite the meaning of marriage that is most strongly associated with religion, and if not with producing an offspring doesn't matter because we are sacraficing portions of the constitution and a democratic vote to give people access to a handful of benefits.  For a state like California to object to Gay Marriage as a majority speaks clearly that the rest of the country is not ready considering how liberal the state is.

Again, modern marriage has nothing to do with offspring. There are no requirements to have children when you're married and the fact that couples who are unable to have children can still get married destroys any "anti gay marriage" argument out there. Marriage can't be directed by religion when churches are getting taxbreaks and funded by the government. Either have equal treatment or get rid of it all together.

The marriages of hold have long since passed, we no longer give away our daughters to encourage trade and wealth, and using that as an argument is silly, to say the least.

Originally posted by Yamoth

Each side have there own opinion and most likely this issue will never be resolved. I think the best solution is to simple take the word marriage out of the legal system all together and simply call it something like civil union. And no, i'm not saying we should have marriage for straight and civil union for gay. What i'm trying to say is that civil union is the only term that is recognize under the eye of the law.

Yes, this is the fair and just thing to do.  Let *everyone* get a civil union in the eyes of the state -- same sex or heterosex.  And leave what "marriage" means up to the individual churches and other religious groups to work out.  This is the most equitable way to resolve this impasse.

And as for the idea that "gay marriage is going to come no matter what" -- I highly doubt that in the United States.  Well more than half of the states have amended their state constitutions to specifically exclude same sex marriage.  In addition, the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" passed by President Clinton in the 90s specifically provides that the federal government does not recognize same sex marriages for any purpose under federal law.  Following the national debacle after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has learned its lesson about stepping into social issues where the country is divided -- and the country is probably even more divided on same sex marriage than it was on abortion in the 70s when Roe was decided.   So I fully expect that what we will end up with, unless we change the laws the way I describe above, is a handful of states on the coasts recognizing some form of civil union (and not all of the coastal states, just some of them), with virtually every other state refusing to recognize these, let alone allow same sex couples to marry or unite in their state.

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

Again, modern marriage has nothing to do with offspring. There are no requirements to have children when you're married and the fact that couples who are unable to have children can still get married destroys any "anti gay marriage" argument out there. Marriage can't be directed by religion when churches are getting taxbreaks and funded by the government. Either have equal treatment or get rid of it all together.

 

In fact, marriage should be abolished as a civil law matter.  Allow everyone to get a civil union with the same rights under the law.  Let the churches work out who is "married" -- something which will have a social impact, but no legal impact, because everyone, in the eyes of the law, will be in a "civil union" whether their church says they are married or not.  This is the most fair thing to do -- it lets gay people get access to the same legal protections without trashing the definition of "marriage" for religious people.

Originally posted by fantaros

I m curious on one thing. Why do u insist on calling a civil union beetween members of the same sex marriage? I mean in my eyes calling it marriage only helps in getting more religious people involved in the matter than would even bother if a different name was chosen.

 

Like it or not it is the church's views and thus all their followers views is that marriage is a bond beetween a religious male and a religious female, of the same religion. The same standards apply (in greek-orthodox church at least) when a christian wants to marry a bhudist or a jew. If the latter does not get baptised he is not allowed to get married, in church at least, end of story.

It's not the views of my church.  My church performs gay marriages.  My church defends gay marriage and teaches that it is okay in the eyes of God.  And last I checked, the federal government was not supposed to play favorites of one religion over another.

So you can call it a religious matter if you'd like, and I'll agree.  My religious views are that it is just fine.

Which means I guess the real question is how come your willing to use the federal government to quiet my churches views?

You don't want to accept the old meaning and don't want to accept the meaning it has had since then.  Also yes the religion can recognize things under seperation of church and state despite recieving funds or tax breaks because according to the U.S. Supreme Court, when the government funds a service “indirectly,” then religion can be part of that service; and the invention of tax system that would tax churches came about in the United States far after the Constitution was written.

But like I keep saying, its moot because the fight for gay marriage is about a squaltry selfish amount of entitlements at the large cost of disregarding democracy.

Originally posted by Cleffy

You don't want to accept the old meaning and don't want to accept the meaning it has had since then.  Also yes the religion can recognize things under seperation of church and state despite recieving funds or tax breaks because according to the U.S. Supreme Court, when the government funds a service “indirectly,” then religion can be part of that service; and the invention of tax system that would tax churches came about in the United States far after the Constitution was written.

But like I keep saying, its moot because the fight for gay marriage is about a squaltry selfish amount of entitlements at the large cost of disregarding democracy.

No, you just simply fail to realise that old meaning as no meaning now whatsoever. People don't trade in their daughters anymore. You know whats even worse than disregarding democracy? When somebody elses personal freedoms get taken away because of what somebody else believes.
 

Originally posted by Cleffy

You don't want to accept the old meaning and don't want to accept the meaning it has had since then.  Also yes the religion can recognize things under seperation of church and state despite recieving funds or tax breaks because according to the U.S. Supreme Court, when the government funds a service “indirectly,” then religion can be part of that service; and the invention of tax system that would tax churches came about in the United States far after the Constitution was written.

But like I keep saying, its moot because the fight for gay marriage is about a squaltry selfish amount of entitlements at the large cost of disregarding democracy.

America is not a democracy.  So, yeah I do disregard the mob rules mentality of a democracy because we do not live in that type of government structure.

Our nation was set up to protect the rights of the minority equally alongside those of the majority.  Freedom and equality for all.  If you don't like it, then quit trying to destroy my country from the inside by calling it a democracy.

With such ruthless logic if you look at the result, most straights should not have children, either.

There, we're even now.

LOVE makes a marriage!

1. Being Gay Is Not Natural

And real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning, tattoos, piercings and silicon breasts...

2. Gay Marriage Will Encourage People To Be Gay

In the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Open The Door To All Kinds Of
Crazy Behavior

People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has
legal standing and can sign a marriage contract. Lamps are next.

4. Straight Marriage Has Been Around A Long Time And Hasn't Changed At All

Hence why women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight Marriage Will Be Less Meaningful If Gay Marriage Were Allowed

And we can't let the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed.

6. Straight Marriages Are Valid Because They Produce Children

So therefore, gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our population isn't out of control, our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously Gay Parents Will Raise Gay Children

Since, of course, straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay Marriage Is Not Supported By Religion

In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children Can Never Succeed Without A Male And A Female Role Model

Which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay Marriage Will Change The Foundation Of Society; We Could Never Adapt To New Social Norms

Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

I think homosexuality is both a choice and a genetic disorder.  When genetically designed/altered/enhanced/corrected babies are possible there will be less cases of homosexuality; leaving only those who do so by choice.  Does religious marriage matter at that point, even when there are civil unions?  That time will become an interesting time; for not only will there be some kind of movement to prevent unborn babies from no longer being homosexual (or parents wanting their babies to be homosexual), but also of genetically enhanced vs normals.

Something to think about.

Originally posted by Dracus

I think homosexuality is both a choice and a genetic disorder.  When genetically designed/altered/enhanced/corrected babies are possible there will be less cases of homosexuality; leaving only those who do so by choice.  Does religious marriage matter at that point, even when there are civil unions?  That time will become an interesting time; for not only will there be some kind of movement to prevent unborn babies from no longer being homosexual (or parents wanting their babies to be homosexual), but also of genetically enhanced vs normals.

Something to think about.

Being gay of course I look with horror on this time. Tho I am not sure it will come, things may be more complicated than scientists think, and it may or may not be to eradicate this trait from the gene pool.

Sexuality is never a choice, nor is it a disorder, for that means there is a "right" order, and it was nature itself which brought forth homosexuality. It is part of life.

I regard the possibility of genetic altering in the future as the greatest threat to the very existence of humanity. Nature took millions of years to reach the genetic diversity and who are we to alter it? Who are we to know better? Do we? I dont think so. Now we may not always know what reason what genetic function has, but when homosexuality has existed so long, even tho gay people dont reproduce, due to anything we know about genetic, it is supposed to have *some* function, even tho we may not be smart enough to understand. How dumb humans are in these terms is proven to me time and again. The reduction of species, so many kind of plants and animals die out, and every bit destroys a part of nature's balance. We should accept that diversity of ALL life with respect and humility and not toy with things greater than our understanding.

I am not a religious right, but if I share one thing with most religious people, its that humans should not toy with creation in such a way as to play god. Things which exist have their meaning, and its our duty to be humble enough to accept, we are not wise enought to know the reason for everything that exists, especially when it comes to the diversity of life.

Can you imagine genes be under the whim of fashion trends? Entire hosts of kids all look like Harry Potter? The survival of humanity depends on our genetic diversity, and playing with THAT is the most certain way to doom us all.

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by Dracus

I think homosexuality is both a choice and a genetic disorder.  When genetically designed/altered/enhanced/corrected babies are possible there will be less cases of homosexuality; leaving only those who do so by choice.  Does religious marriage matter at that point, even when there are civil unions?  That time will become an interesting time; for not only will there be some kind of movement to prevent unborn babies from no longer being homosexual (or parents wanting their babies to be homosexual), but also of genetically enhanced vs normals.

Something to think about.

 

Being gay of course I look with horror on this time. Tho I am not sure it will come, things may be more complicated than scientists think, and it may or may not be to eradicate this trait from the gene pool.

Sexuality is never a choice, nor is it a disorder, for that means there is a "right" order, and it was nature itself which brought forth homosexuality. It is part of life.

I regard the possibility of genetic altering in the future as the greatest threat to the very existence of humanity. Nature took millions of years to reach the genetic diversity and who are we to alter it? Who are we to know better? Do we? I dont think so. Now we may not always know what reason what genetic function has, but when homosexuality has existed so long, even tho gay people dont reproduce, due to anything we know about genetic, it is supposed to have *some* function, even tho we may not be smart enough to understand. How dumb humans are in these terms is proven to me time and again. The reduction of species, so many kind of plants and animals die out, and every bit destroys a part of nature's balance. We should accept that diversity of ALL life with respect and humility and not toy with things greater than our understanding.

I am not a religious right, but if I share one thing with most religious people, its that humans should not toy with creation in such a way as to play god. Things which exist have their meaning, and its our duty to be humble enough to accept, we are not wise enought to know the reason for everything that exists, especially when it comes to the diversity of life.

Can you imagine genes be under the whim of fashion trends? Entire hosts of kids all look like Harry Potter? The survival of humanity depends on our genetic diversity, and playing with THAT is the most certain way to doom us all.

Here's what scares me as a gay person.

With the instability in the world and the U.S. right now, I think people are at a point where it wouldn't take much to cause big problems for some groups of people.  I think that there could be a time in the near future where if things collapse and people begin rioting or whatever, then a group could gain power that wants to eradicate those that they think caused these problems.

It doesn't take too far a stretch of the imagination to realize one of the first groups they'll come after. 

Originally posted by Elikal

Being gay of course I look with horror on this time. Tho I am not sure it will come, things may be more complicated than scientists think, and it may or may not be to eradicate this trait from the gene pool.

Sexuality is never a choice, nor is it a disorder, for that means there is a "right" order, and it was nature itself which brought forth homosexuality. It is part of life.

I regard the possibility of genetic altering in the future as the greatest threat to the very existence of humanity. Nature took millions of years to reach the genetic diversity and who are we to alter it? Who are we to know better? Do we? I dont think so. Now we may not always know what reason what genetic function has, but when homosexuality has existed so long, even tho gay people dont reproduce, due to anything we know about genetic, it is supposed to have *some* function, even tho we may not be smart enough to understand. How dumb humans are in these terms is proven to me time and again. The reduction of species, so many kind of plants and animals die out, and every bit destroys a part of nature's balance. We should accept that diversity of ALL life with respect and humility and not toy with things greater than our understanding.

I am not a religious right, but if I share one thing with most religious people, its that humans should not toy with creation in such a way as to play god. Things which exist have their meaning, and its our duty to be humble enough to accept, we are not wise enought to know the reason for everything that exists, especially when it comes to the diversity of life.

Can you imagine genes be under the whim of fashion trends? Entire hosts of kids all look like Harry Potter? The survival of humanity depends on our genetic diversity, and playing with THAT is the most certain way to doom us all.

By saying that nature determines homosexuality is to go along that we as with animals can be manipulated since we and animals are bio-chemical creatures. Already work is being made into removing birth defects and disorders prior to birth. I will agree that working with the brain will be difficult and not happen any time soon. However, when that becomes possible, most likely at first to remove diseases such as Parkinson's disease. Once that is done, then other brain conditions, diseases and disorders will be possible to alter. (Which I think is likely to cause a judgement to be made if Homosexuality is a Condition or a Disease)

To say that such conditions, as in this case, homosexuality should remain as nature intended though is to go along with Intelligent Design, which implies a Creator.

Mua ha ha ha

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by Dracus

I think homosexuality is both a choice and a genetic disorder.  When genetically designed/altered/enhanced/corrected babies are possible there will be less cases of homosexuality; leaving only those who do so by choice.  Does religious marriage matter at that point, even when there are civil unions?  That time will become an interesting time; for not only will there be some kind of movement to prevent unborn babies from no longer being homosexual (or parents wanting their babies to be homosexual), but also of genetically enhanced vs normals.

Something to think about.

 

Being gay of course I look with horror on this time. Tho I am not sure it will come, things may be more complicated than scientists think, and it may or may not be to eradicate this trait from the gene pool.

Sexuality is never a choice, nor is it a disorder, for that means there is a "right" order, and it was nature itself which brought forth homosexuality. It is part of life.

I regard the possibility of genetic altering in the future as the greatest threat to the very existence of humanity. Nature took millions of years to reach the genetic diversity and who are we to alter it? Who are we to know better? Do we? I dont think so. Now we may not always know what reason what genetic function has, but when homosexuality has existed so long, even tho gay people dont reproduce, due to anything we know about genetic, it is supposed to have *some* function, even tho we may not be smart enough to understand. How dumb humans are in these terms is proven to me time and again. The reduction of species, so many kind of plants and animals die out, and every bit destroys a part of nature's balance. We should accept that diversity of ALL life with respect and humility and not toy with things greater than our understanding.

I am not a religious right, but if I share one thing with most religious people, its that humans should not toy with creation in such a way as to play god. Things which exist have their meaning, and its our duty to be humble enough to accept, we are not wise enought to know the reason for everything that exists, especially when it comes to the diversity of life.

Can you imagine genes be under the whim of fashion trends? Entire hosts of kids all look like Harry Potter? The survival of humanity depends on our genetic diversity, and playing with THAT is the most certain way to doom us all.

I noticed you have a picture of Magneto saying "Magneto was Right". Does this mean you think gays are a superior race like he thought mutants were in a movie? I do remember Magneto had the same attitude as the dictator who imprisoned him and his family at the beginning of the movie in the camps. Are you saying gays are the future, not anyone else??? Maybe I need to rewatch the X-men trilogy but Magneto was filled with so much rage against anything non-mutant. Do you have rage and hatred against non-gays?

Originally posted by Briansho

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by Dracus

I think homosexuality is both a choice and a genetic disorder.  When genetically designed/altered/enhanced/corrected babies are possible there will be less cases of homosexuality; leaving only those who do so by choice.  Does religious marriage matter at that point, even when there are civil unions?  That time will become an interesting time; for not only will there be some kind of movement to prevent unborn babies from no longer being homosexual (or parents wanting their babies to be homosexual), but also of genetically enhanced vs normals.

Something to think about.

 

Being gay of course I look with horror on this time. Tho I am not sure it will come, things may be more complicated than scientists think, and it may or may not be to eradicate this trait from the gene pool.

Sexuality is never a choice, nor is it a disorder, for that means there is a "right" order, and it was nature itself which brought forth homosexuality. It is part of life.

I regard the possibility of genetic altering in the future as the greatest threat to the very existence of humanity. Nature took millions of years to reach the genetic diversity and who are we to alter it? Who are we to know better? Do we? I dont think so. Now we may not always know what reason what genetic function has, but when homosexuality has existed so long, even tho gay people dont reproduce, due to anything we know about genetic, it is supposed to have *some* function, even tho we may not be smart enough to understand. How dumb humans are in these terms is proven to me time and again. The reduction of species, so many kind of plants and animals die out, and every bit destroys a part of nature's balance. We should accept that diversity of ALL life with respect and humility and not toy with things greater than our understanding.

I am not a religious right, but if I share one thing with most religious people, its that humans should not toy with creation in such a way as to play god. Things which exist have their meaning, and its our duty to be humble enough to accept, we are not wise enought to know the reason for everything that exists, especially when it comes to the diversity of life.

Can you imagine genes be under the whim of fashion trends? Entire hosts of kids all look like Harry Potter? The survival of humanity depends on our genetic diversity, and playing with THAT is the most certain way to doom us all.

 

I noticed you have a picture of Magneto saying "Magneto was Right". Does this mean you think gays are a superior race like he thought mutants were in a movie? I do remember Magneto had the same attitude as the dictator who imprisoned him and his family at the beginning of the movie in the camps. Are you saying gays are the future, not anyone else??? Maybe I need to rewatch the X-men trilogy but Magneto was filled with so much rage against anything non-mutant. Do you have rage and hatred against non-gays?

Phew... if I were a wiser person, I would say something smooth nor nothing at all. If you are straight, it is a matter difficult to explain. I will be honest with you, even though it does not do me credit as a very virtuous person.

I dont think gays are superior, or better - or the future. No. That would be irrational. What Mutants and gay have in common is, they are a different thing, and, Magneto was *maybe* right, that the majority of "normals" will likely never accept those who are different. I kinda have given up that hope. Most gay people are relatively timid when it comes to fighting for their own rights. Especially compared to other minorities.

An example: recently the Pope said, gays are the destroyers of the world. There was a minor disagreement in the governments, and that was that. Now imagine for a moment he would have said Jews or blacks were the destroyers of the world! There would have been a huge uprising! Or in US, if anyone would forbid Jews or blacks to marry, dammit the streets of US cities would burn! But here, its "just" us gay people. Just some silly fags who dont fight back anyway. It just makes me so damn angry.

You know, in my school, I had outed myself early, and I had more than one nasty beat up. But out of sheer stubbornness - or maybe I am just dumb - I went to school next day with a black eye AND a "gay pride" sticker. I experienced first hand were prejudice leads to. Here and in other places, we seem to make "noble discussions" and "civilized arguments", but the truth is, here in this matter we are looking into an ABYSS of hate and violence, THAT is the TRUE root of all this gay marriage debate. I dont buy all this rationalization crap. People who fight so vividly against gay marriage do it because of hate, because of sheer animalistic hate towards us. They dont want to forbid us to marry. They want us not to exist. THAT is the TRUTH about this. This isnt a fight for petty words, for hollow symbols of a legal system, this is about what some does not want to exist. For them, the existence of gay people is an offense to their view of reality, an offense they want to see undone, wiped from existence. For them we are the error to be corrected, the sin to be wiped out, the affront against how they want the world to be. THAT is the REALITY about this.

All this civilized talk-mumbo-jumbo is just pretense. I have seen the blind eyes of hate in humans, who beat me to a pulp for no other reason because I love! I love in a way they hate. For whatever reason is beyond me. But I have seen those eyes, and they have the eyes of killers. They want us gone. And its only the very thin layer of socialization and civilization which prevents them to do it. The Nazi holocaust has proven how thin that layer is, and none of us is free and save from falling into this pit. We all are closer to that killer animal inside of us than we think, than we want us to be. We want to be noble beings, altered in belief by elegant speeches and civil debate, but when push comes to shove, people are animals. Many of them. Look at them, read their texts how they write about us, read the texts of those protesters and look into their fanatic eyes. If they had a button to wipe all gay people out, ALL of them would do it without so much as blinking with an eye! They are violent, angry, hating people.

I have seen this reality. I have seen we cant win our safety by idle speeches or debates. Nothing will change. Humans are nice and generous towards minorities as long as their bellies are fed and TV is cheap and they have their houses and showers. But that that away, and they will as ever turn to whatever minority to have someone suffer for their misery.

Take this lesson: People think, as a myth, that the downtrodden come to work together, that underdogs evolve some kind of solidarity. That balderdash. Even in the Nazi concentration camps, there were communists, gypsies, jews, gays, even there in this human made hell, there was a pecking order. And at the bottom, beaten up EVEN by other inmates, were again gays. Even there in those death camps some thought they were better and needed someone else to beat. Us.

Humans are animals, monsters with a thin layer of culture, all too easy to break, all to easy to be prey of fear, prejudice and hate. I have seen enough violence against me for no other reason than being me. Magneto was right: the minority must push their interests. There is no hope in trying to convince people with elegant speeches. That changes nothing. It must not be violence. Ghandi has proven there are other ways to force the interests of a downtrodden minority. I cant say what way can establish respect. Truth be told, I dont give a CRAP about a government sanctioning my relationship. But this is about equal rights, it s a shield of respect, a symbol given by a society that the majority respects our love as the love of straight people. And symbols have power, otherwise the religious right would not fight so hard to keep them for themselves. For us gays, it would be symbol of the straight majority that you respect us as equals, and ultimately it is that what this is about. A gesture of respect, showing us, you dont mind our existence. You no longer hate us and want to destroy us, as so many millenia of human history before. As long as you never were fundamentally questioned in your very existence, as long as you didnt face the hate of people who hate you for the very best quality in a human - the ability to love - so long you straights have no damn idea how it is. And yes... for that sometimes I hate you. Even tho that is not a noble thing to do. You just dont know how damn good you have it, that your ways to love are accepted and that we have to walk through life like it were a mine field, and you never know if the nice granny from the corner were you buy your vegetables and who always has so nice conversations with, would not rather have you dead, if she just knew. You just dont know heck how that is. And all we want is that gesture giving us hope that someday we can really live without fear. Is that so much to ask?

the video is fun.

by the way, although, im not a les, i agree with the gay marriage. gay marriage doesn't differ much with the normal marriage, just the couple is made up with two men or two women.

     Sorry but marriage is a union between a man and a woman....It was ordained that way from the very beginning by God himself....... Homosexuality is condemned many times in the bible.....You guys can live your lives the way you want but you will have to answer for these things in the final judgment.

 gays being able to "marry" does not feel comfortable to me. However, They should be able to enjoy the same exact rights that married people do. So If they were to just call it "Same sex unity" and get rid of the world "Marriage" I would have no problem with it at all even if they got the exact same rights. To me Its just not right to call 2 people of the same sex "married" I could care less if they called it "same sex unity" or something else, as even if they got the same rights. Actually I think they should just do that!

They should have the right to suffer like everyone else in a ball and chain union. Just change the name imo. I can't bring myself to accept the world Marriage for a same sex partnership. If they would be willing to get another word for the union and get the same exact rights. Hell I would have had no problem voting no on prop 8 last year. But since that was not the case I had to leave it blank.

Originally posted by altairzq

Originally posted by outfctrl

Hey, you have your views, I have mine.  Progressive liberals are always trying to change things.

In the English common law tradition, from which our legal doctrines and concepts have developed, a marriage is a contract based upon a voluntary private agreement by a man and a woman to become husband and wife. Marriage is viewed as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization.

Traditionally, the husband had a duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house.

The wife's obligations were maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children.

 

 

You are here......................................................................................................... We are here

Middle Age ------- Renaissance ---- French Revolution ---- Industrial Revolution ---- XXI Century

Can I marry you Altair?

And damnit. Just fu*king abolish marriage as a government institution and have the government recognize genderless civil unions for legal matters. Let the chuch do what it wants. Especially because the moment the government starts legistlating to the chuch what it can and cannot do, the chuch can start telling the government the same. And I certianly don't want that :x

Originally posted by n25philly

You forgot the big chunk that says, "The meaning of 'Marriage' which has been a cornerstone of world culture dating back 15,000 years is rewritten by a bunch of radicals" and "People get married to exploit medical benefits without actually producing anything (children) that keep a country going."

The government trades benefits for children.  Western governments want children.  Children become tax paying adults and pay for our roads and schools and military.  In the past many gay people would still marry the opposite sex and produce children, strengthening western economies.  Now that Oprah and radicals with money have told us that it is completely normal to be gay and marry, said man will not marry and have children, weakening our economy so that eastern cultures that discount gay marriage can overcome us.  If you look at major downfalls of civilizations it is rarely because of being conquered by enemies or death by disease.  It is little tiny things that no one thought would matter like extending an Empire or loss of a few vital trade routes or a small grassroots uprising.  I really don't think that chart can acurately predict the true effects of gay marriage over the next 100 years.

Originally posted by Dracus

I think homosexuality is both a choice and a genetic disorder.  When genetically designed/altered/enhanced/corrected babies are possible there will be less cases of homosexuality; leaving only those who do so by choice.  Does religious marriage matter at that point, even when there are civil unions?  That time will become an interesting time; for not only will there be some kind of movement to prevent unborn babies from no longer being homosexual (or parents wanting their babies to be homosexual), but also of genetically enhanced vs normals.

Something to think about.

If it is a genetic disorder then why are there so many of them when they normally don't pass the affected genes on?  Sure there are horrific diseases that prevent people from having children or kill people before childbearing age but these disorders occur in a small sliver of the population, not 10% or whatever the current figure is.  I think it is a choice.

Originally posted by schloob

Originally posted by Dracus

I think homosexuality is both a choice and a genetic disorder.  When genetically designed/altered/enhanced/corrected babies are possible there will be less cases of homosexuality; leaving only those who do so by choice.  Does religious marriage matter at that point, even when there are civil unions?  That time will become an interesting time; for not only will there be some kind of movement to prevent unborn babies from no longer being homosexual (or parents wanting their babies to be homosexual), but also of genetically enhanced vs normals.

Something to think about.

If it is a genetic disorder then why are there so many of them when they normally don't pass the affected genes on?  Sure there are horrific diseases that prevent people from having children or kill people before childbearing age but these disorders occur in a small sliver of the population, not 10% or whatever the current figure is.  I think it is a choice.

Sigh. If it was a choice, why would people choose to choose to be something that is ostracised, hated, and openly discriminated against in the general sphere of the public eye? Homosexuality is not a choice, it's not unnatural. It's inherent within all higher mammal species (and even some avians). Every species that has sex out of the fertile period practices homosexual relationships: humans, dolphins and bonobos.

Originally posted by star.buck

Originally posted by schloob

Originally posted by Dracus

I think homosexuality is both a choice and a genetic disorder.  When genetically designed/altered/enhanced/corrected babies are possible there will be less cases of homosexuality; leaving only those who do so by choice.  Does religious marriage matter at that point, even when there are civil unions?  That time will become an interesting time; for not only will there be some kind of movement to prevent unborn babies from no longer being homosexual (or parents wanting their babies to be homosexual), but also of genetically enhanced vs normals.

Something to think about.

If it is a genetic disorder then why are there so many of them when they normally don't pass the affected genes on?  Sure there are horrific diseases that prevent people from having children or kill people before childbearing age but these disorders occur in a small sliver of the population, not 10% or whatever the current figure is.  I think it is a choice.

Sigh. If it was a choice, why would people choose to choose to be something that is ostracised, hated, and openly discriminated against in the general sphere of the public eye? Homosexuality is not a choice, it's not unnatural. It's inherent within all higher mammal species (and even some avians). Every species that has sex out of the fertile period practices homosexual relationships: humans, dolphins and bonobos.

 

I generally don't base how I should act on how wild animals act.  Justifying the rewriting of widely accepted and ancient social norms by observing birds and apes seems pretty destructive to me.  I don't care if people are gay.  I do care when they force changes in social institutions.  Be gay and happy, I don't care.  But don't tell me I have to accept it as normal and tell my kids that Joe and Jack are the same as Joe and Mary.

what people fail to realize, that its not based on religion or anything of that nature, the U.S government knows for a fact if that they would legalize gay marriage there would be a mass ammount of riots and/or protests agianst it. Being that there is this, in the U.S there is a high majority of citizens that would gladly take up arms and murder a gay couple that gets the "freedom" to marry. So there is no unfair treatment of this, it is just the U.S government trying to find ways around in keeping the civil population at a calmity, sure there is protests that gay marriage should be legalized, i do agree, but what i do fear is what happens when it is legalized, i most of the times see on the news that a gay person is killed just for believeing that he wants to be with his own sex. thats what the U.S goverment is falling around right now,Civil order

Originally posted by schloob

Originally posted by star.buck

Originally posted by schloob

Originally posted by Dracus

I think homosexuality is both a choice and a genetic disorder.  When genetically designed/altered/enhanced/corrected babies are possible there will be less cases of homosexuality; leaving only those who do so by choice.  Does religious marriage matter at that point, even when there are civil unions?  That time will become an interesting time; for not only will there be some kind of movement to prevent unborn babies from no longer being homosexual (or parents wanting their babies to be homosexual), but also of genetically enhanced vs normals.

Something to think about.

If it is a genetic disorder then why are there so many of them when they normally don't pass the affected genes on?  Sure there are horrific diseases that prevent people from having children or kill people before childbearing age but these disorders occur in a small sliver of the population, not 10% or whatever the current figure is.  I think it is a choice.

Sigh. If it was a choice, why would people choose to choose to be something that is ostracised, hated, and openly discriminated against in the general sphere of the public eye? Homosexuality is not a choice, it's not unnatural. It's inherent within all higher mammal species (and even some avians). Every species that has sex out of the fertile period practices homosexual relationships: humans, dolphins and bonobos.

 

I generally don't base how I should act on how wild animals act.  Justifying the rewriting of widely accepted and ancient social norms by observing birds and apes seems pretty destructive to me.  I don't care if people are gay.  I do care when they force changes in social institutions.  Be gay and happy, I don't care.  But don't tell me I have to accept it as normal and tell my kids that Joe and Jack are the same as Joe and Mary.

It is very common practice in the clinical and laboratory setting to observe what occurs with animals and use that to extrapolate what might be occurring with the human species.  For instance, while we do not share exact biological traits with chimpanzees, we are close enough genetically that testing is done on the primates before human testing is done.  Now, you might be able to say that if one, two, or maybe even three or four of another animal species exhibited homosexual tendencies then that might not be worth considering.  However, that is not the case.  The number of species that exhibit this behavior is growing all the time and is so far in the thousands!  At some point you have to say, okay this is something to consider.  Perhaps it's not the end all of end all evidence that homosexuality is natural, but it is a large piece of evidence to throw into the argument.

Now, let me give you another even larger piece of evidence;  I am gay and I did not choose to be gay.  I am of sound mind and that is my statement.  I never sat down, looked around at the world and one day took it upon myself to change my entire sexual preference and emotional ability for who I can fall in love with.  I have however tried tirelessly to change to being straight.  I did it for a long long time and it did not work.  No matter what I tried nothing worked.  I come from a family with two parents who are married, they are male and female, they are very religious, and our family was taught that homosexuality is wrong.  So, obviously it is not my parents fault.  Ever since I was an infant every example of love was between a man and woman.  So, the nurture thing, I ain't buying that so much.  And just to add this in, about the only "nurturing" I get from my parents now is a phone hung up on me when I try to call them.  They don't speak to me anymore.

So, I would think that if you hear from countless homosexuals that they did not choose to be gay, then you look at the number of homosexuals that have tried to be straight with no success, and you look at the treatment that we have to put up with from your homosexual counterparts who try their hardest to make our lives painful and depressing, at some point you have to stop and think that maybe you're wrong.

Oh, and on the social norms, we're not trying to change anything except how the government treats its citizens.  I am an American and I deserve the same legal treatment as every other American.  My religion says that gay marriage is okay.  If the government recognizes one religion over another, then it is breaking the law. 

And if you want to talk about how changing social norms is wrong to you, then about the only place you're going to be safe is ina  bubble tucked away from everyone.  Sorry, but things change.  Social norms are always changing.  If you don't like it then go out and tell someone, but don't use the government to try and force behavior (or religious) changes on people.  Especially when I'm just practicing my religion.