For or against gay marriage.

[Tempest Storm]

Originally posted by Nuts
Regardless of your personal feelings for the issue, same sex marriage has a difficult chance of passing any vote in the near future. The polls indicate a very strong opposition to using the term "marriage" to define same sex unions. Polls do indicate a willingness to allow same sex unions under their own umbrella.

Actually, according to the polls, opposers of gay marriage have a slim majority of those who favor gay marriage:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html

http://www.gmax.co.za/look/11/24-USmarriage.html

http://www.whatthenationthinks.com/UK/results.asp?PollID=3044

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0111poll-gaymarriage11.html

How many times do we need go over this very simple fact? It's not marriage by any definition of the word, no matter how you try to skew it. For the last time, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, therefore a union between a man and a man cannot logically be marriage! It's not an opinion, it's not a theory, it's not conjecture, it's pure unadulterated factual information!

Not true. Many Native American tribes allowed gay marriage. It's all about which tradition you wish to support.

Personally, I, along with most other gays, would prolly be more than willing to settle for Civil Unions. I don't think that any church should be forced to do something which goes against their beliefs. But some churchs do support gay marriage, hence they should be allowed to marry gays, which they allready can, just that the government doesn't recognize those marriages.

 

[MacMan]

OT: Lawrence, you spelled sophomore wrong and it pisses me off.

The only good argument against gay marriage was that if it were allowed, what would there be to prevent polygamy from becoming legal? It's this idea of marriage as truly special that is expressed when people say they want to protect the "sanctity" or marriage. Now, I do believe the government should be involved in this issue, however, the government has absolutely no say on the "sanctity" of anything.
A person can get married to their cat, or overnight in Los Vegas, but stuff like that never sparked this much legal recourse. The way things are going now, the government is not looking at it as it should, instead it's looking at it from a Bible standpoint: "marriage is between a man and a woman." But there is no one definition of marriage, it varies state to state, but people against marriage have taken the one definition, as defined by the Bible, that cannot legally be used (however, it will).
Polygamy may seem immoral to most, but not to those who practice it. In truth, there should be nothing to prevent polygamy OR gay marriage. What the government needs to do with things like this is to stop rehearsing the Bible and assess the possible social harm that could come about from legalization. It’s my opinion that the only harm that could come from gay marriage would be from the gun toting NRA members, not from the gay side.

(The first gay couple married in San Francisco had been together for over 50 years.)

 

[evlnightking]

Everyone keeps throwing in the definition of the word marriage in here...I may be wrong, go ahead and flame me or whatever, but wasn't the dictionary written by ONE guy a LONG time ago? When homosexuals were either unheard of, untalked about, and if either of the above did happen, thrown out of society for being "different"? The definition that people can get from dictionary.com, merriam-webster, whatever you want has nothing to do with the legal bindings of a marriage. I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but, that is just my opinion.

 

[Nuts]

Originally posted by Spike~
Actually, according to the polls, opposers of gay marriage have a slim majority of those who favor gay marriage:

Actually, your links are all flawed, badly.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html

This poll relates to an amendment banning gay marriage, not approval for same sex marriage.

http://www.gmax.co.za/look/11/24-USmarriage.html

A Gay and Lesbian site, from South Africa, that claims a poll conducted in Boston indicates 50% approval. How is this even remotely credible?

http://www.whatthenationthinks.com/UK/results.asp?PollID=3044

Interent surveys are utter bunk. Firstly, you have elminated over half the population (mostly older folks) that do not surf the web on a regualr basis. Secondly, these polls do not have any scientific backing, they are for entertainment purposes only. Any attempt to classify this poll as legitimate will be met with bursts of periodic laughter and finger pointing.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0111poll-gaymarriage11.html

Once again, these people oppose an amendmeNt banning same sex marriage. It does not indicate their approval anywhere.

You want real opinions, go for a consensus of LEGITMATE pollsters. http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?"

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 16-17, 2004
Should Be Valid 32% Should Not Be 64% No Opinion 4%

Not true. Many Native American tribes allowed gay marriage. It's all about which tradition you wish to support.

Straw man. There have been cults and organizations around the world that have indulged in all likes of disgusting behavior, from paedophilia to self-mutilation to polygamy. Does this automatically justify the action, or instead is this simply a deviation from the norm? I choose the latter.

Everyone keeps throwing in the definition of the word marriage in here...I may be wrong, go ahead and flame me or whatever, but wasn't the dictionary written by ONE guy a LONG time ago? When homosexuals were either unheard of, untalked about, and if either of the above did happen, thrown out of society for being "different"?

Firstly, the man known as Webster was simply an originator of a concept, he did not invent the words, he simply gathered a consensus of the definitions. These definitions are the accepted meanings of the population of the English speaking world.

The definition that people can get from dictionary.com, merriam-webster, whatever you want has nothing to do with the legal bindings of a marriage. I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but, that is just my opinion.

It has everything to do with marriage! Without defintion, you have chaos. Laws are based on definition, society is based on definitions, your own personal beliefs are based on definition. Not from a book, not from other men, but from your own mind. The dictionary is simply a large compilation of agreed upon definitions, nothing more. But the fact remains, the majority of American defines marriage as a union between man and woman, and until you succeed in changing that definition, you cannot consider same sex marriage as a viable option.

 

[MacMan]

Care to reply to what I said?

 

[Nuts]

Originally posted by MacMan

Care to reply to what I said?

By all means.

The only good argument against gay marriage was that if it were allowed, what would there be to prevent polygamy from becoming legal?

Perhaps in your mind. I've laid out my criticisms, you've simply deemed them as unacceptable. That's fine, but you're still wrong.

Now, I do believe the government should be involved in this issue, however, the government has absolutely no say on the "sanctity" of anything.

Do you even know who the government is? What is this entity known only as "the government?" Silly rabbit, the government is us! Every American comprises the government. The President, Congress, the Supreme Court.... these are our employees. So when you say the government has no say on the sanctity of anything, you're saying that nobody has that right. Do you truly believe this?

We are a government of the people. The people define the laws of this country. And guess what, if the people don't want gay marriage, there won't be gay marriage, period. So, do you believe in bucking the mandate from the people? Do you believe that laws are simply suggestions? Do you have any respect for the beliefs of the citizens of this country?

The way things are going now, the government is not looking at it as it should, instead it's looking at it from a Bible standpoint: "marriage is between a man and a woman." But there is no one definition of marriage, it varies state to state, but people against marriage have taken the one definition, as defined by the Bible, that cannot legally be used (however, it will).

In the event that you missed it, the United States was founded on Judeo Christian values. "One nation under God" and "In God we trust." aren't just random quotes from some lunatic, it's part of our foundation and there is nothing legally binding that claims that such definitions cannot be used in our laws. Polygamy and Incestual marriages are outlawed for purely moral religious reasons, nothing more.

Polygamy may seem immoral to most, but not to those who practice it. In truth, there should be nothing to prevent polygamy OR gay marriage.

People practice paedophilia every day in this country and others, is this normal too? If you say yes, I'll be certain to hand you screen name to the authorities.

 

[1123581321345589]

The government is comprised of representatives, not the people. You are arguing that an avatar serves as a direct link between the law and the people.
"One nation under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's.
"In God we trust" was put on coins in 1864 with the Mint Act.
The country was founded with the idea separation of Church and State, regardless of the "peoples'" religion, it holds no grounds in court.
Gay marriage poses no threat to society, pedophilia does.

You've just been jewb flamed.

 

[Nuts]

Originally posted by 1123581321345589
The government is comprised of representatives, not the people. You are arguing that an avatar serves as a direct link between the law and the people.

I'm not certain why you chose to tell me this very obvious fact, perhaps you were trying to convey a point?

"One nation under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's.

Correct, during the Cold War to fight a moral war against the Soveit Union. Again, point?

"In God we trust" was put on coins in 1864 with the Mint Act.

Again, point? I'm looking hard for your point, but cannot find it anywhere.

The country was founded with the idea separation of Church and State, regardless of the "peoples'" religion, it holds no grounds in court.

Bzzzzzz, wrong! Find me the phrase "seperation of church and state" anywhere in the Constitution, please. I beg of you, find it in any state Constitution, or even a state law. Otherwise, keep the atheist rhetoric to a minimum. I know the tactics used by many atheists, I am one.

Gay marriage poses no threat to society, pedophilia does.

No, paedophilia hurts the child (in the opinion of many) not society. Perhaps you can explain your thoughts on the matter.

You've just been jewb flamed.

Pardon me?

 

[LawrenceOfArabia]

okay, the declaration of independance is what america was founded on correct? if so, the declaration of independance says...
...
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
...
The bold shows that creator is capitalized(no i didnt do it) to signify God. whenever God is spoken about in the bible they use a G not a g. But back on my point, the rights of all americans is enlayed in the bible here and there. The constitution, ammendments, etc. are added for its reasons obviously. In the bible, God condemns homosexuality(not homos in particular) as wrong in his eyes in both old and new testament scriptures.

 

[DB]

First off, let me send my support for this thread. If we allow gay marriages, we are also going to have to open the door for other marriage issues. Such as, more than 2 people in the marriage and different species marriages.

 

[CelestialBadger]

Nuts, I take it that you have no problem with homosexual civil unions. If I'm wrong in that assumption please correct me.

However, if I'm right in that assumption that would make all your arguments about the degradation of marriage completely moot. What about polygamist civil unions?

 

[Nuts]

Originally posted by CelestialBadger
Nuts, I take it that you have no problem with homosexual civil unions. If I'm wrong in that assumption please correct me.

However, if I'm right in that assumption that would make all your arguments about the degradation of marriage completely moot. What about polygamist civil unions?

How so, please explain. I am defending the sanctity of marriage, not the union of two people.

 

[AnImA]

what a stupid idea.marriage is a religious ceremony.a ceremony that has been embraced by non-religious people as the world has become even more non-religious.

how can you embrace homosexual marriage if the religion dictates that it is wrong?you cant.im all in favour of there being a different unity thing legally recognised but not marriage,.its almost as bad as getting baptised and then not attending church.

yes i realise that the fact that homosexuality is banned under religion is up to debate but as far as traditional interetation goes its wrong.

 

[amrtin77]

so because im atheist i cant get married? thats bullshit

 

[Nuts]

Religion is not an excuse for denial of rights. Even I (the moral minority) realizes this fact.

 

[amrtin77]

i was talking to anima i know how you feel on the subject =\ i would be ok with legal unions if they existed.

 

[CelestialBadger]

Originally posted by Nuts
How so, please explain. I am defending the sanctity of marriage, not the union of two people.

So your only argument against homosexual marriage is that it's logically flawed by definition? Why was all that garbage about polygamy in there then?

My point was just that your polygamy argument isn't valid at all. You're saying that homosexuals can have a civil union but not a marriage. I'm asking what is to stop civil unions amongst polygamist.

 

[JeFfDiddy78]

im against it casuse its simply not natural. If a man and a man were spose to have kids then when they had butt sex then the man would get pregent same with a woman and a woman....nature made us this way for a reason so i dont look at it from a religous prospective i look at it as a way evolution has ment us to be.

 

[amrtin77]

i ask you this... do you choose your sexuality? even if not, why shouldnt you be allowed to choose? because its not "natural?" well, do you think its natural for humans to change their surroundings to meet their needs? of course not, animals are meant to adapt tho their surroundings not adapt their surroundings to them. we are beyond what is "natural"

 

[Nuts]

Originally posted by CelestialBadger
So your only argument against homosexual marriage is that it's logically flawed by definition? Why was all that garbage about polygamy in there then?

My point was just that your polygamy argument isn't valid at all. You're saying that homosexuals can have a civil union but not a marriage. I'm asking what is to stop civil unions amongst polygamist.

Since I'm arguing against the defilement of the institution of marriage, I can't offer any truly valid reasons to deny civil unions to those types of relationships. Other than my opinions, which don't play into a legal issue such as this.