[WalrusOfPlastic]

Despondent, not that it wasn't a little harsh, but you really quite literaly asked for it.

For the sake of argument, let's say gay marraige is wrong. Condemned by God even. If God wanted us to make it impossible for gay people to be married, why then wouldn't he just do it himself? Let's just say God is intentionally leaving us in the freedom to choose good over evil. Why then would we want to take away that God given freedom?

Maybe if every time two men/women were married half a dozen people died, then I'd want to step in and do something about it. But the only people this affects is them. And don't try to tell me it affects society because it lowers the ideal of marriage. If you have an ideal of marraige and your view is swayed because society thinks differently, that's your own fault not theirs. Seriously, if your ideas can be changed simply because somebody else accepted something different, you really had no argument to begin with. And maybe that's what this is all about. Maybe it's fear. Because no matter how many times you tell yourself something is true because a book said so, you will never truely believe it untill you know WHY the book said so.

Instead of trying to make blind laws against gay marraige, if you really believe it to be wrong, write a book about WHY it's wrong. Constantly saying that it's just gross is simple prejudice hammered into your brain the same way a white supremesist would find a black man having sex with a white woman gross.

[Ferris Wiel]

Like I said before, someone should really start up a "Needlessly Long-Running Religious Debate" forum. Seems to be something that comes up quite regularily around these here parts.

This is pretty hilarious. I mean, I am a member at another board called PleaseDriveThrough.com and we are having a nearly identical debate over there about gay marriage, religion, etc. If you're looking for fun (it would be nifty to have a PDT.com v. CE.com debate), head over and drop in your two cents worth.

--FW

[Jordan]

Why can't we say anything is ideal anymore? Why do we have to tolerate every little thing all the time? Oh no, we might hurt the gay's feelings . Is it not common sense that women and men are ideal? How is that not the obvious match? And why is it wrong to point it out?

This post has been edited by Jordan: 06 March 2004 - 12:59 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Why can't we say anything is ideal anymore? Why do we have to tolerate every little thing all the time? Oh no, we might hurt the gay's feelings . Is it not common sense that women and men are ideal? How is that not the obvious match? And why is it wrong to point it out?

You may say "A marriage between a woman and a man is the social ideal." Say it. You won't hurt anyone's feelings. Try to make a CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT declaring your RELIGIOUS position to be legally enforceable, and to ban any deviance, and you are the freaking Taliban.

I like Christians, but I don't want to live in a country ruled by religion. This continent had laws, not long ago, that make marriage between blacks and whites illegal. The FBI pursued Martin Luther King Jr with secret tapes of his affair with a white woman, and Hoover publically declared the man a "pervert." The common defence of the wqeaker conservatives was that they were "worried about the way the children would be treated." (Paternalism) Was society wrong? Or should we resurrect the laws against miscegenation?

Say what you like, and who cares whom you offend? Try to change the laws to meet the "ideals" set forth by your religion, and you are tampering with the very basis of our free society.

Laws are there, by and large, to protect sosiety. Gay marriage is not, in fact, dangerous to society in the way that say, murder and rape are. If it were, it wouldn't be the MARRIAGE that we ought to be objecting to. We'd need to go back a little further and declare homosexuality illegal. If you'd like to do that, just state that *that* is your position. Then make your argument. Try to do it with society in mind, and fail to mention "Nature," "Tradition," or "God."

PS: Never meant to upset anyone with "God fucker." It's a play on words. Environmentalists are often called "Tree Huggers" and lazy people are called "dog fuckers." D- asked for a God-based sexual innuendo after someone claimed he'd like to marry his dog. All those neurons were firing at the one time and I said, tongue in cheek, a thing I thought funny. Read the entire message, and I think you'll see that I make my position, and I disagree strongly with my opponent, but there's no malice there.

If I offended anyone, then I am sorry. And just for good measure, I'm sorry if anyone was even the least bit upset, even if they accept this apology right now. I'd never intended for the phrase to be a sticking point of any kind. It was just meant to be a speed bump in the middle of the paragraph.

PPS: Heterosexual marriage may be "ideal," but with divorce rates and single motherhood being what they are, it's not very successful. I say it again: if Bush wants to make laws that "promote the ideal," he should forget about the dykes and the faggots and just make heterosexual divorce illegal. In fact, he should promote a constitutional ammendment declaring that heterosexual marriage is FOREVER. And maybe we could go back to stoning adulterers, hmm?

[Jordan]

I don't want to live in a country ruled by Christians either. Christians should not have power outside their congregation. I think the Roman Catholic church (and it's many years of reign) are proof of why this should never happen.

America was founded predominately by Christians, and all but two of the men who wrote the constitution were believers.

I don't think they wanted to seperate all aspects of religon from society, but rather not allow any single donmination to have total power. ( like the Roman Catholics)

I'm sure if gays tried there movement back in the day, they would have been shut down. But now, since America is predominately atheist or agnostic, gay's are not seen as "un-normal".

Man's idea of right and wrong sways with time. It's called having an open mind. I would rather place my morals on an absolute standard, rather than one that changes with what the majority(of people) dictate.

I don't take any offense CIVIL. You can't get emotionally involved in debates. It never works out if you do.

[jyd]

Why can't we say anything is ideal anymore?

hey i think hetero marriage is ideal..just because gay sex is gross to me, but honestly if they want to..who cares, just who fucking cares, let them do their thing its not going to bother anyone

[civilian_number_two]

Man's idea of right and wrong sways with time. It's called having an open mind. I would rather place my morals on an absolute standard, rather than one that changes with what the majority(of people) dictate.

But whose absolute standard would that be?

Bottom line is, we're not the same society that wrote the US Constitution. That was the 18th Century, the Age of Enlightenment, and we are YET to catch up to the level of their lofty morals and ideals. All men are created equal. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. God damn. Bush wants an amendment that declares illegal unions of minorities he happens to dislike? What happened? When did we revert? Why do we still wage wars over invisible super-beings?

All of the arguments against gay marriage are closed-minded and centred in religion.

"We didn't invent marriage for gay people." No, we invented marriage for people. Gays are people.

"Gay marriage will desanctify marriage." We should have LAWS to force religious values on the majority?

"Some kind of civil union, maybe, but not MARRIAGE!" MARRIAGE is a civil union. People who want to believe in stuff also have "sanctified" marriages in churches, recognized by "God" and all that. But it's the civil marriage license that makes it so they can pick up one another's remains after they die. MARRIAGE is a legal union. Offer that to gay couples, and let the churches decide whether they, too, want to recognize gay couples.

"Gay marriage is anti-family" Isn't the whole point of marriage to "settle down?" Aren't gay couples struggling for adoption rights? Wouldn't single promiscuity be (morally) worse? And finally: Heterosexual DIVORCE is anti-family. Make divorce illegal, if that's what you're after.

"Gay sex is unnatural since it doesn't lead to procreation." Make birth control illegal. We do enough that is "unnatural" that arguments involving "Nature" are pretty bone-headed.

"Heterosexual marriage is the ideal." then either the plan is to a) make divorce illegal or FORCE gay people to enter into "straight" marriages. Why aren't we doing these things (especially the former)?

"Gay sex is dangerous." No it isn't. Non-promiscuous sex is as dangerous for gay people as it is for straight people. It's pretty condescending, anyway, to pretend the reason you're discriminating against a minority is that it's in the minority's best interest. This was the bogus argument used to create the anti-miscegenation laws that were in effect well into this century.

"Paul said it's wrong, and Leviticus says we should kill fags." Now we're getting somewhere.

[Jon Gutner]

[B][I][U][FONT=Times][SIZE=1][COLOR=purple]
u all big righters. me smLL WRITERS. /////
bbig RIGHTERZ
BLAHMBABAGO!!!!!

[civilian_number_two]

I don't take any offense CIVIL. You can't get emotionally involved in debates. It never works out if you do.

by the way: I knew that.

That PS was meant for someone else.

[barend]

in fact, let's FORCE gay people to get married!!!

[Supes]

I still fing it funny that men who have an issue with two men having sex are generally of the reverse opinion when it comes to having two women having sex. It must just be a penetration thing????

It is one of those things that is societal and only society can change it. In Sparta men were encouraged to turn to other men for sexual gratification while they were in training as soldiers. I know this is not the same as marriage, but marriage isn't the issue. It's people's problem with the act that is the issue. I'm hetrosexual, but I just don't get that people have a problem with this.

Just me I suppose?

[Ferris Wiel]

To say that gay marriage wouldn't affect anybody is silly and to say it wouldn't have a negative affect is an exercise in sophistry.

1. Gay "marriage" will weaken the term marriage. Case in point, a pair of heterosexual women could get hitched, retain a "sexually open/permissive" relationship and continue to date men on the side while the state forces recognition of their union and thus they enjoy the benefits, such as spouse health care coverage, until such time as they meet an acceptable mate of the opposite sex. A "marriage of convenience" was certainly possible before this, but this makes it even easier to attain, thus marriages have less meaning.

2. Gay "marriage" will have a negative effect economically. If the state recognizes gay marriage, obviously anti-discrimination policies will be tightened to force private companies to recognize gay unions as well. Due to this, the cost of health care benefits will go up. Companies seeking to retain employee loyalty will foot the bill for the health care and other benefits for recently "recognized" couples as well as the pre-existing married couples, therefore the cost of group health coverage goes up (not to mention treatment of STDs, statistically higher among homosexual couples per the CDC and mental health problems, also higher), so therefore the cost of producing items or services is inflated due to higher costs in payroll and the expenses will be passed on to the consumers, thus inflation, and the cost of living goes up.

3. Homosexuality was seen 50 years ago in the same light as pedophilia, bestiality and incest are today - a mental disorder. Due to pressure and sociopolitico-thuggery on the part of the community itself toward those in the mental health profession, they changed their tunes. With that change on the books, the mental health professionals are now, apparently unprompted, prepared to change the status of pedophilia (and perhaps the other two). Bearing that in mind, will those who are ardent advocates of homosexuality today accept pedophilia, incest and bestiality as "normal?" If not, why not?

4. The argument that homosexuality is "natural" is an unfounded one, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that homosexuality is occurs from birth. All information is based on an interpretation of data that begins from a bias of seeing the behavior as natural.

5. Even if homosexuality were argued to be "natural," the obvious response would be, "So, what?" Cystic fibrosis, Down Syndrome, and other disorders are genetic and "natural," so why couldn't homosexuality be a disorder as well? There are already other statistics that show health problems associated with homosexuality, the behavior itself has been historically branded as unhealthy. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

6. Homosexuality should not be a "protected" minority status any more than preferring to run around in bright green wigs while screaming, "HOOBAJAH!" It is a matter of choice to engage in and the behavior itself is offensive to certain people. Also, it is within the rights of an individual to be offended by another's behavior and being offended by another's activities, it is in no way akin to an person's gender or ethnicity. Should people who commit acts of violence other people be punished? Yes. Should those who speak out against another group or behavior be punished? No. At the same time, why should it be acceptable to slander people with a Christian moral background and accuse them of bigotry? They're exercising a free behavior as well. Then again, the foundation for moral relativism (upon which the entire movement is built) is quicksand.

7. The true objective of those allegedly seeking "gay marriage" is not truly what they say. They are overreaching intentionally along the lines of the old Marxist "two steps forward, one step back." They are seeking legitimacy and will settle for "unions" rather than "marriage" in their struggle to achieve the status of normalcy in the face of reason, history, science and psychology.

--FW

[Heccubus]

1. Who would do that? That's just bloody stupid.
2. God FORBID the US should worry about anti-discrimination policies! The nerve!
3. Shut up.
4. Then surely you must have some wonderful mental prowess that allows you to bypass this bias. I commend you for being so amazing.
5. You just compared homosexuality to diseases, do you have any idea how WRONG that is?
6. Yeah, I guess people have their right to be homophobic.
7. I don't even have anything to say to this.

[Ferris Wiel]

1. Who would do that? That's just bloody stupid.
2. God FORBID the US should worry about anti-discrimination policies! The nerve!
3. Shut up.
4. Then surely you must have some wonderful mental prowess that allows you to bypass this bias. I commend you for being so amazing.
5. You just compared homosexuality to diseases, do you have any idea how WRONG that is?
6. Yeah, I guess people have their right to be homophobic.
7. I don't even have anything to say to this.

Should I rest my case now? After a stirring response which includes the phrase "shut up" I may be compelled to speak further. No, I think I won that debate.

--FW

[Heccubus]

Not really. Everything you said basically repeated everything the conservative side has argued since day one. At the end of the day, most marriages in North America end in divorce anyway, everyone should have the right to be married, irregardless of sexual orientation, and there's no justifying homophobia.