Same sex marriages, good or bad

[Lao Tzu]

Being part of that whole 'i dont give a shit about social norms' generation i am in favor of same sex marriages because everyone involved wants to partake (the married people and the priest(s)).

Also, i don't get how this 'indignifies' marriage. Tons of marriages only occured because the bride got pregnant. Tons of women have gotten married mainly/solely for money. Tons of marriages end in divorce, or emotional/financial/physical abuse by both sides.

And tons end in divorce which usually mean that a couple says 'i do love you forever' a few years ago then they fight visciously over who gets the big screen tv a few years later. I remember when Eminem & his wife were getting a divorce (i didn't actively seek this info out it was right in front of me) eminem cut his wife's credit cards off so she tried to take away custody of his son, she was using his son to get money. How the fuck can you make something that less dignified?

 

[BO-DEN]

your late Hommie.

http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=302720


BO-DEN

 

[Lao Tzu]

damn

 

[BO-DEN]

Fuck yo couch nigga, fuck yo couch - Rick James

 

[coldblue1955]

Being part of that whole 'i dont give a shit about social norms' generation i am in favor of same sex marriages because everyone involved wants to partake (the married people and the priest(s)).

Also, i don't get how this 'indignifies' marriage. Tons of marriages only occured because the bride got pregnant. Tons of women have gotten married mainly/solely for money. Tons of marriages end in divorce, or emotional/financial/physical abuse by both sides.

And tons end in divorce which usually mean that a couple says 'i do love you forever' a few years ago then they fight visciously over who gets the big screen tv a few years later. I remember when Eminem & his wife were getting a divorce (i didn't actively seek this info out it was right in front of me) eminem cut his wife's credit cards off so she tried to take away custody of his son, she was using his son to get money. How the fuck can you make something that less dignified?

i'm not for it.

 

[Longhorn85]

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron

 

[superqt4u2nv]

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron

Explain my right winged friend only using non religious reasons to back up your argument.

 

[bluepeter]

Explain my right winged friend only using non religious reasons to back up your argument.

and keeping in mind the supposed separation of church and state....

 

[Longhorn85]

Explain my right winged friend only using non religious reasons to back up your argument.

Yes ma'am, but I think anyone who has ever used a garden hose or passed 5th grade biology can figure this one out.

What does it mean to be a couple? To form a coupling? Biologically speaking, man complements woman naturally. The primary purpose for marriage in society is procreation. Physically and emotionally marriage is a naturally designed event.

This is obvious stuff, and I'm sure you already knew it.

 

[BO-DEN]

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron

ttpkg is an oxymoron

 

[Longhorn85]

ttpkg is an oxymoron

Good one! Quite clever, if untrue.

 

[tiger88]

Yes ma'am, but I think anyone who has ever used a garden hose or passed 5th grade biology can figure this one out.

What does it mean to be a couple? To form a coupling? Biologically speaking, man complements woman naturally. The primary purpose for marriage in society is procreation. Physically and emotionally marriage is a naturally designed event.

This is obvious stuff, and I'm sure you already knew it.

ya totally against it

hope it never happens



ttlpkg u rule



u can come ever when u ever u want u got all the right things to say all the time

 

[BO-DEN]

Good one! Quite clever, if untrue.

good?

sheeeeit.... im bad to the bone

 

[PIGEON-RAT]

i think there are more important issues that are being obscured by all this sensationalism, like legalizing drugs

 

[Longhorn85]

ya totally against it

hope it never happens



ttlpkg u rule



u can come ever when u ever u want u got all the right things to say all the time

Thanks, and karma to you. See my sig...

 

[BO-DEN]

Leaving liberals smoldering in the wake of powerful conservative absolutes. and mastrubating to pictures of the bush family.

 

[superqt4u2nv]

Yes ma'am, but I think anyone who has ever used a garden hose or passed 5th grade biology can figure this one out.

What does it mean to be a couple? To form a coupling? Biologically speaking, man complements woman naturally. The primary purpose for marriage in society is procreation. Physically and emotionally marriage is a naturally designed event.

This is obvious stuff, and I'm sure you already knew it.

The point of marriage is not only to procreate. There are many people that are choosing not to have kids now as well as couples that can't. Are they any less married? Marriage is a union of two people it is not some social contract saying we are going populate the earth. Gay people can have families much the way straight people do not that hard to find a sperm donor or a surrogate mother.
Come on ttlpkg I expected a much better argument from you here!

 

[bluepeter]

The point of marriage is not only to procreate. There are many people that are choosing not to have kids now as well as couples that can't. Are they any less married? Marriage is a union of two people it is not some social contract saying we are going populate the earth. Gay people can have families much the way straight people do not that hard to find a sperm donor or a surrogate mother.
Come on ttlpkg I expected a much better argument from you here!

You beat me to it! Thanks for pointing out how ridiculous that response was. ttlpkg - Still waiting for your explanation using non religious reasons.....

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Yes ma'am, but I think anyone who has ever used a garden hose or passed 5th grade biology can figure this one out.

What does it mean to be a couple? To form a coupling? Biologically speaking, man complements woman naturally. The primary purpose for marriage in society is procreation. Physically and emotionally marriage is a naturally designed event.

This is obvious stuff, and I'm sure you already knew it.

There is NOTHING in the marriage certificate or laws which specify marriage is for procreation. It's a legal contract between two individuals. Procreation can happen without marriage as I'm sure you're aware. There are laws which handle responsibility reguarding that as well.

Marriage is NOT a naturally designed event. Marriage is a social event, now governed by man made laws, often quite arbitrary from State to State or even Country to Country and especially religion to religion.

 

[Dial_tone]

I'd do the First Lady.

 

[hamstershaver]

if your gay its good

 

[gymtime]

There is no right or wrong, morally or otherwise with gay marriage. Ultimately, there are only personall feelings and opinions.

The real issue is whether government should decide who and who can't get married. Whether you are peronally for or against gay marriage, for religious reasons or otherwise, I think it's an unjust law.

 

[bluepeter]

dubya is enforcing his religious beliefs on your entire country now. What happened to the separation of church and state? Another reason for all our American friends to vote this asshole out!

 

[Razorguns]

Marraige was created to force men to actually STAY with the women they knocked up.

In the past, young men were banging women left, right and center and all these women were stuck with kids to raise on their own.

The government got smart, started giving women the power to get a guy to "marry" them -- that way if they left -- they could go after them for money, support, alimony, etc.

If you love someone and pledge to be with them the first of your life -- wtf do you need "government approval" for? Just make an oath.

Marraiges are for baby creations. So when a baby is born -- you know who to put in the father/mother section of the form.

Forcing "gay marraiges" just so they cna have health benefits and life insurance is trivilizing what the purpose of marraige was intended for.

 

[Longhorn85]

The point of marriage is not only to procreate. There are many people that are choosing not to have kids now as well as couples that can't. Are they any less married? Marriage is a union of two people it is not some social contract saying we are going populate the earth. Gay people can have families much the way straight people do not that hard to find a sperm donor or a surrogate mother.
Come on ttlpkg I expected a much better argument from you here!

I didn't say it was only to procreate. I said that was the primary reason, and it is. People in Utah choose to practice polygamy, does that make it right? Men choose to sleep with boys, does that make it right? You choose to ignore what nature obviously intended to be, and you are wrong.

 

[Taps]

ttlpkg, do you just object to the term "gay marriage" or are you against any kind of union between same sex couples?

Also, the argument about men sleeping with boys doesn't apply. Can you not tell the difference between a man having forcible sex with a child, and two consenting adults having relations? Big difference there, bor.

 

[delete]

Yup, for it; the sooner the better. Let the gay/lesbians suffer just like the straight married couples have to

 

[BO-DEN]

yea ttpkg dosnt understand the equal rights movement his family line has stayed "house nigger"


lets see if i get him with this one?

 

[BO-DEN]

be back tomorrow all

BO-DEN

 

[justyxxxx]

I didn't say it was only to procreate. I said that was the primary reason, and it is. People in Utah choose to practice polygamy, does that make it right? Men choose to sleep with boys, does that make it right? You choose to ignore what nature obviously intended to be, and you are wrong.

Anyone that puts men choosing to sleep with boys in the same forum as a discussion on gay marriage is a very mis-informed individual. But to counteract that statement, there are plenty of men sleeping with little girls too. I have no interest in little boys and most gay men that I know of would shy very far away from institutions such as NAMBLA.

Since each and every one of us are part of nature, I would have to argue that if nature didn't intend for us to think gay thoughts and do the things that we do, then it would have never put those thoughts in our head in the first place . . . in whatever way that it did (Nature or Nurture).

 

[justyxxxx]

So let me ask you this, ttlpkg, do you support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?

 

[chesty]

No good man, yuk!

 

[gotmilk]

i think there are more important issues that are being obscured by all this sensationalism, like legalizing drugs

George Soros is using his billions of dollars to work on that....and we all know Bush has to be smoking dope now..

 

[superqt4u2nv]

I didn't say it was only to procreate. I said that was the primary reason, and it is. People in Utah choose to practice polygamy, does that make it right? Men choose to sleep with boys, does that make it right? You choose to ignore what nature obviously intended to be, and you are wrong.

Come on you know it is not the same as polygamy. Your take a moral stand on this not a political tell why this bad with political reasoning only.

 

[bodytemple75]

I am straight. I also have a couple of friends that are gay, and are great guys. I believe that gays should be able to have the same rights and privlidges of being married, but it being called a "civil union" or whatever. I DO NOT believe that their bond should offically be referred to as a "traditional Marriage." This to protect both groups. The terms should remain seperate but both mean, unions lawfully. This giving to give both gays and straight couples "identity" and preserve whatever each group wants to have as their "ideal" partner in life "cerimony" called. Everything will be all fair, and everyone will have their "ways" about doings things protected then. It seems though, the CHURCH AND STATE bullshit will never be seperated really, and that is just bullshit. Whether or not there is a God or not,..... I do not care nor believe. But that is me. Although, I consider myself a good person, please forgive me to whomever does in fact believe if I have offeneded. I apoligize, but those were just my views. Not to offend, but am sure many others feel the same. Many people are good people, and do believe in God/religion, and we have to respect that. They should be able to believe in what they wish. One thing is certain though....He does not live on Planet Earth, and should have "ABSOLUTELY NO" say in what we do as a whole people. To dictate the lives through religion, and any type of law set down with having a "base" of religion being it's backing should not be allowed. This is only fair to all and right, no matter what the topic is,....gay marriage, color/minority issues, creed, or whatever. this should most definately not be allowed. If we started to base laws with first, consulting religious experts/ or icons, I do not believe that to be a wise, intelligent, responsible, or in some cases,...alltogether "sane" thing to do when given the responsibility of governing this country.



As far as adoption goes. I do believe (most, not always) that a man and a woman would be most "preferred" parents in most cases for, as the "ideal" parents for a child. Why?... because keeping in mind the overall "mental health" of the child as it develops, adjusting to the family environment, what it recognizes as a "family unit" and identity issues. Gay partnerships are not commonplace, and who knows how or if, this can effect a child. We do live in the real world, and it is not always a nice place....It can be cruel, and I do see this as being a big issue for the children of gay couples having to deal with as it grows up socially/mentally.

Without sounding contradicting,...I do believe that gays are 100% capable of being parents to adopted children, and should be allowed to have children if they want, but under only "close, case- to case basis, state approval meets, and absolutely mental, criminal, and financial acceptiance and compliance laws/standards". I do believe it should be slightly "harder" for them, Because of the "unusual" circumstances. All this to make a sure fit, and weed out others who would not make good parents. Of course this also should/ hopefully already does to comply somewhat to straight parents, but as I said before "should apply slightly more to gay couples," now because of the "new" and untested circumstances of such a new parenting proposal. All this I believe to be fair. For how long or how a law is carried out of any procedure is decieded in the courts of course...

 

[bluepeter]

cnn.com has a poll going to see if readers support a constitutional ban. They've had almost 400 000 votes so far (supposedly) and 58% voted no. Good news for ABB proponents!

 

[atlantabiolab]

Come on you know it is not the same as polygamy.

Why is it different? Merely the number of participants?

Your take a moral stand on this not a political tell why this bad with political reasoning only.

Tell us why the special interest groups are OVERWHELMINGLY against the idea of "unions", which provide the same protections as marriage? Why do they insist on the use of an obviously taken concept?

P.S. I am not supporting ttpkg's love for Bush's idea of Constitutional Amendment, which is a denigration of its purpose.

 

[Longhorn85]

ttlpkg, do you just object to the term "gay marriage" or are you against any kind of union between same sex couples?

Also, the argument about men sleeping with boys doesn't apply. Can you not tell the difference between a man having forcible sex with a child, and two consenting adults having relations? Big difference there, bor.

I am against any state recognition and tax-payer support of same-sex couples. Sex with a child, homosexual sex, they are both deviant sexual behaviour.

 

[Longhorn85]

Come on you know it is not the same as polygamy. Your take a moral stand on this not a political tell why this bad with political reasoning only.

SuperQ is this your way of debating? By trying to set parameters for my argument everytime I make a counter-point?

Homesexuality is wrong. Gay marriage is wrong. Our society will suffer if we allow marriage and the family to disintegrate, and destroying the definition of marriage will do that.

Can I be any more clear?

Now, let me ask you a question. You harped on the fact that marriage is not designed to procreate. Is a woman designed to have children? Of course all women don't, but they are cleary designed to do so. They have breasts to provide milk. They have wider hips than men to facilitate birth. They ovulate. You can't ignore nature.

Marriage is similarly designed for procreation.

 

[justyxxxx]

I am against any state recognition and tax-payer support of same-sex couples. Sex with a child, homosexual sex, they are both deviant sexual behaviour.

You're black right ttlpkg? Wasn't sex with black men by white people once considered deviant sexual behavior? I believe that many times it resorted in the black man being set on fire . . .
And isn't it true that black people weren't good enough to sit in front of the bus or eat with the whites?

Oh my, and now look at you, preaching the same BS as the whities once did . . .

In no way am I saying that gay people have been treated as badly as black people, however, denial of rights for ANYONE, no matter how they've been treated in the past is wrong. You can preach your conservative bullshit all day, but as far as I'm concerned, you're no better than the people that owned your relatives.

 

[Longhorn85]

You're black right ttlpkg? Wasn't sex with black men by white people once considered deviant sexual behavior? I believe that many times it resorted in the black man being set on fire . . .
And isn't it true that black people weren't good enough to sit in front of the bus or eat with the whites?

Oh my, and now look at you, preaching the same BS as the whities once did . . .

In no way am I saying that gay people have been treated as badly as black people, however, denial of rights for ANYONE, no matter how they've been treated in the past is wrong. You can preach your conservative bullshit all day, but as far as I'm concerned, you're no better than the people that owned your relatives.

The comparison between the history of blacks in America and choosing to be gay and tell about it is not a valid one, although it is always trumped out by gays as a means to try and gain political status based on sexual orientation.

 

[justyxxxx]

The comparison between the history of blacks in America and being gay in America are not comparable, although it is always trumped out by gays as a means to try and gain political status based on sexual orientation.

I knew that you would absolutely try to dismiss my entire post with a comeback such as this. Really?? That's news to me. Let's see - there are millions of gays and millions of blacks. You don't want gays to have any kind of tax payer support and you call us deviants. Hmmmm . . . black people were owned and were called animals. Gays have been sent to conversion schools, murdered by Hitler, ignored by Reagan while AIDS destroyed them by the thousands, etc. etc.

Ok - no comparison huh? But, given the fact that you're a black man with a KKK mentality, you certainly can't see any . . .

 

[Spartacus]

Yes ma'am, but I think anyone who has ever used a garden hose or passed 5th grade biology can figure this one out.

What does it mean to be a couple? To form a coupling? Biologically speaking, man complements woman naturally. The primary purpose for marriage in society is procreation. Physically and emotionally marriage is a naturally designed event.

This is obvious stuff, and I'm sure you already knew it.

yeah,what is not so obvious?

 

[Razorguns]

>Marriage is similarly designed for procreation.

Exactly. it was a RELIGIOUS blessing, that was designed to force men to stick with their women who bore their children. Without marraige, men were out dropping sperm in every whore in town, and moved onto the next one.

Gays don't need to convince the gov't. They need to CONVINCE the RELIGIOUS leaders to accept gay marraiges. When 99% of religous leaders in the US OPPOSE gay marraige, how on EARTH can the US Government step in, ignore the seperation of church and state, and override them?

When the majority of religious leaders start supporting it -- we can make it legal. It hasn't happened in THOUSANDS of years, so i don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

 

[Spartacus]

why the hell do they want to get married anyhow?..can't they see the trouble hetereos are having holding a union together?

 

[Longhorn85]

ignored by Reagan while AIDS destroyed them by the thousands, etc. etc.

. . .

Did AIDS destroy them or did they destroy themselves by living a promiscuous life of homosexuality?

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Did AIDS destroy them or did they destroy themselves by living a promiscuous life of homosexuality?

Lordy. AIDS is NOT a homosexual disease. Heterosexuals engage in the same sexual conduct as homosexuals do. (See prior thread about anal sex and no condoms.) Or are you trying to convince us that because it's two guys doing the same acts the AIDS virus specifically goes after them? As a matter of note, gay groups have done more to emphasise safe sex than hetero groups do.

 

[atlantabiolab]

...ignored by Reagan while AIDS destroyed them by the thousands, etc. etc.

I agree with your other assertions, but please explain how Reagan caused AIDS and the death of people who contracted HIV. Did every administration cause the death of Influenza victims? Was the Bush administration responsible for the deaths of West Nile Virus victims?

 

[atlantabiolab]

Lordy. AIDS is NOT a homosexual disease.

He never made that statement.

Heterosexuals engage in the same sexual conduct as homosexuals do. (See prior thread about anal sex and no condoms.) Or are you trying to convince us that because it's two guys doing the same acts the AIDS virus specifically goes after them? As a matter of note, gay groups have done more to emphasise safe sex than hetero groups do.

As much as you would like to believe that HIV does not attack certain groups at higher rates and for known reasons, this is not reality. This fact is demonstrated in the US, where the vast majority of all HIV cases are of gay men, next highest being IV drug users, and lastly by heterosexuals. In countries where HIV is predominately a heterosexual disease it is due to heavy prostitution and aberrant sex practices such as "dry sex" and sex with children.

There are known risk factors and gay male practices exacerbate HIV spread. On a side note, gay males showed great safety practices during the 90's which reduced their rate of HIV risk, but the studies are showing an increase in HIV rates among them, due possibly to reduced fear of death from HIV thanks to better pharmaceuticals.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

He never made that statement.



As much as you would like to believe that HIV does not attack certain groups at higher rates and for known reasons, this is not reality. This fact is demonstrated in the US, where the vast majority of all HIV cases are of gay men, next highest being IV drug users, and lastly by heterosexuals. In countries where HIV is predominately a heterosexual disease it is due to heavy prostitution and aberrant sex practices such as "dry sex" and sex with children.

There are known risk factors and gay male practices exacerbate HIV spread. On a side note, gay males showed great safety practices during the 90's which reduced their rate of HIV risk, but the studies are showing an increase in HIV rates among them, due possibly to reduced fear of death from HIV thanks to better pharmaceuticals.

HIV attacks risky behaviors. Certain groups have "riskier" behaviors than other groups. I absolutely agree. That still doesn't make it a homosexual disease.

 

[justyxxxx]

I agree with your other assertions, but please explain how Reagan caused AIDS and the death of people who contracted HIV. Did every administration cause the death of Influenza victims? Was the Bush administration responsible for the deaths of West Nile Virus victims?

I never said that AIDS was caused by Reagan. I did say "ignored by Reagan while AIDS destroyed them by the thousands". And it's true. Reagan never mentioned the word AIDS in public speeches until 1987 - six years later. By the end of 1986, 42,255 AIDS cases were diagnosed in the US and 24,669 people are dead. Before this many cases and deaths - shouldn't he have mentioned the DAMN WORD when this many people are dying - his own people?

http://www.aegis.com/topics/timeline/

I urge you to see the movie: And the Band Played On or read the book.

 

[Spartacus]

Lordy. AIDS is NOT a homosexual disease. Heterosexuals engage in the same sexual conduct as homosexuals do. (See prior thread about anal sex and no condoms.) Or are you trying to convince us that because it's two guys doing the same acts the AIDS virus specifically goes after them? As a matter of note, gay groups have done more to emphasise safe sex than hetero groups do.

the diffrence is that gya men both ejaculate..so yes heteros will engage in anal sex,but the women can't return the favor and ejaculate into the guy's rectum....HIV infected semen ejaculated into a "roughed up" rectum is the most likely(by far) cause of transmission..even in a case of a bi and/or whatever HIV infected male engaging in anal intercourse with a gal..say he infects her,she can't then turn around and engage in the same behavior..its relatively rare for a male to contract HIV from a female

 

[Spartacus]

BTW,its not a homosexual disease because lesbians and their activites are in the lowest risk group

 

[SC4EVA]

ya totally against it

hope it never happens



ttlpkg u rule



u can come ever when u ever u want u got all the right things to say all the time

Tiger88 I am actually very surprised by your statement

 

[atlantabiolab]

I never said that AIDS was caused by Reagan. I did say "ignored by Reagan while AIDS destroyed them by the thousands". And it's true. Reagan never mentioned the word AIDS in public speeches until 1987 - six years later. By the end of 1986, 42,255 AIDS cases were diagnosed in the US and 24,669 people are dead. Before this many cases and deaths - shouldn't he have mentioned the DAMN WORD when this many people are dying - his own people?

http://www.aegis.com/topics/timeline/

I urge you to see the movie: And the Band Played On or read the book.

I saw it. What was telling about the HIV history was the fact that when Patient Zero was identified he was requested to stop his activities which he refused to do. He was not quarantined nor arrested, yet Typhoid Mary was institutionalized for years and caused significantly less trouble than the flight attendant.

 

[justyxxxx]

I saw it. What was telling about the HIV history was the fact that when Patient Zero was identified he was requested to stop his activities which he refused to do. He was not quarantined nor arrested, yet Typhoid Mary was institutionalized for years and caused significantly less trouble than the flight attendant.

Yes, he was quite the little whore . . .

 

[Razorguns]

Okay let's start reinventing the concept of marraige.:

What next? The "right" to marry your sister? What about a mountain goat? And why not more than one wife? That's allowed in some religions. Why can't you have the "right" to marry 5 women? What about a 14 year old?

Come on. Let's open up the whole game to everyone who wants a "right" to marry whoever and whatever they want.

 

[Moderate_THIS]

Okay let's start reinventing the concept of marraige.:

What next? The "right" to marry your sister? What about a mountain goat? And why not more than one wife? That's allowed in some religions. Why can't you have the "right" to marry 5 women? What about a 14 year old?

Come on. Let's open up the whole game to everyone who wants a "right" to marry whoever and whatever they want.

Excellent 666th post.

 

[Longhorn85]

Lordy. AIDS is NOT a homosexual disease. Heterosexuals engage in the same sexual conduct as homosexuals do.

You're ignoring reality. You would like to believe I guess that homosexual sex is the same as heterosexual sex. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.

It is a documented fact that gay men and intraveneous drug users are the high risk groups in America. It is because of unprotected anal sex and promiscuity in the former and dirty needles in the latter.

 

[justyxxxx]

Okay let's start reinventing the concept of marraige.:

What next? The "right" to marry your sister? What about a mountain goat? And why not more than one wife? That's allowed in some religions. Why can't you have the "right" to marry 5 women? What about a 14 year old?

Come on. Let's open up the whole game to everyone who wants a "right" to marry whoever and whatever they want.

Why is it that some of you take one thing and turn it into this whole imaginary What if AND AND What if AND AND What if?

A 14 year old usually doesn't know what they want and the total extent of their actions. They are just that - too young. There are actual medical reasons why you shouldn't marry someone as close as your sister. And about the right to marry more than one woman, well if a woman is that stupid to allow a guy to fuck different women, then she's too dumb to know what she wants. Now the goat idea, that's not such a bad idea . . . I'll have to consider asking the Democrats to support that.

 

[Razorguns]

you're just doing the same thing anti-gay marraige folks are doing, and getting yelled at. Presenting "arguments" against it. But the gay folks are saying "it's our RIGHT".

I'm saying the same thing. It's my RIGHT to marry a mountain goat. And since gay's are saying marraige is NOT about procreation -- then it's fine for me to marry my sister or mountain goat.

If we're gonna re-write what marraige really is -- we gotta allow all other kinds of variations. Many of which have been allowed for THOUSANDS of years in other religions (eg: multiple wives, marrying young, marrying family members (a practice still done in Africa) etc. etc.).

The REASON the US only accepts man and woman, is cuz 99.99% of the religions on this planet, universally accept that as "marraige". An adult single male marrying an adult single female. This way the gov't keeps it's nose out of church vs state, and wipes it's hands cleans of extreme marraige variations and views by all the 5,000 religions.

 

[justyxxxx]

No, I'm providing valid arguments that can be backed up by research. The anti-gay people aren't backing up their research with any real medical agencies. There is a big difference. And, feel free to marry your billy goat but don't blame me when the thing bites off your dick when you ask for a blowjob.

And regarding religion, there is a thing called separation of church and state that negates that take.

 

[Sebby]

I'm not gay, and I have only a couple friends who are. But Ontario was one of the first regions in the world to allow gay marriages. I think that is impressive, we are ahead of most of the world on the issue.

 

[Longhorn85]

well if a woman is that stupid to allow a guy to fuck different women

Or if a man does not know how his penis was intended to be used...

 

[Razorguns]

>The anti-gay people aren't backing up their research with any real medical agencies

They are. Gay people can't pro-create, nor is there any *gene* that has been isolated that forces people to like only *their* sex. Liking your own sex, is medically still a preference, like me liking my mountain goat.

Hey don't make fun of my mountain goat dammit!!!!

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Ah, extremes on either side of an argument to demonstrate why change shouldn't occur weakens the arguments. While you may have valid points, you're not doing them any good by taking an extreme to demonstrate them. And the 99.99% number is shear hogwash again weakening any valid points you may have.

There is marriage in the religious context and marriage in the legal context. Since the religious context doesn't create laws, then I'm going to ignore that for now. The laws governing marriage differ widely from state to state. Like how old you can be, what consent is required, etc. Divorce is the dissolution of the marriage contract. The rights and benefits or disadvantages of marriage is going to change over time as it has in the past. What is going to be rewritten is the legal definition of marriage. Whether it is rewritten to allow for same sex marriages or disallow same sex marriages.

The goat, sister ad nausea argument is too obtuse to even address with an argument. Not to mention it's a complete distraction from the issues at hand.

 

[justyxxxx]

Or if a man does not know how his penis was intended to be used...

I see that you're avoiding my other posts to you . . . and there are plenty of "straight black men" that have HIV because of the way that they use their penis . . . Just the facts dude.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Why is it that some of you take one thing and turn it into this whole imaginary What if AND AND What if AND AND What if?

Because they are logical conclusions. Polygamy is being argued in court because of the Texas sodomy case.

A 14 year old usually doesn't know what they want and the total extent of their actions. They are just that - too young.

There are psychologists who are disagreeing with you, and me, and claiming that children should have the right to consensual sex with adults.

There are actual medical reasons why you shouldn't marry someone as close as your sister. And about the right to marry more than one woman, well if a woman is that stupid to allow a guy to fuck different women, then she's too dumb to know what she wants. Now the goat idea, that's not such a bad idea . . . I'll have to consider asking the Democrats to support that.

I have no problem with any contractual unions between people, two, three, men, women, just don't usurp a taken concept in attempt to gain acceptance. The special interest groups are against the idea of "civil unions" or other terms, even with equal benefits; this demonstrates some underlying agenda other than just "marriage".

You have a right to act without harming others; you don't have a right to be accepted. I will defend your right to do what you will, but I don't have to accept your position.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

I see that you're avoiding my other posts to you . . . and there are plenty of "straight black men" that have HIV because of the way that they use their penis . . . Just the facts dude.

There is something MAGIC in what you just said.

 

[justyxxxx]

There is something MAGIC in what you just said.

yeah really - it took me a second to catch on to that one.

 

[justyxxxx]

Because they are logical conclusions. Polygamy is being argued in court because of the Texas sodomy case.



There are psychologists who are disagreeing with you, and me, and claiming that children should have the right to consensual sex with adults.



I have no problem with any contractual unions between people, two, three, men, women, just don't usurp a taken concept in attempt to gain acceptance. The special interest groups are against the idea of "civil unions" or other terms, even with equal benefits; this demonstrates some underlying agenda other than just "marriage".

You have a right to act without harming others; you don't have a right to be accepted. I will defend your right to do what you will, but I don't have to accept your position.

Ok - I'm gonna give this a rest. We're talking about billy goats being a logical choice now and I'm gonna call it quits on that one. Gay marriage and marrying billy goats are two different things but you can go ahead and go to that extreme if you wish. It is just that - an extreme.

I don't agree with 14 year olds having sex with men that are much older than them. I can see 18 year olds and 14 year olds, but a fucking 40 year old man and a 14 year old? No fucking way. You can think whatever you want but adult gays wanting to marry each other and this 14 year old having sex with adults argument are two separate issues that don't belong together. But as usual, something about the word gay somehow gets thrown in with adults having sex with children. Wrong way to go guys . . . it's not a valid argument. Once again, two totally separate issues.

 

[Longhorn85]

I see that you're avoiding my other posts to you . . . and there are plenty of "straight black men" that have HIV because of the way that they use their penis . . . Just the facts dude.

Not avoiding. I think everything you said has been addressed by me or shot down by ABL much more eloquently than I ever could.

Yes, there are many straight men who have been hit by AIDS. That does not change the fact that it has been an epidemic in the US only in the gay community and with IV drug users.

 

[justyxxxx]

Not avoiding. I think everything you said has been addressed by me or shot down by ABL much more eloquently than I ever could.

Yes, there are many straight men who have been hit by AIDS. That does not change the fact that it has been an epidemic in the US only in the gay community and with IV drug users.

Yeah - ok - let's start with my post rebutting your belief that businesses won't like giving benefits to gays. Then, let's move to my post dismissing your statement that kids raised by gay parents are screwed up? I'm sorry, you haven't even touched those and neither did ABL. Some of you are too busy talking about billy goats and sex with 14 year olds to address my arguments.

 

[Longhorn85]

Yeah - ok - let's start with my post rebutting your belief that businesses won't like giving benefits to gays. Then, let's move to my post dismissing your statement that kids raised by gay parents are screwed up? I'm sorry, you haven't even touched those and neither did ABL. Some of you are too busy talking about billy goats and sex with 14 year olds to address my arguments.

Why should businesses "give" benefits to gays any differently than any other non-married employee? Gays are not married under the definition of marriage.

A child raised by a gay couple will be raised in an abnormal environment. I don't think that is good for kids.

 

[justyxxxx]

Why should businesses "give" benefits to gays any differently than any other non-married employee? Gays are not married under the definition of marriage.

A child raised by a gay couple will be raised in an abnormal environment. I don't think that is good for kids.

They shouldn't. But they should give domestic partner benefits as I addressed in a previous post on the number of Fortune 500 companies that are already doing so. I don't want any special insurance benefits, for I am not married. But if I choose to get into a relationship and get married (or civil union), then that option should be available as it is with others. That's all. Plenty fair sounding enough to me . . .

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Why should businesses "give" benefits to gays any differently than any other non-married employee? Gays are not married under the definition of marriage.

A child raised by a gay couple will be raised in an abnormal environment. I don't think that is good for kids.

Well, so far quite a few gay marriages are married under the legal definition of marriage. And it's very likely to stand up in court as well.

I believe people have already posted studies refuting the assertion made about abnormal environments. Not to mention the single parent environments! Which are products of FAILED traditional marriages. Those have become the norm as have blended families.

I acknowledge that your personal belief is that it isn't good for kids. I don't agree with it, but I acknowledge that you have the right to believe that.

 

[Longhorn85]

Well, so far quite a few gay marriages are married under the legal definition of marriage. And it's very likely to stand up in court as well.

QUOTE]

The election will help decide which way we will ultimately go on this. Vote if you give a shit.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Well, so far quite a few gay marriages are married under the legal definition of marriage. And it's very likely to stand up in court as well.

QUOTE]

The election will help decide which way we will ultimately go on this. Vote if you give a shit.

I've voted since I was able. I've voted Republican since I was able to vote. This year will NOT be for a Republican. And I'll do what I can to help squash any constitutional ammendment reguarding gay marriage.

 

[atlantabiolab]

Yeah - ok - let's start with my post rebutting your belief that businesses won't like giving benefits to gays. Then, let's move to my post dismissing your statement that kids raised by gay parents are screwed up? I'm sorry, you haven't even touched those and neither did ABL. Some of you are too busy talking about billy goats and sex with 14 year olds to address my arguments.

You did not understand my point, which was not beastiality, but polygamy. It was the logical conclusion to gay marriage, since it has a greater acceptance in society, than beastiality, and is currently being addressed in court cases.

I have no problem with companies granting gay couples benefits, I think that contracts can be designed to address issues of death benefits, hospital visits, etc.

 

[Lady Godiva]

Being part of that whole 'i dont give a shit about social norms' generation i am in favor of same sex marriages because everyone involved wants to partake (the married people and the priest(s)).

Also, i don't get how this 'indignifies' marriage. Tons of marriages only occured because the bride got pregnant. Tons of women have gotten married mainly/solely for money. Tons of marriages end in divorce, or emotional/financial/physical abuse by both sides.

And tons end in divorce which usually mean that a couple says 'i do love you forever' a few years ago then they fight visciously over who gets the big screen tv a few years later. I remember when Eminem & his wife were getting a divorce (i didn't actively seek this info out it was right in front of me) eminem cut his wife's credit cards off so she tried to take away custody of his son, she was using his son to get money. How the fuck can you make something that less dignified?

Same sex marriages have no impact on my life. Queers in my province now have this right and I haven't grown a third arm since.

 

[atlantabiolab]

I believe people have already posted studies refuting the assertion made about abnormal environments. Not to mention the single parent environments! Which are products of FAILED traditional marriages. Those have become the norm as have blended families.

But your example can argue against you. The present state of failed marriages and high rates of broken families correlates with greater problems in youth. Feminist advocates argued earlier that men were not necessary for families, that women could be both provider and nurturer. Evidence is not supporting the idea that non-traditional families are equivalent to traditional mother/father families.

It is too early to tell what the effects are on children in homosexual families. There are not enough cases to study and make a sound judgement; you can't make a reasoned conclusion when the trend is just beginning.

 

[Raina]

My thought is "to each their own". Mostly I think it's not fair that a gay couple wouldn't have the same default-legal rights in terms of property etc that a married hetero couple gets-- same for benefits.

 

[®ª†]

If it makes two people happy to be married, regardless of their sex, then so be it ... let them marry. I just feel sorry for the child(ren) who will have to deal with the humiliation growing up with two gay parents.

 

[Spartacus]

whats to keep a couple of straights guys form "marrying" for awhile to enjoy the economic benefits?...say they are roommates for a couple of years and have figured if they marry one guy can carry the health insurance while the other guy takes care of the cable bill..they could get tax breaks....a couple of guys in med school or something...dudes doing a 2 year gig in alaska

 

[Longhorn85]

I just feel sorry for the child(ren) who will have to deal with the humiliation growing up with two gay parents.

Yup. Or are led into a gay lifestyle by example.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

Yup. Or are led into a gay lifestyle by example.

I'm more concerned with the children that will have to grow up with bigoted parents, who's sole vision of humanity is so limited as to exclude the reality of gay people.

 

[Longhorn85]

I'm more concerned with the children that will have to grow up with bigoted parents, who's sole vision of humanity is so limited as to exclude the reality of gay people.

That reality is not excluded, but it is not falsely presented as the norm either.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

That reality is not excluded, but it is not falsely presented as the norm either.

I'm happy that when the norm was slavery, that there were people who still stood up against the injustice of it.

 

[Longhorn85]

I'm happy that when the norm was slavery, that there were people who still stood up against the injustice of it.

You continue to present that sensational argument, but it doesn't fly. How can you compare someone being involuntarily taken away from his/her family and forced into degrading labor with someone who chooses to have deviant sex, and then tells the world about it expecting benefits?

You bring dishonor on the Civil Rights movement when you make that self-serving comparison.

 

[Robert Jan]

I say we ban marriage all together

 

[BO-DEN]

It is a documented fact that gay men and intraveneous drug users are the high risk groups in America. It is because of unprotected anal sex and promiscuity in the former and dirty needles in the latter.

Acually, black women are also on this list of high risk groups.

 

[strongsmartsexy]

You continue to present that sensational argument, but it doesn't fly. How can you compare someone being involuntarily taken away from his/her family and forced into degrading labor with someone who chooses to have deviant sex, and then tells the world about it expecting benefits?

You bring dishonor on the Civil Rights movement when you make that self-serving comparison.

Firstly I reject that it's deviant sex. Secondarily, as humans they have as many rights as you or anyone else does. Lastly, slavery ended after the civil war. The civil rights movement had nothing to do with slavery, since it didn't exist in America at the time the Civil Rights movement began.

I'm not sure how the argument is self-serving since I"m a complete heterosexual male.

Civil Rights brought up the injustices against the black people during that time. They were certainly not the only group, let alone the only ethnic group who were subject to injustice at the time or even today.

I don't expect that most religious groups/organizations/theologies will accept gay marriage, and frankly I don't care if they do or not. The governmental institution of paperwork representing marriage is another matter. That will and is changing, even if the US is lagging behind other parts of the world in the rights of these individuals.


BTW, you CHOOSE to be heterosexual.

 

[delete]

all for it and can't wait for it to happen

 

[Robert Jan]

I say we ban marriage all together

 

[avenirup]

The point of marriage is not only to procreate. There are many people that are choosing not to have kids now as well as couples that can't. Are they any less married? Marriage is a union of two people it is not some social contract saying we are going populate the earth. Gay people can have families much the way straight people do not that hard to find a sperm donor or a surrogate mother.
Come on ttlpkg I expected a much better argument from you here!

Perfectly said....

 

[bluepeter]

You continue to present that sensational argument, but it doesn't fly. How can you compare someone being involuntarily taken away from his/her family and forced into degrading labor with someone who chooses to have deviant sex, and then tells the world about it expecting benefits?

You bring dishonor on the Civil Rights movement when you make that self-serving comparison.

You continue to make ridiculous arguments on this topic. You wouldn't like it if you as an African American was being discriminated against so how can you discriminate against someone who is homosexual? Again, without reference to religious reasons.

There are no arguments that can be made here other than religious. If you take that out of the equation (as it should be), gay people should be able to have the same rights and benefits you do. If you don't want to call it marriage (some bullshit about 'preserving the sanctity', what a joke that is), then don't. Call it whatever you want but they should get the same rights as any 'normal' male/female couple.

 

[bluepeter]

whats to keep a couple of straights guys form "marrying" for awhile to enjoy the economic benefits?...say they are roommates for a couple of years and have figured if they marry one guy can carry the health insurance while the other guy takes care of the cable bill..they could get tax breaks....a couple of guys in med school or something...dudes doing a 2 year gig in alaska

What's to stop a male and a female from doing the same thing?

 

[biggest_man_in_the_world]

WTF?

Marriage always has been between a man and a woman, it is originally a religious ceremony. Why should ttlpkg not want to give reasons other than religious reasons? It's a religious fucking ceremony.

If the homos want to be recognised as officially a couple then I'm sure they're creative enough to think up something else without having to stir up contoversy by claiming they want to be married too.

Seriously "You may now kiss the uhhh...other husband"....just doesn't work....ridiculous.

 

[biggest_man_in_the_world]

BTW, you CHOOSE to be heterosexual.

Subconsciously Yes...What's your point?

 

[bluepeter]

WTF?

Marriage always has been between a man and a woman, it is originally a religious ceremony. Why should ttlpkg not want to give reasons other than religious reasons? It's a religious fucking ceremony.

If the homos want to be recognised as officially a couple then I'm sure they're creative enough to think up something else without having to stir up contoversy by claiming they want to be married too.

Seriously "You may now kiss the uhhh...other husband"....just doesn't work....ridiculous.

because dubya is trying to institute a constitutional ban on gay marriage and the only reasons he could be doing so are religious. Church and State are supposed to be separate. Human rights should trump religious 'sanctity' every time my friend. Also, I already acknowledged that if people such as yourself have a problem with the term 'marriage', call it something else. The fact remains that whatever such a union is called, they should be afforded the same rights as heterosexuals.