gay marriage

[lost]

we had a 'discussion' (it was more like an arguement) in class today about gay marriage. frankly, i'd have to say i support it if only because it doesn't really affect anyone.
my reasons:
-would allow benefits, tax and other simpler ones like being able to visit each other in the hospital
-more kids could be adopted. if gay couples were married, then adoption agencies would be more willing to let them have a kid. it's better for a kid to have 2 mothers/fathers instead of joining the endless orphans and foster kids. as it is, i've seen a statistic that says around 25% of homosexual couples have kids
-may encourage more homosexuals to 'settle down.'
-if we didn't allow it it would be like discrimination. interracial marriages used to be banned...
-if they can't win gay marriages, i say settle for civil unions. you can still have all the rights and a ceremony and say you are married, but the certificate will say 'civil union' instead of 'marriage'
-many people object to it because marriage is sacred, religious, etc. They are wrong. atheists etc get married all the time, and noone says they are desecrating it
-why should i give a fuk if two women/men get married? there is no way it will affect me.

also, a constitutional amendment would be absolutely outraegeously wrong and discriminatory.

thoughts on the subject/my rambling?

[Nachtnoir]

Guess which way I voted. :mad: Even if I did not lead what many people consider an "alternative" lifestyle, it would still be the same vote. For one thing, I do not appreciate the government or anyone else telling me who I can love and spend the rest of my life with. Second, whether you agree or disagree with mine, or anyone elses lifestyle, the constitution guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness. My happiness does not interfere with yours, so leave me the hell alone.

Lost covered many important points, so I won't rehash them. She is right on all counts. The ability to say, "This is my spouse." is important to many people. Gay or straight, everyone should be able to introduce their partner without having to say more than that. "This is my life partner." or "This is my Boyfriend." or "This is my lover." all have discriminating conotations. When all they want to do is be able to leave their possessions to their partner, and that their partner have the right to visit them in the hospital and be covered by your insurance, like any other married couple, why cause so much of a fuss?

Let us marry who we want. Male, female, black, green purple or yellow, it does nto affect you one way or another. If two people can live together and love each other, what is the big deal?

[Anita Blake]

i agree wholeheartedly with nn & lost. i'm not sure how entirely comfortable i would be meeting a man who introduced me to another man as his husband (i'd like to think i'd be totally alright with it, but i'm not 100% sure i would be), but since my comfort level isn't really relevant to the people i may or may not meet, i think that if a person wants to be married to another person of the same gender, then let them. Who am i or anyone else to stand in the way of one person's happiness. Just because i can't really imagine happiness in that particular form, doesn't mean that someone else doesn't, or shouldn't. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, man. i think that banning homosexual marriages does more harm than good, and i honestly don't see anything wrong with allowing two people in love to make a public lifelong commitment to eachother.

There is the argument that it's "unbalanced" for children to have two same-gendered parents, but you know what, it's "unbalanced" for kids to grow up a lot of ways ... single parents, alcoholic parents, drug addict parents, poor parents, rich parents who don't care, i think there are a lot worse combinations out there than "two parents of the same gender". Some people seem to be worried about the fact that having gay parents will make their kids grow up more inclined to be gay, and :eek: eventually no one will procreate! :umm: that's the most idiotic thing i've ever heard of. i think it's about time that straight-laced people got their heads out of their asses and accepted that the world is filled with all kind of people, who live all kinds of lives, and while those lives might not fit exactly into some pre-fabricated mold, they're not always Bad.

i think the worst thing that could happen with allowing gay marriages would be that some people are still in unhappy marriages .. that doesn't change no matter what the genders involved. blah blah blah. just saying the same that's already been said. :)

[wiggin]

*shrugs* I never understood why anyone cared about it. I mean, it's only a legal document that has purely secular significance. Why do some Christians complain about it, then?

[Waffles]

i agree wholeheartedly with nn & lost.
Yeah. most people who agree with nn lose out :p

[Alexia]

It's going to take a helluva long time before Australia supports homosexuals in general, let alone the marriage of homosexuals, but I figure patience is a virtue and as long as something happens eventually. Gays and lesbians are still people, they still have emotions and marriage is not merely a religious ritual - it's a symbol of commitment between two people, and that definition ought to be recognised more and acknowledged in the support of homosexual marriages.

So there.

[Apoc]

I did not vote on the poll as I am in two minds on the subject.

I have reasons against it as I also have reasons for it, and for that I will not be of any part of it.

[Kindred]

I wonder if it would be as big of a deal if there weren't tax breaks associated with being married?

[QuirkyTemplate]

Why do some Christians complain about it, then?

Well ... the reason I'm against this is mainly that it supports a lifestyle that I think is immoral.

[Buck]

Well, like apoc I have mixed opinions about this but I'll speak anyway.

Homosexuality really is not one of the cardinal "evils" according to religion and people truly do much worse things so, who the hell cares if two men or two women want to marry? I dont. Its their life and their life choice...let them do whatever the hell they want.

when it comes down to it what the real legal matter is, is about tthe tax breaks. Homosexuals already have life long commitments, it is going on...Let them have their tax breaks and benefits like everyone else.

From a religious point of you if you dont think it is right b/c it is immoral than you dont do it quirk. You cant expect for examlple other religions to adhere to 100% of the "christian morals" in general do you?

[Dregs]

The problem I have with it is that if gay people marry each other, then they will concentrate more on decorating their own houses, and poor, stylistically challenged straight blokes will have to continue to live in squalor. Has Queer Eye taught us nothing?

[Buck]

hey Dregs there is this new show starting on cable called the straight eye for the gay guy or something like that. it is the exact opposite of the other show. I for one would like to see what 5 slobby squalor blokes can do to a metrosexual... :D

[QuirkyTemplate]

You cant expect for examlple other religions to adhere to 100% of the "christian morals" in general do you?

heh, well, I'd be happy if Christians could adhere to 100% of christian morals ;)

But hear me out. If it is in fact wrong, which I believe it to be, then I shouldn't support it. I shouldn't endorse anything that does support it. That's my view on it. If you want a semi indepth look at it then eat your heart out friend (http://www.wotism.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5135)

:)

[Dregs]

hey Dregs there is this new show starting on cable called the straight eye for the gay guy or something like that. it is the exact opposite of the other show. I for one would like to see what 5 slobby squalor blokes can do to a metrosexual... :D

Davo, Macca, Simmo, Nugget and Jonesy come round, give the guy some thongs (footwear ;) ) chuck beer cans on the floor, rip a whole in the couch, put a boobie calender in the bathroom, and piss off down the pub.

Australian Eye For the Gay Guy!

[Buck]

quirk, I read through and skimmed most of it. Intresting stuff, it is a shame I missed it but to delve into some of the grey you danced around.

The Bible has a lot of things that the church doesnt follow. I would just like to know b/c I am a christian and have not admittingly read the bible cover to cover. Me being Orthodox we follow mostly the Gospel. And Ive heard a many a passages in church.

I ask you here, where in the bible does it say homosexuality is immoral? Does it say that straight out or is it phrased otherwise. Mind you that the translations differ and ours (greek) is more faithful to the original wordings and spirit of phrases and the like but Im sure that is accurate enough in english.

I for sake of arguement, will argue this with you from a faith's perspective. Seeing as we both are christian and the like...etc.

edit - lol @dregs

[Buck]

Meh nevermind I found it myself:



Does the Bible really call gay and lesbian people immoral?

Around the time that Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclaimation, which freed the slaves, a lot of Southern preachers were urging him not to do so.

In a climate in which even the United States Supreme Court declared that African Americans were only three-fifths human, America's preachers were called to action. But instead of preaching against the evils of slavery, our preachers did something shocking.

They quoted the Bible in defense of slavery.

They declared that it was God's Will that black people be kept in chains, as furniture. They said that it was ordained by God to be this way, that white men should own black men. And they quoted the Bible to back up their claim, both Old and New Testaments.

The Bible can be very easily interpreted to condone slavery (Leviticus 25:44-45). But such is not God's Plan. But try telling that to those men of God in the mid-1800's. They could quote the Bible better than anyone ever could, and lots of people believed them.

Today, some preachers are still using the Bible the same way that those racist Southern preachers used it to defend the slave trade. Except now, they are using it to say that gay and lesbian people should change.

They are using it to try to stop gay and lesbian people from gaining their equal rights. They call it "special rights", all the while standing on the street corner, using the Bible as a weapon of intollerance against gay and lesbian people.

They quote the book of Leviticus where it says, "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman, it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22) but fail to consider the scripture within its context, which shows us that the book of Leviticus says that...

It is an abomination to wear clothes of mixed fibers (cotton/polyester blends are the most popular);
It is an abomination to eat pork;
It is an abomination to eat lobster;
It is an abomination to drink milk;
It is an abomination to have a blood transfusion;
If your brother dies, you are commanded to take his wife as your own.
Bigoted people and preachers almost always follow the same path. They pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they want to believe, while ignoring the parts that they find inconvenient.

Most people do not read the Bible first and then decide what they believe. They have beliefs inside and THEN go through the Bible, trying to find verses that justify those beliefs. Everyone does this, including people who are bigots and people who are not. It is time for the Church to recognize this and put a stop to its own prejudice.

Think about it carefully. There is no evidence, either psychological, medical or psychiatric that shows that sexual orientation can be changed. The only people who claim that it can be changed are those who have a religious bias against it. It is time for the church to review the evidence at hand and admit that it has made a mistake regarding gay and lesbian people.


from :http://www.fallwell.com/fallwell4.html

So response?

[QuirkyTemplate]

quirk, I read through and skimmed most of it. Intresting stuff, it is a shame I missed it but to delve into some of the grey you danced around.

The Bible has a lot of things that the church doesnt follow. I would just like to know b/c I am a christian and have not admittingly read the bible cover to cover. Me being Orthodox we follow mostly the Gospel. And Ive heard a many a passages in church.

I ask you here, where in the bible does it say homosexuality is immoral? Does it say that straight out or is it phrased otherwise. Mind you that the translations differ and ours (greek) is more faithful to the original wordings and spirit of phrases and the like but Im sure that is accurate enough in english.

I for sake of arguement, will argue this with you from a faith's perspective. Seeing as we both are christian and the like...etc.

edit - lol @dregs

ah ... what a relief :) It's so much better to have a common ground.

There are three pretty 'blatant' passages in the NT. One in Romans, one in Corinthians, and one in Timothy.

The OT has Genesis 19 (Sodom and Gomorrah) and Leviticus 18, 20 (Mosaic Law). You've no doubt heard pro-homosexual arguments for the Genesis 19 passage (it being more 'popular' than the others), so in hope of avoiding unneeded controversy I'll just use the Leviticus and NT references.

Leviticus 18:22 (NKJV)
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
(the Hebrew characters don't translate ... heh, not that it would help either of us :) But this is good ... http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B03C018.htm )

Leviticus 20:13 (NKJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
(http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/B03C020.htm)


Romans 1:27 (NIV)
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

(you said you know greek ...?)
omoiwv <3668> te <5037> kai <2532> oi <3588> arrenev <730> afentev <863> (5631) thn <3588> fusikhn <5446> crhsin <5540> thv <3588> yhleiav <2338> exekauyhsan <1572> (5681) en <1722> th <3588> orexei <3715> autwn <846> eiv <1519> allhlouv <240> arsenev <730> en <1722> arsesin <730> thn <3588> aschmosunhn <808> katergazomenoi <2716> (5740) kai <2532> thn <3588> antimisyian <489> hn <3739> edei <1163> (5900) thv <3588> planhv <4106> autwn <846> en <1722> eautoiv <1438> apolambanontev <618> (5723)


1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

h <2228> ouk <3756> oidate <1492> (5758) oti <3754> adikoi <94> basileian <932> yeou <2316> ou <3756> klhronomhsousin <2816> (5692) mh <3361> planasye <4105> (5744) oute <3777> pornoi <4205> oute <3777> eidwlolatrai <1496> oute <3777> moicoi <3432> oute <3777> malakoi <3120> oute <3777> arsenokoitai <733>

1 Timothy 1:10 (NASB)
and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

pornoiv <4205> arsenokoitaiv <733> andrapodistaiv <405> qeustaiv <5583> epiorkoiv <1965> kai <2532> ei <1487> ti <5100> eteron <2087> th <3588> ugiainoush <5198> (5723) didaskalia <1319> antikeitai <480> (5736)


So I'd say it's pretty straightforward on the subject. There are pro-homosexual arguments for these passages, but the ones I’ve heard don’t seem to hold water.

[QuirkyTemplate]

Meh nevermind I found it myself:



from :http://www.fallwell.com/fallwell4.html

So response?

heh,

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/homotheo.html


The Sin of Sodom--Genesis 19
Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? For centuries the answer to that question seemed obvious, but in the last few decades pro- homosexual commentators have tried to reinterpret the relevant biblical passages. In this discussion we will take a look at their exegesis.

The first reference to homosexuality in the Bible is found in Genesis 19. In this passage, Lot entertains two angels who come to the city to investigate its sins. Before they go to bed, all the men (from every part of the city of Sodom) surround the house and order him to bring out the men so that "we may know them." Historically commentators have always assumed that the Hebrew word for "know" meant that the men of the city wanted to have sex with the visitors.

More recently, proponents of homosexuality argue that biblical commentators misunderstand the story of Sodom. They argue that the men of the city merely wanted to meet these visitors. Either they were anxious to extend Middle-eastern hospitality or they wanted to interrogate the men and make sure they weren't spies. In either case, they argue, the passage has nothing to do with homosexuality. The sin of Sodom is not homosexuality, they say, but inhospitality.

One of the keys to understanding this passage is the proper translation of the Hebrew word for "know." Pro-homosexuality commentators point out that this word can also mean "to get acquainted with" as well as mean "to have intercourse with." In fact, the word appears over 943 times in the Old Testament, and only 12 times does it mean "to have intercourse with." Therefore, they conclude that the sin of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality.

The problem with the argument is context. Statistics is not the same as exegesis. Word count alone should not be the sole criterion for the meaning of a word. And even if a statistical count should be used, the argument backfires. Of the 12 times the word "to know" is used in the book of Genesis, in 10 of those 12 it means "to have intercourse with."

Second, the context does not warrant the interpretation that the men only wanted to get acquainted with the strangers. Notice that Lot decides to offer his two daughters instead. In reading the passage, one can sense Lot's panic as he foolishly offers his virgin daughters to the crowd instead of the foreigners. This is not the action of a man responding to the crowd's request "to become acquainted with" the men.

Notice that Lot describes his daughters as women who "have not known" a man. Obviously this implies sexual intercourse and does not mean "to be acquainted with." It is unlikely that the first use of the word "to know" differs from the second use of the word. Both times the word "to know" should be translated "to have intercourse with." This is the only consistent translation for the passage.

Finally, Jude 7 provides a commentary on Genesis 19. The New Testament reference states that the sin of Sodom involved gross immorality and going after strange flesh. The phrase "strange flesh" could imply homosexuality or bestiality and provides further evidence that the sin of Sodom was not inhospitality but homosexuality.

Contrary to what pro-homosexual commentators say, Genesis 19 is a clear condemnation of homosexuality. Next we will look at another set of Old Testament passages dealing with the issue of homosexuality.
Mosaic Law--Leviticus 18, 20
Now we will look at the Mosaic Law. Two passages in Leviticus call homosexuality an abomination. Leviticus 18:22 says, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a women; that is detestable." Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." The word for "abomination" is used five times in Leviticus 18 and is a strong term of disapproval, implying that something is abhorrent to God. Biblical commentators see these verses as an expansion of the seventh commandment. Though not an exhaustive list of sexual sins, they are representative of the common sinful practices of nations surrounding Israel.

Pro-homosexual commentators have more difficulty dealing with these relatively simple passages of Scripture, but usually offer one of two responses. Some argue that these verses appear in the Holiness code of the Leviticus and only applies to the priests and ritual purity. Therefore, according to this perspective, these are religious prohibitions, not moral prohibitions. Others argue that these prohibitions were merely for the Old Testament theocracy and are not relevant today. They suggest that if Christians wanted to be consistent with the Old Testament law code in Leviticus, they should avoid eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period.

First, do these passages merely apply to ritual purity rather than moral purity? Part of the problem comes from making the two issues distinct. The priests were to model moral behavior within their ceremonial rituals. Moral purity and ritual purity cannot be separated, especially when discussing the issue of human sexuality. To hold to this rigid distinction would imply that such sins as adultery were not immoral (consider Lev. 18:20) or that bestiality was morally acceptable (notice Lev. 18:23). The second argument concerns the relevance of the law today. Few Christians today keep kosher kitchens or balk at wearing clothes interwoven with more than one fabric. They believe that those Old Testament laws do not pertain to them. In a similar way pro-homosexual commentators argue that the Old Testament admonitions against homosexuality are no longer relevant today. A practical problem with this argument is that more than just homosexuality would have to be deemed morally acceptable. The logical extension of this argument would also have to make bestiality and incest morally acceptable since prohibitions to these two sins surround the prohibition against homosexuality. If the Mosaic law is irrelevant to homosexuality, then it is also irrelevant to having sex with animals or having sex with children.

More to the point, to say that the Mosaic law has ended is not to say that God has no laws or moral codes for mankind. Even though the ceremonial law has passed, the moral law remains. The New Testament speaks of the "law of the Spirit" (Rom. 8:2) and the "law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2). One cannot say that something that was sin under the Law is not sin under grace. Ceremonial laws concerning diet or wearing mixed fabrics no longer apply, but moral laws (especially those rooted in God's creation order for human sexuality) continue. Moreover, these prohibitions against homosexuality can also be found in the New Testament as we will see next as we consider other passages reinterpreted by pro-homosexual commentators.

[Dregs]

ah ... what a relief :) It's so much better to have a common ground.



LOL!

I mean, :cry:

[Buck]

The first reference to homosexuality in the Bible is found in Genesis 19. In this passage, Lot entertains two angels who come to the city to investigate its sins. Before they go to bed, all the men (from every part of the city of Sodom) surround the house and order him to bring out the men so that "we may know them." Historically commentators have always assumed that the Hebrew word for "know" meant that the men of the city wanted to have sex with the visitors.


Ok, Im basing the follwoing on the above b/c I have not read the passage but here goes...

I'll assume that the word know implies "sex". Ive seen enough ancient greek to greek transltions to give you that hands down. What I will argue is that you can interpert this as the city men wanting rape the angels. Something considered harmful and immoral by religious and nonreligious based ethics. We have laws against that currently. Can it be seen that way? I would pressume yes.

I'll refrain from arguing on Levitucus any longer till you give me your opnion on it, it seems to hold lots of things as abhominations. An over use of that word makes it lose its connotation, imo.

As for the greek you have show.,..its abit tough to read english letters but I can make out some of it. It is ancient greek and I havent read any of that since HS but ...


Romans 1:27 (NIV)
It could be talking about shameless promiscious sex. Sex before marriage for heterosexuals is frowned upon similarly.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)
the english translation leaves out masturbation in its nor's. And nor is improper I would say "not even" is a more proper translation of "oute"

Timothy 1:10 (NASB)
Hmm this doesnt seem right... andrapodistaiv = homosexuals
But the word is translated wrong. arseno is root word for Male. And that word specifially can be and is translated as men stealers or abusers too.
So that could read...

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (1 Timothy 1:10)

This is a translation done from a bulagarian source from here:
http://www.bible.com.ua/index.asp?book=54
I would reckon that its translation to english is the more accurate. The wording is changed in your version. So the might lead to some misleadingness in the message. (This worries me on a whole for all topics covered in the bible.)


And dare I say reading the passages before 1:10, it says that the message of god is for all those of not just good but everyone... and it lists all types of people.. So you can take it as including homosexuals as accepted in a sense. Meaning prostitutes to should follow the word of god. know what I mean?

Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (1 Timothy 1:9)

Note that ungodly I assume are atheists (disregard this if I am wrong) and they are beseached to head the words of Christ too. So "male abusers of men" could be many things...

[wiggin]

A note: Actually, Buck, the Hebrew "to'aivah" (roughly, abomination), occurs very rarely, in specific connection to a handful of laws, mostly collected in Vayikra (Leviticus) 18-22... The reason they're all collected there is complicated, and debated... if you'll read those 4 or 5 chapters, it seems to be a semi-random collection of laws. I believe it was Maimonides and Nachmanides who both provided detailed an rather impressive explanations for the grouping. Plenty of commentators have explained those tiny subset of "to'aivah", as well. It's a very specific connotation.

Also, on the whole passage from S'dom: Look, I don't know about Christians, but Jews do not take actions in a "story" portion of the Torah/OT to be law. There's no commandment from on high saying a thing about the case in Genesis, and so it's just anecdotal (there are only three commandments in the entire book of Genesis). So the whole argument is moot.

Lastly, Buck, on the slavery issue: those supporting slavery through the Bible were perverting the passages towards their own ends. Anyone who reads it carefully will notice that not only is there no race, ethnicity, etc. implicit in slavery (although there is a difference between having a Jew and non-Jew for a slave...), it also doesn't come close to approximating "slavery" as it was done in the US during the 1800s. The only reason it was translated as slavery is because there really isn't a word for it in English. Something like "indentured servitude", but not quite. Anyways, the point is, if one wishes to believe the passage in Vayikra, then it's fairly incontrovertible and explicit.

This entire argument, to me, is silly. In relationship to the US offering the ability for gay couples to have a civil "marriage", I don't see how Biblical quotes have any place. Because the US isn't advocating gay marriage, they're just finally expanding the important societal laws to allow for any two people who wish to make a lifetime commitment (hell, they could be two celibate monks for all I care). It's not "marriage" in any sense of the word - it's a legal distinction that allows for changes in housing and tax law, sets a contractual obligation on both parties, etc, etc, etc. I don't see it as doing much of anything to the nature of marriage itself. Anyways, it's not a religious marriage (the government intentionally cannot interfere in those, rightly so), so what does it matter? Objecting on religious grounds has always seemed to me to be rather... specious.

Ender

[Anita Blake]

well on a slightly different note, i would like to say that i have just found an amazing double standard within myself. *tsk*

when a guy that i think is a nice fellow tells me he thinks i'm beautiful and reveals that he's had a crush on me, my first reaction is to smile and nod and then try to escape and avoid him for the rest of eternity. But when a girl that i think is a nice gal tells me she thinks i'm beautiful and reveals that she's had a crush on me and is a lesbian, i tell her that i think she's really nice and i'd love to hang out with her and stuff, but i don't know if i'd date her. funny how i can handle a lesbian hitting on me better than a guy. maybe because i only just found out she is a lesbian but have known her for a while. ~sigh~ i should give guys more of a chance. weird.

[~KA3AK~]

Ok, as some of you may know I consider homosexuality to be wrong and disguisting. And not for religious reasons. I really don't want to get into this argument again. Let's just say that I have my reasons for it. Some people might consider them to be insufficient, but hey, everyone is entitled to his own opinion. I voted for the last option, cause if you are banning gay marriages, you might as well put it into the consititution to avoid cases like San Francisco. I don't really see a downside of amending our constitution.

[lost]

can someone actually give a solid non-religious reason against gay marriage? I understand opinions/personal beliefs can make one person decide it is wrong, but i have yet to hear a convincing non-religious arguement that could actually influence other people's belief.

[Nachtnoir]

Isn't it a good thing that we don't live in a Religious Theocracy? I mean, in that case, the arguments that "The Bible says it's a sin for you to live that way." would mean something. As we live in a Representative Democracy, your biblical arguements mean bupkis.

We have a wonderful law that requires our government and religion to remain a fair distance away from each other. So in a discussion about a secular legalization of homosexual marriage, a religious arguement is out of place.

Lets hope that amending the Constitution to legalize hatred, bigotry, and ignorance is not in our future.

[Molimo]

can someone actually give a solid non-religious reason against gay marriage? I understand opinions/personal beliefs can make one person decide it is wrong, but i have yet to hear a convincing non-religious arguement that could actually influence other people's belief.
As far as I know, no argument against gay marriages doesn't come down to an either religious or moral argument. That's part of the reason I think they should be allowed- there's nothing wrong with religious/moral arguments, but IMO you can't run a country on them.

[~KA3AK~]

can someone actually give a solid non-religious reason against gay marriage? I understand opinions/personal beliefs can make one person decide it is wrong, but i have yet to hear a convincing non-religious arguement that could actually influence other people's belief.
There really no unquestionable arguments against homosexuality just as there is really no solid arguments in favor of it. We're not even certain in the biological causes for it. It all depends what you find more convincing.

I myself consider homosexuals to be sick. Something in their organism is not working correctly, unfortunately we can't say for sure what. IMO They should be treated, not ecouraged to spread the disease.

Lets hope that amending the Constitution to legalize hatred, bigotry, and ignorance is not in our future.
Yeah, I knew that was coming. Hey, lets blame those who disagree with you of hatred. I cannot speak for other people, but I personally don't hate homosexuals. I find homosexual intercourses to be disgusting. The thing that I'm really against is the so-called gay culture. It's influence is making wimps out of our children.

[Nachtnoir]

There really no unquestionable arguments against homosexuality just as there is really no solid arguments in favor of it. We're not even certain in the biological causes for it. It all depends what you find more convincing.

I myself consider homosexuals to be sick. Something in their organism is not working correctly, unfortunately we can't say for sure what. IMO They should be treated, not ecouraged to spread the disease.

Yeah, I knew that was coming. Hey, lets blame those who disagree with you of hatred. I cannot speak for other people, but I personally don't hate homosexuals. I find homosexual intercourses to be disgusting. The thing that I'm really against is the so-called gay culture. It's influence is making wimps out of our children.

Um, disease? I will just use your same arguement, with a slight change. "let's blame those who don't agree with you" of being diseased.

As for biological causes, lets leave that to experts who study the subject for years and not some lay person who has learned some buzz words in Psych 101 class.

And now for your final comment. I don't know which "Gay Culture" you are talking about. The one I know is filled with ppl who spend hours a week in the gym working out. I myself spend 9 a week lifting and working on cardio, and have no doubt that if we were to meet and have a fight who would be leaving on a stretcher. I believe you have had very little exposure to the so called "Gay Culture" that you have such strong and uninformed opinions on. You are stereotyping a very diverse group of people. All gay men are not "Jack" from Will and Grace, and all lesbians are not Rosie O'Donnell.

[Nachtnoir]

Oh, and amending the constitution is a very serious matter. This has only been done 27 times in the last 228 years. Doing so because someone is doing something that you find personally disgusting is ignorant. If you don't like it don't participate or watch. Don't blame them because people are not raising their children in a manner that you don't like. Until you have one of your own you don't have the right to judge anyway.

And I will return to my original arguement. Article 1 of the constitution protects the rights of it's citizen's to pursue happiness. It also bars the government from interfering with that pursuit and prevents it from passing laws that deny the people said happiness.

[Arianna]

i have a strong opinion on this topic as well, opposite of QT's but it can also be found in the link he posted. i've gone into it once in wotism, and its too long to do so again since it can be so easily accessed.
summary (for the lazies etc.):gay/lezbian marriages are fine, "unions" is just asking for a repeat of the seperate but equal crisis, one cannot expect all people to believe/follow their religious beliefs. i think also that any church/religious center should be able to refuse to marry any couple they chose, but the govt. (i.e. a legal marriage)should not. there's more, but thats all i can think of offhand

and i agree, religious arguments have no place in a discussion like this as we are in a democracy

[Buck]

I for one, was not arguing the legal marriage aspect, my first post makes it clear. I agree with you Arianna. But Im trying to understand why the fellow religious folk who do think it is immoral think it so.

I think Ive come to the conclusion that interpertation and biased teachings of the Bible, among other things effect how litteral on takes it. I think, we need a new updated Bible, but that would involve a second comming and that is not a good out look... heh.

[satan]

personally i have no qualms with homosexual marriage whatsoever

as to amending the constitution i agree with nach arianna and teh rest of the anit-amendment gang, it simply isn't constitutional to make a law against something based on religious beliefs and i don't understand the rush to make it illegal... if i was against drinking i wouldn't join the temperance movement.. i would just not drink...

[QuirkyTemplate]

I guess that because most of what I have to say is just between Buck and I, I'll just continue it in a PM. But one small thing that I think is important ...


Lets hope that amending the Constitution to legalize hatred, bigotry, and ignorance is not in our future.

See, I think it's important that everyone separates ideas from people. What I mean is, I can believe homosexuality is wrong without being a bigot, ignorant, or hating the people who practice homosexuality. I agree with everyone who says that bigotry and hatred of homosexuals is wrong because all people are equal, all ideas, however, are obviously not.

[Dregs]

Does anyone know of the possible sociological effects of

1) Gay marriage?

2) Amending the constitution for discrimantory purposes?

To me, those are the two most important factors in this argument. Personal objections are fine, but in the end personal objections are pretty much "I'm right therefore you're wrong." I'd just like to see some factual evidence.

[QuirkyTemplate]

Does anyone know of the possible sociological effects of

1) Gay marriage?

2) Amending the constitution for discrimantory purposes?

To me, those are the two most important factors in this argument. Personal objections are fine, but in the end personal objections are pretty much "I'm right therefore you're wrong." I'd just like to see some factual evidence.

I'm not going to get into this again, but I do want to point out that I don't think it's inherently discriminatory. People can carry it out that way, but I don't it's fair to label it as such.

[Dregs]

I'm not going to get into this again, but I do want to point out that I don't think it's inherently discriminatory. People can carry it out that way, but I don't it's fair to label it as such.

Then don't get into it again. You can say its immoral, and give me a very good argument as to why you think it is so, but in the end, I have to take your word for it. Thats where the discussion will always end between us, and I think we are both resigned to that. But there has to be a level seperate from our own ideology that a debate can exist, and that has to contain the potential effects allowing or prohibiting gay marriage to exist.


And how can it not be discriminatory? Thats really beyond me QT.

[QuirkyTemplate]

And how can it not be discriminatory? Thats really beyond me QT.

mm ... how? I don't understand the confusion ...

[Dregs]

mm ... how? I don't understand the confusion ...

nm. It'll just be circular again.

[Cloric the Cleric]

I had to think for 2 days if I really wanted to post here or not, but...

*sigh*

This is the kind of thread I wished never, EVER, came up in the places I visit. I will never be able to look at a K3 or QT post again without thinking of this, and I hate that.

For right now, I think I should go.

Goodnight, all.

[Nachtnoir]

See, I think it's important that everyone separates ideas from people. What I mean is, I can believe homosexuality is wrong without being a bigot, ignorant, or hating the people who practice homosexuality. I agree with everyone who says that bigotry and hatred of homosexuals is wrong because all people are equal, all ideas, however, are obviously not.

I first want everyone to know that I am not going to hate anyone or even be angered by this thread. We have to keep in mind that we are friends. Friends are allowed to have differing opinions.

The point is that whether you beleive the gay lifestyle is wrong, that is an opinion. Our system of government was designed so that the majority could not and would not have power over the minority. Questions of morality in most circumstances are very suspect in these types of issues. If you look up the definition of "morality" in the dictionary, you will find that it is very fluid.

Saying that someone has a disease because you find something they do to be disgusting, or counter to the norm is a form of hate. This is not an "idea". This is not an accepted diagnosis in scientific, or psychological circles.

Taking away the opportunity for people who love one another and want to make a lifetime commitment with each other because you disagree with their union, is discrimination. Just as it was when mixed unions were deemed illegal.

[QuirkyTemplate]

I go into these discussions knowing full well that I have views that often aren't politically correct and will probably not earn me any friends. Like Nacht said though, we're all friends here (to some extent or another), and if it's one thing I've learned through all these controversial discussions it's that I accept that people have different opinions and views on life than I do, and I should love them regardless.

I have more more respect for Elin, Dregs, Arch, Wendy, Nacht, Anita, K3, James, apoc, Buck and many others because we've been through discussions like these where we express our views and allow others to critically examine them. If I seem like I'm too ... pushy, or wont let something go, it's probably because it is something that I think is directly linked to my purpose in life as a general 'seeker of truth' (no not SoT ;)), and specifically as a man who does his best (not always, sadly) to live for God.


I first want everyone to know that I am not going to hate anyone or even be angered by this thread. We have to keep in mind that we are friends. Friends are allowed to have differing opinions.

The point is that whether you beleive the gay lifestyle is wrong, that is an opinion. Our system of government was designed so that the majority could not and would not have power over the minority. Questions of morality in most circumstances are very suspect in these types of issues. If you look up the definition of "morality" in the dictionary, you will find that it is very fluid.

Saying that someone has a disease because you find something they do to be disgusting, or counter to the norm is a form of hate. This is not an "idea". This is not an accepted diagnosis in scientific, or psychological circles.

Taking away the opportunity for people who love one another and want to make a lifetime commitment with each other because you disagree with their union, is discrimination. Just as it was when mixed unions were deemed illegal.

The whole concept of "morality" is hotly debated anyway. By what standard is anything "moral" or "immoral"? The reason we disagree so much is because we go to different standards to see if some act is immoral nor not. Some think this standard is subjective (a kind of cultural construct), some think it's objective (a moral law outside of ourselves). I'm not going to say any more than that on the subject (been there, done that, have the links to prove it ;)).

I never said it was a 'disease'. I think I'd probably agree that homosexuality is a psychological disorder that needs treatment. Me not being a psychologist, or even well versed in psychology, can only say that according to the moral law I refer to it's a behavior that's immoral. My reasons for objecting to homosexuality were not because I find it 'disgusting' or because it's 'counter to the norm', but because I think there is a law beyond our laws that I have no say over.

There is no common ground between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage. Race isn't an action or a way of life, it's a physical trait. Homosexuality isn't a physical trait, it's a way of life. I do not hate homosexual people. I think they're doing something wrong, but a lot of people I love do things that I think are wrong. My friend gets drunk on the weekends. I think that's wrong, and I tell him this, but it doesn't change the fact that I love him.

[cobaltknight]

I'm sure this kind of discussion is happening all over our nation, at this very moment, so I understand the need to vent and self-justify. However, I find myself ashamed of anyone that calls themself human, yet chooses to belittle others because of a lifestyle. I am a flaming hetero, but I will always give my respect to any homosexual that braves the torment of our idiotic 'society'. A choice is just a choice. Imagine if I started denegrating and insulting people who wear the name 'Christian'. Anyone in that category would surely be outraged and would use the same arguments in their defense that I use to show people that any change to our constitution is utter folly. That irony is heavy on my mind. I want everyone to have more love for their fellow man, not more selfish oppression. The emotion of love is not an exclusive privilege owned by a certain portion of the populace. It is a basic human condition; a right with which we are born. I pray that more people start thinking about the feelings of others instead of focusing on themselves.

Pre-Note Note: I am not an atheist
Note: If anyone would like to debate that homosexuality is a 'sin' based on any biblical sources, I would be happy to respond.

[Molimo]

I'm sure this kind of discussion is happening all over our nation, at this very moment, so I understand the need to vent and self-justify. However, I find myself ashamed of anyone that calls themself human, yet chooses to belittle others because of a lifestyle.I think I agree.

It's not right to hate homosexuals just because they're homosexual. A lot of people, unfortunately, still do that, and it's those people who basically kill whatever will I have left to debate. I usually just end up walking away feeling disgusted at the end of those debates. Thankfully, I haven't seen anyone at this board adopt that point of view.

But it's fine to oppose gay marriage. I think it's perfectly possible to believe homosexuality is wrong without hating homosexuals. Several people in this thread don't agree with gay marriage, and I haven't lost any respect for them because of it.

And here, I was going to put an argument of my own, but I think it's all been said already.

[Harun]

I don't see why married people should have any more rights than unmarried people. This shouldn't even be an issue of the state- marriages should be done in individual religious or secular traditions. But, if it is to be a state institution, it should be open to everyone, same sex or opposite sex.

[Dregs]

This is a Central Netted Dragon, Ctenophorus nuchalis.

[Anita Blake]

~wonders if that was a deeply coded message meant to be strangely ironic in the native tongue of Dregsonians, or if dregs just posted randomly in the wrong thread~

ahh... these little mysteries. we may never know the answers.

[Dregs]

Or is Dregs just a crackpot who's lost his touch on reality, and now only refers to himself in the third person?

[Drewmandred]

I agree with Harun. The state institution or legal recognition or whatever should probably just be for 'partners', no discrimination based on gender. Then if you want to be married in some sort of tradition, then that's an exercise left for the couple to pick one that isn't going to go 'No, you two women aren't allowed to marry, it's a travesty against God.' or 'No, you man and woman aren't allowed to marry, what do you think this is?' or whatever.

Anyway, then everyone is happy. Homosexuals get some sort of legal recognition, and the Churches don't have to accept them.

But then, I also believe that the papal infallability granted by my Pope Card should apply when explaining things at work. So what would I know?

[Lilith]

gay marriage... hmmm... i have a lot of gay friends... now that i think about it... i dont see why not. its true though, that many people can accept homosexuality but not accept gay marriage... i myself dont understand that and really dont care... i think there are way bigger issues out there to deal with, (although i cant think of any right now, so dont ask... i just woke up). it should be left up to them. maybe people should look into the rising rate of divorces... what's going on with that?? i love gay people. :love:

and now, i leave before anyone gets mad at me... :p

~gets up and runs out~

[Nachtnoir]

I love our system of government. I really do. Gay marriage is one of those nice hot button issues that get all the politicians excited. It has all the ear marks of a make or break plank for the party platform. Taboo subjects often have a polarising effect on Americans. They gets voters in the polling booths.

It does however trivialize important issues though. Democrats use Gay Marriage as a bone to get gays to vote for their candidates. Republicans use it to push their own conservative agenda. Neither are really willing to do more than waffle on the subject though. Republican leaders come out and say "Allowing Gays to wed threatens the sanctity of marriage." However they make backdoor inroads to Gay groups through members of the more moderate persuation with empty promises of civil unions. Democratic leaders come out for gay marriage and say that they will do whatever it takes to make it happen, then their own candidate refuses to say more than two words on the subject.

Only in an election year would this even have come up. This is not a new part of the American Political Dialog. Men have loved other men for centuries, Women have loved other women for just as long. It has however gotten to be the vouge for people to say "I have gay friends and I think it's great." or "Being Gay is wrong and the people that live that lifestyle are wrong." Thus polarizing a percentage of the population against the other.

The majority of the population however could care less about whether Gay marriage is legal or not. Not really. It doesn't touch their lives, and it doesn't concern them. It shouldn't either. People think that if suddenly it is legal that there will be a huge influx of gays around them? There will not be any more gay people than their already is. They will just get to be together in a legal sense. It's not like they suddenly will start aggressively recruiting.

I can see it now. Gay recruiting offices right next to the Marine Recruiter. They can even use the same slogan "A few good men".

The arguement that it will damage our children is ludacris too. There are gay couples walking around holding hands and cohabitating now, our kids see it, and they aren't damaged by it. It won't effect them any more if gays are allowed to marry.

Stop wasting our tax money on expensive Constitutional Amendment Committees and get the money out there where it is needed. Feeding homeless, getting medication to our elderly, and getting jobs forthe unemployed, are all more important than what they have been spending the money on.

[Fencing Fool]

I've had good reason to think long and hard about the definition of marriage lately, both because I recently got married and because that marriage breaks even more of society's rules than gay marriage. My conclusion is that the current rules are outdated and should be ignored completely. They were formed during a time when basic human survival was constantly in question, and every resource had to be strictly regulated for the safety of all. Since we generally don't have to worry much about where our next meal is coming from anymore, such tight controls are no longer necessary. Let people love as they please!!!!

[Arianna]

just curious, why'does your marriage break more rules than gay marriage?

no pressure to tell if you don't want to share, i'm just a curious person.

[Buck]

Maybe he truely married out of love... either that or he married a tree. :umm:

[Vivacia]

Fencing Fool isn't from Kentucky , is he? ;)

[Nachtnoir]

No, he has a polyamarist marriage. Who revived this thread? I'm in the mood to debate now. (not a happy camper, check my highs and lows post.)

[Anita Blake]

well, this isn't very argumentative, nacht, but it might be food for thought....

my friends and i were talking about the political situation in canada right now (short story: we have a minority government "the liberal party", who is caught in the midst of a ridiculous scandal that our press is selling us that most people honestly don't care about, but which the opposition "the conservative party" is jumping on as a chance to call an election, and because of the scandal, it's likely that the liberals will lose their tenuous grasp on power and the conservatives will be our overlords until someone can manage to convince our nation that they should actually be voting NDP "New Democrat Party", mainly on the basis that they are neither Liberal nor Conservative, but have good, decent liberal-canuck policies...)

anyway, the culmination of this whole discussion was when my one friend pointed out that the conservatives (who are Very Conservative, socially) will be elected on the basis of the fact that they're not Liberal (who aren't very liberal, really) and all of a sudden gay marriage will be outlawed, abortion will be outlawed, pot won't be not outlawed, and we'll be bending over for our southern neighbors (but not to be sodomized, because that would be Bad, Wrong, Dirty, and Evil under the new adminstration ... right now it's A-OK :rolleyes: - we'll just ned over to be stepped on, that's all.)...

"everything that i thought Canada stood for will be outlawed!"


anyway, it made me sad to realize that a total non-issue will make us go from an inneffectually benign government to a crazy right-wing outlaw-all-that-we-stand-out-for government.

oh, and did i mention yet that it makes me furious that will all that's going on in the world, somehow it's a political issue to decide whether or not to allow to people of the same gender to be legally wed? who cares!? let them! put money into education already! gay marriage is such a non-issue, or rather, it should be. if you don't agree with it, then don't do it. does it really hurt you if your two male neighbors are husbands? what about ugly people marriages?! or stupid people marriages? i think it's much more harmful to the fabric of our society when two idiots get married, but we don't outlaw that, do we? Nope, we let complete morons get married, as long as they have a license and appear to be in mutual consent, regardless of their sub-high-school education, sub-minimum wage jobs, dangerously ignorant political and social views, abusive tendencies, lack of understanding of personal hygeine, alcoholism and/or drug abuse, and desire to have several impoverished children with no plan whatsoever for getting out of debt. Yeah, that's ok, those people should get married, but two chicks or two dudes?! uh-uh. no way. that's Unnatural. :furious: :rolleyes:

[Darth Everhate]

Nope, we let complete morons get married, as long as they have a license and appear to be in mutual consent, regardless of their sub-high-school education, sub-minimum wage jobs, dangerously ignorant political and social views, abusive tendencies, lack of understanding of personal hygeine, alcoholism and/or drug abuse, and desire to have several impoverished children with no plan whatsoever for getting out of debt. Yeah, that's ok, those people should get married, but two chicks or two dudes?! uh-uh. no way. that's Unnatural. :furious: :rolleyes:

lol~falls on floor laughing~ That's hilarious ~chuckles~ Anita you're too much, but I totally agree with you, there are way too many stupid people procreating out there and they fit your definition to the letter! I have to find a way to use that in a lesson ~can't stop laughing~ :D

[AquaFizz]

Okay...Heh. I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm still out on this issue. But..I have to say something...

If we were to test for intellegence, ask for political stance, or social ideology before letting couples get married ... we'd be accused of invading their privacy, as well. :p

[Buck]

And yet, if the two people getting married are the same sex all of a sudden it becomes a national crisis?

Fizz, whether you agree or not shouldnt matter to the gay couple wanting to wed. Its their private buiseness...so butt out.

[AquaFizz]

....WHAT are you TALKING about? Can you not read?

Anita was talking about how we let pretty much all kinds of idiots get married. She wasnt referring to whether they were gay or not. All I said was if we gave them a questionaire to make sure they're suitable to get married (be them gay or straight is besides the point)...we'd be infringing on their privacy. So, THATS why we have idiots getting married.

Mother of Barbie...

[Buck]

....WHAT are you TALKING about? Can you not read?

To answer your second question, yes I can read. I can also think, breathe and digest food all at the same time, all while I do a hand stand too.


And now to anwer your first:


oh, and did i mention yet that it makes me furious that will all that's going on in the world, somehow it's a political issue to decide whether or not to allow to people of the same gender to be legally wed? who cares!? let them! put money into education already! gay marriage is such a non-issue, or rather, it should be. if you don't agree with it, then don't do it. does it really hurt you if your two male neighbors are husbands? what about ugly people marriages?! or stupid people marriages? i think it's much more harmful to the fabric of our society when two idiots get married, but we don't outlaw that, do we? Nope, we let complete morons get married, as long as they have a license and appear to be in mutual consent, regardless of their sub-high-school education, sub-minimum wage jobs, dangerously ignorant political and social views, abusive tendencies, lack of understanding of personal hygeine, alcoholism and/or drug abuse, and desire to have several impoverished children with no plan whatsoever for getting out of debt. Yeah, that's ok, those people should get married, but two chicks or two dudes?! uh-uh. no way. that's Unnatural.

Anita was not being serious about regulating stupid, ugly or poor people. She was stating clearly, that we dont to prove her point on how butting into gay marriage is groundless. A very good arguement, btw :thup: Damn my inability to give rep *sigh*

Its not a question of invading their privacy. Gay marriagae should not be some secret underground event. It should happen and it should happen publicly. It's a question people's opinion not mattering. People dont agree with gay marriage, fine so what. Thats the way anita was going and thats where I was coming from.

This outlawing doesnt stop gay marriage at all. It just stops government recognition of it. Two very different things. All people pushing this ban are doing is disallowing tax breaks for monogamously coupled homosexuals...and well, that makes so much sense.


Why, oh Father of Ken... did you ressurect this thread?

[Nachtnoir]

OK! Here goes.....

Someone lock this damned thread please. It has been revived by the system it seems just to cause me headaches. This is flogging a dead horse. As far as I know there are only two ppl on site that this affects, and I am not posting here anymore, and the other hasn't been around in a while.

[Lilith]

i thought this thread was long gone as well... and i still believe what i said before...


i have a lot of gay friends... now that i think about it... i dont see why (they should be told they can't). its true though, that many people can accept homosexuality but not accept gay marriage... it should be left up to them. maybe, people should look into the rising rate of divorces instead... what's going on with that?? i love gay people. :love:

[AquaFizz]

OKay...FOR the record...

Yes, anita was being sarcastic and funny...

So was I. So sorry, i was speaking of marriage in general instead of gay marriage.

As for gay marriage...

I have an opinion on it. But, its not of dire importance. If the government ruled that gay couples could get married...I wouldn't care that all the sudden gay people could get married. What I DO care about is that there's such a big issue about it. There are FAR better things for our lawmakers to be spatting over instead. Like..THE WAR...like, ah, yes, our right to privacy..ABORTION...these things....they have to do with DEATH or They're in our constitution. Thats so...SO much more important. Why do we have to spend so much time on this? Just...decide and get it over with.

Furthermore, I'm sick of things being so wayward. YES, our founding fathers came to this country because they were being FORCED to celebrate a religion they didn't believe in and they wanted the FREEDOM to chose what to believe in. And, YES, they chose to be Christians. But, they made it quite obvious in the constitution that church and state SHOULDN'T be mixed. Thus, why the 10 commandments have been taken out of federal buildings. Do I agree with it? No. Just because it's THERE doesn't mean you have to LOOK at it. But, if we're going to cancle out religion in one area...we need to make sure we do it in ALL areas. Thus, to say we CAN'T have the commandments posted but we CAN outlaw gay marriage...our whole country is being very hypocritical. Its letting religion decide two different laws...but in one case, they're mixing church and state and in the other they're making sure its NOT mixed.

The whole issue is the one of the very reasons people in other countries don't respect us. We have NO IDEA what we're doing 50% of the time!!

..okay..sorry. I've had a very anti-political day. But...you know..whatever.

[Dregs]

We have NO IDEA what we're doing 50% of the time!!



As high as that?:umm:

[AquaFizz]

Well, okay..i was exaggerating in favor of the 'this or that' aspect of things.

*gives dregs noogies...wanders on*

[Nachtnoir]

We have NO IDEA what we're doing 50% of the time!!

Actually, I'd say they don't know what they're doing like 75% of the time.

[AquaFizz]

hehe!

~Throws something~

I PM'd you! Write back..beech!

[magatsu17]

I think Gay marriage is something that gonna happen one day. And in the future people will look back and be suprised there was ever a time when it was illegal. Kinda like how we look back on how bad racism was in this US a few decades ago with shock and suprise.

[Lilith]

i actually still look around in shock and surprise when i see that racism still exist. hopefully the future is brighter and people are more open minded, and smarter.

i love gay people. :love:

[night faerie]

I am not really crazy about people in general. I figure the gays are no worse than anyone else, tho.

Actually, I do have to try to keep myself from being prejudiced towards the Republicans. It's like a knee-jerk reaction not to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I am trying. No sarcasm.

The worst, tho, is definately, the Stupid People. Try as I might, I just cannot bring myself to even care if I dont give them the benefit of the doubt. They dont deserve it. Stupid People just drive me nuts.

Ah, we all have our flaws, I guess, and this is one of mine. :(