Happy Atheist Forum

So the religious folks are at it again in California.  I'm one of those atheists who is totally okay with gay marriage.  Heck, if they want to legally be tied to someone for eternity (or however long they wish to be), why stop them.  I also don't think anything they do is a threat to me, my marriage or my son and his well-being.

However, California is trying to pass Proposition 8, the Marriage Protection Amendment (http://www.protectmarriage.com/).   :crazy:

They are hinging their argument on the fact that if this amendment passes, schools will add to their current curriculum about marriage (??) the fact that gay marriage is all right... they want to protect children from...

Quote"being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs."

:brick:

Their logic disgusts me.  I guess this all makes me a bad mom because we've taught our son that all marriage is good and the same, regardless the gender of the participants and that gay lifestyles are fine.  What they do behind closed doors has no bearing on what I do.

And calling it the Marriage Protection Amendment, claiming it protects children, is misleading to the majority of voters who don't ever bother to read what the amendments are even about.  I can't TELL you how many people tell me they vote and just read a little bit on the ballot but none of the information that is sent to them beforehand.

Okay... I guess I'm done.  They won't be happy until we are all  

I can't see any argument against gay marriage except for a religious one.  I'm a little uncomfortable around openly gay people I gotta admit, but it's a harmless act of love between two willing adults, so how cruel can they be to limit the rights of people who love each other?  I mean if we allow gay marriage it's not like gayness is going to take over or something.  What are the Wingnuts thinking?  Militant lesbians in bridal gowns and jackboots storming the White House lawn?  Gay men in tuxes and floral corsages attacking the Pentagon with bridal bouquets and booklets of designer paint chips?  Please.  Just let them get married.  Can this really do any harm?  Really?  If anything at all, it will give the economy a little boost with all the new wedding plans and tourism from honeymoons.

The harm is that those poor innocent children may actually start to believe that being gay isn't a bad thing and all of that time spent brainwashing them will be for naught.  Those people have spent a lot of time and money at church, indoctrinating their young to believe that they are right, what they do is sanctioned by god himself, and everyone else is evil and wrong.

And masquerading that amendment as a marriage protection act so their kids will remain brainwashed is disgusting and a perversion of the voting process in this country.

The use of the word "lifestyle" irritates the hell out of me. It's just parroted again and again to imply that gays are different and different by choice. I wonder how many christians stop and think about how long they pondered their choices, before choosing a heterosexual lifestyle. This battle is one they are slowly losing, the laws are starting to come around.

There is a No on Prop 8 website and they need help too, so please visit them and add your voice to those who support the right of ANYONE to get married.

No on Proposition 8, California Marriage Protection Amendment (http://noonprop8.com/home)


Thanks!

rlrose328, you are not alone.  The same sort of crap is going on in AZ, too.  Stupid propositions!

AZ Prop 102:  "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

http://yesformarriage.com/ (http://yesformarriage.com/)

http://www.votenoprop102.com/web/index.php (http://www.votenoprop102.com/web/index.php)

All of this years propositions are bigoted and/or superfluous.  

ARGH!  SO frustrating!

I love the "valid or recognized" part.  So if a same-sex couple married in Massachusetts moves to Arizona, does that mean their marriage isn't valid there?  Or here in Oregon?  Or in future California?

So if a hetero couple with an underage bride is married in a state where THAT is legal, but moves to a state where that ISN'T legal, is THEIR marriage not recognized or valid?  Probably not... hetero marriage is okay regardless.

I sat here and watched the videos on the No On Prop 8 site... one with people of the clergy saying how they do support it and why.  I was in tears.  It's so frustrating to see religious people who are aware of real life and real people, not the idealized world that evangelicals and fundies live in.

Marriage, in a way, is a really strange topic, isn't it?  I mean, to one way of thinking, who could give a crap if the government recognizes your "union", right?  So, you live together, you love each other, the government refuses to acknowledge that you're married, and .... so what?

The issue gets sticky because the same government gives certain legal recognition to married couples.  You have joint property, you automatically have some power of attorney concerning your spouse, etc.  This, I presume, is what all the fuss is about, right?

Okay - so now, what difference does it make if you're in sexual love?  Why shouldn't two perfectly heterosexual men or women, who are great life-long friends, not be able to own a home together, cover one with the other's health care plan, adopt and raise children, or make life-saving medical choices for each other?  Why do two people have to be in a form of sexual love (hetero- or homo- sexual) for all of the above to apply?

I'm not really proposing an answer here, I'm just pointing out that the entire institution of state-recognized-marriage is sort of arbitrary and strange.  Personally, I think it was a just another step down the road of government getting involved in inappropriate areas of people's lives.  Who needs/wants a government to "regulate" family dynamics?  In what way is the construction of the house-next-door's marriage impinging upon my personal rights and/or responsibilities?  Why would I care if it was populated by two heterosexually loving people, two homosexually loving people, or two non-sexually-but-platonically-loving persons who have decided to blend their fortunes together and live in a sort of "collective-a-deux"?

I don't think that the "religious people" (anybody can be against gay marriage, even atheists) are against homosexuals getting together and starting families. They just don't want heterosexual couples to be lumped together with non-heterosexual couples. Basically, marriage was considered to be an intimate union betwen a man and a woman for a long time. Throughout history men and women have been getting together to start families (in western society it was between one man and one woman). Only now do we have people of the same sex coming together and starting families.

Some heterosexual couples don't want to hear homosexual couples say, "you're married, just like us". They would like it to be called something else, like a "union" (or butt-buddies, lol j/k, Southpark anyone?). It's just that they want the line for marriage to be drawn at one man and one woman. They don't want it to spread to incorporate maybe other groups like two men and one woman, or three men, or 5 men and 5 women. The argument basically goes, "marriage has been considered a union between one man and one woman, so let's just keep it that way. Other unions can be called something else, but not marriage."

It's really a semantics issue, because we could call "blargh" a "union between one man and one woman" and "glargh" a "union between two men or two women". I think that this is just an issue of definitions, and I think that's what they mean by "protecting marriage": they mean to maintain the old-held definition of the word "marriage".


Of course, not allowing homosexual couples to get together and start families is a seperate issue entirely.

Yes, it's the legal recognition that is the issue, Steve... and it is a matter of semantics, Martian.  Both of you have nailed the two facets of the problem I have with this entire issue.

The relligious folks want to keep the word "marriage" for themselves and let same-sex and non-marrying heteros from using it in any way, shape, or form, leaving them with "domestic partnership" and any number of other colloquialisms.  The problem with that, besides being MONUMENTALLY selfish, is that not all rights available to married folks are afforded to those with domestic unions.  Here is a very good About.com page (http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm) with the differences.  ONLY marriage is recognized in ALL states and given all benefits by law.

The others don't allow children to be automatically recognized as a child of both without legal adoption.  Not all allow partners in emergency rooms or to make very hard end-of-life decisions for the partner without a passel of paperwork in place.  Only with a marriage can an American sponsor their non-American spouse to enter the country.  

Many of these things can be obtained by same-sex couples... with thousands of dollars of legal costs that I and my husband don't have to pay JUST because we're a hetero MARRIED couple.

Steve, those two life-long friends at least have the OPTION of getting married so they can share a house, yet they can choose not to and still do the legal paperwork thing.  But their same-sex life-partner counterparts do not have any options at all.

But I do agree that it's a farce that the government is even involved... what I do in my bedroom is no one's business but my own, but the Conservatives and, need I say it, the Christians, are hell-bent on stopping any of us from doing anything in our bedrooms that they don't like and if they don't like it, they'll make sure you're legally unable to do it.

Make them ALL "legal unions," eliminate the word "marriage" or "married" altogether, and then everyone can do their own thing.  Won't EVER happen, but it's a dream.  All I know is changing state constitutions to ban gays from marrying is wrong.

Do any of you ignorant fucks realize that atheists can be against gays too?

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

Quote from: "DeathSShead1488"Do any of you ignorant fucks realize that atheists can be against gays too?

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

We're the ignorant fucks? Do you have no idea what irony is? Pillock!

Kyu

Quote from: "DeathSShead1488"Do any of you ignorant fucks realize that atheists can be against gays too?

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

wow, I never thought of that. thanks! I'm going to start killing gay people when I get off work.

Want to join me DeathShithead1488? You keep a look out and I'll hold the gun.

Quote from: "DeathSShead1488"Do any of you ignorant fucks realize that atheists can be against gays too?

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

Thought you might like a little gay. Dolt.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages41.fotki.com%2Fv1243%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1216217665617-vi.gif&hash=64a7e561c5c77885189e2b1671f1c2f4c32bada6)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Thought you might like a little gay. Dolt.

Wasn't it Quentin Crisp who advanced the view that those who show the kind of level of hatred they do about something (in this case gays) probably are actually closeted whatever they most hate themselves?

I wonder what it is the DeathSh**Head most fears?

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Thought you might like a little gay. Dolt.

Wasn't it Quentin Crisp who advanced the view that those who show the kind of level of hatred they do about something (in this case gays) probably are actually closeted whatever they most hate themselves?

I wonder what it is the DeathSh**Head most fears?

Kyu

Could be exactly what you are insinuating. Although, it could just be a 16-year-old taking counter-culture to a rather unfortunate extreme. Either way, it's rather douchey.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Thought you might like a little gay. Dolt.

this will push him over the edge:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.phuketgazette.net%2Fnewsimages%2Fbull12272004-3879-4.jpg&hash=8c779aeded54537e9402bc0e0742d0e7ebb98ee1)

Dear death dude, I hope you get over your disgusting case of hate.

Sending you a big fat faggoty kiss-kiss!

Quote from: "DeathSShead1488"Do any of you ignorant fucks realize that atheists can be against gays too?

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

You do realize that you are the ignorant fuck here, right?

Oh, and if I want someone to tell me how good my genes are, I'll ask a specialist, not some wannabe-cool wannabe-fascist kid who loves to hear himself speak... Or read himself post. I guess this is my politically correct way of saying that if you have nothing constructive to say and no way nor intentions of backing up your claims and ideas with science, logic and reason, then maybe you should say nothing at all.

How do you guys feel about "civil unions" as opposed to marriages? Many Christians who voted against the marriage proposition feel that civil unions are okay. They simply want to protect a word.

Before you answer the question consider the extension of forcing an alteration of language. What if homosexuals felt that they were being looked down on because they were called homosexuals and they wanted instead to be called heterosexuals in order to improve equality, what would you say to a hypothetical proposition like that?

Quote from: "Titan"How do you guys feel about "civil unions" as opposed to marriages? Many Christians who voted against the marriage proposition feel that civil unions are okay. They simply want to protect a word.

Before you answer the question consider the extension of forcing an alteration of language. What if homosexuals felt that they were being looked down on because they were called homosexuals and they wanted instead to be called heterosexuals in order to improve equality, what would you say to a hypothetical proposition like that?

Separate but equal, eh? We tried that before. Didn't go over well.

Words are important. We think in words, therefore our thoughts can only be as good as our language. It's insulting to think that where and how two consenting adults want to use their genitals is any business of the government, much less that of fussy Christians who think it's icky. I can't remember who said it, but if gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, then they should have every right.  

As for changing the word, South Park made a very good point...

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043 (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043)

Incidentally, some call marriage a "sacred" union between a man and a woman, but once you have to go to the courthouse and fill out paperwork, nothing "sacred" remains.

I'm sorry, how is separate but equal applicable here? Since the whole idea is that the same rights are given to both. Churches are welcomed to perform civil unions as they like.

QuoteWords are important. We think in words, therefore our thoughts can only be as good as our language. It's insulting to think that where and how two consenting adults want to use their genitals is any business of the government, much less that of fussy Christians who think it's icky. I can't remember who said it, but if gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, then they should have every right.

I know Kinky Friedman said it... I'm not sure if he was the first. But again, they aren't trying to eliminate homosexuality via the state, merely giving gays all the rights they have but simply with a different name.

QuoteAs for changing the word, South Park made a very good point...

I love South Park but I could have sworn you were going to reference the curse word episode.

QuoteIncidentally, some call marriage a "sacred" union between a man and a woman, but once you have to go to the courthouse and fill out paperwork, nothing "sacred" remains.

Um....why?

Quote from: "Titan"How do you guys feel about "civil unions" as opposed to marriages? Many Christians who voted against the marriage proposition feel that civil unions are okay. They simply want to protect a word.

Before you answer the question consider the extension of forcing an alteration of language. What if homosexuals felt that they were being looked down on because they were called homosexuals and they wanted instead to be called heterosexuals in order to improve equality, what would you say to a hypothetical proposition like that?

From what I've read, the civil unions that exist now do not apply the same rights to the participants that marriage does (http://www.yffn.org/admin/spi/marriagevsunion.html) (significantly, medical decisions and recognition of the civil union in other states).

MANY cultures prior to christianity practiced the legal joining of partners.  Why do we have to roll over to the Christian belief that the word "marriage" is sacred and somehow reserved only for them?  It's discriminatory at best.  This website has a great list of pros and cons (http://www.balancedpolitics.org/same_sex_marriages.htm)... and the cons are all personal belief type things rather than real-life circumstances and thus, shouldn't apply to lawmaking.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Incidentally, some call marriage a "sacred" union between a man and a woman, but once you have to go to the courthouse and fill out paperwork, nothing "sacred" remains.

yeah like a "sacred" marriage ceremony in las vegas performed by an elvis impersonator.

Quoteyeah like a "sacred" marriage ceremony in las vegas performed by an elvis impersonator.

That right there is an excellent point. That is one of the reasons I'm not holding on to the word "marriage" that much.

QuoteFrom what I've read, the civil unions that exist now do not apply the same rights to the participants that marriage does (significantly, medical decisions and recognition of the civil union in other states).

That's just wrong, I agree with you. Denying someone rights secretly by using a different word is akin to separate but equal.

QuoteMANY cultures prior to christianity practiced the legal joining of partners. Why do we have to roll over to the Christian belief that the word "marriage" is sacred and somehow reserved only for them? It's discriminatory at best. This website has a great list of pros and cons... and the cons are all personal belief type things rather than real-life circumstances and thus, shouldn't apply to lawmaking.

Another excellent point. I think I'm going to be swayed by you guys on this subject.

Quote from: "Titan"How do you guys feel about "civil unions" as opposed to marriages? Many Christians who voted against the marriage proposition feel that civil unions are okay. They simply want to protect a word.

I think ALL marriages should be civil (state) unions, I think the right to marry anyone should be taken away from anyone but state  representatives.

Kyu

Why? It has ALWAYS been a religiously tied affair. Isn't that the government getting their hands into religions.

Quote from: "Titan"Why? It has ALWAYS been a religiously tied affair. Isn't that the government getting their hands into religions.

How do you figure?  My husband and I are married and we did so without any religion whatsoever.  WE got our license, we hired a retired judge, we were married outdoors by a lake.  Not one prayer was said, not one bell was rung, no bibles were harmed in the proceedings.

Marriage and government are secularly joined via the marriage license... I can get one of those at a State or County or City office without the church's involvement at all.  The church has their own rituals regarding marriage, but that doesn't mean that the government is involved with those rituals.

Originally, there was no ceremony at all involved, just an agreement to be together... an informal contract.  Churches got involved so that God would be a party to the arrangement.  Governments got involved probably because when the "happy couple" were no longer happy, legalities became involved, so the informal contract became formal and could then be officially and legally dissolved when the time came.

Remember, the bible is not an historical document.  Just because it says that God sanctions marriage doesn't make it a legal precedent.

QuoteHow do you figure? My husband and I are married and we did so without any religion whatsoever. WE got our license, we hired a retired judge, we were married outdoors by a lake. Not one prayer was said, not one bell was rung, no bibles were harmed in the proceedings.

Not the act as it is known now. But the whole concept of people being united throughout life is a strictly religious concept. One that, until modern times, has been held as sacred.

QuoteOriginally, there was no ceremony at all involved, just an agreement to be together... an informal contract. Churches got involved so that God would be a party to the arrangement. Governments got involved probably because when the "happy couple" were no longer happy, legalities became involved, so the informal contract became formal and could then be officially and legally dissolved when the time came.

Is this coming from a source?

Titan, I will continue to disagree with you over the "marriage has always been divinely sacred" issue.  I got some of my knowledge from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) and many other websites that discuss marriage, wedding, religion, etc.

Marriage was mostly a business proposition between families, set up by families to the advantage of one or both... hence, dowries.  Love and the church or god or religion had very little to do with it.  AND the church condoned and encouraged male homosexuality for centuries, though preferring that men marry a woman at some point in order to procreate.  Maybe to protect the virtue of unmarried females?  I don't know.

Organized religion and the concept of GOD hasn't been around since the beginning of time (and I'm talking evolutionary time, not creationist time), so how on earth can it have ALWAYS been a religious concept?

i would say gay marriages is not that harm but where does Aids come from  ? :)

Quote from: "wazzz"i would say gay marriages is not that harm but where does Aids come from  ? :)

huh?

Quote from: "wazzz"i would say gay marriages is not that harm but where does Aids come from  ? :)

I was a trained AIDS support person in the 80s and as such, I attended many training sessions which included the history of the virus.  From what they told us then (and it may very well have changed with further research), the virus originated in Africa in wild animals (of the primate genus) to whom it did no damage.  It passed to humans when native hunters would kill and eat the organs of the animals (to obtain the characteristics of that animal).

The virus started mutating in humans at that point.  As the native lands were developed, they became workers in the hotels and spas that were being built.  At some that catered to alternative lifestyles, the workers fraternized with the guests.  The virus was brought to the USA by a male flight attendant who frequented the hotels there (Patient Zero) then spread the virus, unknowingly at first.  As it spread, it mutated to what we now know as the HIV virus.

It then spread to the IV drug community through shared needles and unprotected intercourse and to the hemophiliac community through tainted blood transfusions, the blood probably coming from the homeless and drug community through paid blood donations back before we knew to test the blood for viruses.

Now, white gay and bi males and black males are at the highest risk for contracting HIV (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/science/12HIV.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/H/Homosexuality) due to unprotected sex and drug use.

Now... Dr. Alan Cantwell has published books on his theory (http://www.rense.com/general61/outof.htm) that AIDS was a genocidal plot by the government to rid the US of gays using bioweapon researched viruses on gay men for study without their knowledge.  I think it sounds ridiculous.

This article from 1999 (http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=8535) outlines the story I was told in the 80s and has actual scientific facts about chimps.

Finally, this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and_AIDS_misconceptions) states that the flight attendant Patient Zero story is inaccurate and was probably believed so widely due to a book called "And The Band Plays On" by Randy Shilts.  (I have have that book... great book.)

So... is that more than you ever wanted to know?  

Quote from: "Martian"Ibecause we could call "blargh" a "union between one man and one woman" and "glargh" a "union between two men or two women".

I'm completely in favor of this.



My view on marriage is that any (two? haven't really thought through how I feel about more if it's not a matter of brainwashed women told that they're supposed to) human people should be able to get married, and be able to call it marriage.
I really don't get the people who are okay with Civil Unions but against Marriage.

Quote from: "Moosader"I really don't get the people who are okay with Civil Unions but against Marriage.

Do you gets people who are pro Marriageâ,,¢ but against Civil Unions?   oO(You see, I find "Civil Union" quite stupid-sounding. In the purely sound-related way, that is, not meaning-wise)

There's nothing civil about forcing gays to have civil unions.

Srsly.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Moosader"I really don't get the people who are okay with Civil Unions but against Marriage.

Do you gets people who are pro Marriageâ,,¢ but against Civil Unions?   oO(You see, I find "Civil Union" quite stupid-sounding. In the purely sound-related way, that is, not meaning-wise)

I understand that gay people give them the jibblies and therefore call them evil, so they shouldn't be allowed to sin or whateverblahblah, should be forced to be "saved" and turn straight. =P
(That's my interpretation, anyway).

I don't get what's with giving people the same thing as marriage (civil union) but not letting it be called marriage.

The day will eventually come when the question of whether or not gays should have marriage rights will be socially identical to asking if women should have the right to vote. Or if African Americans should be enslaved. The Bible preached of slavery and the degrading of women but in spite of "God's Holy word" we accomplished tearing down barriers of long held, unquestioned beliefs, and slowly distributed rights to women and African Americans. Of course it took much longer than it should have but as each generation becomes open minded and aware of the ridiculous absurdity of their fathers disgusting beliefs, they do something to bring about change. Just look at how this generation is beginning to divide on this issue. And I dare say the younger generation rising up to take their place is even more open to the rights of homosexuals. Unfortunately it's going to take a little bit more time for the gays rights to become a moral axiom, but I would imagine our children will see it happen in their lifetime.

Today to say that women should not have the same privelages of a man is dubbed sexism. To claim that a man of another race is lower in status to you and is worthy of slavery is called racism. To all those who say your sexual orientation is superior to anothers and thus deserves better treatment, we will find a more vile; a more politically correct; a more suiting name than homophobes. And that shall be the title you will earn in history.

In response to anyone who is thinking that civil unions are the same as marriages.

Here is one difference...

In Arkansas, Act 1 passed the recent vote.  This pretty much made it impossible for a non "married" couple to adopt or foster a child.  If I were to get a civil union with my wife, we wouldn't be able to adopt or foster a child.  If I and my wife were to co habitate without any attempt to get any type of legal contract recognized by the government, we would be barred from adopting or fostering a child.

Now this sucks, I've been faithful to the same woman for eight years (the last four living together and the four previous when I was in the military being bounced around the planet).  We've known each other since before high school.  So that's at least 12 years we've known each other.  We've been though a ton of shit together, more than a lot of "married" couples have.  I think we've paid our dues without having to be told we are somehow, lesser persons as a couple because we didn't sign a legal contract.

Now, it is possible that we can go to a courthouse and get the legal contract squared away, but that contract doesn't mean squat to either of us beyond other contractual tidbits it opens up (insurance, filing for taxes, automatic power of attorney, being able to see me if I'm ever hurt bad enough to be rushed to the emergency room, etc).

This who marriage issue seems to be a civil rights issue, I don't know of many gay couples who are trying to get married suing churches in an attempt to force the church to perform the ceremony.  I do hear about suing for the legal rights to be considered a "married" couple and be allowed the legal protections that are afforded by the legal contract of marriage.

Yup, you nailed it Jolly.  What I got by marrying my husband, gay couples must obtain a lawyer and file paperwork to get, and they can't even get ALL of what I have that way.  It's disgusting that the religious and anti-gay marriage folks can't SEE that.

I also find it ironic that the majority of the people who voted for Prop 8 are:  Latinos, Blacks and Mormons.  All of these groups have faced (and STILL face) significant discrimination from the American public at large.  You'd THINK they'd KNOW better.

An addendum.  

While I have come to realize over the years that I don't care much for religions as a whole, there are some parts of the structure/system that I didn't have any problems with.  The concept of marriage was one of them.  Back in the days when marriage was about two people being true to each other, showing compassion toward each other, wanting to be there for the good time and the bad, the love and care and devotion that two people could show each other, and starting a family, I honestly thought that marriage was a pretty important institution.  I was perfectly willing to wait until I was damn sure I was with the right person before getting married to them so as to respect what seemed at the time a pretty decent tradition.

Its what I've been hearing over the last handful of years, that marriage is about procreation.  Marriage is only about penis and vagina.  All of that other happy hippy dippy crap (that had me convinced that a marriage was an important institution) wasn't important any more.  Of all the groups that would use a biological argument to defend their position, never would I have thought it would be the religiously minded.

its really a good discussion all through..thanks for posting it.

It never fails to amuse me that people bring up the Bible in defense of discrimination against adult consensual relationships and then equate same sex adult consensual relationships with pedophilia and polygamy. I find this so amusing because the Bible speaks of and condones both pedophilia and polygamy with many of its primary characters practicing one or both. Perhaps the technical term for what is frequently practiced in the Bible, even by God, is hebephilia. Please recall that the Virgin Mary was a child by today’s standards, a child who really had no option to say no to her impregnation.

I don’t follow the word of the Bible which condemns homosexuality, the eating of shellfish, and the mixing of fibers in a fabric while condoning hebephilia, genocide, and slavery. I’m simply thunderstruck that such a book could be used as a moral absolute for anyone.

Shouldn’t we instead use the yardstick of compassion and harm? If something is the compassionate path and does no harm, how can it be wrong?

As a victim of sexual abuse I am outraged that anyone DARE equate something as beautiful and nurturing as a loving relationship between adults with pedophilia. There is NO love in pedophilia. I’m outraged that a person or a society would treat loving adult partners as equivalent to life-wrecking pedophiles. They discriminate against and demonize innocent, decent human beings.

Of all things in this world love is a thing we need to nurture and support rather than attack. I suspect one day, our children will look back and be sickened by our actions as we are sickened by miscegenation laws and segregation. I know I’m standing on the side of love and compassion, the side of no harm, so I have no fear of the future’s judgment.

This is an issue that I feel strongly about. No, I'm not gay, but I do know quite a few people who are. They are no different from straight people other than sexual preference. If they want to love each other, be married, adopt children (or get IVF), and live happily ever after, THEN FUCKING LET THEM! I am so sick of these religious nuts saying it will ruin the sanctity of marriage. Well, let us see here. As it stands, every legal marriage in the U.S. has about a 50% (actually slightly less I believe) chance of surviving.

So, we will allow two straight people (one man and one woman) to marry each other, no matter the circumstances. How long have they known each other? Are they sober (Vegas style)? Do they love each other?

Now, on the other hand we can have two loving adults who have been in a relationship for years, but, OH NO, they're gay.

WHO GIVES A FUCK!!! Leave them alone!!! It won't affect you, your family, or your dull, unhappy heterosexual marriage in any fucking way, so shut up!!!!!

P.S. Excuse my language above. Like I said, I feel strongly about this subject. This will be the next civil rights struggle, and it will turn out the same way. And our world will be better for it.

Thank You very much that your thought is different from others. Protecting marriage is big matter now.Some country like Pakistan they are not keep their marriage for long term their rule is different.

The entire idea of this being such a massive issue boggles my mind.  Focusing on what two consenting adults do in a legal ceremony just seems like an total waste of energy.  There is also a financial issue by maintaining these relationships as civil unions, most insurance companies do not allow you to add a partner or significant other in a civil union.  Financially even leaving your money, that you very well may be earning together to the other person after death is difficult.  Suzie Orman wrote a book on the financial disparity caused by the civil union or outright ban on gay marriage and it was really interesting.  Maybe these proposition writers could spend their time focusing on poverty, crime, babies having babies, child abuse, education, disease control, anything other than something like who is marrying who.

Quote from: "DeathSShead1488"It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

Where is your proof?

Or, don't bigots need proof these days?

Quote from: "Titan"What if homosexuals felt that they were being looked down on because they were called homosexuals and they wanted instead to be called heterosexuals in order to improve equality, what would you say to a hypothetical proposition like that?

What if Christians felt that they were being looked down on because they were called Christians and they wanted instead to be called Atheists in order to improve equality, what would you say to a hypothetical proposition like that?

Hi people
First of all may I apologize for my poor English
That's a quite hot topic also here in Spain. See, recently the government passed a law on gay marriage plus all that stuff related to gay people adopting children.
This raised quite a ruckus... there were demonstrations (organised by the party on the opposition, who is consisted mostly of right-wing traditionalists/catholics and a minority of neoconservatives and supported of course by the catholic church)
The main topic there was that "gay marriage:
a) is not real marriage, because marriage-is-man-plus-woman.
This one, apart from the religious considerations, is a mere "grammar fallacy" combined with a dose of "this is like that cos i say it so"
and
b) it will destroy family.
Nothing new under the sun. As far as I know, there in America people who oppose gay marriage tend to have the same arguments.

Now there's a fact that i'd like to point out:
in Spain there was no divorce until the late 70s (in fact even in 1976 if a woman escaped from a wifebeating husband, she could go to jail for "home abandonment", women couldn't have their own bank accounts, let alone businesses or any "adult stuff" without the supervision of her husband. In fact women were considered underage people when it comes to anything really serious - now we talk here about how bad are the taliban... ironies of life-)
When the time came to speak about the divorce, the reaction both of the clergy and the right wing was "It's gonna destroy the family, it's gonna destroy the country" and of course, that was all part of a judeomasonic conspiration sponsored by the evil communists that hate us.
Ok so the divorce came and look, nothing has really changed (well actually it has, some abused women can now live free you know) but nothing was "destroyed"
Also it would be interesting to mention that the majority of those who were so angry about the divorce being so evil, have ended up having divorced and remarried multiple times.
So... for those who oppose gay marriage... look it on the bright side, maybe it's your chance to get out of the closet and really be who you need to be!
I guess in some years we'll have some gay & married republican politicians (for example). Look at Pim Fortuyn from Holland (though he was not married)

Quote from: "oldschooldoc"They are no different from straight people other than sexual preference. If they want to love each other, be married, adopt children (or get IVF), and live happily ever after, THEN FUCKING LET THEM!

Completely agree.
The funny thing is, why people who have been oppressed (look, until recently here you could go to jail if you were gay) and fought the system, now could think of adhere to an institution in whose name they were prosecuted (i dunno really how to write this ok, easy on me please) But hey, people should do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt anyone.

This poses a question: why do only married people should have the right to adopt children? denying this right to single people (or people who for example live together but don't want the state or the church to have anything with their love) would be comparable to saying that single mothers are bad mothers, for example.

Salud.

But John Furry..here the matter of gay marriage is being discussed..why are you telling the marriages in Pakistan.. It would have been better if you talk something about russian women or russian marriage as I think you possess a lot of knowledge regarding this...

huuu haaaa huuu haaaa

 :banna:  

I am agreed with you John Furey...Culture in most of the islamic countries like pakistan, afganisthan are so much rude. So everyone should be careful of it.

QuoteIt IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

Who cares?  

Even by your own standards gay marriage should be legal: if you don't like them, don't make them breed :eek:  

QuoteIt IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

Well it's not exactly the norm but it does occur in nature.

Quote from: "DeathSShead1488"Do any of you ignorant fucks realize that atheists can be against gays too?

It IS AGAINST NATURE. They are born gay, but it is not a good gene to have!

"Ignorant fucks", eh? If it is a genetic trait, then by definition it is natural.

Bigotry never does seem to manage a coherent defense of itself.

I wonder why government is in the marriage business anyway.

I say dump marriage licenses entirely and use business contract law instead. Let the people decide what sort of familial arrangements they want, outlining rights and privileges granted to one another, monetary and financial arrangements, child rearing responsibilities, and dissolution criteria.

Then gay, straight, bi, mono- and polyamorous folks could all do their thing their own way without dragging religion into it at the government level.

Quote from: "JillSwift"I wonder why government is in the marriage business anyway.

I say dump marriage licenses entirely and use business contract law instead. Let the people decide what sort of familial arrangements they want, outlining rights and privileges granted to one another, monetary and financial arrangements, child rearing responsibilities, and dissolution criteria.

Then gay, straight, bi, mono- and polyamorous folks could all do their thing their own way without dragging religion into it at the government level.

Plus one

[youtube:2zc80txd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA[/youtube:2zc80txd]

Amusing and relevant.

Protecting marriage... from folks who want to get married?

It's like people who want to protect their ___s from them minorities.