Gay Marriage 2008- Topic revisited

[Hakaku]

The churches only problem is the word Marriage. Gays need to approach this different. They need to fight for Civil Unions and call it that or come up with a new word.

lol, from a linguistic point of view, this is a very poorly formulated argument. Unfortunately for you, the term "marriage" (definitions) cannot be dictated by a few radicals who want to change our language. Albeit it worked for the Académie Française to reform the French language back in medieval times, as they were viewed as the elitists of society; today we don't live under an elitist nor theocratic society. Language is a constantly changing thing; it is the reason why latin has fallen out of usage, and why Esperanto will never acquire the status of a world-wide political language. I suppose, like some of our ancestors, you have a very narrow view of the world, where only white people, one white man one white woman, are allowed to consider marriage too?

And for the church you so preach, if we all followed it word-per-word, there would be no more children, and humanity as we know it should cease to exist. Being married to God and practicing abstinence are definitely a better solution to our problems of homosexuality (which happens to be not only cross-cultural and historical, but it also occurs in animals and primates). And if you literally lived the Bible word per word, you should be stoning* sinners, not being anywhere near your wife for at least a week after her menstrual cycle, not touching anything she touches, etc. I sometimes wonder if people who preach have actually read the Bible? Or is literacy an impossibility faced with cultural prejudices.

*note: 'stoning' doesn't mean throwing rocks, but the original hebrew term translates as 'causing someone to pass out, possibly by means of intoxication, and then having them killed'. (So much for the 5th or 6th commandment depending on your branch of Christianity, "You shall not murder")

[Squeezer]

I could care less what they do inside their own home, but when it infringes on my rights, my religion (word marriage), the future of my family (allowing gay men into female locker rooms) then it impedes on me. Allowing gay marriage is only another step in the direction of marriage with animals, a group of 3 getting married ect. The foundations of marriage should be held sacred not stampeded on by people with no respect for it to begin with.

ps done posting in this thread now

So go protect the sanctity. You said nothing and continue to say nothing while people "stampede" over it with no respect. Here in America more than 50% of marriages fail. There are tons of straight people getting married for the wrong/stupid reasons. They're the ones that need to stop having weddings.

But instead you want to restrict rights to people who want to marry so they can raise a family in a healthy environment. So they can speak for each other's estate and own a house together. They want to cement the relationships they've held outside of the law for years and be able to recognize their status in the professional realm.

[genocidal]

I wanted to just say nothing but HateTheFake keeps saying, "Read Freud, it is rly informative about faggots." Please cite an essay for me so we can have a discussion. Freud never makes any of the vague assertions you think your high school psychology books said.

I'm a huge psychoanalysis and Freud fan so it gets personal when morons say random shit and then say, "Freud said it." Think: me saying free market is racist and unsubstantiated to Jerome.

[Summa]

From a religious stand point I feel its wrong.

I don't understand this. I'm going to assume you're a christian on this one. Here's my logic: God gave man free will (that is free will, ability to choose good or bad, whichever they please), God states that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. So in the eyes of Christianity the people are free to knowingly or unknowingly sin. You cannot dictate their free will. You can inform them that they are wrong for what they are doing in the eyes of God, but you cannot set up a system that chooses for them because isn't impeding someone else's free will a sin? Civil unions of gay couples are something that have no direct detriment to society and in no way individually hurt you, so why is it wrong? They may be paving their own pathway to hell, but in no way can you stop them from doing it. It is their freedom to choose a life of "sin" or one of "moral upstanding". I don't see the grounds on which you can forbid someone from getting a civil union(that's not even marriage technically because God doesn't recognize it as such).

As far as me on gay marriage, I am for allowing any two people that feel a strong enough bond or connection to engage in marriage to do such. I don't think I have the right to tell them they can't, and quite honestly I guarantee a lot of gay couples that aren't necessarily married by the state have lifelong commitments to eachother. Marriage by law or not, they are married in spirit, so why not just let them make it official? Plus it'll generate more money for the courts from civil cases :P

Edit: Wow, and HTF runs away 3 mins before this gets posted

[Liquid Blue]

I could care less what they do inside their own home, but when it infringes on my rights, my religion (word marriage), the future of my family (allowing gay men into female locker rooms) then it impedes on me. Allowing gay marriage is only another step in the direction of marriage with animals, a group of 3 getting married ect. The foundations of marriage should be held sacred not stampeded on by people with no respect for it to begin with.

ps done posting in this thread now

well wait

it doesn't work to spout a few accusations and then declare you are running away with your fingers in your ears

[raizin]

My roommate's parents have been married for 25 years this Friday. How does allowing gays the same legal rights as a couple weaken their relationship? What will it change?

The churches only problem is the word Marriage. Gays need to approach this different. They need to fight for Civil Unions and call it that or come up with a new word.

[HateTheFake]

My roommate's parents have been married for 25 years this Friday. How does allowing gays the same legal rights as a couple weaken their relationship? What will it change?

I could care less what they do inside their own home, but when it infringes on my rights, my religion (word marriage), the future of my family (allowing gay men into female locker rooms) then it impedes on me. Allowing gay marriage is only another step in the direction of marriage with animals, a group of 3 getting married ect. The foundations of marriage should be held sacred not stampeded on by people with no respect for it to begin with.

ps done posting in this thread now

[Squeezer]

Yes there have been some bad marriages but none the less its a Religious word to start with. Just because britney spears does something doesnt mean shes the equivalent of an entire civilization. Alot of people i know have marriages ranging from 5-35 years.

My roommate's parents have been married for 25 years this Friday. How does allowing gays the same legal rights as a couple weaken their relationship? What will it change?

[HateTheFake]

Tolerance is bad now? I guess I fail to see the problem with allowing everyone to be a part of the big diversity crapfest that you see in every commercial and school text book. It's absurd you think that your rights are the ones being restricted. I think it's silly that people hang on to the word "marriage" so hard but I guess it represents something different than it does to me. Britney fucking Spears can get married and divorced in less than two days because marriage is some beholden right given only to straight couples. It wouldn't somehow diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples everywhere (in fact it already hasn't and there are children being raised by gay couples now) so what's the big fear?

Haha and you're one of those crazies that still believes all women wish to be men.

Yes there have been some bad marriages but none the less its a Religious word to start with. Just because britney spears does something doesnt mean shes the equivalent of an entire civilization. Alot of people i know have marriages ranging from 5-35 years.

[Squeezer]

But the problem is once you give this guy the right to be in a womens locker room, isnt that taking away the girls rights for privacy if i had a daughter i would be upset that this kid would be allowed in the same changing room as her.

Is this guy staring at your daughter? Doing anything inappropriate? He isn't sexually aroused by her. In fact he relates more to your daughter than he does his fellow male students. I'd be more worried about the horndogs trying to get with my daughter. We all know what young girls do when they discover boys...B)

edit: I think you're getting at the fact that your choices are limited by their choice to be included. In the end it comes down to if you're going to treat others as human beings, as they are, or if you're going to treat them for how you want them to be. If it's the latter you'll make room for a few discomforts here and there, knowing full well that people have to deal with you too.

[Squeezer]

Im simply just saying opinions are one thing, shit talking over them are totally another.

Its not just about their choices, their choice limits my freedoms as an american. Like being restricted to only having books with both same sex and married couples. Marriage is a religous term for man and women. Not one that should be corrupted by same sex unions. About 90 percent of what Freuds done is still being used today. So please do yourself a favor and brush up on him, it really is a good read.

Tolerance is bad now? I guess I fail to see the problem with allowing everyone to be a part of the big diversity crapfest that you see in every commercial and school text book. It's absurd you think that your rights are the ones being restricted. I think it's silly that people hang on to the word "marriage" so hard but I guess it represents something different than it does to me. Britney fucking Spears can get married and divorced in less than two days because marriage is some beholden right given only to straight couples. It wouldn't somehow diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples everywhere (in fact it already hasn't and there are children being raised by gay couples now) so what's the big fear?

Haha and you're one of those crazies that still believes all women wish to be men.

[HateTheFake]

A good teacher would learn their students' parents sexual orientation and be respectful. How is this an issue? What important tasks are kids doing that the visual aids need to identify "husband" and "wife"?

As for the boys in girls bathroom (gasp!) thing, if a guy wants to dress like a woman, go through the trouble of pretending to be a woman, and accept all the ridicule he's going to get from other males with the mindset we've seen in this thread just to be in the same room as girls pissing...Uh I actually don't know how I'd feel about meeting someone like that.

But the problem is once you give this guy the right to be in a womens locker room, isnt that taking away the girls rights for privacy if i had a daughter i would be upset that this kid would be allowed in the same changing room as her.

[Liquid Blue]

My problem here is grown faggots trying to negatively impact our children. I used the example of Xog because in his teenage years he was confused and didnt know what he wanted. Now it seems as though his hormones have stabilized and he realized hes not gay.

So how exactly would "grown" homosexuals negatively impact our children? How about the meat heads at sports events that drunkenly objectify women in hearing distance of children? Or feminists that bash all males in front of little girls? Or racists that spew their messages of ignorance to their kids and their neighbors kids?

"2-3 people ruin these threads" means "2-3 people dont agree with the rest of us iintellectuals!" Again like I've said in the past there wouldnt be two sides of the argument if someone else didnt think like me.

I have no problem with different people expressing their different opinions and I actually encourage it, but I think he meant how a certain few would express their feelings and opinions on the subject. Throwing in constant slurs for example, in their speech, or shutting down someone's opinion just because it's different (and I'm not talking about you for once).

I still believe like I said in the OP that people on all sides should refrain from personal attacks, as tempting as they may be. At the very least try to keep it as concise as possible, and largely focus on the topic at hand.

HTF is right, being gay is a choice. I dont buy into that bullshit that your born gay. and HTF is dead right that if everyone in the world was gay, life would cease to exist(w/o the help of science).

How do you think everyone in the world would one day wake up gay, and why would you use a logical fallacy as evidence to back up your opinion?

Would you oppose to a fertil/infertil mixed marriage too then? If all fertile people would marry an infertil partner, life would cease to exist.

Although he's being condescending as usual, I think this is a valid question that deserves a response.

Is it really hard to comprehend that men might feel that way about other men or women with women? You look at a picture of a hot chick in a thong and you get a boner right? Now did you will that boner into fruition or did it naturally come about? Now imagine you don't like girls, but like men instead. Same thing happens. !!!!!

Alot of the time, simple pictures won't make me pop a boner anymore. I have to be near an actual nice ass or nice pair of tits to really be like " :greedy: "- I think the internet and the media in general has desensitized me. Too many fake tits and photoshop'ed faces and bodies. Need the real deal, plz.

But seriously its a choice, people choose to be gay, like they choose anything else. The things you cant choose obviously being race, eye and hair color, how long you live ect. I believe Sigmund Freud talked about this. (the father of psychology) I believe it was in his penis envy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy

Nothing in that article supported your opinion on being gay as a choice. Further down that same page alot of people seem to think his theory outdated and unsubstantial now.

I think that Freud really broke some barriers in his time in terms of psychoanalytical thinking, but I don't consider him as the father of psychology- or even the father of modern psychology.


This is good though, alot of nice responses and opinions. No huge derailments either, I appreciate it everyone.

[HateTheFake]

This is a personal issue. See how offended you got by a few fuckwits (myself included) calling you names on the internet for your beliefs. For trying to place their view of you over your own mindset. Do you not see how this is analogous? You don't want people impeding into the privacy of your own head or your life, especially if they're making judgments.

So how can you be against people making their own decisions? Many are more sound of mind than any on these forums, but they're making irrational choices?

Please explain and stop quoting bullshit Freud. He said a lot of things a long time ago that are still mostly, but not (and here's the key) directly relevant to modern life. And from the way it was taught to me Freud tended to attempt to explain the deviance in humans, not take stances.

Im simply just saying opinions are one thing, shit talking over them are totally another.

Its not just about their choices, their choice limits my freedoms as an american. Like being restricted to only having books with both same sex and married couples. Marriage is a religous term for man and women. Not one that should be corrupted by same sex unions. About 90 percent of what Freuds done is still being used today. So please do yourself a favor and brush up on him, it really is a good read.

[Squeezer]

Well he could be referring to California's newer law, in which teachers are no longer allowed to say Mom or Dad because it would be unfair to the same sex couples.

Heres the law:

The new law says a government school cannot have "instructional materials" or school-based "activities" that reflect adversely upon persons because of their gender or sexual orientation. Opponents say that this, in effect, means that schools can ban books or teaching aids which have the terms mom, dad, husband and wife without also having positive references to gay, bisexual and transgender couples or parents.
And as for boys and girls using the same bathrooms and locker rooms, since the California definition of gender "includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior," then boys can use the girls' bathroom or locker room as long as they dress like or identify themselves as girls (I wonder if there is some official registration process for this).

A good teacher would learn their students' parents sexual orientation and be respectful. How is this an issue? What important tasks are kids doing that the visual aids need to identify "husband" and "wife"?

As for the boys in girls bathroom (gasp!) thing, if a guy wants to dress like a woman, go through the trouble of pretending to be a woman, and accept all the ridicule he's going to get from other males with the mindset we've seen in this thread just to be in the same room as girls pissing...Uh I actually don't know how I'd feel about meeting someone like that.