Originally posted by Zero
Except that a civil union is not so sacred, it’s a legal document that states that two people decided to live together and should they decide to go back on that they have to split the accumulated belongings 50/50. There’s nothing sacred about it.
yeah, that was actually a sarcastic response of mine 
it is a horrifying thought that a homosexual would not be able to participate in the wonderful institution of marriage that so many are able to take for granted. it is horrifying in general how this society treats people who like to have sex differently than most. i have sense that Republicans just dont get it. they propose some legislation giving a load of cash to people to teach them how to be married and promote marriage, and then they turn around and tell a fair percentage of the population too bad and ban them.
Homosexuals are people too, and they deserve all of the rights that straight people get. Not being able to see a partner when they are in the hospital because you are gay is redicolus (or however its spelled).
If they have this much of a problem with gay marriage, why not just call it civil union? Just as long as gays have the same rights.
This really reminds me of the civil rights movement. We just need some lesbo to get kicked off a bus and the battle will begin again!
Conservatives have been on the losing side of every major social rights struggle in the history of America. 200 years ago they were in favor of slavery, 130 against giving slaves the vote, 80 years ago against giving women the vote, 50 against desegregation, etc. Looking at that you would think they’re doomed to lose this struggle over gay marriage as well.
BUT, i think maybe we should approach this issue of gay marriage a little more slowly. The truth is we’re not sure what causes people to be gay, and in what ways gays are mentally different than straight people. We need to find these things out. Say that researchers discover that kids raised by gay couples are a lot more likely to be gay. Would you then support gay marriage, reasoning that creating some legal institution for gay couples would encourage them to start families? Would you support gay marriage knowing that it would increase the percentage of gays in our society by a lot? These are things we need to think about.
Originally posted by Sorcerer
This really reminds me of the civil rights movement. We just need some lesbo to get kicked off a bus and the battle will begin again!
Gimme 2 hours…
Anyway. I’m all for gay <strike>marriage</strike>civil union (whew, caught myself there). Gay people should be able to get married if they wish; the only objections are moral or religious, and those shouldn’t get in the way of a legal process.
The whole idea of straight marriage is (quite naturally) the Christian/Catholic/Whatever the Fuck it is Church. I don’t think homosexual marriages are going to hurt the Church any since it won’t approve of them. Hey, there’s some hypocrisy for ya: Love your neighbors (read: EVERYONE) but homosexuals and adulterers and (list goes on and on) should be shunned. Whaddaya know?
And as for polygamy: Same thing as homosexual marriage: Only the Church stands in the way.
im fairly sure that it has been proven that children raised by homosexuals have no greater tendancy to become homosexual. even so, i would not care, that would be wonderful population control.
There is no evidence at all that children with gay parents (either adopted or not) are any worse of than children with a male and female parent, and are better off than children with only one parent (usually a mother). This speaking from a strictly sociological / economic view - i.e. children of gay parents do no worse in their economic life than others. OF course, I’m sure there have been no opportunities for studies over a very long time frame, and if such a study were to be proposed today…well, who do you think would fund it? From a psychological standpoint, I’m not really as sure…I’m sure children with gay parents might go through a few trials and tribulations other children might not
“omg u have two dads wut r u GAY?!?! L OLZOZLZ” etc. Then again, if it’s not really affecting long-term economic outlooks on these kids, such insults, like most insults, eventually are just forgotten.
Originally posted by Cala
[b]Gimme 2 hours…Anyway. I’m all for gay <strike>marriage</strike>civil union (whew, caught myself there). Gay people should be able to get married if they wish; the only objections are moral or religious, and those shouldn’t get in the way of a legal process.
The whole idea of straight marriage is (quite naturally) the Christian/Catholic/Whatever the Fuck it is Church. I don’t think homosexual marriages are going to hurt the Church any since it won’t approve of them. Hey, there’s some hypocrisy for ya: Love your neighbors (read: EVERYONE) but homosexuals and adulterers and (list goes on and on) should be shunned. Whaddaya know?
And as for polygamy: Same thing as homosexual marriage: Only the Church stands in the way. [/b]
Yeah Christians are supposed to love their neighbours but technically they aren’t supposed to actively promote any behavior in favour of homosexuality. Some do, some don’t it all comes down to the individual. Strict Christians may be against it, but Christians with a more free thinking believe that yes, love your neighbour, hate the sin and not the sinner.
Like in any religion, people have misunderstandings, biases and disagreements/frustrations with what they believe in since a lot tends to conflict and contradict each other. Needless to say, some of these Christians who ban gay marriage or try to stop it, in their own mind, may believe they are doing the right thing, while other Christians may believe that’s too hateful.
Really, I think the object of being against gay marriage is a matter of morality and not religion, when it comes down to it. We are free thinkers, and if we choose to label that anxiety towards gays as a religious thing, well we’re still making a decision to support that thought aren’t we? This is why I believe religion is only an excuse for such matters, rather than said person stating “I don’t feel comfortable with gays getting married” or whatever because that can be a big slap in the face to some homosexuals. So labelling it as a religious preference, well, sometimes I don’t think it should be looked upon as that. People just wrongfully use it as an excuse when they can’t come up with anything better to say (generally, obviously not every person or Christian would think like this, though it is common.)
Originally posted by Cala
The whole idea of straight marriage is (quite naturally) the Christian/Catholic/Whatever the Fuck it is Church.
Begging your pardon, but what were you trying to say here?
Hey, there’s some hypocrisy for ya: Love your neighbors (read: EVERYONE) but homosexuals and adulterers and (list goes on and on) should be shunned. Whaddaya know?
That’s only the people that misinterpret. The intelligent ones know the only important part is “Love thy neighbor.”
Then why does it say love thy neighbor at all? What if your neighbor is a homosexual?
Doesn’t make much sense.
Once again, the problem is blatantly obvious: Religion. Should be done away with forever, in my opinion.
In response to Curtis, you also have to ask yourself if being with gay parents has further detrimental effects than being in one of the millions of failed marriages in the US, if its worse than having abusive heterosexual parents, if some kids aren’t already exposed to homosexual parents due to a divorce and dad or mom’s personal discovery. The problem with your statement (I don’t think you support, I’m more attacking the assertion I know people have made) is that you automatically assume that even if it did make people more prone to be homosexuals, does that mean the person is any lesser than a heterosexual? Meaning, you’re saying gay people shouldn’t marry because if they have a kid, he’ll be gay too. That is implying it would be a bad thing if the person would be gay, it would be implying that the person is not capable of making a decision on his or her sexuality and that the government needs to intervene, which is what this is all about: homosexual rights. So even if you did use such an argument, you’d be wrong for the simple reason that you’re looking down at gay people in the first place, which is the attitude being attacked. It is discriminatory.
Originally posted by Sorcerer
Once again, the problem is blatantly obvious: Religion. Should be done away with forever, in my opinion.
Religion is not the problem. The people interpreting the religion is the problem. There are plenty of people who intepret it very much differently. Also, trying to lump all religions into the conservative and conformist bent is extremely silly.
There are several religions out there, all of which have some validity. I find what you said pretty damned insulting.
I don’t blame him, religion is very political and politics are anything but clean.
Well, I guess you’re gonna have to be pretty damned insulted then. Religion is one of the most pointless institutions I can think of, and all it ever does is cause problems. No good comes out of it, at least not that I can think of right this very second.
demigod: The Christian/Catholic/Whatever the Fuck it is Church comment (that actual part) refers to my inferior amount of knowledge on the church (I believe it’s Catholic, however).
And I’m with Sorc on this one. The whole “Love thy neighbor” thing includes EVERYONE, not just the straight arrows.
And I think this might be religiously influenced (the legal hurdles of gay marriage). Think about it: The most vocal opposition to gay marriage is the Church. They’re influencing government. BAD CHURCH, BAD.
I don’t think religious itself should be done away with, however; just the Church and its views. People should be able to do whatever they want and worship how they want rather than be reprimanded for a single action rather than be rewarded for their entire life’s work.
And I love Epic’s (I think its his) sig about religion.
There’s nothing wrong with religion, people need something to believe in, and religion gives them a basis to go upon. The problem arises when they begin to force beliefs on other people, as well as becoming obcessed about it. In my personal opinion almost all religions were created to do three basic things; provide guidance and a code to live by (law in some cases), explain the unexplainable, and to control the masses (basically through fear, the threat of eternal damnation in the Christian sence). While the first two can still be justified, I still believe the third is in use today, and is terribly unneeded in modern society.
See, this is where you and I are going to disagree; people don’t need something to believe in. There is no point to having something to believe in other than filling some sort of void that you believe you have due to a lack of knowledge. That’s all religion does; fills little holes to make people feel like they know what’s going on.
Originally posted by Cala
demigod: The Christian/Catholic/Whatever the Fuck it is Church comment (that actual part) refers to my inferior amount of knowledge on the church (I believe it’s Catholic, however).
That wasn’t a question about your viewpoints; it was a comment on the lack of clarity of the sentence.
And I’m with Sorc on this one. The whole “Love thy neighbor” thing includes EVERYONE, not just the straight arrows.
I agree with that. I don’t know why we have to keep saying that.
And I think this might be religiously influenced (the legal hurdles of gay marriage). Think about it: The most vocal opposition to gay marriage is the Church. They’re influencing government. BAD CHURCH, BAD.
Which Church? Catholic? Lutheran? Baptist? Etc. There’s more than one and they don’t all agree. I’m not saying your wrong; I myself have no idea who is trying to make sure that what stays or becomes a law.
I don’t think religious itself should be done away with, however; just the Church and its views. People should be able to do whatever they want and worship how they want rather than be reprimanded for a single action rather than be rewarded for their entire life’s work.
How mercifully tolerant of you: letting us think what we want. It’s not like it’s a constitutionally guaranteed right that we can do that anyway. How would elementing religious institutions change the current punishment/reward system in the country as it is now? They don’t control most of the situation anyway. Certainly not business, and as much of as an issue as religion is in politics, it doesn’t dominate them either. People ARE free to worship as they like. More importantly, they are free to not worship if they don’t feel like it.
And I love Epic’s (I think its his) sig about religion.
Yes, it’s Epic’s. I don’t love it, but to each his/her own.
Maybe its just me but if such a ban went into effect couldn’t you see a religous ban coming next? Like all non-Christian, Buddhist, whatever should be removed from the country or something, like how the Roman Catholic Church did in the past.
AS for the gay marriage thing, whatever turns you on I’m cool with. I personally don’t understand why/how you can be attracted to a member of the same sex but if you are, love them and want to marry, I’m fine with that, more power to you.
I agree with Sorc, Religon is bad and should be done away with, in my opinion. But religion in some form or another will never go away simply because of the 3 things Epic said, I think people need to know were they are in the universe by one way or another.
Couldn’t science in a way be considered a religion itself? It explains the unexplainable or as much as possible, and can provide people with a way to live there lives based on the knowledge they’ve acquired through studies and research. Kind of off topic but has anyone else ever noticed people are fine with medicine and medical practices until it causes a conflict with their own belief system?