Gay Marriage???? [Archive] - Buzzlife Message Board

Scoobie-Snax

2004-03-02, 12:36 PM

Who is for it and who is not?

I am not for it, for many reasons which I do not feel like debating. Just wondering how everyone else feels on the situation?

BizarroCub

2004-03-02, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Scoobie-Snax
I am not for it, for many reasons which I do not feel like debating. Just wondering how everyone else feels on the situation?

If you're gonna post a poll and make a statement, particularly in this forum, you'd better be prepared to defend your position.

So explain yourself...

-Grizz

Methodus

2004-03-02, 02:05 PM

This will be a very non-scientific poll with very skewed results simply because it is being taken on a forum promoting the dance scene. Just my .02

I chose "Civil unions instead" but I would support gay marriage if it was law, however it isn't, so what is going on in San Fran is wrong, IMHO.

ras_cee

2004-03-02, 02:07 PM

This has been asked so many times on da board marriage is marriage who has the right to tell you you cant b in love with someone if u love that person and want to get married it shouldnt matter what r who u r!!!

blewmymindblank

2004-03-02, 02:09 PM

I want to marry my fish Bubbles. I :affection: it sooo much

NicotinePatches

2004-03-02, 02:09 PM

i say who gives a fuck.
laws are made to be broken.
but further more...it's not anyone else's business who two consenting adults decide to marry.
nor is most of the stuff people get their panties in a bunch about important to others but those involved.

empath

2004-03-02, 02:10 PM

This is from a Rolling Stone article in 1999-- this is how the anti-gay movement really thinks... seems to be that he just really wants someone to :siihp:

Dr. Paul Cameron, founder of the Family Research Institute and ISIS, the institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality:"Untrammeled homosexuality can take over and destroy a social system," says Cameron. "If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm." So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves that gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality. "I'm convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers," says Cameron. "People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical," he adds, sounding evangelical himself. "It's pure sexuality. It's almost like pure heroin. It's such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they'll take enormous risks, do anything." He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. "Martial sex tends toward the boring end," he points out. "Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does" So, Cameron believes, within a few generations homosexuality would be come the dominant form of sexual behavior.

BizarroCub

2004-03-02, 02:14 PM

Cameron believes, within a few generations homosexuality would be come the dominant form of sexual behavior.

I don't see any problem with that...more ass for me...WOOHOO!

*does the happy dance*

-Grizz

blewmymindblank

2004-03-02, 02:16 PM

:werd: M-effin :werd:

empath

2004-03-02, 02:17 PM

i think the guys an idiot.... homosexuality is only appealing IF YOUR GAY. he's really kind of telling us a lot about himself there, isn't it? i've never once thought while having sex with a girl---- you know, this is really great, but what i'd really like is something stuck up my ass right now..

BizarroCub

2004-03-02, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by empath
i think the guys an idiot.... homosexuality is only appealing IF YOUR GAY. he's really kind of telling us a lot about himself there, isn't it? i've never once thought while having sex with a girl---- you know, this is really great, but what i'd really like is something stuck up my ass right now..

Well...the anti-gay right has never been known for it's logic, compassion, or sanity.

I always thought that the head of, shit I'm forgetting it's name, the main gay-straight convertion group, got caught going into Mr. P's on P street. Which beyond being a gay bar is a reallly sleazy one at that. He claimed he was 'going in to use the bathroom.' I'm sure he was. LOL

However, I'm glad most of those groups have been realized for the insanity that they represent. Specially considering how many people they lead to suicide and that always seem to end up going back to their gayness.

-Grizz

Kuro

2004-03-02, 02:21 PM

"People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical," he adds, sounding evangelical himself. "It's pure sexuality. It's almost like pure heroin. It's such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they'll take enormous risks, do anything." He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. "Martial sex tends toward the boring end," he points out. "Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does"

This guy really seems to like gay sex.

BizarroCub

2004-03-02, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Kuro
This guy really seems to like gay sex.

You noticed that too huh.

I guess he comes from the Mike Tyson school of sexuality.

-Grizz

velvetgoldmire

2004-03-02, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Kuro
This guy really seems to like gay sex.
I was thinking the same thing... especially when he says "Martial sex tends toward the boring end," he points out. "Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does"

I'm curious how he would know that... if not from first hand experience, then maybe from a bit too much daydreaming. Sounds like he needs to put a cock in his mouth and shut his face.

BizarroCub

2004-03-02, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by velvetgoldmire
I'm curious how he would know that... if not from first hand experience, then maybe from a bit too much daydreaming. Sounds like he needs to put a cock in his mouth and shut his face.

Have a cock and a smile and shut the fuck up?

blewmymindblank

2004-03-02, 02:33 PM

http://www.southparkstudios.com/down/download.html?file=/media/images/708/708_image_09.jpg

velvetgoldmire

2004-03-02, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Methodus
This will be a very non-scientific poll with very skewed results simply because it is being taken on a forum promoting the dance scene. Just my .02

I don't think this poll was meant to be "scientific" But how does a group of people in the area having an interest in the dance music scene make for skewed results? Everyone can only vote once. There's a mix of opinions on the subject. So, we can scientifically say that "X% of people from the MD/DC/VA dance music scene who visit this messege board and who voted in this poll are for/against/have no opinion on gay marriage. Doesn't sound skewed to me.

Scoobie-Snax

2004-03-02, 02:49 PM

Ok here's what I think I believe that marriage should be left the way it is and has been for a long time.

I am for civil unions.

I think it would be alot easier for all the conservatives and everyone else if we ban gay marriage (for the religious etc.) and give gay people civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage.

I think alot of the problem is with the religious sect and the word "marriage". Find another name for it aka. civil unions (with all the same benefits) and I think that will satisfy some people.

I would love to get more into this conversation and debate more but I have lots of work to do today and I know that if I got caught up in this thread then I might not get everything done that I have to.

As long as the thread does not get hijacked or go off subject I will be back later tonight to explain some more reasons.

Peace!

BizarroCub

2004-03-02, 03:12 PM

But none of those are real reasons you think it should be banned?

I think it would be alot easier for all the conservatives and everyone else if we ban gay marriage (for the religious etc.) and give gay people civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage.

This seemed to be the only reason you gave and that just doesn't hold up...to makeit easier on everyone because the concept makes them uncomfortable or they disagree?

If we passed legislation based on this, we'd still have slavery, segregation, no womens suffrage, etc.

-Grizz

teh awesomeness

2004-03-02, 03:35 PM

I'm all for marriages, however, if I were the one running for office, I'd definitely phrase my beliefs in the way that I've heard Kerry say it.

Against marriage, because that word has a religious connotation meaning between a man and a woman, but everyone should have equal rights to visitation, tax laws, inheritance, etc, therefore, "civil unions" should be legal (and possibly the only legal entitiy of a union between two people-- "marriage" could become a word for what happens in the church.).

teh awesomeness

2004-03-02, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Scoobie-Snax

I think it would be alot easier for all the conservatives and everyone else if we ban gay marriage (for the religious etc.) and give gay people civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage.

I think alot of the problem is with the religious sect and the word "marriage". Find another name for it aka. civil unions (with all the same benefits) and I think that will satisfy some people.

I agree. Play with the semantics of the act so that the conservatives don't get their panties in a twist, but protect the rights of all Americans without regard to sexual preference.

BizarroCub

2004-03-02, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by teh awesomeness
Against marriage, because that word has a religious connotation meaning between a man and a woman, but everyone should have equal rights to visitation, tax laws, inheritance, etc, therefore, "civil unions" should be legal (and possibly the only legal entitiy of a union between two people-- "marriage" could become a word for what happens in the church.).

Then wouldn't it make more sense to remove all governmental involvement in marriage and leave it as a solely religous institution and let the churches decide what the're gonna do.

Or take the language of marriage out of law and make them all civil unions that anyone can enter into and if they decide to enter this legal civil union, through marriage, then that's their prerogative.

teh awesomeness

2004-03-02, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by BizarroCub

Or take the language of marriage out of law and make them all civil unions that anyone can enter into and if they decide to enter this legal civil union, through marriage, then that's their prerogative.

This is what I meant. Sorry my writing is unclear....its been a long day :sadblue:

Civil union= legal/federal involvement, guarantees rights.

marriage = thing you do in the church, that only your religion cares about, that does not guarantee you legal rights.

LaPistola

2004-03-02, 03:56 PM

i'm all for it however, why would anyone want to get married?

Methodus

2004-03-02, 04:06 PM

O'Reilly brought up a great point the other night, and I concur. I just don't agree with the Bigot label being thrown around for people who do not agree with gay marriage. Empath, you are guilty of this. Everytime someone tries to express their opinion, you relate it to the civil rights movement, and try to belittle the person by inferring that they are some sort of closet-racist. We all have opinions, and as I have expressed before, I know plenty of gay people and I have no ill-feelings towards them. I don't support gay marriage, but I would respect it if it were the people's will (read: majority).

The analogies to segregation and making black people sit on the back of the bus are disgusting.

nietzsche

2004-03-02, 09:06 PM

I voted yes, assuming I was voting in a state wide referendum and not as a member of Congress. This issue has no business before the US Legislature.

And Meth, good point, but it's lost on empath. Any time you alienate any group for any reason it's ALWAYS about "civil rights". It's their favorite whipping stick no matter how inappropriate and inaccurate.

You remember him chastising me as a white guy saying blacks should be offended - what irony, right? Yet all the white folks seem perfectly content to use the comparison themselves when it helps their point.

crystalb24

2004-03-02, 09:14 PM

Love and relationships are hard enough. If you are lucky enough to find the one person that you feel like you can give your heart to for the rest of your life, no one should have the right to tell you that it is wrong.

BizarroCub

2004-03-02, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Methodus
The analogies to segregation and making black people sit on the back of the bus are disgusting.

What's disguisting is peoples refusal to admit that there is a civli rights movement and that people try and deny this as a tool to take validity away from it. *shrugs*

Yes...it isn't exactly the same, but it certainly is in a number of ways.

My question is...what makes you so informed about the gay rights movement that you can deny the comparison. I could sit here and type out tons of analagous laws and incidents surrounding the two. From Stonewall to it being illegal at times in this country for more than one gay man to gather in the same place. To it still being legal in many places in this country to deny employment, housing, business, etc. because the're gay. Please. To gay men having been barred from establishments, etc. No it's not a like at all.

No...supporting the ban on gay marriage doesn't make you a bigot, but it does make you a supporter of discrimination.

-Grizz

Jungleluv09

2004-03-02, 10:24 PM

Hell No! :no:

Jungleluv09

2004-03-02, 11:04 PM

This would mean if you, being an american man, maried a foreign man, he would automatically become a U.S. citizen? I don't think so...

BizarroCub

2004-03-02, 11:54 PM

Um...American women can marry foreign men...um...duh...

:rolleyes:

Jungleluv09

2004-03-03, 12:18 AM

yeah but what if your friend just wanted to be a U.S. citizen. Both of you would get "married" along with U.S. citizenship AND a tax credit, without the ability to bear children? It just doesn't make any sense... :shrug:

Jungleluv09

2004-03-03, 12:19 AM

I am STRONGLY opposed...

candigurl

2004-03-03, 12:49 AM

i am so for gay marriages... i believe that you should be able to marry whom ever you love and if you love a person of the same sex then go for it!!! be proud of what you are... i know i am!!!

Kuro

2004-03-03, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Jungleluv09
yeah but what if your friend just wanted to be a U.S. citizen. Both of you would get "married" along with U.S. citizenship AND a tax credit, without the ability to bear children? It just doesn't make any sense... :shrug:

That's the only reason you're opposed?

velvetgoldmire

2004-03-03, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Jungleluv09
yeah but what if your friend just wanted to be a U.S. citizen. Both of you would get "married" along with U.S. citizenship AND a tax credit, without the ability to bear children? It just doesn't make any sense... :shrug:
Everything you're talking about, with the exception of bearing children, can be done through any form of marriage. So basically what you're talking about is bearing children. But, that's not really the real issue, since people out of wedlock bear children, people adopt, lesbians have artificial inceminations, etc. If you're going to say "But it's not natural to not procreate," I might point out (as has been discussed in other threads) that gay activity appears all throughout the animal kingdom. On top of that, gay activity has been prominant in all of human history. A big part of the issue is the issue that gay couples, even if they are together longer then any straight couple, cannot have the same legal tendure... including if one gets in a car accident and dies, their lifelong partner will not be in charge of the person's estate, since they won't be considered next of kin. Now, if this doesn't make sense to you, you need to have your head checked. I'm guessing the foreign marraige issue that you are talking about is hiding deeper issues that, for one reason or another, you won't bring forward.

zartan

2004-03-03, 02:37 AM

"I think it would be alot easier for all the conservatives and everyone else if we ban gay marriage (for the religious etc.) and give gay people civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage."

fine - but why ban gay marriages? just don't perform them (DUH). no one is forcing your church or mosque or whatever to perform marriages between gay people, straight people, or anyone else. I'm sort of a tentative Unitarian and the minister at the Unitarian church I occasionally visit is gay; I'm sure he'd be happy to perform gay marriages. So the CONSTITUTION - the document that enshrines the most basic values of our nation - ought to tell him he can't? and if some freaky ass liberal city like san fransisco wants to perform them, ignore them. call them civil unions in your backward-ass southern hick state. whatever. i don't care. i find tampering with the constitution to placate a bunch of pathetic misguided homophobic fundamentalists alarming in the extreme. Personally I'm so sick of the dominant bizarrely sexually repressed conservative culture in this country absolutely fucking losing their minds about janet jackson's nasty old tit and the prospect of a few thousand committed gay people pledging their undying love to each other. But I don't seem to see the congressional hearings scheduled to review Brittney Spears' 1-day "marriage."

Hey pathetic homophobe conservatives out to "defend the family" (yeah right) - how about standing up for your fucking beliefs and rescinding no-fault divorce laws, huh? You can't get divorced in Ireland - why here? Oh, I guess divorce doesn't hurt families, right? Fucking idiots.

iminxtc

2004-03-03, 04:56 AM

i support gay marriage for reasons like benefits/life insurance and if they decide to have a family theres so mmuch more to marriage than just the god part

velvetgoldmire

2004-03-03, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by zartan
"I think it would be alot easier for all the conservatives and everyone else if we ban gay marriage (for the religious etc.) and give gay people civil unions with all the same benefits of marriage."

fine - but why ban gay marriages? just don't perform them (DUH). no one is forcing your church or mosque or whatever to perform marriages between gay people, straight people, or anyone else. I'm sort of a tentative Unitarian and the minister at the Unitarian church I occasionally visit is gay; I'm sure he'd be happy to perform gay marriages. So the CONSTITUTION - the document that enshrines the most basic values of our nation - ought to tell him he can't? and if some freaky ass liberal city like san fransisco wants to perform them, ignore them. call them civil unions in your backward-ass southern hick state. whatever. i don't care. i find tampering with the constitution to placate a bunch of pathetic misguided homophobic fundamentalists alarming in the extreme. Personally I'm so sick of the dominant bizarrely sexually repressed conservative culture in this country absolutely fucking losing their minds about janet jackson's nasty old tit and the prospect of a few thousand committed gay people pledging their undying love to each other. But I don't seem to see the congressional hearings scheduled to review Brittney Spears' 1-day "marriage."

Hey pathetic homophobe conservatives out to "defend the family" (yeah right) - how about standing up for your fucking beliefs and rescinding no-fault divorce laws, huh? You can't get divorced in Ireland - why here? Oh, I guess divorce doesn't hurt families, right? Fucking idiots.
:werd: all over

Methodus

2004-03-03, 10:24 AM

Well it is a good point in one respect, since this alternative marriage opens the flood gates for all other alternative marriages, who is going to stop illegal aliens from marrying U.S. dogs, cats, cows, and sheep to gain citizenship ?

velvetgoldmire

2004-03-03, 10:31 AM

Last time I checked, animals weren't US citizens. Good lord, what is it with you and animals?

Methodus

2004-03-03, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by velvetgoldmire
Last time I checked, animals weren't US citizens. Good lord, what is it with you and animals?

I'm just taking it to extreme measures. This one is more appropriate, how are we going to stop illegal aliens from marrying already married straight or gay couples to gain citizenship ?

velvetgoldmire

2004-03-03, 10:41 AM

Well the issue isn't people marrying multiple partners, but if it were, I imagine that they'd stop them the same way they try and stop a straight person from marrying for citizenship. All you ever do is use the same examples for the same, tired argument which doesn't hold any water. "Where do we draw the line?" Let me ask you a few questions: Do you have a problem with beastiality? Why or why not? Do you have a problem with polygamy? Why or why not? Do you have a problem with homosexuals? Why or why not?

Light Touch

2004-03-03, 11:01 AM

I voted yes, because I don't care what someone calls a committed relationship and I don't have any religious beliefs to be concerned about.

As far as I'm concerned, if two guys want to hook up and call themselves married, I could give a shit.

Should they get government marriage benefits? No. Should straight couples? No.

Marriage shouldn't be the province of the government.

Wedge

2004-03-03, 11:07 AM

:stupid:

Yea where's the goverment shouldn't be involved at all option.

koolaidluva

2004-03-03, 11:58 AM

Yes...Marriage, with full rights and protections...
-Seperation of Church and State
- Two consenting adults in love or whatever, should be able to get married if they so choose to do so
- There are already gay couples living in commited " married" relationships, just without the title, and hardly have people stopped being straight, or has society collapsed and become 100% queer...Things would be prettier though. :raveon: hehe
- The whole straight conversion things BUGGS ME!! your either gay or not, gay marriage will not destroy society, rather it may help us to end predjudice and END opinion..stated as TRUTH!

werd yall...

it seems to me that people are scared of Gay peepz being able to get married which would technically say "it being ok to be gay" Then..there would be no opinion or law against being gay, and people that are secretly gay < the right fundementalists> would be pretty much FORCED out of the closet, because then they'd have nothing to hide...and nothing to be afraid of...
Freakin Closet Cases!

Now we cant have that...

Methodus

2004-03-03, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by koolaidluva
Yes...Marriage, with full rights and protections...
-Seperation of Church and State
- Two consenting adults in love or whatever, should be able to get married if they so choose to do so
- There are already gay couples living in commited " married" relationships, just without the title, and hardly have people stopped being straight, or has society collapsed and become 100% queer...Things would be prettier though. :raveon: hehe
- The whole straight conversion things BUGGS ME!! your either gay or not, gay marriage will not destroy society, rather it may help us to end predjudice and END opinion..stated as TRUTH!

werd yall...

it seems to me that people are scared of Gay peepz being able to get married which would technically say "it being ok to be gay" Then..there would be no opinion or law against being gay, and people that are secretly gay < the right fundementalists> would be pretty much FORCED out of the closet, because then they'd have nothing to hide...and nothing to be afraid of...
Freakin Closet Cases!

Now we cant have that...

I'm now stupider for having read that.

Methodus

2004-03-03, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by velvetgoldmire
Well the issue isn't people marrying multiple partners, but if it were, I imagine that they'd stop them the same way they try and stop a straight person from marrying for citizenship. All you ever do is use the same examples for the same, tired argument which doesn't hold any water. "Where do we draw the line?" Let me ask you a few questions: Do you have a problem with beastiality? Why or why not? Do you have a problem with polygamy? Why or why not? Do you have a problem with homosexuals? Why or why not?

Do you have a problem with me bringing up good valid points?

Yes, I repeat them, because they DO hold water. Gay marriage DEFINATELY opens the door for all other alternative marriages.

velvetgoldmire

2004-03-03, 02:23 PM

It's not a good point, it's an irrational fear and an excuse. Take a look at prohibition... alcohol, cigarettes, and various pharmisuticals are legal drugs, but the floodgates for other drugs have not been opened legally. Each individual case is taken as an individual, and not lumped together. It's a question of what people accept socially. By saying that gay people should not marry by using the reasoning that you are using, then that says to me that you do not wholly accept them socially (or fear them), no matter what you proclaim.

And you did not answer my previous questions. You seem to love lumping homosexuality with beastiality and polygamy.

BizarroCub

2004-03-03, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Methodus
Yes, I repeat them, because they DO hold water. Gay marriage DEFINATELY opens the door for all other alternative marriages.

You know...for someone who claims not to have any problem with gay people you're sure good at spewing the same anti-gay rhetoric used by every anti-gay group in America.

You've yet to not make a single argument that I couldn't go cut and paste off of any number of anti-gay hate groups websites.

Something to think about.

-Grizz

BizarroCub

2004-03-03, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Methodus
Do you have a problem with me bringing up good valid points?

Nope...I don't think anyone would have a problem is you actually did that.

Yes, I repeat them, because they DO hold water. Gay marriage DEFINATELY opens the door for all other alternative marriages.

So by that same logic, the existance of any form of marriage, starting with heterosexual marriage opens that door. So it isn't gay marriage that opens that door, but really heterosexual marriage and the government trying to regulate relationships that does.

Got an argument that actually isn't based in prejudices?

Methodus

2004-03-03, 03:14 PM

You love to respond to my statement multiple times don't you.

Anyways, I've had it with your weak attempts at associating my remarks with those of hate-groups. I don't agree with gay marriage. I guess any attempt I make to justify my view will be seen as bigoted... so it's not worth responding to you.

BizarroCub

2004-03-03, 03:16 PM

:rolleyes:

Methodus

2004-03-03, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by BizarroCub
:rolleyes:

Trust me, the feeling is mutual.

Wedge

2004-03-03, 04:10 PM

Out of curiosity please explain how what he said was anti-gay? It's a valid arguement, it opens the doors for the possibility for other alternative marriages. You guys love using slippery slope arguements around here so this should be par for the course. Just because some anti-gay hate group uses the same arguement doesn't make the arguement anti-gay hate rhetoric.
Originally posted by BizarroCub
You know...for someone who claims not to have any problem with gay people you're sure good at spewing the same anti-gay rhetoric used by every anti-gay group in America.

You've yet to not make a single argument that I couldn't go cut and paste off of any number of anti-gay hate groups websites.

Something to think about.

-Grizz

empath

2004-03-03, 04:14 PM

it's anti-gay because it equates gay relationships with incest, beastiality, polygamy and child abuse... that's why...

Wedge

2004-03-03, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by empath
it's anti-gay because it equates gay relationships with incest, beastiality, polygamy and child abuse... that's why...
The arguement is not that a gay relationship is the same as bestiality, the arguement is that opening the door to gay marriage could in the future open the door to beatiality, personally I think the beastiality example is stupid, but I can see polygamy happening.

nietzsche

2004-03-03, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by empath
it's anti-gay because it equates gay relationships with incest, beastiality, polygamy and child abuse... that's why...

no, the point is that if the legal arguement to prohibit laws against homosexual sex is based on "consensual adults doing what they want to do", then it does open the door for legal recognition of all types of things under that principle, such as incest, etc.

There would be no legal problem if the SC wasn't so damn fuzzy about this all the time. If they came out and said, "we think gays are a special group and they should be allowed to have sex", then we know exactly who they are talking about and can exclude other "groups". But they don't do it, namely, because there is no constitutional basis for making such a claim. So they make some sweeping generality about "equal protection", instead of narowly tailoring their decision.

Light Touch

2004-03-03, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by nietzsche
no, the point is that if the legal arguement to prohibit laws against homosexual sex is based on "consensual adults doing what they want to do", then it does open the door for legal recognition of all types of things under that principle, such as incest, etc.

There would be no legal problem if the SC wasn't so damn fuzzy about this all the time. If they came out and said, "we think gays are a special group and they should be allowed to have sex", then we know exactly who they are talking about and can exclude other "groups". But they don't do it, namely, because there is no constitutional basis for making such a claim. So they make some sweeping generality about "equal protection", instead of narowly tailoring their decision.

I think that's exactly why they don't -- because it's hard to define gays as a "special" group.

The key to legislating limitations on marriage is defining marriage. I assume that it could be defined by statute that marriage is "between a man and a woman" or "between two humans" or whatever. Court ruling invalidating laws are much harder to justify, for the reasons I've been emphasizing ad nauseum in this forum -- the laws are not directed towards a group of people, but rather, a prohibited activity.

While homosexual sex is certainly something of interest to homosexuals, banning the behavior is not exactly the same as creating a law expressly directed at homosexuals.

I think the issue implodes if the government stops recognizing marriages as a legal function.

nietzsche

2004-03-03, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Light Touch
-- the laws are not directed towards a group of people, but rather, a prohibited activity.

While homosexual sex is certainly something of interest to homosexuals, banning the behavior is not exactly the same as creating a law expressly directed at homosexuals.

That doesn't sit well. It's like Geneva convention laws that prohibit shooting directly at a parachuting soldier with the intention to kill him, but it's perfectly ok to shoot at his equipment like his jacket, his helmut, or parachute. hmm.

sure you say you're not "against" gays, but you essentially won't let them "be" gay. It's like allowing me to "be" a football player, but you don't permit to actually play.

jrob

2004-03-03, 06:30 PM

oh my god. the shit some of you are saying is striaght up SCARY.

i can only hope that one day someone tells you that what you love and who you are isn't ok with the government, and that you can't be you. maybe that'll grab ya by the balls? :shrug:

nietzsche

2004-03-03, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by jrob
oh my god. the shit some of you are saying is striaght up SCARY.

i can only hope that one day someone tells you that what you love and who you are isn't ok with the government, and that you can't be you. maybe that'll grab ya by the balls? :shrug:

No! They will never revoke my NAMBLA membership!!!!

velvetgoldmire

2004-03-03, 07:19 PM

Brian, why are you in NAMBLA? You don't look like Marlon Brando

nietzsche

2004-03-03, 07:20 PM

'bout tree fity!

Agent Sunshine

2004-03-03, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by nietzsche
no, the point is that if the legal arguement to prohibit laws against homosexual sex is based on "consensual adults doing what they want to do", then it does open the door for legal recognition of all types of things under that principle, such as incest, etc.

There is a legit argument against incest, in that it has been proven to cause a disproportionate number of birth defects. That should be grounds for banning it, because then you are potentially affecting the life of your child, not just the consenting adults.

Frankly, the argument that this opens the door for polygamy may very well be a valid argument, because that is also an agreement between adults. And to that end, I don't think there should be laws against polygamy. The only arguments against I've ever heard against polygamy have revolved around an unbalanced power structure between genders or some crap like that, which if you look at the history of marriage between individual men and women isn't much of an argument at all, since men have historically dominated women anyway. If someone knows of more legit arguments against it, lemme know.

the sex molesters

2004-03-04, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by empath
This is from a Rolling Stone article in 1999-- this is how the anti-gay movement really thinks... seems to be that he just really wants someone to :siihp:

that quote is really ignorant. has he ever had homosexual sex? how does he know? well let me tell you, i have.... and personally i still prefer women to men. i'll admit i still find men attractive, but i've had better sex with women. so that throws this guy's whole theory into a different perspective i think.

...on top of the fact that they have identified a "homosexual gene."

iminxtc

2004-03-04, 03:48 AM

Say no to gay marriage! :ontome:

SiK BuG

2004-03-04, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by iminxtc
Say no to gay marriage! :ontome:

this was not made Amanda it was made by Cris on accident.

a.c.d.c.

2004-03-04, 09:35 AM

Staight Plan for the Gay Man

Light Touch

2004-03-04, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by nietzsche
That doesn't sit well. It's like Geneva convention laws that prohibit shooting directly at a parachuting soldier with the intention to kill him, but it's perfectly ok to shoot at his equipment like his jacket, his helmut, or parachute. hmm.

sure you say you're not "against" gays, but you essentially won't let them "be" gay. It's like allowing me to "be" a football player, but you don't permit to actually play.

I think it's more similar to abuse victims who kill their abusers later in life. It's clearly illegal, clearly vigilantism, but an obvious consequence as well.

If the government can expect abuse victims not to retaliate against their abusers, I think the government can expect homosexuals not to marry.

Light Touch

2004-03-04, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Agent Sunshine
There is a legit argument against incest, in that it has been proven to cause a disproportionate number of birth defects. That should be grounds for banning it, because then you are potentially affecting the life of your child, not just the consenting adults.

That's not really a legit argument. The probability change is something on the order from 1:200,000 to 1:50,000. 4x as likely, but hardly epidemic.

BizarroCub

2004-03-04, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Light Touch
If the government can expect abuse victims not to retaliate against their abusers, I think the government can expect homosexuals not to marry.

Can you ellucidate what you mean? I didn't quite understand what you meant.

Light Touch

2004-03-04, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by djinergy
...on top of the fact that they have identified a "homosexual gene."

You better back that up with a journal citation.

It simply makes no biological sense whatsoever for there to be a homosexual gene. What, so members of the species can obtain that gene and die off for lack of reproduction?

Light Touch

2004-03-04, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by BizarroCub
Can you ellucidate what you mean? I didn't quite understand what you meant.

I'm just saying that there are certain behaviors that are consequential to certain preconditions (retaliation to abuse; marrying another person of the same sex to being homosexual).

If the government can outlaw behaviors in the former case, they should be able to do it in the latter case.

BizarroCub

2004-03-04, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Light Touch
You better back that up with a journal citation.

It simply makes no biological sense whatsoever for there to be a homosexual gene. What, so members of the species can obtain that gene and die off for lack of reproduction?

And if it's not genetic at all, recessive I'm sure, then why has it perpetuated it self through every species, through time.

I don't really think it's wholly genetic, but I definately think there is some coding into it.

-Grizz

zartan

2004-03-04, 02:14 PM

"It simply makes no biological sense whatsoever for there to be a homosexual gene. What, so members of the species can obtain that gene and die off for lack of reproduction?"

that's silly. It doesn't make biological sense for there to be a breast cancer gene either, but it exists. Not all genetic mutations are 100% perfect adaptations.

Light Touch

2004-03-04, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by BizarroCub
And if it's not genetic at all, recessive I'm sure, then why has it perpetuated it self through every species, through time.

I'll need a journal citation on that assertion, too. :D

Light Touch

2004-03-04, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by zartan
It doesn't make biological sense for there to be a breast cancer gene either, but it exists.

Journal citation for that, too.

Agent Sunshine

2004-03-04, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Light Touch
I'm just saying that there are certain behaviors that are consequential to certain preconditions (retaliation to abuse; marrying another person of the same sex to being homosexual).

If the government can outlaw behaviors in the former case, they should be able to do it in the latter case.

Um, one of those situations involves harming another person, the other doesn't. Not a very difficult distinction, mang.

Agent Sunshine

2004-03-04, 02:45 PM

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/285/5429/803a?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=%22gay+gene%22&searchid=1078425616168_8348&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=2/29/2004

There were other articles in Science, including one that I believe questions these findings, but I don't have access to them. Same with articles on breast cancer genes. Feel free to search for "'breast cancer' gene" in Science and register to get access to the articles, or go look them up at the library.

babou

2004-03-05, 10:27 AM

With breast cancer they have discovered a mutation of 2 genes.
Here's an abstract from N.E. Journal of Medicine: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/344/8/539?hits=20&where=fulltext&andorexactfulltext=and&searchterm=breast+cancer+gene&sortspec=Score%2Bdesc%2BPUBDATE_SORTDATE%2Bdesc&excludeflag=TWEEK_element&searchid=1078496107627_3849&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=nejm

Now with the "gay gene", as people call it, has, as far as I know, eluded scientists. Unless I've missed something in the past year or so. However, if homosexuality is biological, then I would imagine there is possibly some genetic mutation or something along those lines that could cause it. Not to compare homosexuality to diseases, but they are finding genetic explanations for so many...help me here I'm struggling for a word as I don't want to use abnormality...things that happen to human beings. Why is it so hard to imagine the same could be true for homosexuality?

As for the above article, I remember reading that had been disproved and that they were kind of starting their search over. N'est pas?

jediprince8007

2004-03-08, 12:47 PM

I guess us gay people will have to fight for our rights like the Blacks did in the 50s-60's and the women in the 1900s and now it's time for the Gay and Lisbians, transgender to do as well. until people get it thru their heads that all people are created Equal.
:bonk:

A.J. Inx

2004-03-09, 02:48 PM

And once AGAIN the sheer ignorance of people amazes, astounds and confounds me... :shady:

Synthetikid

2004-03-09, 03:07 PM

It wouldn't even be an issue if this country had true separation of church and state- righty republicans just don't want to give tax breaks to 'fags'.

SCHLiTZ

2004-03-09, 03:08 PM

I've posted my feelings on this before, but here it is again.

Marriage is a religious ceremony... if the religion in question does not approve of gay marriage, then no marriage should be allowed.
However, I believe that for government purposes, civil unions should be the determining factor for offering rights to couples.
So, civil unions should be offered to any loving couple AND a marriage should count as a civil union.

Plain, simple, clear...

A.J. Inx

2004-03-09, 03:17 PM

...schlitz has the CUTEST KITTEN EVER!.....

SCHLiTZ

2004-03-09, 03:24 PM

awww.... thank you!

BTW, ninja pirates are teh awesome...

zartan

2004-03-09, 03:27 PM

interesting and unusual perspective on this - from the best source of libertarian-slanted opinion, reason (reason.com)

The slippery slope argument has trailed gay marriage like a desperate bridesmaid. Gay marriage opponents sooner or later (usually sooner) make the claim that governmental approval of same-sex nuptials will open the door to marriages among multiple partners, between close family members, between adults and children, between humans and animals, etc. Proponents alternately refuse to engage these arguments or, worse, sniff at the alternatives.

"[The ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court that banning same-sex marriage creates a second-class status of relationship] is not accurate," says Matthew D. Staver, an attorney with Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which is suing San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom over his decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses. "It creates no different status than what we've said about incestuous or polygamous marriage. There is a whole range of age differences that we don't recognize in marriage. We obviously make distinctions; the question is whether you think there's a rational basis for such a distinction. I think there is clearly a rational basis for not privileging same-sex marriage in the same way you would marriage between a man and a woman."

Supporters of gay marriage ignore such arguments at their own risk. The various legal and legislative contests at work these days can't be treated in detail in this article: President Bush's proposal of a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution seems unlikely to attract the necessary supermajorities, and history has not been kind to attempts to take the Constitution beyond its functions as a governmental framework and into social and cultural prescription. Whether Newsom is violating California's Proposition 22 or (as he argues) upholding the state's equal protection requirements will be decided in court later this month. Meanwhile, our ongoing national crash course in marriage law provides little guidance to this new domestic category.

But the slippery slope argument is at least worth considering. It seems unavoidable that widespread acceptance of gay marriage will in fact create a push for recognition of alternate domestic arrangements—those named above as well as others we haven't thought of yet.

What gay marriage opponents (or, if you prefer, defenders of traditional marriage) don't acknowledge is that many of these challenges would go nowhere. Marriages to children or animals will remain out of bounds on the basis of statutory rape, consent, and animal cruelty laws that have nothing to do with marriage. In other cases, lack of demand would make state intervention unnecessary. There may still be a powerful incest urge in the world's remaining royal families, but here in America, where we bend the knee to no man, E.O. Wilson has persuasively argued that rejection of incest is an essential trait; it would hardly require government intervention to prevent brothers and sisters from marrying each other in large numbers.

Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families (a plaintiff in the suit against Newsom), disagrees. "Historically, issues of age and number of partners have been secondary to the requirement that a marriage consist of a man and a woman," he says. "This is where the libertarian argument for non-intervention breaks down. If consenting adults is the rule of the day, then three or four people who want to marry each other would become normal in America."

And what if it did? Thomasson claims that such changes would "do away with the foundations of society," but this is debatable: Whatever complaints we may have with Islamic civilization, it certainly was not undermined by widespread polygamy. There is no credible basis for proscriptions on such behavior between consenting adults; it was improper for the U.S. government to pressure Mormons into changing their domestic behavior, and unfortunate that the LDS Church capitulated to this unconstitutional infringement.

But conservatives are right: Opening up the debate to alternative domestic arrangements like these would have an impact, in ways that can't be easily dismissed as private concerns. Marriage entails serious rights and benefits—more than a few of which involve coercion of some third party. City and state governments around the country already require employers to extend health care and other benefits to employees' spouses. It is arguably unreasonable to expect an employer who abhors homosexual behavior to subsidize a same-sex marriage. It would be financially ruinous to make a boss insure the seven husbands of one of his employees. The Internet is already brimming with offers of Asian brides in search of green-card husbands; how many sham marriages would the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service have to sift through once an American man could marry thirty Filipinas? What tax benefits will apply to a plural marriage? How can the authorities turn informants among a criminal gang whose members are all married to each other and thus have immunity from testifying in court?

Many of these examples are too unlikely or absurd to merit consideration. But an expansion of marriage opportunities would raise valuable dilemmas, the solutions to which may well involve devolution of government interference in the private sector. If it's unreasonable to expect a boss to insure multiple spouses, why is it reasonable when we force her to insure just one? Single people already subsidize their married co-workers and fellow taxpayers in numerous ways; perhaps it's worth reconsidering the social engineering arguments that created this situation. Maybe it's even worth taking another look at the "family reunification" goals of the 1965 Immigration Act. Up until now, we've been content with a vast range of marriage-related governmental intrusions. Gay marriage calls many of them into question. I have no love for Gavin Newsom—who as a supervisor ignored my repeated requests to fix a dangerously defective traffic light on my corner—but he may inadvertently be steering us toward a truly private definition of marriage.

So far, proponents of same-sex marriage have been content to make mutually exclusive arguments—that gay marriage is no big deal and that it is vitally important. They should be more courageous in their assertions: Gay marriage could well destroy the civic institution of marriage that has been defined by more than a century of governmental tinkering. That's the best argument for it I've heard yet

A.J. Inx

2004-03-09, 03:35 PM

I hadn't thought about it that way.... hmmmmmm.... :shrug: Okay, thought about it. I still think we should allow gay COUPLES to wed.... sorry. It's just my personal opinion.

BizarroCub

2004-03-09, 03:56 PM

Thanks for sharing that Eric. That article is awesome. That in a lot of ways sums up how I feel about it. Thanks.

-Grizz

zartan

2004-03-09, 05:25 PM

you should read reason if you don't already. its absolutely the best commentary out there, hands down. i subscribe.

Heider

2005-08-30, 11:43 PM

this poll is pointless on this forum. i voted no. no point in trying to argue my view though.

ZRilla

2005-08-30, 11:53 PM

this poll is pointless on this forum. i voted no. no point in trying to argue my view though.

Whoa?! What the? You're like an archaeologist or something.

Heider

2005-08-30, 11:56 PM

Whoa?! What the? You're like an archaeologist or something.

yeah i know. i didn't bother to read any of the other responses. so meh.

Terry85

2005-08-31, 01:56 AM

This will be a very non-scientific poll with very skewed results simply because it is being taken on a forum promoting the dance scene. Just my .02

I chose "Civil unions instead" but I would support gay marriage if it was law, however it isn't, so what is going on in San Fran is wrong, IMHO.

So, African Americans shouldn't have stood up for their rights during early civil rights movements eh? I mean, "it isn't law so it's wrong"

...you are so brainwashed.

Terry85

2005-08-31, 01:57 AM

Who is for it and who is not?

I am not for it, for many reasons which I do not feel like debating. Just wondering how everyone else feels on the situation?

Just curious, does your "not feel like debating" translate into "I really have no valid reason except for being a zealous bigot." Or did you really just sit here and make a poll and then decide "I don't feel like discussing it?"

Seriously... :wtf:

Heider

2005-08-31, 10:59 AM

this poll is pointless on this forum. i voted no. no point in trying to argue my view though.

the fact that i receive neg rep with no comments, for stating my opinion on a poll (which is asking for opinions), just proves my point even more.

Liftedtrance

2005-08-31, 11:12 AM

the fact that i receive neg rep with no comments, for stating my opinion on a poll (which is asking for opinions), just proves my point even more.

no it doesnt.
people have the right to give negative rep if they want. its their choice if they would like to do so. why should they be denied the "right" to give you negative rep? they shouldnt be denied that right, just like you shouldnt be denied the "right" to give your opinion.
someone giving you negative rep (signed, unsigned, comments, no comments, doesnt matter) doesnt stifle you from stating your opinion so i dont see the issue.

AND it only takes 1 person to give you negative rep. do you think that b/c one person out of so many thousands that are signed up on this board gave you negative rep that proves that there is no point in trying to argue your view?
i think thats kind of silly logic really.
people have opinions.
then other people have opinions about the other person's opinions.
and as long as a group of people arent taking obvious steps to actually stifle someone stating their opinions, then i dont see any issue.

that's how i see it, ya know?

BizarroCub

2005-08-31, 11:15 AM

the fact that i receive neg rep with no comments, for stating my opinion on a poll (which is asking for opinions), just proves my point even more.

What point? That people have no respect for cop outs...if that's the case, then you'd be right...

If you come here expressing an opinion, it also follows that you should be willing to defend it...which is the ppoint..

Heider

2005-08-31, 11:17 AM

no it doesnt.
people have the right to give negative rep if they want. its their choice if they would like to do so. why should they be denied the "right" to give you negative rep? they shouldnt be denied that right, just like you shouldnt be denied the "right" to give your opinion.
someone giving you negative rep (signed, unsigned, comments, no comments, doesnt matter) doesnt stifle you from stating your opinion so i dont see the issue.

AND it only takes 1 person to give you negative rep. do you think that b/c one person out of so many thousands that are signed up on this board gave you negative rep that proves that there is no point in trying to argue your view?
i think thats kind of silly logic really.
people have opinions.
then other people have opinions about the other person's opinions.
and as long as a group of people arent taking obvious steps to actually stifle someone stating their opinions, then i dont see any issue.

that's how i see it, ya know?

well it was [3] people. but anyway, i thought the whole point of having the "rep" concept on this board is to let everyone know who the jerk-offs are....not to let everyone know who you disagree with. i stated my opinion in a calm manner without directing insults at anyone.

velvetgoldmire

2005-08-31, 11:31 AM

So why not just vote "No" and leave it at that? Why proclaim that you just voted no and will give no reason? Why draw attention to yourself that way? That's just goofy. If you have an opinion, state it.

Liftedtrance

2005-08-31, 11:32 AM

well it was 2 people. but anyway, i thought the whole point of having the "rep" concept on this board is to let everyone know who the jerk-offs are....not to let everyone know who you disagree with. i stated my opinion in a calm manner without directing insults at anyone.

2 people? well that kinda sucks, but it's still only 2 people.
and besides, like i said, people have the right to give you negative rep.
i don't think rep is to let everyone know who the jerkoffs are.
its really open to being whatever you want it to be.
who knows? maybe the 2 people that gave you negative rep think like you do; that the rep concept is to let people know who the jerkoffs are, and they think you are one of them.
just because you're calm and think you're not insulting people doesnt mean people are going to like your opinion or not think you are a jerkoff.
i don't really think you're a jerkoff or anything, but im just sayin

Liftedtrance

2005-08-31, 11:38 AM

So why not just vote "No" and leave it at that? Why proclaim that you just voted no and will give no reason? Why draw attention to yourself that way? That's just goofy. If you have an opinion, state it.

such a good point.
proclaiming that you will not give a reason b/c there is no point doing so on this board is just drawing attention to yourself and helping to make it seem like a self fulfilling prophesy.
"oh, look at that! Someone gave me negative rep, see I was right."
well, i'd have to say you pretty much invited the negative rep.

if a group of people were talking about something they found important, and you popped into the conversation to say "hey, i disagree with most of you, but i'm not going to say why, b/c there's really no point in trying to argue with you people." and walked off.... do you think those people's opinion of you would be good?

b/c thats essentially what you did in this thread.

(btw I have no idea why i feel like talking about and analyzing this subject so much right now, its nothing personal towards you cnut.)

Heider

2005-08-31, 11:48 AM

So why not just vote "No" and leave it at that? Why proclaim that you just voted no and will give no reason? Why draw attention to yourself that way? That's just goofy. If you have an opinion, state it.

yeah i realized that might have seemed weird after the fact. my post was more about saying i thought the poll was pointless, but i decided to throw in my poll opinion as well.

velvetgoldmire

2005-08-31, 11:56 AM

But yet you won't give a reason why? The poll makes a lot more sense then the majority of polls on this board. It creates discussion and debate... at least for those who are willing to state their reasons, or at the very least read what others have said.

Heider

2005-08-31, 12:04 PM

But yet you won't give a reason why? The poll makes a lot more sense then the majority of polls on this board. It creates discussion and debate... at least for those who are willing to state their reasons, or at the very least read what others have said.

because of obvious physical and religious reasons. but i'm not on buzz to have religious discussions. if you want my reasons then read the Bible, and stop to take a look at the anatomy of the human body.

velvetgoldmire

2005-08-31, 12:17 PM

If you don't want to draw attention to yourself and have the discussion then you shouldn't have made mention of it in the first place, voted in the poll, and not made mention that you posted. Since you did, welcome to an open discussion. The passage which most people take from the bible that says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." is from Leviticus 18:22. So, if you believe in that and follow that law, you must follow other laws from that book. You must be ok with taking slaves from neighboring nations (Leviticus 25:44), sacrificing a ball at your alter (Leviticus 1:9), and that eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 10:10). Afterall, if you believe in the bible, you can't pick and choose your passages as they serve your needs, can you? You could argue that the Old Testament was declared null-and-void when the New Testament was created, but then that would throw out the whole reason as to why people who follow the bible are against gay sex. As far as anatomy, that's just silly... unless you're against recieving a blowjob.

Heider

2005-08-31, 01:46 PM

If you don't want to draw attention to yourself and have the discussion then you shouldn't have made mention of it in the first place, voted in the poll, and not made mention that you posted. Since you did, welcome to an open discussion. The passage which most people take from the bible that says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." is from Leviticus 18:22. So, if you believe in that and follow that law, you must follow other laws from that book. You must be ok with taking slaves from neighboring nations (Leviticus 25:44), sacrificing a ball at your alter (Leviticus 1:9), and that eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 10:10). Afterall, if you believe in the bible, you can't pick and choose your passages as they serve your needs, can you? You could argue that the Old Testament was declared null-and-void when the New Testament was created, but then that would throw out the whole reason as to why people who follow the bible are against gay sex. As far as anatomy, that's just silly... unless you're against recieving a blowjob.

From the New Testament:
quoted from http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/nt.html
Homosexuality in the Bible

Romans



With his usual intolerance, Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). This is the only clear reference to lesbians in the Bible. 1:26-28 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/1.html#26)
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/1.html#31)

1 Corinthians


Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/6.html#9)
1 Timothy


Homosexuals (those "that defile themselves with mankind") are included in Paul's list of lawless, disobedient, unholy, and profane people. 1:10 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/1.html#10)
2 Timothy


Paul says that in the last days people will become evil, "without natural affection." Fundamentalist say that this refers to homosexuals. 3:3 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/2tim/3.html#3) 
Jude


God sent "eternal fire" on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for "going after strange flesh." 7-8 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/jude/1.html#7)

BizarroCub

2005-08-31, 01:59 PM

From the New Testament:
quoted from http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/nt.html
Homosexuality in the Bible

Romans



With his usual intolerance, Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). This is the only clear reference to lesbians in the Bible. 1:26-28 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/1.html#26)
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/1.html#31)

1 Corinthians


Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/6.html#9)
1 Timothy


Homosexuals (those "that defile themselves with mankind") are included in Paul's list of lawless, disobedient, unholy, and profane people. 1:10 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/1.html#10)
2 Timothy


Paul says that in the last days people will become evil, "without natural affection." Fundamentalist say that this refers to homosexuals. 3:3 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/2tim/3.html#3) 
Jude


God sent "eternal fire" on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for "going after strange flesh." 7-8 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/jude/1.html#7)


Thankfully...none of that is relevant to US law...

velvetgoldmire

2005-08-31, 02:36 PM

So what does that say? That Paul hates gay people, yet I see no word from anyone else like, say, Jesus about it. Even though a lot of it is left up to interpretation as to if they are even referring to homosexuals. If this is even the proper translation of the bible, seeing as how it has been rewritten so many times to appease the politics of the age.

ZRilla

2005-08-31, 02:42 PM

You all are missing the broader point. Marriage should be abolished. No judge is supposed to uphold an 'unconscionable contract or clause' and clearly the terms of marriage are well outside the bounds of a conscionable contract. Unconscionable!

Alexis

2005-08-31, 02:51 PM

If Hetero couples can make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage than fuckit! let the homosexuals do it too!

everyone seems to be ending up in divorce court anyway.

I'm pro gay marriage.

When I saw John Waters speak at UMCP he expressed his disbelief as to why gay people would even want to get married. He said, "I'm gay, and frankly I am pretty comfortable with the fact that I never have to be part of those boring hetero people that settle down and start squeezing out litters of children" then he went on to say that as a homosexual he is relieved that his love of the cock excepts him from this boring existance so many people try to achieve. But if people want to do this, LET THEM

not verbatim, it was much funnier

Terry85

2005-08-31, 03:49 PM

From the New Testament:
quoted from http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/nt.html
Homosexuality in the Bible

Romans



With his usual intolerance, Paul condemns homosexuals (including lesbians). This is the only clear reference to lesbians in the Bible. 1:26-28 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/1.html#26)
Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/rom/1.html#31)

1 Corinthians


Paul lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/6.html#9)
1 Timothy


Homosexuals (those "that defile themselves with mankind") are included in Paul's list of lawless, disobedient, unholy, and profane people. 1:10 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1tim/1.html#10)
2 Timothy


Paul says that in the last days people will become evil, "without natural affection." Fundamentalist say that this refers to homosexuals. 3:3 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/2tim/3.html#3) 
Jude


God sent "eternal fire" on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for "going after strange flesh." 7-8 (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/jude/1.html#7)


Oh...my...god, I can't believe you just quoted the bible as reasons behind your not supporting gay marriage. :nixo:

I hope you know that that book is over 2000 years old, and has been changed by various rulers over the course of that time to appease the aristocrats of society and to make it easier for the dictator to enforce law.

No more quoting the bible please, it makes me throw up on things. :thumbsdown:

Terry85

2005-08-31, 03:50 PM

Oh...my...god, I can't believe you just quoted the bible as reasons behind your not supporting gay marriage. :nixo:

I hope you know that that book is over 2000 years old, and has been changed by various rulers over the course of that time to appease the aristocrats of society and to make it easier for the dictator to enforce law.

No more quoting the bible please, it makes me throw up on things. :thumbsdown:

And by the way, have you NO knowledge on what the constitution says?

NYGblue

2005-08-31, 04:25 PM

because of obvious physical and religious reasons. but i'm not on buzz to have religious discussions. if you want my reasons then read the Bible, and stop to take a look at the anatomy of the human body.

ROFL... dude... try reading the bible yourself. Furthermore, what about the human anatomy? Oh wait let me guess... there are "in" holes and "out" holes? and those shouldn't be interchanged... you're a fucking idiot. No need to neg. rep. you to let you know that. :patricia:

BizarroCub

2005-08-31, 04:37 PM

because of obvious physical and religious reasons. but i'm not on buzz to have religious discussions. if you want my reasons then read the Bible, and stop to take a look at the anatomy of the human body.

So by that logic, I would assume that you have never had nor would ever accept a blowjob right?

Terry85

2005-08-31, 06:06 PM

So by that logic, I would assume that you have never had nor would ever accept a blowjob right?

Isn't it right that the bible PROHIBITS sex AT ALL, or am I mistaken?

At the very least, you CANNOT have sex before marriage, and you MUST only do it in the missionary position. Watch yourself or YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!

NYGblue

2005-08-31, 06:42 PM

Isn't it right that the bible PROHIBITS sex AT ALL, or am I mistaken?

At the very least, you CANNOT have sex before marriage, and you MUST only do it in the missionary position. Watch yourself or YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!

No it just states that sex should be used for procreation under the sacrament of marriage. I suppose thats the only firm ground you can stand on against homosexuality from a religious point of view. But in reality, i think what everyone misses is the fact that God/Jesus/the Bible didn't say that these are the words that should be forced on all people but that as a believer you should follow them. So even if, as a religious person, you don't agree with homosexuality, to push your views on to others is almost antithetical to the bibles teachings. Because essentially you are supposed to focus on yourself and how you live your life, not how others do. Furthermore, judging others is considered a sin. So basically you can say that, yes, evangelicals are heretics, and no they are not closer to god than anyone else.

I don't need a pull out the bible for this bullshit, I went to Catholic HS and took religious courses all 4 years on top of CCD which I did all of my life. So if anyone has a problem with what I am saying you can go fuck yourself and your stupid religious. Or just try READING the bible yourself instead of telling others what to do.

Religious zealots make Liberatarianism seem appealing, even the social darwinist aspects.

End of Rant.

Terry85

2005-08-31, 06:54 PM

No it just states that sex should be used for procreation under the sacrament of marriage.

Hmm, I guess this is the reason so many "religious" families have like 6 or more kids, they're not supposed to do it for "recreation." :jeebus:

DeAtHmOnGeR bEaR

2005-08-31, 07:03 PM

Here's what I've always gotten out of the bible in relation to homosexual acts:

It speaks of homosexual acts only when they are part of sacred prostitution, idolatry, promiscuity, seducing children, rape, or violating hospitality. It condemns all such acts, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or having nothing to do with sex.

And the city of Sodom? Heh - re-read the passages, it was destroyed due to pride and inhosbility to others. At the time, being a gracious host was all-important.

Anyways, to quote something that sumed it up rather nicely...

"How did the lesson of Sodom become so identified with homosexual acts that the very word for one of those acts became Sodomy? The answer is in the Hebrew word: yãdhà.

Yãdhà has two meanings: "to know" and "engage in coitus." Of 943 times yãdhà is used in the Old Testament, only ten times is it used to mean sexual intercourse, and all of these are heterosexual coitus. The Old Testament uses the word shãkhabh to mean homosexual acts and bestiality.

Lot was a resident alien in Sodom. When Lot invited strangers into his home, the townspeople approached Lot and demanded "Bring them out unto us, that we may know them (yãdhà)." Judging from the biblical references we've just discussed, it seems the townspeople were asking to get to know the credentials and intentions of strangers in their city.

The absolute sacredness of a guest was a principle well known to Lot. Lot also understood the way crowds give in to hostile acts against outsiders (see Judges 19:1- 21:25 for a similar tale of hostility to strangers.) So he protected his guests and refused to hand them over to the crowd. When the crowd insisted, he offered his two daughters as the most expedient diversion for a hostile situation."
(http://www.postfun.com/pfp/homosexual.html#2)

maynard

2005-08-31, 07:09 PM

No it just states that sex should be used for procreation under the sacrament of marriage. I suppose thats the only firm ground you can stand on against homosexuality from a religious point of view. But in reality, i think what everyone misses is the fact that God/Jesus/the Bible didn't say that these are the words that should be forced on all people but that as a believer you should follow them. So even if, as a religious person, you don't agree with homosexuality, to push your views on to others is almost antithetical to the bibles teachings. Because essentially you are supposed to focus on yourself and how you live your life, not how others do. Furthermore, judging others is considered a sin. So basically you can say that, yes, evangelicals are heretics, and no they are not closer to god than anyone else.

Thank you.

Alexis

2005-09-01, 10:28 AM

because of obvious physical and religious reasons. but i'm not on buzz to have religious discussions. if you want my reasons then read the Bible, and stop to take a look at the anatomy of the human body.

Grizz brought up an excellent point, masturbation and oral sex are considered to be equivalent to HOMOSEXUAL acts.

have you ever jerked off? ever gotten a blow job? you are going to HELL with the rest of us godless heathens

1. The sin of Onan
In Genesis 38:7-10 we learn that Judah had a son named Er and a son named Onan. Er was married to Tamar. Because Er was evil, God killed him. Judah then commanded Onan to impregnate Tamar in order to raise up an heir for Er. Onan slept with Tamar, but every time he had sex with her, he spilled his seed on the ground. For this sin, God killed him.

Many have interpreted this to mean that spilling one's seed in a manner not designed to result in pregnancy is a sin. This is the same argument used against contraception. However, the Bible does not teach that Onan's sin was spilling his seed in and of itself. It was simply the means by which he prevented Tamar's insemination.

Some (such as the Roman Catholic Church) argue that spilling his seed was the crime for which God killed Onan. They base this on the following facts: 1) God killed Onan for his crime; 2) the punishment for failing to have a child by one's brother's widow was far less than death; 3) the punishment for failing to obey one's father was likewise not death; and 4) death was the appropriate punishment for many other sexual sins which were not designed to inseminate (homosexuality, bestiality, etc.). Based on these facts, many conclude that Onan's sin was not failing to raise up a child to his brother, but rather was engaging in a sexual act not designed to inseminate. Masturbation, sexual intercourse without contraception, oral sex, homosexuality, bestiality, and many other sexual practices fall into this category.

:hahano:

maynard

2005-09-01, 10:37 AM

"spilled his seed"

:haha:

Liftedtrance

2005-09-01, 10:50 AM

Er was evil

yes. he was evil wasn't he? he often flipped people the bird.

and he smoked while doing so.

http://images.quizilla.com/M/mindlessbella/1039766906_mooninites.GIF

velvetgoldmire

2005-09-01, 11:24 AM

Here's what I've always gotten out of the bible in relation to homosexual acts:

It speaks of homosexual acts only when they are part of sacred prostitution, idolatry, promiscuity, seducing children, rape, or violating hospitality. It condemns all such acts, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or having nothing to do with sex.

And the city of Sodom? Heh - re-read the passages, it was destroyed due to pride and inhosbility to others. At the time, being a gracious host was all-important.

Anyways, to quote something that sumed it up rather nicely...

"How did the lesson of Sodom become so identified with homosexual acts that the very word for one of those acts became Sodomy? The answer is in the Hebrew word: yãdhà.

Yãdhà has two meanings: "to know" and "engage in coitus." Of 943 times yãdhà is used in the Old Testament, only ten times is it used to mean sexual intercourse, and all of these are heterosexual coitus. The Old Testament uses the word shãkhabh to mean homosexual acts and bestiality.

Lot was a resident alien in Sodom. When Lot invited strangers into his home, the townspeople approached Lot and demanded "Bring them out unto us, that we may know them (yãdhà)." Judging from the biblical references we've just discussed, it seems the townspeople were asking to get to know the credentials and intentions of strangers in their city.

The absolute sacredness of a guest was a principle well known to Lot. Lot also understood the way crowds give in to hostile acts against outsiders (see Judges 19:1- 21:25 for a similar tale of hostility to strangers.) So he protected his guests and refused to hand them over to the crowd. When the crowd insisted, he offered his two daughters as the most expedient diversion for a hostile situation."
(http://www.postfun.com/pfp/homosexual.html#2)

Lauren ownz

maynard

2005-09-01, 11:29 AM

yes. he was evil wasn't he? he often flipped people the bird.

and he smoked while doing so.

http://images.quizilla.com/M/mindlessbella/1039766906_mooninites.GIF

http://www.toddkelley.net/images/wolfen.jpg

no one can defeat the quad laser!

Liftedtrance

2005-09-01, 11:32 AM

http://www.toddkelley.net/images/wolfen.jpg

no one can defeat the quad laser!

Lock In!

http://www.mytungsten.net/images/forum3k/mooninites.gif

LilLemur416

2005-09-01, 11:48 AM

I <3 many people in this thread.

The bible also says "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone" (John 8:7) So rather than saying that homosexuals are sinners and deserve to die - take a look at yourself first.

CareBear

2005-09-01, 12:03 PM

Little late seeing this one but I feel people should have a right to live... if that means they which to get hitch to someone of the same sex it shouldn't be anyones buisness but there own and they should be allowed too. Freedom to choose.

maynard

2005-09-01, 12:04 PM

I <3 many people in this thread.

The bible also says "He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone" (John 8:7) So rather than saying that homosexuals are sinners and deserve to die - take a look at yourself first.

On that note, another verse states "do not tell your brother to remove the speck of sawdust from his eye before you deal with the plank in your own."

At any rate, Laura, you're right on. People who support gay marriage bans are in direct violation of THREE direct commandments from god himself.

1) Judge not, lest ye be judged; for only God can judge.
2) Love your neighbor as yourself, which is the basis behind commandments 5-10.
3) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The fact remains that whether or not homosexuality is a sin is 100% irrelevant when it comes to the issue of gay marriage. Let's suppose for a second that the Christians are right, and that there is a god and that homosexuality is an abomination. Regardless of this, it is NOT up to anyone on this earth to prohibit homosexuals from marrying. On the day of judgment, it would be up to god and god alone to punish them for their "crimes" and to say "hey, you were wrong."

Sadly, this notion is not enough for today's Christian. They insist on putting themselves in god's position of determining what is right for others.

Again - even if you believe homosexuality is wrong, that still gives you ZERO cause to seek to deny those who practice it basic human rights, as this is in direct violation of god's commands.

cleophite

2005-09-01, 12:06 PM

Wait, you mean you can't pick and choose passages from the Bible to oppress people you don't agree with?!

There's gotta be a commandment that says I can.

Liftedtrance

2005-09-01, 12:10 PM

"do not tell your brother to remove the speck of sawdust from his eye before you deal with the plank in your own."

:freakout:

ack! someone help me, i've got a 2 by 4 stuck in my eye!

(I apologize for my inability to remain serious)

maynard

2005-09-01, 12:11 PM

:freakout:

ack! someone help me, i've got a 2 by 4 stuck in my eye!

(I apologize for my inability to remain serious)

:haha:

it's okay, someone's gotta come through with the comic relief here. otherwise, this thread would explode.

LilLemur416

2005-09-01, 12:12 PM

Dan & Steve - :affection: You guys rock. :D

maynard

2005-09-01, 12:19 PM

Hey, 13 years of attending Christian school comes in handy. :) Ironically, I think the fact that I attended Christian school is the reason for my outlook on religion. Even from a young age I remember disagreeing with much of what I was being taught.

At any rate, it has also been my experience (for the most part, this is not an absolute truth) that the people who are against gay marriages don't actually know any gay people, or at the very least they don't interact with any gay people. This removes the human aspect of the equation, and makes it easy for one to view gays with an almost inhuman attitude. This was evidenced in an episode of '30 Days'. I remember being a good little Christian boy and being fairly anti-gay until I got out in the world and actually started MEETING gay people and becoming friends with them. Seriously, the Church and other institutions bring people up almost to believe that homosexuals aren't even really people. It's disgusting.

LilLemur416

2005-09-01, 12:21 PM

Hey, 13 years of attending Christian school comes in handy. :) Ironically, I think the fact that I attended Christian school is the reason for my outlook on religion. Even from a young age I remember disagreeing with much of what I was being taught.

At any rate, it has also been my experience (for the most part, this is not an absolute truth) that the people who are against gay marriages don't actually know any gay people, or at the very least they don't interact with any gay people. This removes the human aspect of the equation, and makes it easy for one to view gays with an almost inhuman attitutde. This was evidenced in an episode of '30 Days'. I remember being a good little Christian boy and being fairly anti-gay until I got out in the world and actually started MEETING gay people and becoming friends with them. Seriously, the Church and other institutions bring people up almost to believe that homosexuals aren't even really people. It's disgusting.

:werd: Or their experience with gay people has been negative. I think the only gay person my mom knows is her friends ex-husband (he left her under really shitty circumstances) - and she gets all weirded out when she finds out that I have friends who are gay or bisexual.

Daniel Paul

2008-09-04, 02:28 PM

i see absolutely no reason what so ever why 2 ppl reguardless of their race, creed, color, or sexual preference shouldnt be able to be recognized and accepted as being "together". they breathe the same air and bleed the same blood. they have just as much of a rite to do so as anyone else.

besides, we dont have to worry about an abortion contraversy with them! further more since they wont be having children they can afford to pay more taxes.

Bulla

2008-09-04, 03:04 PM

i see absolutely no reason what so ever why 2 ppl reguardless of their race, creed, color, or sexual preference shouldnt be able to be recognized and accepted as being "together". they breathe the same air and bleed the same blood. they have just as much of a rite to do so as anyone else.

besides, we dont have to worry about an abortion contraversy with them! further more since they wont be having children they can afford to pay more taxes.

saving my fingers... this sums it up for me also