I want ppl to read this so before i tell you my answer i am going to give you the reason behind it. First, of all I am straight, but I do have family members who are not. Now for my reasoning. Marriage is and has always been a part of the Christian and Roman Catholic Church. Now don't go thinking im some religious freak or somethin cause im not. Just here me out. It has always been part of the Christian and Roman Catholic Church. I mean unless one chooses to change the marriage ceremony even it says By the power invested in me by God. Granted that word God could mean any religion, but it is still there. Anyways, the true Christian and Roman catholic churches do not allow for gay marriages because it was something set apart for one man and one woman. Why should they have to Change so people who choose to be gay/ lesbian can do things they want to do. As to the reference of choosing to be gay/lesbian, it is a choice. Even if it is genetically programed in your body to be homosexual, you make the coice to follow something your body tells you you want to do. Don't say it is not chioce. Alcoholism is proven to be a genetic trait, but htere are many alcoholics that have choosen to not drink any more. See the ponit. So to answer the question-No.
I think that's one of the problems w/ the world, stubborness, close-mindedness, and the inability to talk about something important. I know that's probably not the case here because its YN! lol. but, yeah....
<3 "War is not the answer" "Where is the love?" <3
quote: Yeah, but the benifits that marriage bestows isn't the same for the homosexuals and the hetrosexuals, therefore the giving both groups marriage isn't equal.
that hardly even begins to justify discrimination, nice try though.
quote: Actually, I was going to bring up incest. There's two consenting adults, and you could bring show the need for resources sharing even better.
and, as jerry springer has proven, incest isn't just homosexual.
quote: 'My case has nothing to do with wellbeing'
Yeah it's not like the health of the homosexuals matter</sarcasm>
Your wellbeing includes more than your physical health, too bad you don't realize that.
you have yet to prove your main position which is that legalizing gay marriage will harm the institution of marriage. And, until you prove that, you have no argument.
'Oh but lets completely forget about the issue of racial equality that plagued our nation for a long time. The original rights in the constitution were never intended to be extended to anybody outside of Caucasians, so shouldn't you be *****ing about that as well? Because clearly the courts went outside of the scope of the original intentions.'
That's besides the point becaus the judges rulled on the letter of the law, and we are a nation of laws, not people.
'But I'm sure you will bring up the issue of pedophilia, but that is a completely other issue. With same-sex unions we are talking about consenting adults here, while as with pedophilia we are talking about an issue between minors and adults.'
Actually, I was going to bring up incest. There's two consenting adults, and you could bring show the need for resources sharing even better.
'My case has nothing to do with wellbeing'
Yeah it's not like the health of the homosexuals matter</sarcasm>
'and everything to do with equality. And yet again, apples and oranges.'
Yeah, but the benifits that marriage bestows isn't the same for the homosexuals and the hetrosexuals, therefore the giving both groups marriage isn't equal.
'Thank you for admitting that you're wrong.'
What do you think that measure of a society is? technology? economic power? both of those civilzations haven't got much of either, and therefore you could hardly call it thriving.
'Yea, and i bet that's prolly true about heterosexual's too, afterall, no one believes in the sanctity of marriage now a days.'
I know that this pathetic, but actually, hetrosexuals are 20% monogous, but I is likely to grow as abstinence is a growing trend among teens.
'Well that discredits your source right there since reparative therapy has been proven to be nothing more than the illusions of weak minded god fearing people.'
There is no evidence that's fixed.
'If your not religious, then I don't understand why someone would care if gays got married unless they were simply homophobic.'
I am relgious, I'm just not using a relgious argument.
'From the religious aspect, I can understand a sense of loss, sense marriages are traditionally done as a religious ceremony. As long as gay marriages are not being done in a church, by a minister, I don't really see a problem with it. Christians can still hold their promises to God, in every way he commanded us to do so. Despite what non-Christians might do or say.'
Honestly what I really think is this:
The federal government should be way weaker than it is now, an assume the sole role of national and intranational security, and each state should live as however they want, so that each person could live thier ideal state, each according to what they want thier state to be. If a state wants to outlaw hetrosexual marriage, let em, just so long as have to live there. and furthermore, it would be ideal for each person in the US the people in it were governed locally, by the people in the same state instead of some majority halfway across the country.
If your not religious, then I don't understand why someone would care if gays got married unless they were simply homophobic.
From the religious aspect, I can understand a sense of loss, sense marriages are traditionally done as a religious ceremony. As long as gay marriages are not being done in a church, by a minister, I don't really see a problem with it. Christians can still hold their promises to God, in every way he commanded us to do so. Despite what non-Christians might do or say.
hahaha, someone's mad (I take satisfaction in knowing that).
quote: Matthew 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
'two of which were conceived out of wedlock by two different mothers. Nevertheless, I am the immoral one. '
Well you did have them out of wedlock.
he goes on...
'did he want us to ... take care of one another?'
And you are a religious zealot, you're just trying to hide it. And it finally seems that you've shown your true fanatical nature.
quote: You know damn well that study was for gays that declared themeselves to married, it had nothing to with the law, and everything to do with the homosexuals' relationships, and furthermore, this is something you really have to discredit because it shows that homosexuals would be worse off if the defintion of marriage was catered the thier idea of it, and you case for gay marriages surrounds the well being of homosexuals, and thus it would disrupt you case.
My case has nothing to do with wellbeing and everything to do with equality. And yet again, apples and oranges. Need i say more? I think not. And i still notice you have provided no evidence that legalizing gay marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.
quote: 'And marriage is not the social foundation of society. the Social aspect of society existed long before the concept of religion. The indigenous people of africa and the amazon don't have institutionalized marriage yet their society lives and thrives without it.'
Yeah, but those people were are very primitive, never making it beyond the hut; therefore, they are not a very good example of a civilization.
Thank you for admitting that you're wrong.
quote: 'In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.'
Yea, and i bet that's prolly true about heterosexual's too, afterall, no one believes in the sanctity of marriage now a days.
quote: cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality
Well that discredits your source right there since reparative therapy has been proven to be nothing more than the illusions of weak minded god fearing people.
quote: ' I listen time and time again to couples vowing to "love, honor, and cherish," knowing full well that at least 50% of them will break those vows.'
That's a distortion, many people who get divorced try to get marriage again and again (each time it's half as likely that it is going to work), so you can't say that 50% of people who get married fail to keep the 'till death do us part' part.
That's not distortion, what you just said was ablsolute bullsh!t and you know it. And if you don't stay married to the same person, then you don't keep, "till death do us part" what part of that phrase does our fragile mind not understand?
And, i still say we're having you fixed.
quote: The original rights in the constitution were never intended to be extended to anybody outside of Caucasians, so shouldn't you be *****ing about that as well? Because clearly the courts went outside of the scope of the original intentions. This is an issue that has to do with natural rights; the natural right to equality, or equal protection under the law.
quote: Yes but never untill the early 1900 did the courts detrmine the rights to be different than that which they were orgionally intended as.
Oh but lets completely forget about the issue of racial equality that plagued our nation for a long time. The original rights in the constitution were never intended to be extended to anybody outside of Caucasians, so shouldn't you be *****ing about that as well? Because clearly the courts went outside of the scope of the original intentions. This is an issue that has to do with natural rights; the natural right to equality, or equal protection under the law. But I'm sure you will bring up the issue of pedophilia, but that is a completely other issue. With same-sex unions we are talking about consenting adults here, while as with pedophilia we are talking about an issue between minors and adults.
[This message was edited by djmagnusa on January 26, 2004 at 12:23 AM.]
I am sick of your bull**** ICM! you keep tring to call me a relgious zealot, yet I haven't used any religious arguements (except for that one time I mis typed, but I corrected myself).
'Oh, but wait, homosexuals don't have institutional marriage, they only have ficticous, non-legal marriage. I will only say this one more time: don't compare apples and oranges, it's makes you look extremely stupid.'
You know damn well that study was for gays that declared themeselves to married, it had nothing to with the law, and everything to do with the homosexuals' relationships, and furthermore, this is something you really have to discredit because it shows that homosexuals would be worse off if the defintion of marriage was catered the thier idea of it, and you case for gay marriages surrounds the well being of homosexuals, and thus it would disrupt you case.
'k, first off, we've always had a living constitution, as was demonstrated by the supreme court case McCulloch v. Maryland back in the early 1800's which was just one of many examples where the supreme court interpreted the meaning of the constitution.'
Yes but never untill the early 1900 did the courts detrmine the rights to be different than that which they were orgionally intended as.
'And marriage is not the social foundation of society. the Social aspect of society existed long before the concept of religion. The indigenous people of africa and the amazon don't have institutionalized marriage yet their society lives and thrives without it.'
Yeah, but those people were are very primitive, never making it beyond the hut; therefore, they are not a very good example of a civilization.
'Marriage should be about loving, supportive, nurturing relationships, and such relationships are not dependent on gender. Gay marriages will only strengthen and enrich the social concept of marriage.'
'In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.'
(SOURCE: Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000. )
Considering the ultra low level of monogamy, I highly doubt that same-sex relationships would 'enhance marriage'
'The last time I checked, America was a secular state and its laws weren't simply an extension of Christ's teachings, as interpreted by religious hardliners.'
Christianity isn't the only religion that recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, and the West isn't the only culture to recognize marriage the same way.
'Isn't that exactly what Jesus was trying to teach us?'
(note first time refering to bible in arguement) Based on the following I strongly think that Jesus belive in gender roles, and a traditional view of marriage:
Matthew 19:5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?
'two of which were conceived out of wedlock by two different mothers. Nevertheless, I am the immoral one. '
Well you did have them out of wedlock.
he goes on...
'did he want us to ... take care of one another?'
Yes, and I belive that God wants children to be taken care of as illistrated in the scripture I quoted. A man a woman looking after thier kids, each parrent serving unique roles in the family, the father looking after the physical (and fiscal for that matter) well-being of the family, while the mother looks after the emotional well-being of the family.
'Yes, of course. When I think of the 50% divorce rate here in America, the homosexual community cannot possibly do worse.'
'In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."'
(SOURCE: "M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 25. ")
Considering that, I highly doubt it.
' I listen time and time again to couples vowing to "love, honor, and cherish," knowing full well that at least 50% of them will break those vows.'
That's a distortion, many people who get divorced try to get marriage again and again (each time it's half as likely that it is going to work), so you can't say that 50% of people who get married fail to keep the 'till death do us part' part.
'they need the socioeconomic advantages and protections'
Why? the are not going to give birth are they?
What is the urgent and pressing thing that requires society to benifit thier relationship?
Topics 
