Gay Marriage - FreeiPodGuide Forums

emoney

19-11-2006 20:15:33

You could show examples from around the world that give evidence that gay marriage does not decrease the number of heterosexual marriages.

Here is a start

[quotee8d9dc885c]Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples. In Scandinavia, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996) pioneered a separate-and-not-quite-equal status for same-sex couples called "registered partnership." (When they register, same-sex couples receive most of the financial and legal rights of marriage, other than the right to marry in a state church and the right to adopt children.) Since 2001, the Netherlands and Belgium have opened marriage to same-sex couples.

The numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they've been since the early 1970's. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged. [/quotee8d9dc885c]

from http//www.slate.com/id/2100884/

Daggoth

19-11-2006 20:16:30

[quote83687f7760="ilanbg"][quote83687f7760="Daggoth"]I don't really care about gay marriage, but here is a point

Single people will use gay marriage as an excuse for tax benefits without an actual commitment.[/quote83687f7760]

What? Do you have anything to back that up?

I'm not challenging it, but I've never heard of that.

...And I remain determined to turn this into a debate, sooner or later. Sorry Tyler.[/quote83687f7760]

Just took a cursory look over this

http//www.thetaskforce.org/theissues/issue.cfm?issueID=14

Marriage benefits
[quote83687f7760] li Access to employer-provided health and retirement benefits for partner and nonbiological/adoptive children
li Access to partner's coverage under Medicare and Social Security
li Ability to visit or make medical decisions for an ill or incapacitated partner
li Right to sue for wrongful death of partner
li Ability to sponsor one's partner for immigration
li Marital children gain family stability and economic security because of their parents' legal marriage that is inaccessible to nonmarital children, including the enhanced approval of marital children in society and streamlined adoption processes
li Access to health benefits and inheritance from both parents
li Right to maintain relationship with non-biological/adoptive parent in the event of other parents death (in states without same-sex second-parent adoptions)
[/quote83687f7760]

Oh, and before anyone starts arguing, I really couldn't care less on who/what a person decides to get married to.

Veek

19-11-2006 20:19:17

Obviously for gay marriage, though sometimes I'm kinda swayed from side to side.

I believe that people should marry who ever they love, but there some situations which I'd have some doubts on. But if it's marriage between two people who are not related, I think it's fine no matter what sex prefrence it is.

Apparently most of the people who are against gay marriage are those who are homophobic, or strongly religious. Though, I have met some very religious people who are for gay marriage. It's all a big circle of debate. Canada recognizes it, Mexico, Africa, and I forget which other countries.

Homosexuality isn't going away. I think it's just a matter of time. This is supposed to be a country of freedom, yet some people can't marry who they love. They're not bothering anyone, they're not killing people, blowing things up, stealing money, or anything that would obviously make people against gay marriage. It's two people who love and care for each other wanting to unify themselves and wanting their marriage to be recognized.

OldManWrigley

19-11-2006 20:19:28

[quote36b24226f4="Daggoth"]I don't really care about gay marriage, but here is a point

Single people will use gay marriage as an excuse for tax benefits without an actual commitment.[/quote36b24226f4]

...And why does that have to be with the same sex? Can't a man and a women do that too just the same as a man and a man or women and a women? Yes, they can...

it will be a debate, guarenteed me and ilanbg will have different views on it too ;)

Veek

19-11-2006 20:24:14

P.S LOL @ the Tivo icon on the thread. So random.

Daggoth

19-11-2006 20:25:21

[quotec666db8768="OldManWrigley"][quotec666db8768="Daggoth"]I don't really care about gay marriage, but here is a point

Single people will use gay marriage as an excuse for tax benefits without an actual commitment.[/quotec666db8768]

...And why does that have to be with the same sex? Can't a man and a women do that too just the same as a man and a man or women and a women? Yes, they can...

it will be a debate, guarenteed me and ilanbg will have different views on it too ;)[/quotec666db8768]

Yes, they can, but opening up gay marriages exploits this loophole. It is somewhat difficult to find a woman who will marry you, without commitment, for tax reasons, but if you already live with a roommate, usually the same sex as you, it is an easy way to make money.

Godrockdj

19-11-2006 21:04:54

[quote34e8831d21="Buster389"]I dont think that gay marriage should be up to the government it should be up to the church because there is nothing wrong with it other than your religion. [b34e8831d21]Even religiously i dont see anything wrong with gay marriage[/b34e8831d21].[/quote34e8831d21]

? ! ? What kind of religion are you in? lol

I am against homosexual marriage due to my religious beliefs. Leviticus 1822 NIV -[=http//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&verse=22&version=31&context=verse]Leviticus 1822 NIV - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

ilanbg

19-11-2006 21:07:24

Godrockdj What are your thoughts on separation of church and state in these instances, though?

Daggoth

19-11-2006 21:16:41

Gay marriage should not be banned on the basis of ethical, moral, or religious beliefs, but moreso on exploits that can be taken from it.

tylerc

19-11-2006 21:23:09

[quoteb3663eab9b="Godrockdj"][quoteb3663eab9b="Buster389"]I dont think that gay marriage should be up to the government it should be up to the church because there is nothing wrong with it other than your religion. [bb3663eab9b]Even religiously i dont see anything wrong with gay marriage[/bb3663eab9b].[/quoteb3663eab9b]

? ! ? What kind of religion are you in? lol

I am against homosexual marriage due to my religious beliefs. Leviticus 1822 NIV -[=http//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&verse=22&version=31&context=verse]Leviticus 1822 NIV - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."[/quoteb3663eab9b]

Err...separation of church and state?

Nimh

19-11-2006 21:24:04

[quotedfa47d8174="Daggoth"][quotedfa47d8174="OldManWrigley"][quotedfa47d8174="Daggoth"]I don't really care about gay marriage, but here is a point

Single people will use gay marriage as an excuse for tax benefits without an actual commitment.[/quotedfa47d8174]

...And why does that have to be with the same sex? Can't a man and a women do that too just the same as a man and a man or women and a women? Yes, they can...

it will be a debate, guarenteed me and ilanbg will have different views on it too ;)[/quotedfa47d8174]

Yes, they can, but opening up gay marriages exploits this loophole. It is somewhat difficult to find a woman who will marry you, without commitment, for tax reasons, but if you already live with a roommate, usually the same sex as you, it is an easy way to make money.[/quotedfa47d8174]

Oh yeah, I'm sure my roommate would LOVE to marry me! Because every guy just really wants the state to believe he's gay.

No offense, but that's a really dumb reason to oppose gay marriage. I really don't think that's going to be a largely exploited loophole.

geej86

19-11-2006 21:33:37

I really don't see that 'roommate loophole' being a big issue at all, i don't think it would become a problem.

all this bullshit about keeping the sanctity of marriage and so forth doesn't make sense. I can go to a vegas chapel at 2am blitzed out of my mind and get married while jason M and john Q have been together for 26 years and don't have this right.

[quote8608073d06]It's about issues such as being allowed to be by your dying loved-one's bedside in intensive care, or being able to reap the same tax benefits as other married people. We aren't asking the government to change the bible...just man's law. What happened to freedom of religion and separation of church and state?[/quote8608073d06]

like Veek said, it'll come inevitably

Daggoth

19-11-2006 21:39:28

[quote2ec2a401e0="Daggoth"]
Oh, and before anyone starts arguing, I really couldn't care less on who/what a person decides to get married to.[/quote2ec2a401e0]

I don't oppose it, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I was just pointed some conesquences. Here is another one. One of the maritial benefits is
[quote2ec2a401e0]
li Ability to sponsor one's partner for immigration
[/quote2ec2a401e0]

Lets say, Bob got into the United States and received citizenship, but Bob's best friend is outside of the U.S. So now, Bob decides that he wants his best friend to be his boyfriend. They get married, and now Bob can sponsor his friend into the U.S. I see the flaws in this argument, but it is plausible.

geej86

19-11-2006 21:42:26

i don't really think that two people of the same sex are more likely to take advantage of something like that

Veek

19-11-2006 21:44:19

Daggoth, I think that immigration part is being exploided by couples, regardless of sexual preference.

zr2152

19-11-2006 21:52:24

[quote1682407813="Godrockdj"][quote1682407813="Buster389"]I dont think that gay marriage should be up to the government it should be up to the church because there is nothing wrong with it other than your religion. [b1682407813]Even religiously i dont see anything wrong with gay marriage[/b1682407813].[/quote1682407813]

? ! ? What kind of religion are you in? lol

I am against homosexual marriage due to my religious beliefs. Leviticus 1822 NIV -[=http//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&verse=22&version=31&context=verse]Leviticus 1822 NIV - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."[/quote1682407813]

same here, I believe that if you believe in the bible and God's word, then I dont understand how you can be for gay marriage.

Again, for me its a religious view..its how I was raised and what I stand for.

irmuslim

19-11-2006 21:53:39

[quotebc9b33628b="geej86"]I really don't see that 'roommate loophole' being a big issue at all, i don't think it would become a problem.

all this bullshit about keeping the sanctity of marriage and so forth doesn't make sense. I can go to a vegas chapel at 2am blitzed out of my mind and get married while jason M and john Q have been together for 26 years and don't have this right.

[quotebc9b33628b]It's about issues such as being allowed to be by your dying loved-one's bedside in intensive care, or being able to reap the same tax benefits as other married people. We aren't asking the government to change the bible...just man's law. What happened to freedom of religion and separation of church and state?[/quotebc9b33628b]

like Veek said, it'll come inevitably[/quotebc9b33628b]
The tax thing or something similar happened soon after it was legalized here in Canada. Two college friends got married for money purposes and they're not gay.

And if homosexuality is acceptable, why isn't incest? I mean, you WANT people to do whatever they want with whoever they want in their bedroom, so why is incest looked down upon? Both are biologically unfeasible, since one leads to breaking down of the gene pool/inbreeding depression/increased homozygosity and the other puts an abrupt stop to gene flow.

I am against it, as it is against my religion and morally reprehensible to me.

zdub08

19-11-2006 21:57:21

[quotec6f9ed8808="irmuslim"][quotec6f9ed8808="geej86"]I really don't see that 'roommate loophole' being a big issue at all, i don't think it would become a problem.

all this bullshit about keeping the sanctity of marriage and so forth doesn't make sense. I can go to a vegas chapel at 2am blitzed out of my mind and get married while jason M and john Q have been together for 26 years and don't have this right.

[quotec6f9ed8808]It's about issues such as being allowed to be by your dying loved-one's bedside in intensive care, or being able to reap the same tax benefits as other married people. We aren't asking the government to change the bible...just man's law. What happened to freedom of religion and separation of church and state?[/quotec6f9ed8808]

like Veek said, it'll come inevitably[/quotec6f9ed8808]
The tax thing or something similar happened soon after it was legalized here in Canada. Two college friends got married for money purposes and they're not gay.

And if homosexuality is acceptable, why isn't incest? I mean, you WANT people to do whatever they want with whoever they want in their bedroom, so why is incest looked down upon? Both are biologically unfeasible, since one leads to breaking down of the gene pool/inbreeding depression/increased homozygosity and the other puts an abrupt stop to gene flow.

I am against it, as it is against my religion and morally reprehensible to me.[/quotec6f9ed8808]
incest harms the offspring while gay marriage doesnt really hurt anyone

JordanE

19-11-2006 22:03:40

Were talking about redefining an institution which has allowed our society to come as far as it has. You see, if we redefine marriage as a union "between two people who love each other", you have created a legal precedent to change the traditional definition of marriage. How, then, could you limit marriage to any definition at all. What would keep me from marrying my brother? Why should polygamy have to be illegal? Why can't five friends who "genuinely love eachother" get "married" for the purpose of reeping government benefits?

irmuslim

19-11-2006 22:16:56

[quote7f6b4514da="zdub08"]
incest harms the offspring while gay marriage doesnt really hurt anyone[/quote7f6b4514da]
There are many more things that harm the offspring than incest. Also, there's always contraceptives and other preventative measures that are used by non-incestuous relationships.

zdub08

19-11-2006 22:29:03

[quotee7b88e1f5e="JordanE"]Were talking about redefining an institution which has allowed our society to come as far as it has. You see, if we redefine marriage as a union "between two people who love each other", you have created a legal precedent to change the traditional definition of marriage. How, then, could you limit marriage to any definition at all. What would keep me from marrying my brother? Why should polygamy have to be illegal? Why can't five friends who "genuinely love eachother" get "married" for the purpose of reeping government benefits?[/quotee7b88e1f5e]
exactly, but shouldn't marriage be redefined if a person is born gay? i doubt any people are born polygamists, but that these people seek multiple spouses out of pleasure. the question in all of this is whether or not homosexuality is a choice, and i dont believe it is.

EatChex89

19-11-2006 22:39:12

i'm under the opinion that sex was meant to be between only a man and a woman; I believe the pleasures of sex are meant so that we procreate. That the pleasure is a "reward" if you will.

Gay marriage I don't think should be allowed, since it is an unnatural union; and if they do allow it, I don't think they should be allowed to have kids, because I think kids need both a mother and a father figure, not two mother figures and not two father figures.

Also, some might bring up the fact "well what about single parents?" That's different, and I think that too ruins kids and I'm under the impression that most children under a broken marriage have a higher chance of failing in their relationship/marriage as well.

That being said, I'm done with this thread and won't be replying to [b69073ce8af]any[/b69073ce8af] rebuttles.

Goodnight.

(P.S. I am not against homosexual people at all, I just don't believe in gay marriage..)

theysayjump

19-11-2006 22:42:30

[quote9376af4ef0="zr2152"][quote9376af4ef0="Godrockdj"][quote9376af4ef0="Buster389"]I dont think that gay marriage should be up to the government it should be up to the church because there is nothing wrong with it other than your religion. [b9376af4ef0]Even religiously i dont see anything wrong with gay marriage[/b9376af4ef0].[/quote9376af4ef0]

? ! ? What kind of religion are you in? lol

I am against homosexual marriage due to my religious beliefs. Leviticus 1822 NIV -[=http//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&verse=22&version=31&context=verse]Leviticus 1822 NIV - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."[/quote9376af4ef0]

same here, I believe that if you believe in the bible and God's word, then I dont understand how you can be for gay marriage.

Again, for me its a religious view..its how I was raised and what I stand for.[/quote9376af4ef0]

But, the Bible says that Gay Marriage is wrong and that YOU shouldn't do it if you believe in Gods word. It doesn't say that you shouldn't do it and stop other people from doing it.

You can still follow the bible and your religion but want other people in the world to be treated equally and with the respect and dignity that heterosexual people are (in regards to rights). You won't go to hell for following your religion whilst condoning equality for people whom you disagree with.

I believe dmorris68 is religious but believes that gay couples should be allowed the same rights as straight couples, so maybe he could elaborate on why he believes what he does. Sorry if I'm wrong David.

Daggoth

19-11-2006 22:47:34

TSJ - There are two types of sin commission and omission. Omission is the sin that widely done. Commission is where you actually do the act, ex. steal, have sex with your neighbor's wife, etc. Omission is not taking intiative to stop a sin from being committed, ex. allowing your friend to steal, letting your friend to have sex with his neighbor's wife, etc. So even though one is not marrying another person of the same sex, he is allowing other people to do it and is not stopping it to the best of his ability.

theysayjump

19-11-2006 22:55:46

I think that's gonna be far down on Jesus' list of committed sins upon arrival at the golden gates of fluff, don't you?

Daggoth

19-11-2006 23:01:15

[quote80e5e38bfe="theysayjump"]I think that's gonna be far down on Jesus' list of committed sins upon arrival at the golden gates of fluff, don't you?[/quote80e5e38bfe]

Not protesting against gay marriage - yes, it won't matter much
Letting a person do something that causes fatal consequences - no, I am pretty sure he will care

... but religious zealots believe in every little thing.

ilanbg

19-11-2006 23:01:34

[quotebffa6b0333="theysayjump"]I think that's gonna be far down on Jesus' list of committed sins upon arrival at the golden gates of fluff, don't you?[/quotebffa6b0333]

You've [ibffa6b0333]obviously[/ibffa6b0333] never met Jesus, TSJ. roll

theysayjump

19-11-2006 23:02:55

[quotecab49a1593="ilanbg"][quotecab49a1593="theysayjump"]I think that's gonna be far down on Jesus' list of committed sins upon arrival at the golden gates of fluff, don't you?[/quotecab49a1593]

You've [icab49a1593]obviously[/icab49a1593] never met Jesus, TSJ. roll[/quotecab49a1593]

How does one meet oneself, Alex?

zr2152

19-11-2006 23:32:58

[quote96555183a9="theysayjump"][quote96555183a9="zr2152"][quote96555183a9="Godrockdj"][quote96555183a9="Buster389"]I dont think that gay marriage should be up to the government it should be up to the church because there is nothing wrong with it other than your religion. [b96555183a9]Even religiously i dont see anything wrong with gay marriage[/b96555183a9].[/quote96555183a9]

? ! ? What kind of religion are you in? lol

I am against homosexual marriage due to my religious beliefs. Leviticus 1822 NIV -[=http//www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=18&verse=22&version=31&context=verse]Leviticus 1822 NIV - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."[/quote96555183a9]

same here, I believe that if you believe in the bible and God's word, then I dont understand how you can be for gay marriage.

Again, for me its a religious view..its how I was raised and what I stand for.[/quote96555183a9]

But, the Bible says that Gay Marriage is wrong and that YOU shouldn't do it if you believe in Gods word. It doesn't say that you shouldn't do it and stop other people from doing it.

You can still follow the bible and your religion but want other people in the world to be treated equally and with the respect and dignity that heterosexual people are (in regards to rights). You won't go to hell for following your religion whilst condoning equality for people whom you disagree with.

I believe dmorris68 is religious but believes that gay couples should be allowed the same rights as straight couples, so maybe he could elaborate on why he believes what he does. Sorry if I'm wrong David.[/quote96555183a9]

I kinda see what youre getting at tsj, i guess if i had some time and it wasnt 230 in the morning I might be able to explain myself more...maybe I will tommorow. I also feel that with what we are talking about could lead to a whole other topic of discussion that could make this whole thread a whole different topic with interpretation of the bible and other stuff like that.

Maybe ill elaborate more tommorow lol

JordanE

19-11-2006 23:48:39

[quotef71859217b="zdub08"][quotef71859217b="JordanE"]Were talking about redefining an institution which has allowed our society to come as far as it has. You see, if we redefine marriage as a union "between two people who love each other", you have created a legal precedent to change the traditional definition of marriage. How, then, could you limit marriage to any definition at all. What would keep me from marrying my brother? Why should polygamy have to be illegal? Why can't five friends who "genuinely love eachother" get "married" for the purpose of reeping government benefits?[/quotef71859217b]

exactly, but shouldn't marriage be redefined if a person is born gay? i doubt any people are born polygamists, but that these people seek multiple spouses out of pleasure. the question in all of this is whether or not homosexuality is a choice, and i dont believe it is.[/quotef71859217b]

Is anyone really born with a sexual orientation? Most males including myself, in the early stages of youth grow up with a slight resentment of the opposite sex (resentment might not be the best word but it will have to do) I don't know exactly when I first started getting attracted to girls or even cared for that matter, but it wasn't in preschool. Personally I believe a persons sexual orientation is strongly influenced by how they where raised and what type of environments they've been exposed to.

irmuslim

20-11-2006 03:22:47

Also, if one accepts evolution, what is the evolutionary basis of homosexuality? If one is 'born homosexual', then why is that gene still being passed on? Are parents of homosexuals, closet homosexuals themselves? It is nature, not nurture in this case. Homosexuality decreases the fitness of a species so it should have been eventually rooted out and left the human population, according to evolution.

tylerc

20-11-2006 04:19:40

Just like any genes, there are dominant and recessive.

Thanks for all the replies, but you guys aren't really posting WHY you think it's unnatural or anything like that, and I need to debunk all the possible reasons why people would be against gay marriage.

irmuslim

20-11-2006 05:25:07

[quotece582beb1b="tylerc"]Just like any genes, there are dominant and recessive.

Thanks for all the replies, but you guys aren't really posting WHY you think it's unnatural or anything like that, and I need to debunk all the possible reasons why people would be against gay marriage.[/quotece582beb1b]
It is not that simple.

Over time, genes are eliminated from the gene pool when they decrease fitness. A 'homosexual gene' completely eliminates fitness. Yet, you find homosexuality in animals as well, where they don't have closet homosexuals mating with heterosexual partners unlike in humans. It is a clear indication of nurture, rather than nature.

Even Darwin was confused by homosexuality.

ilanbg

20-11-2006 06:17:43

There's a theory that contends that homosexuality occurs during the zygote phase; some cells (the physical ones) change to reflect a male status and others (the ones controlling hormones and such) change to reflect a more female status.

Essentially, the theory is not that homosexuality is passed on through genes, but that it's a birth defect, so to speak.

And another theory is that everyone is a little bit bisexual, and it's just the strength of this relativity that's defined in 'straight,' 'bisexual,' and 'homosexual.'

And, of course, people can 'learn' to be gay or straight, depending on how cultures perceive it.

jy3

20-11-2006 06:35:57

to quote a historical text

Matt 72-5 "For in the same way you judge others [there is the authority to judge], you will be judged [if we judge poorly, we will be judged poorly; if we judge well, we will be judged well], and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you [if we use extremes to manipulate the outcome, extremes will be used on us]. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye [point out his sins, "minor" in Jesus' example here] and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye [our own sins, even and especially those we will not see, magnified by our selective blindness]? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' [tell him of his "minor" sins] when all the time there is a plank in your own eye [that there are greater or the same sins in our own lives which we do nothing about]? You hypocrite [telling/accusing others of sins while thinking one is above sin], first take the plank out of your own eye [sincerely ask the Lord for forgiveness and learn AND live the Truth and Light by His Word], and then you will see clearly [be in a righteous position] to remove the speck from your brother's eye [to judge and to help him out of his bondage to sin]." At Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan, Jesus was talking to the multitudes gathered there after hearing of His message and of His healings to beseech them to not become like the pharisees and hypocrites who think they are above sin.

I really think that all this nonsense about gay marriage bringing down family values is, well, just that - nonsense. when senators who preach their religious views and family values cheat on their waves I find a hard time taking them seriously. as the bible says, do not judge someone else until you have seen your own sins and been absolved of them.

in terms of the moral/legal standpoint, prejudice and oppression of any kind is against the laws and tenets set forth in our bill of rights and constitution here in the USA. History will write this time as a time of oppression and prejudice, similar but not equal to that of the prior 400 years and those of color.

emoney

20-11-2006 07:11:54

[quote6ad39e97d9="irmuslim"]Also, if one accepts evolution, what is the evolutionary basis of homosexuality? If one is 'born homosexual', then why is that gene still being passed on? Are parents of homosexuals, closet homosexuals themselves? It is nature, not nurture in this case. Homosexuality decreases the fitness of a species so it should have been eventually rooted out and left the human population, according to evolution.[/quote6ad39e97d9]
Thats actually a really interesting point. I took an entire class at UT that dealt with the Evolution of Sexuality. A large portion was dedicated to the various theories of homsexuality's place in evolution.

Which reminds me Tyler, check out David Buss' "The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology" or his undergraduate text book "Evolutionary PsychologyThe New Science of the Mind." The class was taught by him, its very interesting stuff. I'm sure you can tie his homesexuality discussion in with the subject matter of your debate.

emoney

20-11-2006 07:24:38

[quotea663b54a1a="tylerc"]

Thanks for all the replies, but you guys aren't really posting WHY you think it's unnatural or anything like that, and I need to debunk all the possible reasons why people would be against gay marriage.[/quotea663b54a1a]

Another argument they might use is that children should have straight parents for their own wellbeing. Risk of sexual abuse, social stigmas, and influencing the children to grow up gay have all be refuted by the scientific data. Here are a summary of some key points

[quotea663b54a1a]Furthermore, no credible, scientific study has found any reason to question the quality of LGBT individuals� parenting or the well-being of their children. To the contrary, studies universally have found that

Lesbian and gay individuals and same-sex couples parent as well as heterosexuals. In some cases, they may even be better at managing disagreements. One study found that lesbian mothers, when compared to heterosexual mothers, responded to behavior problems in ways that were more attentive to their children�s needs.[3]
Lesbian and gay parents can provide children with good modeling and a healthy childhood. As the American Psychological Association reports, �Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.�[4] Research on transgender parents has resulted in similar findings.
There is no link between lesbian or gay parenting and the risk of sexual abuse. A 1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association notes that 90 percent of pedophiles are men and 95 percent of these men are heterosexual[/quotea663b54a1a]

[3] Miller, J.A., Jacobsen, B., and Bigner, J. �The Child�s Home Environment for Lesbian vs. Heterosexual Mothers A Neglected Area of Research.� Journal of Homosexuality 8 (1981) 49�56.

[4] Patterson, C. J. Lesbian and Gay Parenting A Resource for Psychologists. Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association, 1995. Online at www.apa.org.

tylerc

20-11-2006 15:28:04

Thanks for the help emoney, any more information you have would be greatly appreciated.

+KMA

Buster389

20-11-2006 15:52:41

I think that you are born gay or not gay and i dont think that it has much to do with your parents sexuality because my Aunt is a lesbian and her parents weren't gay nor was she around gay people when growing up, and that goes for her partner as well. Her partner was even married to a guy and then realized that it wasn't right for her and changed. In fact since my aunt is a lesbian and lives in Cali she has a lot of gay friends and none of their parents were gay and I talk to one of them who when he told his dad he was gay he said, "Dad, this is the hardest thing i have ever had to tell you and I have almost killed myslef three times because i didnt want it to be true and failed each time, but i am gay." and his dad said, "You should have tried harder." and left. Him and his dad never talked once for over ten years and still rarely talk. Now do you think that anyone would want to go through that if they weren't born that way??

emoney

20-11-2006 17:42:00

Glad I could help. I was very interested in this subject matter when in college. I'll post some more if I'm bored at work tomorrow. Gotta watch my Gmen now.

thanks for the karma. )

OldManWrigley

20-11-2006 18:50:15

If you don't masurbate for a while, it's normal to have wet dreams right?

Buster389

20-11-2006 18:52:24

[quote85db47270d="OldManWrigley"]If you don't masurbate for a while, it's normal to have wet dreams right?[/quote85db47270d]

What does that have to do with gay marriage?

OldManWrigley

20-11-2006 18:54:55

[quote0b4d295eb8="Buster389"][quote0b4d295eb8="OldManWrigley"]If you don't masurbate for a while, it's normal to have wet dreams right?[/quote0b4d295eb8]

What does that have to do with gay marriage?[/quote0b4d295eb8]

Nothing.

tylerc

20-11-2006 18:55:31

GTFO OMW!

Buster389

20-11-2006 18:55:56

[quote0a1c715a25="OldManWrigley"][quote0a1c715a25="Buster389"][quote0a1c715a25="OldManWrigley"]If you don't masurbate for a while, it's normal to have wet dreams right?[/quote0a1c715a25]

What does that have to do with gay marriage?[/quote0a1c715a25]

Nothing.[/quote0a1c715a25]

Then quit thread craping and don't post.

OldManWrigley

20-11-2006 21:12:24

Techincally for every post other then your first post in this topic it's threadcrapping, because he was only asking for your opinion and not trying to start a debate. If tyler has a problem with it, he can yell at me for threadcrapping. Just felt like posting some random shit because we were talking about that in school today at the lunch table, why don't we all just pull our panties out of our butts and chill out lol

That includes me )

And nobody is born gay or not. Otherwise we wouldn't have people who are gay and then turn straight...that wouldn't make sense shrug

tylerc

20-11-2006 21:13:42

emoney's posts have not been thread-shite (TSJ <3). He has provided me with useful information that I will be using as part of my speech.

kdollar

20-11-2006 21:26:23

for help tylerc have topics on genetics, religion and your personal view.

but its obviously unnatural b/c no matter how many homosexual couples there are, they will never be able to reproduce. therefore if we relied on them to continue the existence of man we would vanish, naturally a male and female should mate, marry, and reproduce.

ilanbg

21-11-2006 08:31:48

Opinion Some people are gay because <insert>.

Fact Humanity does not know why some people are gay.

You can believe whatever you want, but it will be an uneducated opinion. Thoughts on gay marriage (and just about any issue on homosexuality) has to be considered without taking into account what 'makes' a person gay, because that's an unknown that so few people seem to face.

Veek

21-11-2006 09:29:55

[quote86f0f511c4="ilanbg"]Opinion Some people are gay because <insert>.

Fact Humanity does not know why some people are gay.[/quote86f0f511c4]

Agreed. I hear people saying that people are not born gay, and making all sorts of assumptions AS IF they're gay themselves. No, you can't be gay and go "straight." No. You can't be straight and then go "gay." Both of those situations would be forced and fake. This "bisexual" fad that happened in high school was all bull. It was just a bunch of kids, especially girls who desperately wanted guys attention, wanting to be cool and known to be "bisexual." So in High School, we'd see girls left and right making out and guys cheering them on just because they thought it was hot.

So until you live your life as a gay person, it's not smart to assume on how they think, why they're gay and why they live their life like that, how they were born gay, and all kinds of questions many people can't answer with solid facts.

So going back to marriage and this whole "it's against my religion" thing, I think it's easier to think of homosexuals as normal people who just happen to like the same sex. I don't think of myself as "oh, the homosexual one." I think of myself as a normal every day person, and so do all of my friends gay or straight. You're bound to become friends with a homosexual person, especially if you don't have that ignorant "Ew, gross, a gay!" attitude.

kdollar

21-11-2006 11:50:24

born with it or a choice, you cant decide that either. so if you say one assumption is in the air, they all are.

o yea by the way in my religion, you want as many people to be christians and do what is right for God (spread the word), so if homosexuality is wrong, you want to enlighten those people. just as if premarital sex, murder, stealing...so on.

irmuslim

21-11-2006 14:53:24

I don't think the point is that gay people can or cannot raise children. Anyone can raise children if they are truly interested in doing so. Most people have a dislike for homosexuality due to religion and morality, but at the same time, I find it hypocritical in the United States that many people claim a separation of church and state and then vouch against homosexuality.

I don't believe in a separation of church and state, since that is making the state devoid of something that is part of human nature - spirituality and belief. Separation of church and state is also against many religions, such as Judaism (Halakkah Laws) and Islam (Shari'ah Laws). An effective example of the mixture of church and 'state' is Catholic schools. In my city, Catholic schools have many Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and people of other faiths, but these people don't take part in Catholic prayer sessions.

If a country touts itself to be a champion of separation of church and state, then people should not be going after homosexuals, since your religion has (or should) have no effect on government. If you're a theocratic country, then sure, go ahead, do as you please. At least you're not being a hypocrite.

JUNIOR6886

21-11-2006 15:51:37

[quote18ffc9f85b="Daggoth"]I don't really care about gay marriage, but here is a point

Single people will use gay marriage as an excuse for tax benefits without an actual commitment.[/quote18ffc9f85b]

haha i never even thought of that..... )

ilanbg

21-11-2006 17:20:37

[quotebe26893ce3="irmuslim"]I don't think the point is that gay people can or cannot raise children. Anyone can raise children if they are truly interested in doing so.[/quotebe26893ce3]

Tell that to the people who are rejected for adopting a child or are retarded or have their children removed by child custodies.

It takes more than a "true interest" in raising children; it takes responsibility, financial stability, parental knowledge, etc.

irmuslim

21-11-2006 18:15:52

[quotedeeb62fd7a="ilanbg"][quotedeeb62fd7a="irmuslim"]I don't think the point is that gay people can or cannot raise children. Anyone can raise children if they are truly interested in doing so.[/quotedeeb62fd7a]

Tell that to the people who are rejected for adopting a child or are retarded or have their children removed by child custodies.

It takes more than a "true interest" in raising children; it takes responsibility, financial stability, parental knowledge, etc.[/quotedeeb62fd7a]
Well, those are givens. The usual reason cited for children not being raised properly is due to lack of interest.

A true interest is the backbone. If one's not interested, then why would someone adopt to begin with?

Also, are you implying that I'd have to become gay to be have 'responsibility, financial stability, parental knowledge, etc.'? ?

ilanbg

21-11-2006 18:21:19

Um, I don't know how you got that implication. In fact, it doesn't sound like you understand my post at all.

People who are interested in adopting a child are often rejected, not because they lack an interest in being a parent, but because they aren't financially (and emotionally) stable, responsible, already have an extensive knowledge in parenting, and other criteria tested before a child is put out for adoption.

And retarded parents who have love their children have had them removed because they were deemed unfit for parenting.

Seems to me that responsibility, financial/emotional stability, and parental knowledge all take precedence over an interest to be a parent, when it comes to successful parents.

Buster389

21-11-2006 19:13:28

come on you guys this is about gay people marrying not people that can raise a child

ilanbg

21-11-2006 19:31:01

Earning the ability to marry will make it significantly easier for gay people to adopt children.

kdollar

21-11-2006 19:31:46

marriage is a religious word, they can be together for taxes, just call it civil union.

tylerc

21-11-2006 19:35:01

Right, so if marriage is a religious institution, what right does the government have to say what can and can't be done? Separation of church and state.

That's one of the points I will be raising in my speech, anyone have something to say to that that is valid?

kdollar

21-11-2006 19:37:52

government doesnt have shit to do with marriage, and the church shouldnt have to do with gay marriage, therefore for tax purposes for gay people should be called civil unions.

ilanbg

21-11-2006 19:52:36

[quotebca40a181b="kdollar"]government doesnt have shit to do with marriage, and the church shouldnt have to do with gay marriage, therefore for tax purposes for gay people should be called civil unions.[/quotebca40a181b]

Why should it be called anything different, though? They would go through the same process as straight couples, so why give it a name that demeans it (whether or not it did before it got all this media influence, now it demeans it, so it should just be left alone)?

Why does the government insist on interesting itself in this issue?

kdollar

21-11-2006 19:54:44

[quote6f9a914511="ilanbg"][quote6f9a914511="kdollar"]government doesnt have shit to do with marriage, and the church shouldnt have to do with gay marriage, therefore for tax purposes for gay people should be called civil unions.[/quote6f9a914511]

Why should it be called anything different, though? They would go through the same process as straight couples, so why give it a name that demeans it (whether or not it did before it got all this media influence, now it demeans it, so it should just be left alone)?

Why does the government insist on interesting itself in this issue?[/quote6f9a914511]

marriage is a religious word, govt shouldnt havent anything to do with it, but gov't has to do with taxes, who said civil union demeans it?

irmuslim

21-11-2006 19:55:08

[quote4b276a33e3="ilanbg"]Um, I don't know how you got that implication. In fact, it doesn't sound like you understand my post at all.

People who are interested in adopting a child are often rejected, not because they lack an interest in being a parent, but because they aren't financially (and emotionally) stable, responsible, already have an extensive knowledge in parenting, and other criteria tested before a child is put out for adoption.

And retarded parents who have love their children have had them removed because they were deemed unfit for parenting.

Seems to me that responsibility, financial/emotional stability, and parental knowledge all take precedence over an interest to be a parent, when it comes to successful parents.[/quote4b276a33e3]
I think you as well missed my point in my original post.

Sure those things are of merit when it comes to raising kids, but that is besides the point. I was just pointing out that it doesn't take gay or straight people to raise kids and that shouldn't be an issue.

ilanbg

21-11-2006 19:55:37

[quote6d7dc7d1a1="kdollar"]who said civil union demeans it?[/quote6d7dc7d1a1]

All the gay couples who oppose it, obviously.

kdollar

21-11-2006 19:57:10

obviously? i dont see any gay couples opposing it, i dont see the heirachy of christian gay couples saying it must be marriage, they just want the same tax exemptions.

irmuslim

21-11-2006 19:57:11

[quoteeb345f830d="kdollar"][quoteeb345f830d="ilanbg"][quoteeb345f830d="kdollar"]government doesnt have shit to do with marriage, and the church shouldnt have to do with gay marriage, therefore for tax purposes for gay people should be called civil unions.[/quoteeb345f830d]

Why should it be called anything different, though? They would go through the same process as straight couples, so why give it a name that demeans it (whether or not it did before it got all this media influence, now it demeans it, so it should just be left alone)?

Why does the government insist on interesting itself in this issue?[/quoteeb345f830d]

marriage is a religious word, govt shouldnt havent anything to do with it, but gov't has to do with taxes, who said civil union demeans it?[/quoteeb345f830d]
Actually, they are right. As long as your country claims to have a separate church and state, then you can't deny homosexuals marriage. Atheists get married and aren't Christians. What about 'heathens'?

tylerc

21-11-2006 20:01:26

[quote898f6f146b="kdollar"]obviously? i dont see any gay couples opposing it, i dont see the heirachy of christian gay couples saying it must be marriage, they just want the same tax exemptions.[/quote898f6f146b]

Gays want to be equal to everyone else.

You know, due process and equal protection under the law, just a minor thing in our Bill of Rights.

ilanbg

21-11-2006 20:02:30

[quote7c2efa9893="kdollar"]obviously? i dont see any gay couples opposing it, i dont see the heirachy of christian gay couples saying it must be marriage, they just want the same tax exemptions.[/quote7c2efa9893]

oops I totally misunderstood what we were disagreeing about. Sorry; you're right.

irmuslim

21-11-2006 20:02:58

Yep, there is no real legal argument against gays as long as there is separation of church and state.

kdollar

21-11-2006 20:03:56

i want to be equal too, why do they give minorities special scholarships, affirmative action, and bet awards?

kdollar

21-11-2006 20:05:45

dont mistrue my views here, i am going by my religion, and saying marriage is obviously a religious word, which the state should have nothing to do with it, it should be the church!

therefore civil union should be the gov't word for gays who want to have the same - even level of being together, tax and etc.

irmuslim

21-11-2006 20:07:06

[quote824cd3dc74="kdollar"]dont mistrue my views here, i am going by my religion, and saying marriage is obviously a religious word, which the state should have nothing to do with it, it should be the church!

therefore civil union should be the gov't word for gays who want to have the same - even level of being together, tax and etc.[/quote824cd3dc74]
But what about non-Christians?

kdollar

21-11-2006 20:08:23

what about them, it should be a separation b/w church and state right?

ilanbg

21-11-2006 20:09:55

[quote69d2137004="kdollar"]i want to be equal too, why do they give minorities special scholarships, affirmative action, and bet awards?[/quote69d2137004]

Most of those are not government-enforced, and there is a lot of debate against affirmative action also. (I'm against it.)

kdollar

21-11-2006 20:10:51

well there isnt much of a debate if the gov't doesnt choose separation or control.

irmuslim

21-11-2006 20:12:08

[quote019b1e78ab="kdollar"]what about them, it should be a separation b/w church and state right?[/quote019b1e78ab]
Why do you get to decide who can call it marriage and who can't? I mean, many Christians hate Satanists or Wiccans, etc. and if they wanted to call their union 'marriage', would you be outraged? Some Christians even hate Buddhists or Muslims...what then? Are they going to allow people to call the union among Muslims or Buddhists 'marriage'? I'm sure the Bible has many more verses against one of these groups than against homosexuality.

kdollar

21-11-2006 20:15:07

[quote560b5afb49="irmuslim"][quote560b5afb49="kdollar"]what about them, it should be a separation b/w church and state right?[/quote560b5afb49]
Why do you get to decide who can call it marriage and who can't? I mean, many Christians hate Satanists or Wiccans, etc. and if they wanted to call their union 'marriage', would you be outraged? Some Christians even hate Buddhists or Muslims...what then? Are they going to allow people to call the union among Muslims or Buddhists 'marriage'? I'm sure the Bible has many more verses against one of these groups than against homosexuality.[/quote560b5afb49]

well if you didnt know the earlier gov't had a lot of basis on religion, such as on the dollar bill it says In God we Trust. when you can bring some debate like ilanbg, join the conversation.

irmuslim

21-11-2006 20:17:40

[quotec8222e09f4="kdollar"][quotec8222e09f4="irmuslim"][quotec8222e09f4="kdollar"]what about them, it should be a separation b/w church and state right?[/quotec8222e09f4]
Why do you get to decide who can call it marriage and who can't? I mean, many Christians hate Satanists or Wiccans, etc. and if they wanted to call their union 'marriage', would you be outraged? Some Christians even hate Buddhists or Muslims...what then? Are they going to allow people to call the union among Muslims or Buddhists 'marriage'? I'm sure the Bible has many more verses against one of these groups than against homosexuality.[/quotec8222e09f4]

well if you didnt know the earlier gov't had a lot of basis on religion, such as on the dollar bill it says In God we Trust. when you can bring some debate like ilanbg, join the conversation.[/quotec8222e09f4]
I thought this wasn't a debate thread. o

And good job avoiding the point. So what if 'earlier gov't had a lot of basis on religion'? As far as I know, your founding fathers were deists, and not Christians, specifically. Not all religions have a problem with homosexuality.

Also, that 'In God We Trust' thing wasn't added until much later - during the US Civil War.

tylerc

21-11-2006 20:19:41

The Constitution/Bill of Rights prohibits the government from establishing a religion, or preventing free exercise thereof.

kdollar

21-11-2006 20:20:25

your absolutely right, this isn't a debate thread, this is tyler's thread, and most of the founding fathers were christians, therefore until there is complete separation of church and state, you cant determine which religion it was based on, it wasn't islam.

ilanbg

21-11-2006 20:25:33

It wasn't based on any religion. It was specifically based secularly.

Technically, you could determine which religion it was based on by comparing its principles to various religions' values. Find me any part of the Constitution that caters to a specific religion.

kdollar

21-11-2006 20:27:20

religion had values and morals of the humans who created the constitution.

did i not repeat how many times, that i said church and state should be separated but its not possible b/c of the earlier creaters, isnt that why they are trying to amend it now i.e. no prayer in school.

ilanbg

21-11-2006 20:34:19

There [i8637404562]isn't[/i8637404562] any prayer in [public] schools. And the founding fathers were capable of suspending their religious beliefs when creating the Constitution, and that is why there are no religious principles.

Like I said, find any instance of a principle that indicates a specific religion (or religion in general).

kdollar

21-11-2006 20:36:03

There ISNT now, there was, that is why there is such a big uproar, that is your instance, again look at the dollar bill.

in all PUBLIC schools, it used to say God, then they removed it.

ilanbg

21-11-2006 20:39:15

The dollar bill has nothing to do with the Constitution.

And the uproar wasn't over prayer, it was over the mention of "god" in the pledge of allegiance (unless we're thinking of different issues), and the founding fathers didn't make that one up.

Citing past examples of when the government failed to adhere to the Constitution doesn't support its failure to do so now.

kdollar

21-11-2006 20:40:34

dollar bill has to do with government, prayer had to with sports in public school, and God was mentioned in the constitution, and guess what God has to do with.............thats right religion.

tylerc

21-11-2006 20:49:05

[quotec1ba602adc="THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION"]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.[/quotec1ba602adc]

ilanbg

21-11-2006 20:51:59

Our Constitution makes no mention of God.

The dollar bill is unconstitutional, I'm not contesting that, but that doesn't rationalize banning gay marriage.

And I don't know what you're referring to about prayer in sports and such.

kdollar

21-11-2006 21:00:38

just b/c our constituion doesn't mention God doesn't mean our fore fathers didnt create the consitution with their morals of God, thats right they were British who followed a National Church.

the dollar bill is not constitutional but not governed???? i believe it is. by those who enforce, amend, and create the constitution.

i shouldnt have to defend the debate of church in school, the reason they removed God in the pledge of allegance, and the reason sports cant pray before games. just b/c you dont know or see it, doesnt mean you cant look it up, i dont have to prove it to you.

ilanbg

21-11-2006 21:11:49

[quotef4352a3efa="kdollar"]just b/c our constituion doesn't mention God doesn't mean our fore fathers didnt create the consitution with their morals of God, thats right they were British who followed a National Church. [/quotef4352a3efa]

Unless you can provide [if4352a3efa]examples[/if4352a3efa] of religious morality in the Constitution, then you're talking out of your ass.

Have you ever read the Constitution? I mean really read it from preamble to bill of rights. Most people haven't. I have; the only instance I have found that addresses religion in any way is the separation of church and state.

...And they weren't British when they created the Constitution. They were American.

[quotef4352a3efa]the dollar bill is not constitutional but not governed???? i believe it is. by those who enforce, amend, and create the constitution.[/quotef4352a3efa]

If you've ever heard of the three branches of government, then you would know that you can't blame The Government for a declaration enacted in 1837. You can blame Congress for that, and the public, which was in favor of keeping IGWT the last time it was an issue (in 1908, when Congress did, in fact, remove it from all mints).

Again, how this in any way validates a ban of gay marriage is beyond me.

[quotef4352a3efa]i shouldnt have to defend the debate of church in school, the reason they removed God in the pledge of allegance, and the reason sports cant pray before games. just b/c you dont know or see it, doesnt mean you cant look it up, i dont have to prove it to you.[/quotef4352a3efa]

You don't have to debate anything, but we're debating, so you might have the decency to at least example of what the bloody hell you're talking about, eh?

In either case, I did look it up, and it appears that as soon as the case against prayer in school was brought up, Congress abolished it. This only supports my stance.

kdollar

21-11-2006 21:21:10

[quote9b08d290ee="ilanbg"][quote9b08d290ee="kdollar"]just b/c our constituion doesn't mention God doesn't mean our fore fathers didnt create the consitution with their morals of God, thats right they were British who followed a National Church. [/quote9b08d290ee]

Unless you can provide [i9b08d290ee]examples[/i9b08d290ee] of religious morality in the Constitution, then you're talking out of your ass.

Have you ever read the Constitution? I mean really read it from preamble to bill of rights. Most people haven't. I have; the only instance I have found that addresses religion in any way is the separation of church and state.

...And they weren't British when they created the Constitution. They were American.

[quote9b08d290ee]the dollar bill is not constitutional but not governed???? i believe it is. by those who enforce, amend, and create the constitution.[/quote9b08d290ee]

If you've ever heard of the three branches of government, then you would know that you can't blame The Government for a declaration enacted in 1837. You can blame Congress for that, and the public, which was in favor of keeping IGWT the last time it was an issue (in 1908).

Again, how this in any way validates a ban of gay marriage is beyond me.

[quote9b08d290ee]i shouldnt have to defend the debate of church in school, the reason they removed God in the pledge of allegance, and the reason sports cant pray before games. just b/c you dont know or see it, doesnt mean you cant look it up, i dont have to prove it to you.[/quote9b08d290ee]

You don't have to debate anything, but we're debating, so you might have the decency to at least example of what the bloody hell you're talking about, eh?

In either case, I did look it up, and it appears that as soon as the case against prayer in school was brought up, Congress abolished it. This only supports my stance.[/quote9b08d290ee]

okay religious morality, Article 6, [N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

thats one.

they weren't british, they came from BRITIAN to america, their heritage is strictly british!

you cant blame the gov't! they follow the constitution as do you! thats why they amend it and agree with it.

it doesn't validate a gay marraige or ban it, it proves my point that gay marriage can't be solved until there is a separation of church and state. therefore marriage a religious word, and if gays want a gov't certification of togetherness and the rights of "marriage" it should be separated first.

congress agains follow the constitution which is written and found by those with religion.

irmuslim

21-11-2006 21:31:40

That is not a Christian moral...that is not even a religious moral...

ilanbg

21-11-2006 21:32:14

[quotecf71755858="kdollar"]okay religious morality, Article 6, [N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

thats one.[/quotecf71755858]

So you're proving my point to prove my wrong? You're telling me the Constitution has religious values in it and then quote a part of it that supports the opposite. Obviously they address the issue of religion, but they in no way support any religious morals that a reasonable atheist wouldn't also support.

[quotecf71755858]they weren't british, they came from BRITIAN to america, their heritage is strictly british![/quotecf71755858]

Nope, they were born in America. I'll name the more popular ones

John Adams Born in MA.
Sam Adams Born in MA.
Ben Franklin Borin in MA.
Thomas Jefferson Born in VI.
George Washington Borin in VI.

The other delegates were born in other states. Do you know why? [icf71755858]Because the colonies had already be established for several generations during the time of Declaration of Independence.[/icf71755858]

These are basic facts, fer chrissake. How can you argue your point when your basing your opinions on facts that are plain [icf71755858]wrong[/icf71755858].

(There is a humility required in admitting you're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about, but you'll learn from it and find you're right a lot more often when you do so. Consider this.)

[quotecf71755858]you cant blame the gov't! they follow the constitution as do you! thats why they amend it and agree with it.[/quotecf71755858]

Granted; there is nothing wrong with amending the Constitution when it is necessary. But I am arguing that it [icf71755858]is[/icf71755858] unnecessary because the government has no business meddling in these affairs.

[quotecf71755858]it doesn't validate a gay marraige or ban it, it proves my point that gay marriage can't be solved until there is a separation of church and state. therefore marriage a religious word, and if gays want a gov't certification of togetherness and the rights of "marriage" it should be separated first.[/quotecf71755858]

If you're arguing that marriage should be done with altogether in the government, then that's one thing. But it's a little late in the game to propose this, and I think you'd have trouble finding people who are in favor of it.

[quotecf71755858]congress agains follow the constitution which is written and found by those with religion.[/quotecf71755858]

Check it out.[=http//skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html]Check it out. Most of the founding fathers were not deeply religious (i.e. they were religious but not to the point of allowing it to affect secular policies).

kdollar

21-11-2006 21:42:22

[quotea85be9ac9b="kdollar"]okay religious morality, Article 6, [N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

thats one.[/quotea85be9ac9b]

So you're proving my point to prove my wrong? You're telling me the Constitution has religious values in it and then quote a part of it that supports the opposite. Obviously they address the issue of religion, but they in no way support any religious morals that a reasonable atheist wouldn't also support.

[quotea85be9ac9b]they weren't british, they came from BRITIAN to america, their heritage is strictly british![/quotea85be9ac9b]

Nope, they were born in America. I'll name the more popular ones

John Adams Born in MA.
Sam Adams Born in MA.
Ben Franklin Borin in MA.
Thomas Jefferson Born in VI.
George Washington Borin in VI.

The other delegates were born in other states. Do you know why? [ia85be9ac9b]Because the colonies had already be established for several generations during the time of Declaration of Independence.[/ia85be9ac9b]

These are basic facts, fer chrissake.

[quotea85be9ac9b]you cant blame the gov't! they follow the constitution as do you! thats why they amend it and agree with it.[/quotea85be9ac9b]

Granted; there is nothing wrong with amending the Constitution when it is necessary. But I am arguing that it [ia85be9ac9b]is[/ia85be9ac9b] unnecessary because the government has no business meddling in these affairs.

[quotea85be9ac9b]it doesn't validate a gay marraige or ban it, it proves my point that gay marriage can't be solved until there is a separation of church and state. therefore marriage a religious word, and if gays want a gov't certification of togetherness and the rights of "marriage" it should be separated first.

If you're arguing that marriage should be done with altogether in the government, then that's one thing. But it's a little late in the game to propose this, and I think you'd have trouble finding people who are in favor of it.

[quotea85be9ac9b]congress agains follow the constitution which is written and found by those with religion.[/quotea85be9ac9b]

Check it out.[=http//skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html]Check it out. Most of the founding fathers were not deeply religious (i.e. they were religious but not to the point of allowing it to affect secular policies).[/quotea85be9ac9b]

again, do you know where people in america came from??? u think the creators of the constitution and all americans were just born in MA and never had any influence from Britian. basic facts. "where did chrissake" come from? i think it refers to a specific person.

we both agree, they have no business in these affairs.

marriage laws should not be done with, but its obviously from a religious perspective and they determined they would interfere, so its obviously a little late in the game to change it for gays, as you would put it. there is always people in favor of it.

tylerc

22-11-2006 04:24:03

Let's not all forget that marriage, at least for about half the country, is a joke. Heterosexuals get no-fault divorce however many times they want, but gays can't get married even ONCE?

kdollar

22-11-2006 10:14:43

yea marriage is a joke these days, divorce rate is up a lot, they cant get civil unioned, same thing different word. why does it matter?

CollidgeGraduit

22-11-2006 10:22:52

[quote7f267a1367="kdollar"]yea marriage is a joke these days, divorce rate is up a lot, they cant get civil unioned, same thing different word. why does it matter?[/quote7f267a1367]

Actually, from what I've read, divorce rates have been going down. Just a thought -- I would actually attribute it to less people getting married, and more people living together outside of wedlock. Now that living together outside of wedlock is much more widely accepted, the people who are committed enough to each other to get married are already more likely to stay married.

http//www.divorcereform.org/rates.html
Per capita divorce rates 1990-2002
1991, 0.47%
1992, 0.48%
1993, 0.46%
1994, 0.46%
1995, 0.46%
1995, 0.43%
1997, 0.43%,
1998, 0.42%,
1999, 0.41%,
2000, 0.41%,
2001, 0.40%,
2002, 0.38%