Gay Marriage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kyocera

There's actually lots of animals that have "gay" relationships. Nothing in the bible says "thou shalt not suck another mans ding dong". Ending slavery went "against the human race", so did womens rights, ending of child labor and a shit load of other things that are classified as good now.

In other words if you're against gay relationships, you're culturally retarded because weather you like it or not it will happen.

I'm not gay in any way, I just don't really care who another person says that they love. I don't get it, it's kinda gross to me but it's their dissission so just let them be.

I read a statistic somewhere it was like 70% of all marriages end up in divorce. If you ask me, the only thing that's ruining the marriage system is the idiots you can't stay with one person for longer then 1 year...

---

Humans and animals are totally different things. Yes, humans may be animals, but we are set apart by intelligence and soul. It's not a viable argument to compare the two. The Bible does say that you should not have a man-on-man relationship. Ending slavery did not go against the human race...not sure what your talking about. Many countries did not even have slavery, and truthfully, slavery in some form will always be around. Wage workers are practically slave to their masters, and it is nature that the rich will control the poor. Women right's do not go against human nature either. Many cultures were matrilineal from the start (such as in Africa). Child labor has absolutely no relevance. In the time period you are talking about, it was a human necessity for survival. Many of the poor immigrants/common people could not survive with just the father working (as traditional).
You look at things from a one-point perspective. Homosexuality is not a culture. It is the opposite, it is the pestilence of culture. The U.S. is just very gay friendly. If a gay went to some countries in Africa, they would be executed. Are they culturally retarded? Truthfully, culture is decided by the masses - not by an individual (or a minority).
If I wasn't here it would be a gay support thread with them all agreeing with each other. Your statistics (about divorces) are horribly wrong...I don't know where you got them from, but I do agree that it is sad about the definite increase in divorce rates. Those statistics are based off of a small group that have a bad marriage history (parents or personal). You can't base the whole world's population off of that.


Reverse discrimination is not a joke in the least. Most minorities: African Americans, Indians, Gays, Jews, etc will get some sort of boost that non-minorities wouldn't get. If I called a gay kid a "homo" in the hall, I get punished. But if he calls me a "cracker," then no one cares.
Also, black racism took part mostly in the U.S., Carribean, and Southern American countries. It is sad that we try to make up for the past in the present.
I determine natural by the fact that the penis is made for the vagina. Not for another dude's mouth or butt.
Btw, anyone want to give me an example of animal homosexuality? I think people are confusing it with animal domination.

"Medical attention is not natural, it is not natural to watch television, traveling hundreds of miles sitting down comfortably in a heated/air-conditioned vehicle, is also not natural. If you want to argue by nature, you should require it of yourself to stop doing these unnatural things. You're argument is full of flaws. "
Since when lol? I'm talking about reproduction, and your talking about technology not being natural. It will always be natural for a human to want to be comfortable and to do as little work as possible - and it has been since the beginning of time...your argument makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm still confused how your connecting technology and nature, please make bridge between the two.

Africa is largely made up of third world countries, we are a first world country and held to higher moral standards. Any country that executes gays or lesbians is backwards.

Cracker argument is laughable, and quotas are illegal and the idea of accepting people on grounds of race or sexual preference (jobs, college, etc) is hardly a bad one due to the fact that those people have endured a lot more than we have (which is painfully obvious with a lot of people in this thread calling homosexuality 'a crime against nature' 'pestilence' etc.) Blacks, Indians, essentially anyone in america who isn't a white male battle stereotypes and cultural expectations as well.

We're looking at things from a one point perspective and the only thing you're citing is the bible. newsflash: god has no role in government and lawmaking. Leave gay marriage up to the churches and other establishments. It's a free country, this is a black and white issue, homosexuals rights are being infringed on and that is against the constitution, plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CameronXVX

Africa is largely made up of third world countries, we are a first world country and held to higher moral standards. Any country that executes gays or lesbians is backwards.

Cracker argument is laughable, and quotas are illegal and the idea of accepting people on grounds of race or sexual preference (jobs, college, etc) is hardly a bad one due to the fact that those people have endured a lot more than we have (which is painfully obvious with a lot of people in this thread calling homosexuality 'a crime against nature' 'pestilence' etc.) Blacks, Indians, essentially anyone in america who isn't a white male battle stereotypes and cultural expectations as well.

We're looking at things from a one point perspective and the only thing you're citing is the bible. newsflash: god has no role in government and lawmaking. Leave gay marriage up to the churches and other establishments. It's a free country, this is a black and white issue, homosexuals rights are being infringed on and that is against the constitution, plain and simple.

---

The Constitution is barely more then a symbol. They did not experience more. The "cracker" argument is true, and it is the same with "redneck" and various other terms. It's a double standard. I'm not citing only the Bible, I'm sure that's what you'd like to believe. Newsflash: God has got to do a lot with the government. The pledge you say every day says "Under God", the Constitution which you talk about mentions God (lots of times), many extremely important government buildings have God written on their walls, and when you swear in court, you swear on the Bible. These are only a few examples - don't be naive. And this is not a free country. Lots of immigrants (currently from Mexico), are suffering persecution almost akin to slavery. They do crappy jobs for extremely crappy pay, and have practically the whole U.S. population against them. At least the slaves had somewhere to run to - here they run from extreme crime, poverty, and a tryanical government only to be subjected to nationwide persecution (by both people and government).
Here's another newsflash for you: marriage: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
Also, most people get married in a church if you didn't know.
Also, you should be careful about calling Africans backwards. I'm sure they think people like you are backwards.

God has absolutely nothing to do with Government, they shouldn't be intertwined. What pledge? Are you talking about the morning school pledge? How many people do you know actually say the pledge when they're not in school. It's a tradition, nothing more. As far as the "Under God" piece, and the Constitution, the only reason why that's in there is because Christianity was the religion when the country was founded. I'm sure that if they believed in Satan, that we would be saying the same thing except with Satan instead of God.

Your definition of marriage is old and outdated. Like I said earlier, it's not written in stone and it's not set by nature, or by God. This is why it can (and should) be changed.

A lot of people get married in other places besides church. Beaches, piers, jungles, boats, etc. That isn't a valid argument.

I see the issue of choice has been running through the debate. Do gays choose to be gay or not?

Now suppose it was actually true that people can choose their sexuality. Would that change the situation?
We already protect the rights of minority religions (jews, muslims, etc) even though they could easily choose to convert to christianity, which is the majority religion in the US.
With our modern technology its possible to change people's skin colour, see Michael Jackson. Does this mean we should go back to racism against black people? Saying "you've effectively chosen to be black, why not get a skin change so you can be like the white majority".

The choice discussion is a red herring. Whichever way that point turns out, the anti-discrimination people still win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle Undefined

God has absolutely nothing to do with Government, they shouldn't be intertwined. What pledge? Are you talking about the morning school pledge? How many people do you know actually say the pledge when they're not in school. It's a tradition, nothing more. As far as the "Under God" piece, and the Constitution, the only reason why that's in there is because Christianity was the religion when the country was founded. I'm sure that if they believed in Satan, that we would be saying the same thing except with Satan instead of God.

Your definition of marriage is old and outdated. Like I said earlier, it's not written in stone and it's not set by nature, or by God. This is why it can (and should) be changed.

A lot of people get married in other places besides church. Beaches, piers, jungles, boats, etc. That isn't a valid argument.

---

Then please explain what you pledge on in the court? It doesn't matter if they say it out of school, they say it in it. Public schools = government funded, and therefore government property. And tradition can be an extremely strong bond. For example, people don't want to add Costa Rica to the U.S. because of tradition. They like having 50 stars on their flag, adding another state would make 51. Christianity is still the religion of this country, and it won't be changed to make a few gay's happy - until they complain about not having more rights. The definition is not old - most people still believe in it. You seem to think that you are the majority of the population...you are not.

Gays do chose to be gay. I think it's silly to even argue otherwise. They may have been influenced, but they chose it. Blacks did not chose to be blacks, whites did not chose to be whites, and there's nothing wrong with skin color. It's natural. There is something with changing your skin color, and P.S, Michael Jackson was pedophile, creepy, and dead.
Your whole paragraph makes absolutely no sense btw. Let me remind you, only parts of the world were racist against blacks. Being black is natural; it doesn't go against nature - being gay does.

Even though there are remains of religion in government, the point of separation of church and state is that you do not have to take part in them if you don't believe it. You are not required to say under god during the pledge, in fact if a teacher forces you to say under god during the pledge they will get sued/ most likely fired. As for the swearing in court, I want to say there is an alternative if you wish (but don't cite me). Gay marriage follows the same rules, if you don't wish to abide by the rules of god you don't have to. And be careful when you argue what is natural. Remember that at the time of slavery even though color is natural, it was accepted that blacks are naturally subservient to whites. When arguing ethics, most lose the definition of ethics. The point is to ignore your inclinations and even if something bothers you, truly try to figure out whether it is right or wrong. It is also concerned with challenging the status-quo. Religion does not have a good history in terms of treating people right. You never know, 200 years from now people opposed to gay marriage may be viewed as barbaric just as we view slave owners now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixienormous

Gays do chose to be gay. I think it's silly to even argue otherwise. They may have been influenced, but they chose it. Blacks did not chose to be blacks, whites did not chose to be whites, and there's nothing wrong with skin color. It's natural. There is something with changing your skin color, and P.S, Michael Jackson was pedophile, creepy, and dead.
Your whole paragraph makes absolutely no sense btw. Let me remind you, only parts of the world were racist against blacks. Being black is natural; it doesn't go against nature - being gay does.

---

So what would be the implications if gay people choose to be gay? I don't get how gays have chosen it leads to gays shouldn't be able to marry.

Michael Jackson being a pedophile and dead is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is that he changed the colour of his skin.
By putting "skin whitening" into google you can find hundreds of websites offering to sell you products to change your skin colour.
Couldn't we use your same reasoning and apply it to black people? Tell them they have to be discriminated against in employment. Its their own fault, we could say, they should just change to become white.

It's true that only some parts of the world were racist. One of these parts was the United States of America. Since this thread is about gay marriage in the US then its very relevant to compare homophobia with racism.

The argument from nature is quite interesting too. It goes that something is good because it is natural and something is bad because it is unnatural. There are a few problems with this.

We can see that the disease smallpox is natural yet bad. We wiped it out in 1980, this was a good thing, but unnatural.
Humans use radio transmissions to communicate voices. No animal has ever done this before the early 19th century. It is a very unnatural thing to do. Yet everyone can agree that radio is a good thing.

Also, it could be plausibly argued that homosexuality is natural because we see it in non-human animals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homose...ior_in_animals

The difference between humans and animals:
http://www.differencebetween.net/sci...ls-and-humans/
You cannot compare a human to an animal. We are so far ahead of them it's unbelievable. Animals kill and eat each other - does that mean that we should do it to?

However, if a human chooses to kill someone (since this is about choices), he does not get the same rights that a normal human would get - he get's a few years behind bars with crappy food. That argument about black people changing to white is ludicrous. They were born black - your were born straight. If you changed from black to white that's creepy, and I as an employer would never hire that person (whereas I would have hired him as a black person).
Actually, it was mostly agricultural businessmen who were racist against blacks - many so called yeomen were against this. Also, the South was a tiny percentage of the population in the North which was against slavery.
Medicine is an interesting point, but in my opinion is is natural because the human body makes its own defenses against diseases. Many medicines also derive from natural sources like the rainforest or the sea. Medicine saves lives. If you can tell me something positive originating from you and another dude having butt-sex, please enlighten me.
Once again, you cannot compare humans to animals - just as you cannot compare humans to God. Also, it is extremely natural for a human to want to be as comfortable as possible, and technology gives humans this. Radio transmission saves tons of labor - is quicker, easier, less waiting, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by

Also, it could be plausibly argued that homosexuality is natural because we see it in non-human animals. [url

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals[/url]

---

Valid point, and to further that point, dixienormous, everything you've said is coming from a naturalists perspective, I suggest you look into natural law theory to find a greater scope on the issue, you will find a wealth of knowledge that I'm sure you will agree with, and some that may alter your reasoning, but I think you'll be glad to know (and this is based off of what I've gathered from you so far) that this philosophical perspective rooted itself in Christianity and would probably be a resource you would enjoy.

How many times do I have to say it lol? Humans are not animals. Here is a link you should read to understand why we are different then the common dog:
http://www.differencebetween.net/sci...ls-and-humans/
Wrong, my points come from a:
1. Natural
2. Biblical
3. Traditional
4. Moral
.....
10410. Brain
They are not listed in order of importance btw. Also, it is not known what causes homosexuality in animals. For all we know it could be some kind of bug, disease, lack of female species, or physical/mental mishap.
Gays have butt sex because of lust, not because of procreation. If this is allowed to go on, pedophilia will be next. Then what? You'll protect them for being "sensitive creatures" who were born this way (genetics) while telling me it occurs in nature (occasionally).

-"Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

id blame jagex for this

Males and females both have the same marriage rights and are both "equal" so I don't get why they protest "EQUAL RIGHTS". You have the same marriage rights as everyone else.

Dixienormous, my original post completely flamed you, and after a period of contemplation, I decided it was best to replace it. All I have to say now is simple. You are wrong, I'm not saying me and the others are right, but simply, you are wrong and your logic for attacking this issue is backward. My last argument is going to be this and I will put it in simple logic terms. If gay marriage promotes lustful sex and will lead to pedophilia, then the use of condoms, the majority of pre-marital sex, and even the majority of sex in general will lead to pedophilia. That argument is absurd. Every argument you have made would never hold in a legitimate intellectual debate and would be laughed at. If you want me to prove it to you, I will go through every single response of yours and point out the logical fallacies as to why they are wrong. None of these will be argued by my opinion nor the opinion of anyone else, just with simple logic. I suggest you ask me of this because as of now, anyone who knows their stuff in philosophy/ethics will not be able to take you seriously, with that being one of my majors, the same applies to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixienormous

The difference between humans and animals:
http://www.differencebetween.net/sci...ls-and-humans/
You cannot compare a human to an animal. We are so far ahead of them it's unbelievable. Animals kill and eat each other - does that mean that we should do it to?

---

The article you linked to stars by defining an animal as a living thing other than a human.
So logically its axiom is also its conclusion. This is circular reasoning, and it's wrong.

Just because we're far ahead of other animals doesn't mean we're not animals ourselves.
We evolved just like them. All life, including us, shares a common ancestor. Our bodies have DNA, brains, hearts, lungs, stomachs, livers, kidneys, etc etc just like other animals.

Animals rarely eat other animals from the same species, same as humans.
However animals do kill and eat other animals from different species. A lion kills and eats deer, for example. But look humans do that too! All our food comes from eating the bodies of other life forms. We kill beef and lamb to feed ourselves, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixienormous

However, if a human chooses to kill someone (since this is about choices), he does not get the same rights that a normal human would get - he get's a few years behind bars with crappy food.

---

They go to prison because society has decided that murder is a very bad thing.

Not all choices are bad. We can choose between between buying goods from two different merchants. Society has decided this is not only permissible, but should be encouraged!

If you accept that gay people have chosen to be gay, you still have to produce an argument for why that is a bad choice that society should punish. Since you used the prison example it sounds like you'd want to lock-up gay people everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixienormous

That argument about black people changing to white is ludicrous. They were born black - your were born straight. If you changed from black to white that's creepy, and I as an employer would never hire that person (whereas I would have hired him as a black person).

---

Saying an argument is ludicrous doesn't make it so.
Being born black or white doesn't change the fact that skin whitening cream gives the choice to black people to become white if they want to.

In the 1960s when the black civil rights movement happened, people argued it was racist that interracial marriages were banned.
Using the same reasoning, racists could've argued that the black person should just use skin whitening cream to become white and marry their white partner. The racist would argue that black people had taken a choice of staying black.

How is this any different from your line of reasoning?

It doesn't matter what you'd do as an employer since we know you're a bigot anyway.


And what about religious minorities? Jews and muslims could easily decide to convert to Christianity in America. Does this mean we should discriminate against them because they are not part of the majority religion?

The point is that even if gay people chose to be gay, it still wouldn't justify discrimination against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixienormous

Medicine is an interesting point, but in my opinion is is natural because the human body makes its own defenses against diseases. Many medicines also derive from natural sources like the rainforest or the sea. Medicine saves lives.

---

The body does make its own defences against disease, but we see often these defences fail which is why people died from smallpox and many other horrible diseases. It would be natural to just allow these people to die. It is unnatural when we use synthetic chemicals made in a laboratory to save their lives.

Some medicine does derive from natural sources, but quite a lot doesn't. If you're only going to allow medicine derived from natural sources you have to ban radiotherapy, chemotherapy, x-ray machines, MRI imaging, PET scans, CAT scans, etc etc

Medicine does save lives, but its still unnatural.

The point is you cannot argue that gay people are bad because they are unnatural. There are plenty of unnatural things that we say are good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixienormous

Once again, you cannot compare humans to animals - just as you cannot compare humans to God. Also, it is extremely natural for a human to want to be as comfortable as possible, and technology gives humans this. Radio transmission saves tons of labor - is quicker, easier, less waiting, etc.

---

You saying it doesn't make it true. I have used evidence earlier in this thread to show that humans are a kind of animal.
All animals, not just humans, desire to be as comfortable as possible. Observe how most animals will choose a warm place to sleep out of the rain.

The fact is that before the late 19th century, not a single animal in the 4 billion year history of life used radio waves to communicate. Therefore radio technology is unnatural. Yet we all say its good.

The point is that if you say gay people are bad because they are unnatural, you also have to say radio transmissions are also bad.

Homosexuality is a choice, you weren't born with it. It's almost a lifestyle if you ask me. If you do believe in god, and believe in the bible like myself, it states "man shall not lay with man". That's my religious beliefs that it is wrong. But, it is your choice in life how you choose to live. It also says in the bible every person in the word will get their chance to hear the gospel, some will chose to turn their backs on god, and some will follow him. What I don't understand is why do gays have to protest in the street for gay pride and what not. I don't see any straight people walking around with banners saying im straight look at me. It's all so in your face, it's your choice who you choose to be with in a relationship but do I need to see it on the news and in my face when i go shopping and there is a Gay pride march in my city? No. Some people will never believe in the bible and god, and those who turn their back will be left behind when the world ends. As for the rights you are claiming you don't have, these laws have been around way before homosexuality became as profound as it is today. Live by them and move on, I believe in equality but I am against homosexuality.

I also believe in equality, this is why I would like equal marriage rights for gay people too.
As the law stands now in many US states, marriage is only for straight people, this is discrimination.

I don't agree that its a choice, but let's suppose it is for a second. Even if it were a choice, it would still be bad that marriage is segregated like this. Even if it were a choice, we should still make marriage equal for all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S7U

I don't see any straight people walking around with banners saying im straight look at me.

---

But you do have some straight people walking around with banners saying "Death to Fags"

Cannibalism is more widespread in animals then homosexuality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_%28zoology%29
I could just as easily say that you were a bigot (for gay rights), and who made this thread?
Animals are related to humans, just as humans were made in God's image. I never denied otherwise, but we have crucial abilities/things that they don't have; speech, conscience, soul, technology, etc. Technology is natural because it is natural for humans (and all animals) to seek the most comfortable existence they can have. A wolf will prefer a cave to a tree to shelter, and a human will prefer to talk via radiowaves then to walk 2 days to the next tribe and talk with the person.
Besides Michael Jackson, I've never heard of anyone who has ever changed his skin from white to black.
Join the club S7U, we're the lone defenders of decency it seems.
You chose to be gay, and being gay comes with no marriage. To me, this would be intruding on the straight peoples right - it's almost one of our only privileges over you - a sacred tradition - a symbol.

Ahh, I hate to pick and choose pieces of your argument but some animals do display conscience. It is proven that Elephants and dolphins and other animals are indeed self aware and meet the criteria for a conscience.

You just gave the argument away. "it is natural for humans to seek the most comfortable existence they can have." I'm sure most gays are most comfortable with being gay. And if it is natural to seek what is most comfortable, then it is natural to be gay if it makes you comfortable. I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying clarify your logic, but as of now that does not hold up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

I also believe in equality, this is why I would like equal marriage rights for gay people too.
As the law stands now in many US states, marriage is only for straight people, this is discrimination.

I don't agree that its a choice, but let's suppose it is for a second. Even if it were a choice, it would still be bad that marriage is segregated like this. Even if it were a choice, we should still make marriage equal for all.

---

I'm sure most Christians also agree that gays and straights should have the same rights, the problem is calling it marriage.

The definition of marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, it makes no sense to have a gay marriage, it's illogical. Like having a square circle, it just doesn't make sense.

Conscience does not mean self aware. It means deciding between what is right and wrong. Some people think that some animals might have a conscience - but it has not been proven. Being gay is a artificial comfort - he couldn't get a women so he went after other dudes. Nature is fickle and many tributaries branch off of the river.

I think something that most can agree on is that there should be an equal union between those of the same sex as those of different. This union should be equivalent under the eyes of the law and society.

That would solve many issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by josh81193

I'm sure most Christians also agree that gays and straights should have the same rights, the problem is calling it marriage.

The definition of marriage is a bond between a man and a woman, it makes no sense to have a gay marriage, it's illogical. Like having a square circle, it just doesn't make sense.

---

Actually that's not true. Definitions can change, as history and sociology show us.

In the past the definition of marriage was the union between members of the same race. Once it was also defined as union in the eyes of God, but now we see many people getting married outside of a church. In other parts of the world, marriage is defined as a union between one man and many women. And yes, in Massachusetts, Vermont and New York, marriage is defined as a union between two people regardless of their gender.

The definition comes from the Bible and Genesis (I don't think I had to point that out), but seeing as there are 3 or 4 different versions, the one we all know and 2 or 3 others that were found in the dead sea scrolls,which I can elaborate now if need be, I don't find that a truly reliable source.

Now, as for the definition of marriage, it has transformed into two meanings 1) being the union between a man and a woman recognized by god, and 2) whatever the law defines it as, which is simply put, two people legally joined together. The recognized by god is important, because that is definitely part of the religious definition, but what of athiests, atheists would fall under the same category as gays with the "not being recognized by god" or so I would think. If athiests are, then the argument becomes "can I not believe in god yet still receive the full benefits of him," which I don't care who you are that question is not being answered on earth. My main point of this is; the word marriage has become so common that it's definition has transformed, and although I realize the whole purpose of what you said was to not mis-define marriage, it already has been if you think of the number of people that really don't pay attention or care about the "recognized by god" part. Alot of people still get married in churches just because it's considered weird not to, sure there are some that do the whole "we are joined by god" thing, but alot of it is just a blind following of tradition.

The definition from Genesis is one man several women. We can see many male Genesis characters had a few wives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixienormous

Conscience does not mean self aware. It means deciding between what is right and wrong. Some people think that some animals might have a conscience - but it has not been proven. Being gay is a artificial comfort - he couldn't get a women so he went after other dudes. Nature is fickle and many tributaries branch off of the river.

---

Deciding right and wrong is morality, and a component encompassed by conscience, self-awareness is 100% part of a conscience, maybe not the entire make-up, but undoubtedly part of it. You cannot choose between what's right and what's wrong without self-awareness, because first, you have to be aware that you're making a choice. Although the debate over what is conscience has been going on between people much much smarter than you and I, so I don't see us solving the great question here.

As for artificial comfort, ALL TECHNOLOGY IS ARTIFICIAL COMFORT, which is what sparked the whole comfort thing. Some people have trouble concentrating, so they take a drug to help concentrate, some people can't hear, so they go get a fake hearing device to hear, some people can't brandish swords and teleport at a whim, so they play runescape. By the reasoning of gays being wrong because they find your definition of "artificial comfort" me playing runescape would be considered just as evil under the circumstances. Watch out for these loopholes man, you're killin me.

Technology may be artificial comfort -but your arguing this on only one level. Do the majority of people think that calling a friend on the telephone is wrong? No lol. The majority of people do think that being gay is wrong, that butt-sex is absolutely gross, and that gays should not have marriage. Marriage is something straight people hold sacred - it's a symbol, and for many it corresponds with God. It's sick that you would try to take that away just for some extra comfort/benefits.
And RuneScape is evil. It's an incredible waste of time - which is why I bot. I do not enjoy wasting my whole day chopping at a tree - teleporting or "branishing swords," and I wish I could take back the time I spent on it/never started playing it.
About medicine. It may not be "natural", but it is morally right to try to help someone in pain. Christ was a healer after all.

You know what I hate?
I hate if you have a good friend thats a male and you guys hang out together and do everything together, people start assuming that you guys are gay. See what happens when people start to throw out assumptions, these assumptions makes a person question his sexuality. These guys now might be like... oh ya maybe we are gay... when they really aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingarabian

You know what I hate?
I hate if you have a good friend thats a male and you guys hang out together and do everything together, people start assuming that you guys are gay. See what happens when people start to throw out assumptions, these assumptions makes a person question his sexuality. These guys now might be like... oh ya maybe we are gay... when they really aren't.

---

What's bad about that??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixienormous

Technology may be artificial comfort -but your arguing this on only one level. Do the majority of people think that calling a friend on the telephone is wrong? No lol. The majority of people do think that being gay is wrong, that butt-sex is absolutely gross, and that gays should not have marriage. Marriage is something straight people hold sacred - it's a symbol, and for many it corresponds with God. It's sick that you would try to take that away just for some extra comfort/benefits.
And RuneScape is evil. It's an incredible waste of time - which is why I bot. I do not enjoy wasting my whole day chopping at a tree - teleporting or "branishing swords," and I wish I could take back the time I spent on it/never started playing it.
About medicine. It may not be "natural", but it is morally right to try to help someone in pain. Christ was a healer after all.

---

Far too many assumptions. I did not go to the level of what the majority thought because the majority is in no way shape or form a credible contributor. <--Bandwagon fallacy, doesn't work logically.Your assumption, "Marriage is something straight people hold sacred" I'm straight and I really don't care, the majority of my friends are straight and they really don't care either. Don't assume. You're getting sidetracked on the natural thing, this was about if it's natural it's ok. You said it's natural to find comfort, and then I said well gays find comfort in being gay so therefore it's natural, then you called in artificial comfort, and then I said medicine is artificial comfort, You keep changing the definition and altering it. If it is morally right to help someone in pain, what if that help relies on you being tolerant of gays. Again, what you're saying does not exclude gay marriage from anything. Example; Al and Bob are gay, they are happy, you are their neighbor and you have the final say whether they could get married, you say no, Al goes into severe depression, do help his pain, (by your logic) you are then required to let him marry to heal his pain. Christ was also a forgiver, in fact I'm fairly sure that is one of his biggest areas of expertise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

I also believe in equality, this is why I would like equal marriage rights for gay people too.

---

http://villavu.com/forum/showpost.ph...&postcount=373

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

The definition from Genesis is one man several women. We can see many male Genesis characters had a few wives.

---

Cite some sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cycrosism

http://villavu.com/forum/showpost.ph...&postcount=373

---

No they don't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry

No they don't?

---

Except 4 taxes,
Who cares?

Why shouldn't they be allowed to get the tax break for loving each other that a man and woman are allowed to get?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zyt3x

What's bad about that??

---

Adds to my personal belief people become gay when they really aren't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by footballjds

Except 4 taxes,
Who cares?

---

And other social services that do not recognize them (such as: social security benefits, being able to make hospital decisions when your spouse is unable to, discounted "family rates" for insurance, and many other legal accesses such as jail visits/hospital records/etc) ... and taxes is a pretty big thing, don't you think?

Gay marriage should be allowed. Im straight and I fully support that. And if anyone does not like the fact that there are gays. GTFO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by footballjds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yakman

The definition from Genesis is one man several women. We can see many male Genesis characters had a few wives.

---

Cite some sources.

---

Just one example is Genesis 29.
Jacob has two wives, Rachel and Leah.

Surely you're not surprised that the founders of your religion were bronze age primitives? They were said to have lived 4000 years ago. Society has progressed since then.