Same Sex Marriages

[GSLeloo]

Once again we were discussing this in my CWA class. So in Massachussets (forgive my spelling) the courts ruled that they had to be allowed to marry and the state has 180 days to make it so. This of course led to a discussion in my class as to whether or not they should be allowed.

I personally believe that a marriage should not be defined as between a man and a woman but as between two people who love each other. I also believe a gay couple should be allowed to adopt because it doesn't matter the sexuality of the parents, only that the child is given a loving home.

What do you guys think?

[Sean]

why is this in scripting discussions?

[JustMe]

I agree with you.... and this is in the wrong folder.

[Xcalibur]

Disagree completely.

Having 2 dads for a child from 0-15 is an invitation to HELL of problems for that child.

I have nothing at all against gays, and marriage if they want.

But I'm STRONGLY against adoption for em (they can here though, but it's really rare and they have a lot of justification to do)

[GSLeloo]

Uh.. oops. I thought what I had clicked was in Off-Topic. Can any mod move this please? Really sorry about that.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
Disagree completely.

Having 2 dads for a child from 0-15 is an invitation to HELL of problems for that child.

I have nothing at all against gays, and marriage if they want.

But I'm STRONGLY against adoption for em (they can here though, but it's really rare and they have a lot of justification to do)

i disagree because times change .. right now it may be difficult right now but if people dont take the 1st step things wont ever change. years ago you might have said the same thing about me being the product of an interracial relationship but now its no longer looked on in the same light theres no longer the same stigma attached to it. im all for same sex marriages if thats what they want to do and if theywant to adopt im for it too. there are so many kids out there without homes and families and if a gay couple would like to take them in and give them a home and love them as their own. more power to them.

[StrayRogue]

Same here. I am sure in time people will live to learn with it. We just have to make that first step.

[GSLeloo]

My teacher gave us a great example. Her son in like second or third grade had a new kid come to their class. So he was like 10 I guess and he had AIDS. So did his baby brother. Their mother had given them both up for adoption and obviously it seemed like the kids were never going to be adopted. A gay couple in her town had adopted both of the boys and gave them a wonderful and loving life. And the boys did both die and my teacher and her son attended their funeral.

The boys were able to live a little bit in a loving home rather than die in an orphanage. I don't care if it's two mothers, two fathers, or a mother and a father. All kids deserve to live in a home.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Tijay
there are so many kids out there without homes and families


The main problem is there

Too many kids left out, less caring parents.

Bring something like china's birth permission (with controle so people won't massacre girls like they do) and you'll just solve a really big (and growing) problem.

Still, I disagree, a child need a mother and a father, not 2 fathers or 2 mothers.

[Artha]

I'm against marriage, simply because it is a religious ceremony which is defined as being between a man and a woman (if not in the dictionary, in religious texts). However, I do think they should be given some sort of option which allows them to have all the benefits of marriage, without being (technically) married.

Adoption...only if they're out of middle school. These are the years your name gets made fun of...can you imagine not only having a stupid name, but 2 dads?

[Drew2]

I don't have anything against gay marriages.

I do have something against a guy in a wedding dress. I'm sorry, but even if that's your thing, it's just WEIRD.

[HarmNone]

I happen to know a lesbian couple who are raising two children, a boy and a girl. The boy is 13, the girl is 10. In my opinion, they are a caring and loving family and the children seem well-balanced and happy.

It can work, if the couple is willing to work at it. There will be those who judge harshly, but their opinions are just that....opinions. Nothing more. They do not have to affect the family in a negative way. :)

HarmNone sees no problem here

[Drew2]

Lesbians are different.

They're hot.

[Wezas]

I don't see anything wrong with gay marriages. And I don't see anything wrong with a gay couple adopting children. I doubt there are many out there, but I wouldn't recommend a gay couple that dislikes hetrosexuals be able to adopt children. Just like I wouldn't recommend hetro couples oppresing their negative beliefs about gays on their children.

[GSLeloo]

A marriage is about loving someone and making a lifetime commitment to that love. I don't believe sex should matter.

[Hulkein]

I don't believe they should be allowed, as someone else said it's historically between a man and a woman, and in most cases is a religious thing. Tax breaks or whatever, I guess give it to them to shut them up, but children.. all I can say about that is I feel bad for their kid. If the gay couples want a kid, do it on their own terms, get a woman to carry the child (if men) or man to impregnate (if women), whatever is the case, don't adopt a poor innocent kid into that mess.

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Hulkein]

[Drew2]

Haha I can't wait until Ben gets ahold of this thread so I can vomit.

[i remember halloween]

it's not fair to give a child a bunch of queers for parents. i really don't care what gay people do on their own time, but it's just plain wrong for them to be able to adopt. they are part of a perverted (look up the defintion of this word if you are offended), and counterproductive relationship. it is inappropriate to give another life to them.

[StrayRogue]

Marriage is perhaps wrong yeah, in a religious, Christian sense, atleast until the Bible and dogma is changed to support Homosexuality. However a "union" or whatever is perfectly acceptable in my book.

[Edited on 5-12-03 by StrayRogue]

[Drew2]

ROFL Ok I don't have to wait for Ben to vomit. We have other narrow minded, prejudice pigs.

[Kurili]

I have to agree, marriage is a commitment between two people who are in love (one hopes) The sex of the two shouldnt matter.

And adoption should be taken on a case by case basis, whether the adoptive parents are gay or straight. I know many gays and lesbians who are or would be wonderful parents. And many straights who are dismal at parenting.

Acolyte Kurili

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Tayre
ROFL Ok I don't have to wait for Ben to vomit. We have other narrow minded, prejudice pigs.

Yay for narrow minded, prejudice pigs! They are so kewl.

[Sean]

they have the same right to have an opinion that you do ..

that being said people with this mentality - "it's not fair to give a child a bunch of queers for parents." - are the reason, in my opinion, that children of same sex marriages have a hard time. when that mentality is pushed on kids i have an issue with it.

[GSLeloo]

There are lots of pieces of trash that have kids simply because it's a male and female. And those trash beat their kids, abuse their kids, and cause their kids to have the most fucked up lives ever. A stable home environment is not dependent upon what their sexuality is. I think a gay or lesbian couple could do a great job raising a kid and I have NO problem with it whatsoever.

[StrayRogue]

Totally Tijay, totally.

[StrayRogue]

Totally Tijay, totally.

[i remember halloween]

being raised in a deviant environment is simply not fair. you can try to act like all gays are so great and would make good parents, but thats not even the issue here. the issue is denying a completely submissive child the right to a natural upbringing for no other reason than your wanting to impress your other liberal friends by acting politically correct.

[Caiylania]

Anyone in love should be allowed to have a wedding/union. Weddings are not copyrighted by the Christian religion. Just like people of other faiths and atheists can get married.

By saying its wrong according to Christian theology, then no one who is not Christian should be allowed to marry.

As long as they love one another, they should have the same legal right to make that bond official.

Adoption and kids as well. I have friends with gay parents and they are just as happy, smart, and adjusted as people with straight parents.

and Tijay is right, twenty years ago, inter racial marriages were not only frowned upon, but in many states still illegal. It is stupid, no one has the right to tell other people who they can and can't be with.

[GSLeloo]

What is a natural upbringing? A mother and father? What about all the kids being raised by just a mother or just a father? Are those natural or unnatural? Are interracial marriages natural or unnatural? What about interreligious marriages? How about nationalities? Who are you to say what is a natural upbringing and what is not?

[Snapp]

My boyfriend and I have been together for 3 years now... and are very much in love. We're buying a house together in 2004 and someday hope to adopt a child. I KNOW we will be better parents than some of the heterosexual couples I've seen "raising" kids, if that's what you want to call it. If we love them, can support them, and give them what they want in life, I don't see how that's wrong. It's just the close-minded people around that cause the problems.

[StrayRogue]

Well its clear you came from a smashing upbringing, eh I Remember Fascism? Truly splendid. Perhaps a bit of libralism would have done you good.

Oh, yeah, Ziege Heile.

[Edited on 5-12-03 by StrayRogue]

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Caiylania
and Tijay is right, twenty years ago, inter racial marriages were not only frowned upon, but in many states still illegal. It is stupid, no one has the right to tell other people who they can and can't be with.

<waits to see if Halloween has something to say about blacks>

[GSLeloo]

Snapp and some others bring up a good point. We say a gay couple shouldn't have a kid because the child will be ridiculed. But why would the child be ridiculed? Because a bunch of parents taught their children to be closed minded and hateful. That's real great.

[Sean]

Originally posted by i remember halloween
being raised in a deviant environment is simply not fair. you can try to act like all gays are so great and would make good parents, but thats not even the issue here. the issue is denying a completely submissive child the right to a natural upbringing for no other reason than your wanting to impress your other liberal friends by acting politically correct.

so because i was raised in a deviant household, as in deviant from the "norm" single parent and interracial, im submissive? ha:lol:

[StrayRogue]

You are deviant Tijay!

[GSLeloo]

Am I a deviant then because my father came from England and my mom lived here? That's like internationalities, right?

[StrayRogue]

Am I a deviant for having lots of sex before marriage. OMG I am christened too. I am SO going to hell.

[Wezas]

All Canadians are Deviants. That is all.

[Ilvane]

Originally posted by i remember halloween
being raised in a deviant environment is simply not fair. you can try to act like all gays are so great and would make good parents, but thats not even the issue here. the issue is denying a completely submissive child the right to a natural upbringing for no other reason than your wanting to impress your other liberal friends by acting politically correct.

An alcoholic parent, or divorce is probably more difficult and more disturbing to a child than having two mothers, or two fathers.

I live in Massachusetts and I was happy they decided to do that. I think that they should have the same civil rights as a couple in a committed relationship as a marriage between a man and a woman. That is what it is about.

-A

(How about I can't get my thoughts straight..needed to edit)

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Ilvane]

[Caiylania]

I must be deviant, my family life was not two parents and 2.5 kids. Hell, I didn't even meet my father til I was 15. I'm an only child. We are friends now, he lives with a black woman 16 years younger than him. My mom was a single parent, a woman in the military and enlisted even though father and grand father were officers. Married and then divorced (a german man so international too oohhh)

There is no such thing as a normal family. What there are are happy families. Whether it is one parent, two parents of opposite sex, same sex, or adopted, its love that makes a family.

Sounds like Halloween was the one raised by f'ed up parents.

[GSLeloo]

Caiylania, join us deviants over here.

I'm actually really happy with how most people thought here. In my class we had two guys leading the opposing view. One said that they should not be allowed to be married because then we would be too accepting and soon siblings would be marrying and eventually humans marrying animals. The other said they should be allowed to marry but not have kids because it would be hard on the kids in school.

[Latrinsorm]

Get married in a court, you can be whatever you want. Just keep it out of my church, please.


Originally posted by i remember halloween
being raised in a deviant environment is simply not fair. you can try to act like all gays are so great and would make good parents, but thats not even the issue here. the issue is denying a completely submissive child the right to a natural upbringing for no other reason than your wanting to impress your other liberal friends by acting politically correct.

You're an ass. The reasons you're wrong are many and varied.

[Ravenstorm]

Hmmm. I had a huge post all typed up but then I decided why bother. I'll just say that's it's about time that America took another step towards all people being equal under the law and that any bigots who object can go live somewhere else.

It will happen. It might not be this year, with Bush trying to sabotage things. It might not be next year, considering how the Christian right want to hate everyone who doesn't follow their dogma. But it will happen soon. America is a land for everyone and Americans are learning to accept.

Blacks are equal. Women are equal. Jews are equal. Gays are equal. It takes time. Hell, there's still problems. But it will happen. And to those who work to oppose it?

The best revenge is living well. Your day is passing like the dinosaur. The only question is how hard you all will bellow before you become inconsequential.

Raven

[GSLeloo]

I officially love Ravenstorm.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
It might not be next year, considering how the Christian right want to hate everyone who doesn't follow their dogma.

I don't hate everyone who doesn't follow my dogma. :( But otherwise, I concur. Wholeheartedly.

Why don't we (the United States) just vote on it?

[GSLeloo]

Because marriage is done state by state, not throughout the country.

[Latrinsorm]

Then we should change that.

I'm looking at YOU, Senate.

[GSLeloo]

Well I think that's what the problem was. Not sure what my teacher said but it's like... if the supreme court says the state has to allow them to and ammends that same-sex marriages have the right to happen then all states would have to follow it and it then takes away from the state powers. Something like that.

[Hulkein]

Someone asked what was natural.. Natural upbringing is a male and female.. It's biological, every form of life is the same. I don't care if gays get together, but adopting children is just wrong for that poor kid.

Leloo- don't be very surprised that most of this board has more liberal point of views, Gemstone and other 'fantasy' stuff appeals to liberals more so then conservatives.

[Caiylania]

Civil rights are national. States should not be allowed to determine on their own who does and does not have rights, or inter racial marriages would still be illegal in Alabama :P

[Kurili]

Am I invited to the Housewarming, Snapp?

And good post, Raven. And most all of you. I am pleased to see this attitude from a majority of our members. Means there may be hope for us after all to become tolerant of those who are not just like us.

Acolyte Kurili

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Someone asked what was natural.. Natural upbringing is a male and female.. It's biological, every form of life is the same. I don't care if gays get together, but adopting children is just wrong for that poor kid.

Every form of life is NOT the same. Turtles ditch their young to make it to the sea on their own.
Lion's kill kits that try to get to their food if its not their turn.
Male seahorses carry the babies and care for them
Many mammals even eat their young.

So as long as its natural we can do it? Points to above points.

[Hulkein]

There is a reason states have laws against same sex marriages, the majority of the state openly opposes it and an even larger amount do oppose it, but won't admit it because their opinion 'makes people puke.' I guess only liberal opinions are accepted? Or at least that's the way you'd like it, right Tayre?

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Caiylania

Every form of life is NOT the same. Turtles ditch their young to make it to the sea on their own.
Lion's kill kits that try to get to their food if its not their turn.
Male seahorses carry the babies and care for them
Many mammals even eat their young.

So as long as its natural we can do it? Points to above points.
I meant the actual conception of the offspring. And don't give me 'THE NORTHER LION SEA KING IS ACTUALLY ASEXUAL.' If it came down to the simplest principles, they physically can't have kids, so they shouldn't.

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Hulkein]

[GSLeloo]

Humans do not apply to those same rules, Hulkein. Humans long ago broke what was natural. Cloning sheep and atomic bombs aren't natural but they do. Marriage in itself is not about what is natural but what is socially accepted.

[Hulkein]

Actually cloning is widely opposed, and not one person on earth would choose to keep atomic weapons on the face of the earth if we could just erase them permanently kthx.

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Hulkein]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Someone asked what was natural.. Natural upbringing is a male and female.. It's biological, every form of life is the same. I don't care if gays get together, but adopting children is just wrong for that poor kid.


Wrong. Most forms of life on this planet that are animals are insects. Insects don't parent like us. And that's not even going into the vast amounts of life that aren't animal.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Someone asked what was natural.. Natural upbringing is a male and female.. It's biological, every form of life is the same. I don't care if gays get together, but adopting children is just wrong for that poor kid.

im curious why is the child a poor kid? because his/her parent are gay? or because of the views of society that being gay is wrong? what exactly makes him/her a poor kid .. is he/she a not so poor a kid because someone gave birth to him/her and couldn't handle the situation and put the kid up for adoption? is the kid not so poor possibly moving between foster homes? would the kid be better off if the kid had to potentially live with an abusive parent instead of a gay parent?

im not saying all homosexual would make good parents. i am however saying if a homosexual couple is capable and ready to handle caring after a child whose been put up for adopting im all for it.

[StrayRogue]

There is nothing "natural" about marriage.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Someone asked what was natural.. Natural upbringing is a male and female.. It's biological, every form of life is the same. I don't care if gays get together, but adopting children is just wrong for that poor kid.


(sadly shakes his head)

You poor, poor ignorant boy. Please, learn a little about biology. Learn a little about nature. You are right in one thing though...

It's biological, every form of life is the same.

It is indeed biological. Homosexuality exists in, I think, every single mammalian and avian species on this planet. If it's not every one is't damn close. Tell you what, have a link:

http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html

It's a review of a book that came out several years ago detailing several hundred instances of gay animals. You'll even find gay couples who mate for life and raise young.

And incidentally, you'll not find a single study that shows that adopted children raised by a gay couple turns out any worse than any other child. In fact, studies done on it have shown no difference at all. And there are certainly better off than children raised by abusive straight alcoholics.

Raven

[Ilvane]

:lol: So true, Stray.

I'd like to mention Hulkein, I am not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. I'm pretty much right in the middle, aside from being an environmentalist.;)

-A

[Hulkein]

First let me say this to whoever said marriage isn't natural - I don't oppose a gay partnership. That being said, I'll say this to people saying 'SOME ANIMALS ARE GAY!!111' -All I know is gay animals won't be contributing too much to the lasting of their species, lol.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Hulkein
If it came down to the simplest principles, they physically can't have kids, so they shouldn't.

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Hulkein]

No man can physically conceive or give birth, and many women are also unable to conceive and/or give birth. Does this mean, then, that they should not adopt children? Ludicrous!

HarmNone is chuckling, but it ain't with happiness:no:

[GSLeloo]

Actually most forms of life on this planet are bacteria. Archae to be specific (new three domains instead of 5 kingdoms) and they reproduce by splitting in half I believe.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by HarmNone


No man can physically conceive or give birth, and many women are also unable to conceive and/or give birth. Does this mean, then, that they should not adopt children? Ludicrous!

Were we not debating with the notion of a union already in place?

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
Actually most forms of life on this planet are bacteria. Archae to be specific (new three domains instead of 5 kingdoms) and they reproduce by splitting in half I believe.

Can we please STFU about what bacteria do to reproduce, I don't really care it's nitpicking and a mickey mouse form of arguing with someone. (Not just directed at you Leloo.)

[GSLeloo]

We were simply stating you said it was natural to have a male and a female and that is not true in all forms of nature so such a general statement is incorrect.

[StrayRogue]

Then stop making massively generalised comments.

[Caiylania]

Raven, you are my idol. Thx

[Hulkein]

Didn't I make myself pretty clear that I know there are exceptions when I said this - 'And don't give me THE NORTHER LION SEA KING IS ACTUALLY ASEXUAL.

SELECTIVE READING?? ANYONE EVER HEAR OF IT?

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Hulkein]

[GSLeloo]

Hulkein do not get so angry...

But I do have a question for you. Which is better, for a child to be raised in a home with gay parents or live in an orphanage?

[StrayRogue]

But in your case the exceptions are the rule. Your "Natural upbringing" is not the norm.

[Hulkein]

The only time a child would be in an orphanage and NOT be in high demand is if he/she was already like 12 years old, and by that time I DOUBT they would want to be adopted by gays.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
There is nothing "natural" about marriage.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and they shall be one flesh. Gen 2:24. Jesus quoted it too. Man, singular. Wife, singular. Natural enough for me.

But like I said, you can do whatever you want in a court house.

[GSLeloo]

Originally posted by Hulkein
The only time a child would be in an orphanage and NOT be in high demand is if he/she was already like 12 years old, and by that time I DOUBT they would want to be adopted by gays.

As I previously said in another post, there was a boy with AIDS that was around 12 and adopted by two gay men to have a normal life until he sadly died.

[StrayRogue]

Unless your country is massively different from mine, the standards for actually being able to adopt is massive. Only the very best can do, or rather those who can prove most capable. Being gay usually doesn't enter into it until about 15, when they actually start understanding what the hell it means.

[Hulkein]

I'm not going to argue over a point that is so rare. How many kids with aids are in orphanages, and then how many gays are willing to adopt them? The percentage is too small to even argue that.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by StrayRogue
There is nothing "natural" about marriage.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and they shall be one flesh. Gen 2:24. Jesus quoted it too. Man, singular. Wife, singular. Natural enough for me.

But like I said, you can do whatever you want in a court house.

Mankind was before the Bible. Long before the Bible. Back in the day, survival of the tribe, or the race mattered more than a set of vows of chastity.

[GSLeloo]

Eh Strayrogue it varies.. there is a couple that adopted about three boys and they starved each boy. At 18 one boy weighed 50 lbs and was about 4'5

[Edaarin]

And we all know that Christianity is the only way of life, right?

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Mankind was before the Bible. Long before the Bible. Back in the day, survival of the tribe, or the race mattered more than a set of vows of chastity.

And tell me how long we would've survived if the tribesman were all gay.

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Hulkein]

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
Eh Strayrogue it varies.. there is a couple that adopted about three boys and they starved each boy. At 18 one boy weighed 50 lbs and was about 4'5

The systems could be different. However, there will always be the psycho's who slip through the cracks, no matter how strict and thorough the system is.

[GSLeloo]

You're just ignoring it because it doesn't help your case, Hulkein. The fact is any child is better off in a loving home environment then foster care.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Edaarin
And we all know that Christianity is the only way of life, right?

Well, seeing as Muslims don't approve of gay marriages, and neither do Christians, I'd say we have about 80 percent of the worlds population right there, lol.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Kurili
Am I invited to the Housewarming, Snapp?


You bet! Should be next June if things go as planned.

And as for Hulkein.. you never answered Tijay's question.. how is it poor for the children to have gay parents? Because of people like you and you're future children? Or do you have some real reason for it?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Mankind was before the Bible.

I would disagree. :) But that's not really the point of this discussion.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
You're just ignoring it because it doesn't help your case, Hulkein. The fact is any child is better off in a loving home environment then foster care.

I'm ignoring it because no one is dumb enough to debate a point so small and inconsequential. You said so yourself to Stray that the demand for adopting kids is so high that adding gays into the mix won't give a marginal amount of kids more homes. I win that aspect of the argument.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Mankind was before the Bible. Long before the Bible. Back in the day, survival of the tribe, or the race mattered more than a set of vows of chastity.

And tell me how long we would've survived if the tribesman were all gay.

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Hulkein]

Whats your point? We've already proved your BS that "natural life is raised hetrosexually".

I am sure they'd do what they'd have to. Just like if I was in a situation I'd do extreme measures to survive.

BESIDES, we are passed those days. We live in a time when we don't have to fight for survival. People CAN be gay and our massively bloated population will still flourish.

[GSLeloo]

around 2/3 of the American population is against gay marriages. 10% of the American population is gay.

Might be 80% of these religions but only about 66% actually oppose it. We just have to keep in mind that people opposed lots of things and they are not perfectly accepted.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Edaarin
And we all know that Christianity is the only way of life, right?

Well, seeing as Muslims don't approve of gay marriages, and neither do Christians, I'd say we have about 80 percent of the worlds population right there, lol.

I'm going to bed. But I'll give you this one last nugget of info. Stop making fucking huge generalisations like the above. It makes you appear even more an idiot than you already do so.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Snapp
And as for Hulkein.. you never answered Tijay's question.. how is it poor for the children to have gay parents? Because of people like you and you're future children? Or do you have some real reason for it?

Not many people raise their kids to be gay haters. It's unnatural and therefor mankind doesn't like it. People inherintly dislike it, disapprove of it, and will make fun of people for doing it.

Interacial marriages aren't unnatural, they were just an anomoly in our society. Gay marraiges (and for this specific point, child raising) are UNNATURAL.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by StrayRogue

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Edaarin
And we all know that Christianity is the only way of life, right?

Well, seeing as Muslims don't approve of gay marriages, and neither do Christians, I'd say we have about 80 percent of the worlds population right there, lol.

I'm going to bed. But I'll give you this one last nugget of info. Stop making fucking huge generalisations like the above. It makes you appear even more an idiot than you already do so.

When you debate, you argue statistics buddy. What I said isn't a lie, so please don't call me an idiot because we disagree on this point, it's not my fault liberals are allowed to say 'PEOPLE ARE SO NARROWMINDED IDIOTS' yet when conservatives express our opinions, it's 'idiotic.' LOL. Moron.

[GSLeloo]

What is natural? Love is natural. Love is the most natural thing in the world and if two people love each other than that is all that matters. And if those two people are willing to open their hearts and their home to raise and love a child than that is also as natural as anything can be.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
It's unnatural and therefor mankind doesn't like it.

I want you to look up at the ceiling. Then look at your computer again. Then maybe look at an electric light, if you happen to have one on.

How many of those are natural? NONE

How many of those does mankind hate?

edit: Leloo's response is better. Read that. ^ up there ^

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Latrinsorm]

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Not many people raise their kids to be gay haters. It's unnatural and therefor mankind doesn't like it. People inherintly dislike it, disapprove of it, and will make fun of people for doing it.

Interacial marriages aren't unnatural, they were just an anomoly in our society. Gay marraiges (and for this specific point, child raising) are UNNATURAL.

People learn those types of behavior. Homophobia is passed from parent to child just like racism. If everyone was taught that "gay people aren't evil" then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Hulkein]

Ok, a ceiling, made out of wood (natural) electricity (also natural, just needed to be harness.) I'm seeing the drywall of the ceiling heald together by nails, most likely a type of steel found in the earth.

What exactly was this point? LOL.

[GSLeloo]

Another thing you should keep in mind here Hulkein... look around the boards right now. Look how many people are for gay marriages and for them adopting kids. You are, for the moment, the only person against it. Doesn't that say something?

[StrayRogue]

Show me numbers fool. Show me numbers. I want to see 80% of the world's Muslims and Christians to say they dont approve of Gay marriage. Who on these boards believes in God yet would be happy with two homosexual people getting married?

Marriage is not natural for starters. Fucking homophobe.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
What is natural? Love is natural. Love is the most natural thing in the world and if two people love each other than that is all that matters. And if those two people are willing to open their hearts and their home to raise and love a child than that is also as natural as anything can be.

Yes, love is natural. Now when their love spawns a child, there really won't be an argument. Until then, sorry I won't agree.

PS. Ok, I'm done posting, I've said my piece and I don't want to seem like I'm forcing my viewpoints on anyone, because I'm not. You asked for my opinion, I gave it and I'm done posting in this thread.

[GSLeloo]

You weren't forcing your viewpoint because no one shared it with you.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Ok, a ceiling, made out of wood (natural) electricity (also natural, just needed to be harness.) I'm seeing the drywall of the ceiling heald together by nails, most likely a type of steel found in the earth.

What exactly was this point? LOL.

Steel isn't natural. It's a manmade thing. I also notice how you didn't mention computers in your "refutation". The point is you made a ridiculous statement and that you are wrong.


Originally posted by Strayrogue, who's supposed to be in bed
Who on these boards believes in God yet would be happy with two homosexual people getting married?


I would!

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Show me numbers fool. Show me numbers. I want to see 80% of the world's Muslims and Christians to say they dont approve of Gay marriage. Who on these boards believes in God yet would be happy with two homosexual people getting married?

Marriage is not natural for starters. Fucking homophobe.

Well, I said I wasn't going to respond anymore but I have to respond to this moron.

1- I said 80% of the worlds population was either CHRISTIAN OR MUSLIM. I then went on to say those religions DO NOT SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGES. I didn't say all of the people didn't. -- I win that point, learn how to read what is written and not what you think is.

2- I already said marriage isn't natural, when I brought up the natural part of the argument, it was referring to the upbringing of a child. Two different arguments buddy. -- I win again because you're arguing a point that I never said, moron.

3- I'm not a homophobe, I just don't support gay marriage or child-raising. Ok, now I'm done.

[StrayRogue]

I highly, HIGHLY doubt every single one of those 80% is such a fundamentalist that they would agree with this BS. Please prove me wrong.

[Caiylania]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by Edaarin
And we all know that Christianity is the only way of life, right?

Well, seeing as Muslims don't approve of gay marriages, and neither do Christians, I'd say we have about 80 percent of the worlds population right there, lol.

Uh no you don't. While Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism are the most common religions. They do NOT number the majority of the world.

[Ravenstorm]

I know of many Episcopalians who do, Stray. I know of many Unitarians who do. I know of many Jews who do. Do Goddesses also count? There's a shitload of Wiccans who favor it.

Really, you shouldn't lump every religion in together nor a belief in a deity as being the line in the sand.

A faith in a God does not automatically make one a closed minded bigot.

Raven

[StrayRogue]

So if by default you are of christian faifth you automatically appose Gay marriage? I am christened. I am technically a christian, yet I do not appose it. I am POSITIVE I am not the only one.

Oh and Raven, I am not saying it is all Religion that apposes gay marriage. Not at all.

[Sweets]

Yes Wezas...we Canadians are all deviants. You have to be...it gets coooollddd in some provinces.;)

Some points I agree with:

Stay has the gist of it. Marriage isn't "natural". It's a concept that we humans have developed and nutured. By marriage I include all bonding ceremonies, not just christian marriage. My belief stems from the fact that a male has different types of sperm. Attackers (take care of foreign things) Blockers (nuff said) and Swimmers. These are not the scientific terms...I just remember the gist of the nature program I watched. This leads me to think that we are not "naturally" monogamous.


That said, it kind of blows that whole gay as 'not natural' out the window. Humans have a sophistication other species don't have. This development has thrown us into more complex relationships. So as long as the love is there....why oppose.

I also agree with Tijay. It those that say "I feel sorry for the adopted child" that make the child feel bad about the family they have. The irony huh?

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Caiylania
Uh no you don't. While Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism are the most common religions. They do NOT number the majority of the world.

And just for the record, out of the four major divisions of Judaism: Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative and Orthodox only the latter discriminate against homosexuals.

As for Hinduism, while I've only read the Gita and not all the Upanishads, I don't recall any mention of homosexuality in it at all.

Raven

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Ravenstorm]

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Hulkein
And tell me how long we would've survived if the tribesman were all gay.

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Hulkein]

Who said anything about EVERYBODY being gay? Nobody, that's who. Some people are gay, some are straight, some are bisexual. Any of these, as a couple, could be excellent parents, or they could be lousy parents. Their sexual preferences simply do not play into it at all.

Frankly, if those who are so quick to judge others as "good" or "bad", "natural" or "unnatural", "gay" or "straight" would simply keep their noses in their own damned business, they would not have to have their delicate sensibilities tweaked quite so regularly. ;)

HarmNone figures each to his own, and more power to 'em

[Kurili]

There are a lot of children who are as young as babies who are difficult to place. Some races and mixed races are harder to place. Children older than infants yet still toddlers are harder to place. And any child with a health problem is extremely hard to place. Or a psycological problem, which is quite likely a gift from their 'natural and therefore superior' parents.

So you're saying if a loving stable gay or lesbian couple has hearts big enough, and can actually get through the mountain of red tape involved with an adoption...that these children would be better off in foster care? Or orphanages?

And by the way, I have had more than a few bitches and even queens (cats) that would not only accept and nurture puppies or kittens other than their own, in some cases a dog would accept kittens, or vice-versa. What is that other than an adoption in the animal world? Too bad the Doggy Powers That Be didnt outlaw that disgusting display of a bitch nursing her puppies...and a kitten. By the way, all the orphans I've had my dogs/cats raise turned out to be good canine or feline citizens, thanks. Didnt seem to suffer the stigma of such miserable parenting at all.

And before you complain that those are animals..you brought up animals.

Acolyte Kurili

[GSLeloo]

Actually I thought that was a beautiful comparison Kurili.

[i remember halloween]

is the level of comprehension really as low as you all are making it seem or is this just some bad joke which i am not understanding? it's pointless to discuss things with the hopeless, so forget i mentioned my opinion.

[Kurili]

Indeed, I fear you are correct, i remember halloween.

More's the pity too.


Acolyte Kurili

[LazyBard]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by StrayRogue
Show me numbers fool. Show me numbers. I want to see 80% of the world's Muslims and Christians to say they dont approve of Gay marriage. Who on these boards believes in God yet would be happy with two homosexual people getting married?

Marriage is not natural for starters. Fucking homophobe.

Well, I said I wasn't going to respond anymore but I have to respond to this moron.

1- I said 80% of the worlds population was either CHRISTIAN OR MUSLIM. I then went on to say those religions DO NOT SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGES. I didn't say all of the people didn't. -- I win that point, learn how to read what is written and not what you think is.

2- I already said marriage isn't natural, when I brought up the natural part of the argument, it was referring to the upbringing of a child. Two different arguments buddy. -- I win again because you're arguing a point that I never said, moron.

3- I'm not a homophobe, I just don't support gay marriage or child-raising. Ok, now I'm done.



Kinda off point but since you seem to feel very strongly about the religious aspect of same sex marriages tell me this. How can you be sure that your religion has been translated correctly. I t was originally written in a context that is long since dead and originally written in Aramaic. The King James version of the bible is a translation of a translation of a translation and so much is lost or changed in translations if even unintionally or simply because for lack of the words to translate to. Even in languages that are current simple things are changed. Easy example. The Miami Heat played a NBA game in Japan last year can't remember against who but not important. One of the jokes on the news cast was that their name translated came out to be Miami Hot Wind in Japanese. Those are two languages that are current imagine the changes made from languages no longer spoken.

Shrug I believe different aspects of different religions. What was not acceptable then isn't what’s acceptable now. (there has to be a god for that gift) Open minds, acceptance, and adaptation is what lets us grow as a species. I say good for Mass. There is nothing wrong with same sex marriages or with them adopting as long as they love that child and give that child a nurturing home.


ok this post came out to be longer then planned

[Jolena]

Originally posted by Hulkein
The only time a child would be in an orphanage and NOT be in high demand is if he/she was already like 12 years old, and by that time I DOUBT they would want to be adopted by gays.

Okay I read through a few pages and stopped at this one in particular because it struck me as such a ludricous statement. That being said I have a few things to bring up.

I am an adopted, hispanic/caucasion female. I was adopted by a native american/caucasion female and a irish male. I now have three children. One is native american/hispanic/caucasion.. and two children who are hispanic/caucasion/african american/french. I am a single mother as well as I divorced a few years ago.

Now.. when I was born it was 1973..yes I'm old.. and I lived in Amarillo, Texas. At that time and age a interracial child was not the norm and not accepted, hence my adoption. My fully spanish mother gave me up for adoption as she was 17 and my father left her after finding out she was pregnant. I was adopted into a loving family and had a wonderful and colorful life. However.. there are MANY that don't get adopted.

The point was made earlier that we must take the first steps as a nation of acceptance regarding same sex marriages and their right to adopt. I believe this is true and has been proven in history several times with so many issues. In the past our ancestors did not think that african american people had the same rights as caucasions.. that they should be treated as lesser human beings and sometimes not as humans at all. The views changed over time and it all started with the first step by different African American leaders and other members of the world followed suit. Same thing can be said of the persecution of different religions. The same can also be said of the treatment of women as inferior human beings. Yes all of these things are still a work in progress but it ALL started with the first step. If we do not take that step and continue to persecute others based on their differences to what some consider 'normal' then I fear that we will see very sad results indeed. Part of living in America and receiving the benefits of its' freedoms and differences from other countries is in fact accepting the differences that all of us have and living with it. Just as you Hulkein have the right to feel and express your opinions regarding homosexuals and their children, so does the next man. And if you try to repress that right then you might just find yourself losing a right given to you by our country someday and then the shoe won't quite fit on the other foot as comfortably.

End rant. Thx.

[LazyBard]

Originally posted by Jolena

Originally posted by Hulkein
The only time a child would be in an orphanage and NOT be in high demand is if he/she was already like 12 years old, and by that time I DOUBT they would want to be adopted by gays.

Okay I read through a few pages and stopped at this one in particular because it struck me as such a ludricous statement. That being said I have a few things to bring up.

I am an adopted, hispanic/caucasion female. I was adopted by a native american/caucasion female and a irish male. I now have three children. One is native american/hispanic/caucasion.. and two children who are hispanic/caucasion/african american/french. I am a single mother as well as I divorced a few years ago.

Now.. when I was born it was 1973..yes I'm old.. and I lived in Amarillo, Texas. At that time and age a interracial child was not the norm and not accepted, hence my adoption. My fully spanish mother gave me up for adoption as she was 17 and my father left her after finding out she was pregnant. I was adopted into a loving family and had a wonderful and colorful life. However.. there are MANY that don't get adopted.

The point was made earlier that we must take the first steps as a nation of acceptance regarding same sex marriages and their right to adopt. I believe this is true and has been proven in history several times with so many issues. In the past our ancestors did not think that african american people had the same rights as caucasions.. that they should be treated as lesser human beings and sometimes not as humans at all. The views changed over time and it all started with the first step by different African American leaders and other members of the world followed suit. Same thing can be said of the persecution of different religions. The same can also be said of the treatment of women as inferior human beings. Yes all of these things are still a work in progress but it ALL started with the first step. If we do not take that step and continue to persecute others based on their differences to what some consider 'normal' then I fear that we will see very sad results indeed. Part of living in America and receiving the benefits of its' freedoms and differences from other countries is in fact accepting the differences that all of us have and living with it. Just as you Hulkein have the right to feel and express your opinions regarding homosexuals and their children, so does the next man. And if you try to repress that right then you might just find yourself losing a right given to you by our country someday and then the shoe won't quite fit on the other foot as comfortably.

End rant. Thx.
ok now I am in love

[Xcalibur]

It's not the same thing with multi-racial relationship

A black woman that have a children with a white guy will be a mothere, black, yellow, red or whatever.

2 guys that ADOPTS a child won't transform themselves.

I could accept 2 girls if one of em would pass psychological test about her skill as a mother (mother instinct)

but 2 guys, no, there is a reason why male cannot have children on their own.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
I could accept 2 girls if one of em would pass psychological test about her skill as a mother (mother instinct)

but 2 guys, no, there is a reason why male cannot have children on their own.

Just because you don't consider yourself fit to be a parent that does not mean that most men are also unable to be.

Indeed, considering the increase of single fathers raising their children, it seems they are often better at it seeing as how the biological mother usually has the automatic assumption of being the better caregiver int he eyes of the courts.

Raven

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Just because you don't consider yourself fit to be a parent that does not mean that most men are also unable to be.

Raven

You're making some projection there, I never said a word about my skills as a parent (I am one), I never said most men, but I did said 2 men engaged and willing to adopt

[Jolena]

While I do believe the women have a natural inherant instinct regarding motherhood it has been proven time and time again that not ALL women possess that instinct. The same can be said of men. In a world where so many of us are raising children singly (no matter how it came about) there cannot honestly be said that a man does not have a instinct to raise his children as well as a woman would.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Xcalibur

You're making some projection there, I never said a word about my skills as a parent (I am one), I never said most men, but I did said 2 men engaged and willing to adopt

I interpreted your comment the most logical way.

You said you could maybe see two lesbians adopting but not two gay men. That implies you consider men unfit to be parents by themselves.

Unless you think that being born gay means you are automatically also not maternal or paternal. I just thought that was an even more silly belief so figured it must be the first. I assure you, parenting skill has nothing to do with sexual preference.

Raven

[Xcalibur]

I have a natural fatherhood instinct, I took a deep wound to protect my son in some accident. I can easily understand and imagine a lot of men are like that too.

That isn't the issue though. It's TWO men raising a baby, a child, a pre-teen and a teen to being a nice fine adult.

There's no study here about how they handle it, if they do suceed, how the chld reacted to passion moment between "his" parents, when they kiss, when they are together, etc.

Like it or not, it's against nature (2 male lovers raising a child)

[Edited on 5-12-03 by Xcalibur]

[Xcalibur]

[i]Originally posted by Ravenstorm

You said you could maybe see two lesbians adopting but not two gay men. That implies you consider men unfit to be parents by themselves.

Raven

Women are less likely to kill their children when facing depression, women are less likely to use brute force when being into depression stades, women are less likely to rape, women are less likely to abuse their children (infantilisation?) women are less likely to have more than one lovers (gays men are KNOWN to be very easy on that)

Women are less likely to violent their children, women...

There's so much studies about how women are better with children than men, it's just facts.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by XcaliburLike it or not, it's against nature (2 male lovers raising a child)
[Edited on 5-12-03 by Xcalibur]

From the review of the link I quoted earlier:

Male black swans court and form stable pairs. With two males, they are able to defend huge territories from other swan couples, which sounds like a double-income-no-kids situation except that they often manage to wangle some eggs from somewhere -- all right, they steal them -- and become model parents, twice as successful as straight parents.

So... Wrong. Obviously, it isn't 'against nature'. Fortunately for everyone involved, two gay men don't need to resort to theft.

Raven

[Xcalibur]

Hmm, I usualy take human studies to either agree or disagree with something about human behavior. There is no known studies about how 2 gays men handle a child from near birth to majority.

If there was, i am sure it would be benefic anyway, as some gays are good people. It's the other side of the story that is dangerous.

I'll post more when i'll find some studies about gays, about lesbian and about some stats.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hulkein
...
when conservatives express our opinions, it's 'idiotic.' LOL. Moron.

Sorry, but if you are going to be trying to engage in a serious debate would do a bit better to
A- in leaving all the LOL's out of your posts (time and place for everything).

B- try to cut down on the "idiotic" and Moron" comments.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by XcaliburLike it or not, it's against nature (2 male lovers raising a child)
[Edited on 5-12-03 by Xcalibur]

From the review of the link I quoted earlier:

Male black swans court and form stable pairs. With two males, they are able to defend huge territories from other swan couples, which sounds like a double-income-no-kids situation except that they often manage to wangle some eggs from somewhere -- all right, they steal them -- and become model parents, twice as successful as straight parents.

So... Wrong. Obviously, it isn't 'against nature'. Fortunately for everyone involved, two gay men don't need to resort to theft.

Raven

Since you're obviously purposely missing Xcaliburs point, I'll step in.

That little 'quote' shows that two male swans are good at showing a baby how to get food.. Great. Xcalibur is arguing the ability for the male couple to raise the kid to make him/her fit for SOCIAL stuff. Swans don't have personal and social disorders because of parenting. Please, seriously, argue the fucking point and not something easy for you get an upper hand. Hunting has nothing to do with the delicate emotional and mental behavior people need.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Hulkein
...
when conservatives express our opinions, it's 'idiotic.' LOL. Moron.

Sorry, but if you are going to be trying to engage in a serious debate would do a bit better to
A- in leaving all the LOL's out of your posts (time and place for everything).

B- try to cut down on the "idiotic" and Moron" comments.


Count how many times I called anyone a moron or idiot. I called Strarogue one for calling me one ok thanks.

Edit- Here's a tip for you Skirmisher, learn how to read things in context. I didn't call anyone 'idiotic' I was using the word as an example.


[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Hulkein]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Since you're obviously purposely missing Xcaliburs point, I'll step in.

That little 'quote' shows that two male swans are good at showing a baby how to get food.. Great. Xcalibur is arguing the ability for the male couple to raise the kid to make him/her fit for SOCIAL stuff. Swans don't have personal and social disorders because of parenting. Please, seriously, argue the fucking point and not something easy for you get an upper hand. Hunting has nothing to do with the delicate emotional and mental behavior people need.

No. You're obviously missing the point. He claimed it was - and I quote "against nature". I therefore responded with proof that it was nothing of the sort.

He is now going to look for evidence that supports his belief that two gay men, in general, will do a worse job of raising a child than a man and a woman. Personally, I don't think he will find such proof. But I'm glad he is looking instead of just making claims and insisting he is right no matter what.

You might want to do the same. Present some actual /proof/ to support your claims. Show us a scientific study done. Please don't quote your religious scripture of choice. If you want to accept it as gospel (no pun intended) without any evidence, feel free. That's your choice but then you need to argue it as being 'the WORD of God' and not pretend it's fact based on anything but faith.

Raven

[SpunGirl]

People who are homosexual have as much right to protect their families as the rest of us.

I'm just responding to the initial thread, I haven't read the rest of it.

I didn't choose to be heterosexual, so how can you say homosexual people have chosen that? It is truly the way they are, the same way liking men is just the way *I* am.

Let them get married if they want. Let them not get married if they want.

-K

[SpunGirl]

At least most gay parents make a concious decision to have children. It's, "let's do our best to adopt a child/artificially inseminate/etc" rather than, "oops, the condom broke."

I'm not knocking "regular" parenthood, or saying children that are unplanned will be unloved. But I do think people who plan on being parents and who actively seek a pregnancy or adoption will be great parents, regardless of the sexual orientation of the pair.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
At least most gay parents make a concious decision to have children. It's, "let's do our best to adopt a child/artificially inseminate/etc" rather than, "oops, the condom broke."

I'm not knocking "regular" parenthood, or saying children that are unplanned will be unloved. But I do think people who plan on being parents and who actively seek a pregnancy or adoption will be great parents, regardless of the sexual orientation of the pair.

-K

An excellent point.

And X, I'll doubt you'll find anything even close to supporting your position, so I would spend the time you'd waste on more profitable things. I recommend sleep.


Originally posted by Hulkein
Hunting has nothing to do with the delicate emotional and mental behavior people need.


The mind is a recent advance. So recent that it would be foolish to make any absolute statements regarding it. There's no way you can say with any degree of certainty that being raised by two men has a universally adverse effect on the mind. Reasons: every mind is unique, every man (and woman :P) is unique.

And dropping f-bombs is almost as bad as lol-ing your way through a debate.

The bottom line is this: vote. We live in a democracy (in America, I don't know what to say to you foreign folk). Use your priviledge to convey your position to those you elect. I know I will.

[Caramia]

being raised in a deviant environment is simply not fair.

It's probably been said, but I don't want to check through 6 or so pages to find out, but you mean deviant like:

1. Physically, mentally, and/or emotionally abusive?
2. Alcoholic?
3. Drug addictions?
4. Infidelity?

Or is having a child live with a parent or parents that are one or more of the above more acceptable than two loving and caring and nuturing gay parents?

By the way, before 900 A.D., marriages did not concern or involve the church and were not a union of religious origin. Most marriages were contractural, a joining of families and thus a joining lands or baronies. It was a perfectly normal way of assuring the continued growth of wealth and nobility.

Even after 900 A.D., only small prayers and blessings were added. It wasn't until 1200 A.D. when Christianity was growing strong that the church entered and religion was added to marriage. That means religious marriage has been in practice for only 800 years, compared to the nearly 3,200 years or so it existed without it.

So marriages are not religious by nature. You can chose a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony, and civil ceremonies far outnumber the religious these days.

By the way, the downfall of marriage, will not be because lesbians and gay men can marry each other, because guess what? The downfall of marriage has been happening for years without allowing them their equal rights!

I love the way that narrow-minded bigots, hatemongers, and prejudiced people try to blame homosexuals for their own failings. It can't possibly be any of the reasons I listed above.

And all the homosexuals I know that are in long-term, commitments or relationships have lasted longer than my own relationships, my mother and father's marriage, and are a lot healthier than some of the unions of my married friends.

[Bewitchindryad25]

As I've not read the entire post just thought I'd throw my two cents in.

Gay marriage whats wrong with it? Nothing..Its two people who love each other wanting to spend the rest of their lives together. Guess what? Just like Hetero's . So they are the same sex big fucking deal it doesn't make them any different from the rest of us.

As for the tons of "not in my church" comments wtf? So because a person is gay they can't follow god or whatever religion they choose? They have as much right to go to church or be married in a church if they want no matter WHO or what they are. Hence why its called freedom of religion. What gives you the right to say no they can't get married in my church? If the church allows it *which I know most won't* what is the problem?

As for gays having kids or rather adopting them. I'm all for it. As long as those children are receiving the love and care they need who cares what gender, or sexual preference they have.

Using the gay is not natural thing wtf..The species would die out? Atleast thats the way the comments are coming across to me. Well guess what, not everyone is gay so there is no chance of that happening is there? So that argument is pretty damn well stopped in its tracks.

Anyway enough ranting its 4 am and I'm just babbling.

/end rant

[Caramia]

Someone asked what was natural.. Natural upbringing is a male and female

Wrong again!

Natural upbringing is to be nurtured in a communal environment, like when a pack, a brace, a flock, etc. all take turns. Back in the cave days, that's how children were raised, by the whole tribe or clan. Just like many remote cultures that have never been tainted by some of today's modern propaganda raise their children.

You should really do some research before you open your mouth and speak, and sound like just another parroting bigot and hatemongerer.

[Caramia]

And some of you really need to read the news from time to time.

The AMA hasn't consider homosexuality to be a deviancy since the early 1990s , even going so far as to reverse their policy publically. That's the American Medical Association by the way -- which is made up of hundreds of thousands of doctors, including psychologists and biologists.

In 1992 or 93 it was reported that a study of the pituitary gland revealed the likelihood that homosexuality was not a choice, but a biological factor.

The question of whether it was "nuture or nature" had been answered.

Here's another little factotem for those of you who would like to blame homosexuals for all the evils in the world:

1. U.S. Department of Justice statistics show that the vast majority (over 90%) of child molesters (pedophiles) are heterosexual men.
2. The statistics from Canada agree with the U.S.
3. Most of the men (over 50%) are married, and have children of their own.

About 8 in 10 girls were molested by a man who was or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child's mother or another relative. 3 out of 4 boys were abused by males in heterosexual relationships with female relatives.

Boys have approximately 40x greater risk of being molested by a heterosexual male who is one of their relatives than by a homosexual, 80% of girls are molested by males who are relatives or sexual partners of relatives.

[Souzy]

Ha! I actually helped out at a fund raiser earlier today for safe homes. Safe homes for gay, lesbian, bisexual and other run away children. I met ALOT of gays and lesbians there. The "life partners" that I met are all prosperous, loving, and friendly people. One couple actually brought their little niece that they have custody of and she seemed to be more than well off. There’s nothing wrong with anyone adopting a child. If you can give that child a good life, then why not? I’m sure they’d have a good female/male role-model around their adopted child. Plus, it really shouldn’t matter on the sexual preference of the adopted parents are. The only thing that should matter should be, “Could they give that child a better life?”

Statistics are crap. You can’t account for all of the pedophiles and molesters. So who’s to say the majority are gays? There’s so many out there that just haven’t been caught. Children are afraid to speak up and it just so happens that the ones mostly caught are gay. My best-friend is gay, the majority of my male friends are gay, shit…I know most of the gay men in my city. I’ve never heard of any one of them sleeping with children or molesting children. The thought of them even attempting to do that disgusts me and I’m sure it would disgust them too. I wouldn’t trust the numbers that the state lists. I mean, if they can point out ALL the pedophiles and child molesters out there, then I would. Until then, it’s all BS to me.

Times are changing people, we live in a diverse world. Either accept it or be closed minded and don’t. It seems to me that history seems to repeat itself. First women had to fight for rights; “colored” people had to fight for rights, ect. but, now it’s an issue if gay/lesbian couples want to marry or adopt. If it’s not one thing it’s another. How does giving them rights to marry or adopt effect any of us? Seriously, will you not be able to sleep at night? It’s not like all of the sudden you’ll see gays/lesbians having orgies in the middle of the street. I’m pretty sure life will continue on as it was for everyone.

P.S. Tayre you obviously haven’t seen a lot of lesbians have you? There are some butch lesbians out there. Just a lil’ something to add in your sexual fantasies. ;)

[Ben]

I think we all know where I stand.

[Xcalibur]

You're for it, since Hitler and a LOT of nazis were themselves gays.

I found a study made in the US : Pediatrics in review - vol 15 N° 9 septembre 1994

Studies only show that 2 parents, same sex or not are better for the child than only one.

Let's wait 10 years and analyse what will be said.

[Edited on 5-12-03 by Xcalibur]

[Ben]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
You're for it, since Hitler and a LOT of nazis were themselves gays.



Show me FACTS about Hitler being gay, not what people guess about him generations after he died.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Ben

Originally posted by Xcalibur
You're for it, since Hitler and a LOT of nazis were themselves gays.



Show me FACTS about Hitler being gay, not what people guess about him generations after he died.

Obsession, obession with a passion.

Show me FACTS about Hitler not being gay, anyway. show me that his obession was very rational and clear.

[Edited on 5-12-03 by Xcalibur]

[Ben]

Originally posted by Xcalibur

Originally posted by Ben

Originally posted by Xcalibur
You're for it, since Hitler and a LOT of nazis were themselves gays.



Show me FACTS about Hitler being gay, not what people guess about him generations after he died.

Obsession, obession with a passion.

Show me FACTS about Hitlen not being gay, anyway. show me that his obession was very rational and clear.



How about Eva Braun? Honestly these people can sit around and write books about what they assume is truth and people accept it as 100% Fact. Hitler was a jew. Hitler was gay. All lies made up the people who won the war and by the jewish controlled media. You think books about Hitler being a vegatarian or an animal rights activist sell? Did you know that he was? No. In 100 Years what do you think they'll say about the war in iraq?
Honestly don't talk about Hitler because you know nothing about him or the third reich.

[Xcalibur]

I won't enter into details my little friend, but i can tell you I have germain blood in me, and not just wannabe desire to follow a way of life that is dead since almost 60 years.
Evan Braun proves he isn't gay? hmm, ok.. let's not turn this thread into a debate between me being right and you being right.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
Evan Braun proves he isn't gay?




Eva Braun, Hitlers WIFE. Seriously don't talk about this anymore because you are completely ignorant on the subject.


http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/braun.html

[Xcalibur]

Ok, having a wife means you aren't gay.. Ben, you're a big man that is being VERY naive.

Just in the 70's, around 40% of KNOWN gays now were married. Imagine back then

[Ben]

Did you engage in intercourse with Hitler? No? then shut the fuck up.

[Xcalibur]

So by saying you can talk and i can't, you're saying you did engaged in intercourse with Hitler. So i stand by what i said, you are for gays and you think Hitler was gay.:lol:

my last post here about that.

[Ben]

You're such a moron it only makes me look right.

[Myshel]

Religion has no say in the gay/marriage debate in American. Separation of church and state, remember. We all have the right to decide what we believe in this country. Morality is a individual right we all embrace. From this debate to the debate over woman's right to abortion, we each have to decide what, as a country we believe in. Vote, if you don't like the policies, join a organization that is trying to change the policies you don't believe in.
I believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry and adopt children. I've seen many abused and homeless children who would love to have a loving family, whether gay or straight. Are there gay pedophiles, I'm sure there are, just as there are straight ones.

My thoughts on Hitler are a bit simpler. He was a heartless, compassionless, opportunist. He used propaganda to decimate the richest people in Europe to fund his war machine. It was a monetary decision, not based on hate but based on peoples jealousy of a wealthy ethnic group with a long history of conflict.

[Brat8525]

I didn't choose to be heterosexual, so how can you say homosexual people have chosen that? It is truly the way they are, the same way liking men is just the way *I* am.

Exactly, who would "choose" the life gays lead? hatred, ridicule and normally a life spent living in a closet. Oh yes indeed, thats a "choice"

I think anyone who can find love, trust and security in another human being and have it returned, then does it really matter if it happens to be the same sex? I consider it falling in love, you just happened to fall in love with someone of the same sex.

Chilfren need love, no matter who gives it to them, they see no bad in love, only what others teach them is bad.

I would rather raise my kids in a loving home with a partner I adore and love, then to do what others think I should do.

Children are very perceptive, they know and feel more then we can imagine. Raise them with love and teach them to be true to themselves.

Tara

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Bewitchindryad25
As for the tons of "not in my church" comments wtf? So because a person is gay they can't follow god or whatever religion they choose? They have as much right to go to church or be married in a church if they want no matter WHO or what they are. Hence why its called freedom of religion. What gives you the right to say no they can't get married in my church? If the church allows it *which I know most won't* what is the problem?


I think I'm the only one who said "not in my church". And I think I gave a reason for that in the Bible passage I quoted which specifically designated ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN clinging to each other, which is more or less the basis of Christian marriage. I think everybody should believe in God the way I do, duh, why wouldn't I? However, they do NOT have a "right" to be married in my church. Freedom of religion means they can change their religion and not be persecuted for it. It does NOT mean that my religion has to cater to everyone.

Now, if the Pope comes out and says gay religious marriage is OK, then I'll accept that. I don't believe he has or will. It's not like I'm a homophobe or something, gay marriage simply does not belong in my church under the traditions and basis of marriage that I understand to be part of my religion. I would rather they be Catholic, but if they feel the need to be religiously married and convert to whatever religion allows that, that's fine too.

[Czeska]

Children are not born hating. It is tought to them. But children ARE born needing to be nurtured.
I believe a parent has the right to show the child his/her beliefs, but also to educate the child on the beliefs of others, without judgement, ideally. Then when that child is grown, he'll *hopefully* be educated enough to make his own decisions.

As far as marriage in a church is concerned vs. marriage in a courthouse, that all depends on what kind of marriage you're looking for. If I ever get married again I'll have a quick civil ceremony to make it legal, and a handfasting outside somewhere to make it spiritual. And believe me, it will be no less valid than my 1st marriage which took place in a church. Probably will be moreso, as it won't be hypocritical considering I don't GO to church.

[Staceyrain]

I think the thing I find most amusing, (other than the Hitler idiot,) is that in my study of the bible, christians are supposed to love EVERYONE. Funny how most christians bypass this simple point, agonizing about morality. One more reason I am glad to be both pagan and a part of the gay community. I love my friends and they love me, and we accept each other with grace. Most of our snide remarks are because of the idiocy in the world. It's real simple folks, devided we fall, united we stand. I dont remember we being an exclusive right of one race or religion

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Now, if the Pope comes out and says gay religious marriage is OK, then I'll accept that.

Wait, what about the bible passages you were referencing? Some old guy reads if differently for some reason and you'd ready to switch your beliefs?

What if the next pope says it's wrong? Or if this pope has a change of heart? Are you going to flip-flop on the issue every time they change their mind?

[Souzy]

Bishop Gene Robinson finally came out of the closet.

[Latrinsorm]

The reason is this: I don't have enough time to study every detail of the Bible to the extent that I would like. The Pope is the head of the Church, and no doubt has many people working on Bible study at all times. If there's an error in translation or a new text comes up that points towards gay marriage being ok, and the Pope makes the announcement, I'll have to reexamine my beliefs and probably change them.

If the Pope simply has a "change of heart" with no backing, it will be less likely for me to change my beliefs. But you're correct in pointing out that I left that possibility open in my last post. This issue, I feel, is one that really comes down to the Word of God as transmitted in the Bible. Thus, if the a succession of Popes continually find new/different Biblical passages, I would have to flip-flop. It would be foolish not to, given new information. Don't you think so?

[Hips]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
The reason is this: I don't have enough time to study every detail of the Bible to the extent that I would like. The Pope is the head of the Church, and no doubt has many people working on Bible study at all times. If there's an error in translation or a new text comes up that points towards gay marriage being ok, and the Pope makes the announcement, I'll have to reexamine my beliefs and probably change them.

If you believe in that, then here's a question for ya...
Where in the bible does it say, ANYWHERE, that the pope is the head of the church? Or even that there should be popes in general?

[Czeska]

There is something in the Bible about the Lord being a shepherd. Now I see why.
Following like a flock of sheep. I respect you for sticking to your beliefs. But I feel sorry for you for letting someone else tell you what they should be.

[Latrinsorm]

Matthew 16:19 (Jesus talking to Peter)

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

That's the big one. Peter became the Bishop of Rome, and through the process of Laying on Hands his authority passes down to the current Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Czeska
There is something in the Bible about the Lord being a shepherd. Now I see why.
Following like a flock of sheep. I respect you for sticking to your beliefs. But I feel sorry for you for letting someone else tell you what they should be.

Uh... I let them tell me what to believe they allow in Church. It's only polite. :) It doesn't mean I believe everything the Church tells me to believe.

And I doubt anyone here can honestly say that they have never needed a guiding hand once in their life. So in a way, we are all in need of the Good Shepherd. Amen. :D And all that cal.

[Czeska]

A guiding hand that essentially says do what I say or burn in torment forever?

<takes a breath and backs away from her soapbox>

well as long as you're happy and not hurting anyone. Do what you will.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

The reason is this: I don't have enough time to study every detail of the Bible to the extent that I would like.

Then just read Leviticus. That's the infamous part. Leviticus 18:22. I quote:

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.


Now, even assuming that that's a correct translation of the translation of the translation of the original passage, if you choose to believe it is gospel you logically also need to believe and follow all the rest of Leviticus. Here's a few passages you should also religiously follow.


Leviticus 19:19
'Keep my decrees.
'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

That shirt you're wearing? SIN!


Leviticus 19:27
'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

I wonder who here is NOT going to hell because of that one.


Leviticus 19:32
'Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD .

Good exercise for the legs.


And that's only a small selection. See, the problem with taking the word of someone else is that you are choosing to remain ignorant and automatically parrot back their prejudices.

If the Bible is the Word of God and should be followed exactly, then it needs to ALL be followed exactly. Not just the bits and pieces someone feels like at the time.

Don't take my word for it though. Read the chapter yourself and make your own decisions.

Raven

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Ravenstorm]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
That shirt you're wearing? SIN!


Cotton and polyester, good call. :)


Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Leviticus 19:27
'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

I wonder who here is NOT going to hell because of that one.

I haven't cut my hair in years. And I only wish my beard was of the caliber where clipping the edges would even matter. :(


Originally posted by Ravenstorm
If the Bible is the Word of God and should be followed exactly, then it needs to ALL be followed exactly. Not just the bits and pieces someone feels like at the time.


The problem with your assessment is you've taken every one of those selections out of context. Not only textual context, but cultural context. Do you know if any of those are a reference to the culture or society of the Jews of that time? I sure don't. THAT is what I meant when I said Bible study. I know of many examples in the Gospels alone that, when taken out of context, have nothing to do with their original meanings.

And one other middling point: the Gospel isn't really old-testament stuff. Because let's be honest, is there any real good news in the OT? Nah. But that's only a middling point, one that does not detract from the overall worthiness of your post.

[Jolena]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Latrinsorm

The reason is this: I don't have enough time to study every detail of the Bible to the extent that I would like.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to say that if you are that devot of a catholic then you would take the 'time' to read the Bible as it is something you base your life on apparently. If you are going to believe in something and live your life based around that something then you should be in thorough knowledge of it and make damned sure it's worth your 'time' to read.

[Jolena]

[i]Originally posted by Latrinsorm

The problem with your assessment is you've taken every one of those selections out of context. Not only textual context, but cultural context. Do you know if any of those are a reference to theculture or society of the Jews of that time? I sure don't. THAT is what I meant when I said Bible study. I know of many examples in the Gospels alone that, when taken out of context, have nothing to do with their original meanings.



Exactly my point. The culture and society of this time has changed dramatically. No longer does the general population view the world the same as it was say 10 years ago. So..that being said I think my point is made. Things are changing.

[HarmNone]

I find a question niggling at me, Latrinsorm. If, as you say, the quotations Raven took from Leviticus can be discounted (or at least, ignored) because they must be taken in the light of the culture of the Jews living in that time, why does this same caveat not apply to other quotes, such as the one you used to support your stand against gay marriage being accepted by your church?

HarmNone is not being argumentative, but wonders the whyness of it all

[Drew2]

People using the bible in a debate on homosexuality are lame.


"The Bible is right because it was written by God. God exists because the Bible says so."

:thumbsdown:


Also, my avatar PWNZ.

[JustMe]

I liked the half naked guy better. The eye candy was great.

The bible has no place in the decision of people being married, gay, straight, black, white, green or whatever...

[Caramia]

Please! How naiive. Being married and supposedly fucking your wife proves that a man is not gay?

Let's see... Rock Hudson was married to Phyllis Gates, and as gay as they come. He occasionally "did the deed" to make sure he looked straight on the outside to peripheral Hollywood, although the inner circles knew about the boy parties held by the pool, at his house. And his longtime male companions.

Liza Minnelli's recent ex-husband is supposedly gay, and I bet they schtupped.

Hall and Oates were supposedly a gay couple, but with the pressures of their fame, both suddenly marry.

And Joanne Loulan, a prominent lesbian writer and reknown psychotherapist, still considers herself to be a lesbian today despite the fact that she entered into a loving relationship with a man. http://members.tripod.com/up_sappho_society/identity.html.

Just because a man is gay doesn't mean he doesn't like women and can't get a hard on with them or doesn't screw them. I know many gay men that have either said they wouldn't mind taking an occasional turn with women, because they aren't in the least offended or repulsed by sex with women. But then again... Gay is NOT what you do, it's how you identify.

And all lesbians don't hate men, either, just in case you were wondering.

As for Hitler's being gay... here's a Reuter's news item reprinted:
http://www.gaynetsa.co.za/newstuff/book_uncovers_hitlers_.htm

And more:
http://www.boloji.com/outlook/020.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,564899,00.html

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Caramia to fix a frigging URL link]

[Edited on 12-5-2003 by Caramia]

[LazyBard]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
The reason is this: I don't have enough time to study every detail of the Bible to the extent that I would like. The Pope is the head of the Church, and no doubt has many people working on Bible study at all times. If there's an error in translation or a new text comes up that points towards gay marriage being ok, and the Pope makes the announcement, I'll have to reexamine my beliefs and probably change them.

If the Pope simply has a "change of heart" with no backing, it will be less likely for me to change my beliefs. But you're correct in pointing out that I left that possibility open in my last post. This issue, I feel, is one that really comes down to the Word of God as transmitted in the Bible. Thus, if the a succession of Popes continually find new/different Biblical passages, I would have to flip-flop. It would be foolish not to, given new information. Don't you think so?

Just my personal opinion but to follow anyone blindly be is the pope the president or stripper that says there is sex in the champagne room is foolish. Look into yourself and judge for yourself not because someone that has a position of power or influence says its right or wrong.

[Caramia]

There is no impeachable source that disproves the Bible is nothing more than a book written by man.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
I find a question niggling at me, Latrinsorm. If, as you say, the quotations Raven took from Leviticus can be discounted (or at least, ignored) because they must be taken in the light of the culture of the Jews living in that time, why does this same caveat not apply to other quotes, such as the one you used to support your stand against gay marriage being accepted by your church?

HarmNone is not being argumentative, but wonders the whyness of it all

Not discounted. I wish I could say what I mean :D

What I mean is it that living up to what the Bible literally says sounds ridiculous using the quotations Raven brought up, which I'm betting is why they were brought up. This is because we don't know the context. I don't mean to say we should discount them entirely. I mean to say we should discount a literal interpretation until the context becomes apparent.


Originally posted by Jolena
I have to say that if you are that devot of a catholic then you would take the 'time' to read the Bible as it is something you base your life on apparently. If you are going to believe in something and live your life based around that something then you should be in thorough knowledge of it and make damned sure it's worth your 'time' to read.


I have READ the Bible. Several times. What I tried to say (I know, I'm having trouble getting people to see what I mean) was that I do not know every piece of information that would be required to completely understand the Bible. You might ask, why then do I not devote my life to studying the Bible? Because then I would not have a life. ;) I choose instead to allow the Church to do the research while I do the living. It's sort of like specialization and trade.


Originally posted by Tayre, whose new avatar is po-mo
"The Bible is right because it was written by God. God exists because the Bible says so."


If you're interested, I can prove that God exists without resorting to the Bible. But I was using the Bible in a debate on homosexual marriages in a church. Not on homosexuality per se.


Originally posted by Caramia
There is no impeachable source that disproves the Bible is nothing more than a book written by man.


I don't see what you mean. Or, to be technical, I don't see how that invalidates any of my points. I mean, if I hear God say something and write it down, how is that different (in the end result) from God writing it down and handing it to me?

Is no one else here a faithful Roman Catholic? That surprises me. Good thing I brought my Bible to college ;)

[Bewitchindryad25]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
[quote]

Now, if the Pope comes out and says gay religious marriage is OK, then I'll accept that. I don't believe he has or will. It's not like I'm a homophobe or something, gay marriage simply does not belong in my church under the traditions and basis of marriage that I understand to be part of my religion. I would rather they be Catholic, but if they feel the need to be religiously married and convert to whatever religion allows that, that's fine too.

If the pope comes out and says its okay? If the pope told you to take a shotgun and put it to your skull and pull the trigger would you do this also? :?:

I'm all for trying to respect everyones religion but its times like this I'm thankful I'm not a christian.

[Kurili]

I have a question, Latrinsorm. The Catholic Church also forbids, or at least frowns very heavily on divorce. And remarriage. Last I knew, one couldnt take the sacrament of communion if one was divorced. Are there any in your family or friends who have flown in the face of this Papal edict because times have indeed changed?

And no, I'm not trying to pick on your religion. It is also mine.

Acolyte Kurili

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Bewitchindryad25
If the pope comes out and says its okay? If the pope told you to take a shotgun and put it to your skull and pull the trigger would you do this also? :?:


I thought I made this clear: what we have been discussing (at least the part I've been discussing) is whether or not gays should be allowed to participate in the sacrament of marriage in a church such as mine. While in someone else's home, I tend to try to abide by their edicts when possible. Like I said before, it's only polite. For instance, they might be vegetarians. I'm not going to swagger in slobbering over a t-bone, even if I had Subway for lunch.

Similarly, while in a building that the Church owns, I would think it'd be rude to ignore what they wanted to do. It's their house. Therefore I will try to follow what they say.

And as I can see you're ready to bring up suicides, I'll point out that gay people getting married or not is nothing like shooting myself in the face or not. I don't care whose house I'm in ;)

My grandmother has remarried, but she's also a victim of Alzheimer's disease, so I don't really want to get much further along that vein. I don't think anyone else amongst my parent's or grandparent's siblings has remarried/divorced.

There are many things the Church says I agree with. There are many things the Church says I disagree with. While in Church, I try not to shout in a loud voice over all the things I disagree with. That would be rude. I might consult a priest/bishop with my concerns, as the Church has been much more open to reform recently.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm


Not discounted. I wish I could say what I mean :D

What I mean is it that living up to what the Bible literally says sounds ridiculous using the quotations Raven brought up, which I'm betting is why they were brought up. This is because we don't know the context. I don't mean to say we should discount them entirely. I mean to say we should discount a literal interpretation until the context becomes apparent.


I understand what you are saying, but it now begs the question of whether we should discount ALL literal interpretations.

To me, the passage cited by you and those cited by Ravenstorm all seem quite clear. How do we discern which are not to be taken literally from those which should be taken literally?

Worry not, Latrinsorm. These are questions I have been asking for many years. I ain't just picking on you! :D

HarmNone, the questioning

[Ravenstorm]

Exactly.

See, if the Bible is the word of God, then every single bit of it should be followed equally. Assuming you care about what God said of course. Picking and choosing the parts that are convenient is just the mark of a hypocrite. And, I would think, a sin all things considered.

But if the Bible is just something that needs to be interpreted in the context of the culture and society in which it was written, and then applied to ours now, using it to justify discrimination against homosexuals is just bigoted as the passages used to justify it have no more value than the ones about not blending fabrics.

So which is it? Or is there a third option I'm not seeing?

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

If it was just me saying "this you can take literally but this not" I'd expect you to at best ignore me. I'm working from the assumption that the Church has found that the context surrounding my quote does not include anything that would make gay marriages OK, otherwise they would have said so, yes?

As for the Word of God being an all or nothing affair, I think that's a bit extremist. Let's put it this way: if I were to talk to God and ask "God, what should I do with my life?" and he said to me "Be a pro wrestler, watch out for Goldberg." That's great. But if you were to say "God said to Lat that he should be a pro wrestler, therefore I should be a pro wrestler." that would not be as great. What God says to me isn't necessarily the same thing he'd say to you. Following that, what God says to the Jews isn't necessarily the same thing he'd say to us. That's why we (meaning anyone who devotes a serious amount of time to the subject to make sure they don't muss it up :D) have to interpret and extrapolate things.

So to summarize (and try to make sure I said what I meant to say):

It is not ours to discern what the Bible means because we don't put in the time in order to do so.

The Church organization is partially made up of those who have put in the time and do understand (as much as possible) the Bible.

The Church does not support gay marriage in church. Therefore, there is no Biblical justification for gay marriage, but there is justification for marriage in general.

God's word is no more or less universally the same than people are universally the same.

There is always a third option.

I am right, know everything, and cannot be argued with. Ever. (Ok this last one is a joke. :D)

[HarmNone]

Heh. Actually, Latrinsorm, you do very well at explaining your beliefs, and why you believe them. As I said, I have asked these questions many times over the years and have received much less cognizant answers than you have offered here.

I guess my problem with organized religion, as such, has always been my inability to base belief on assumption...the oft mentioned "leap of faith". Whether it be the assumption that there is a single, omnipotent power guiding all that is, was, or will be; or whether the church has sufficiently (and correctly) researched and defined the meanings of passages contained in the compilation of a series of documents written centuries ago (and which has been translated numerous times from and to numerous languages). My questing mind seeks answers to questions that, apparently, cannot be answered in a way that will satisfy me. ;)

I will say that I respect your stance. You have not condemned gay marriage across the board. You have said that you do not feel it belongs in your church. That is a far cry above those who would denigrate, without exception, those who do not believe as they do. :)

HarmNone is impressed

[Ravenstorm]

What she said.

Raven

[Bestatte]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Someone asked what was natural.. Natural upbringing is a male and female.. It's biological, every form of life is the same. I don't care if gays get together, but adopting children is just wrong for that poor kid.


Okay okay so I have this question. "That poor kid" is already "that poor kid" because he's up for adoption. That's a fact, no one can argue with it. Put that fact aside for a moment.

Now let's take a look at people having children in general. Take me for example. I'd make a god-awful parent. You should all be extremely glad that I got my tubes tied and can't spawn. I hate the little fuckers for the most part, and tolerate only a very select few. I would be a Poster-Girl for Anti-Abuse campaigns if anyone ever forced me to have a kid.

Would I make a better mother than a lesbian, simply by virtue of my gender preference? Are you honestly saying that I, an admitted would-be child beater, would make a better mother than any random gay man? Would you genuinely claim that YOUR child would be in better care with me, than in the hands of some rich lesbian woman with love and a fine home and nice clothes and private school and a mate who adores both her and her potential child?

If you can honestly say "yes" to these questions, then I'm very glad the decisions aren't left up to you. Because after I killed the kid I was forced to adopt, I'd come after you - with a baseball bat.

[Bestatte]

Okay the whole religious thing is being taken totally out of context. I'll try to piece it together.

IF YOU ARE A CATHOLIC - you would abide by Catholic Law. Catholicism is a specific religion with its own specific rules. And according to the rules of Catholicism, being homosexual is a bad thing. You should love people EVEN IF they're homosexual, but you are condemning the -sin- and not the -sinner.- So sayeth the catechism.

In Judaism, you would not lay with a man as if he were your woman. Just like it says in Leviticus. Judaism comes with -its- own set of rules, the entire book of Leviticus being the primary set. If you want to BE a Jew, you must abide by the laws of Judaism. And therefore you cannot be a Jew and be gay at the same time. Just like the Catholics, Jews will love you anyway. But you can't marry someone of your own gender in the Jewish Synagogue.

Some religions allow for gay marriages, either by adding provisions to keep up with the time, or never having had any provisions against them in the first place. The Unitarian Universalist Church is one of those sects of Christianity - a non-denominational Christian sect, that takes the aspect of God=Love and uses it as its primary mission statement. Everything else is detail.

Latrinsorm belongs to a particular religious sect that does not accomodate homosexuality. Thankfully in this country, his religion is allowed to have its rules. As a member of his church, he abides by its rules. If he doesn't want to abide by them, he is free to join a group that lets him do something else.

He's saying the exact same thing about gay marriages. They can do as they please, but they can't do it in his church, because the church of his religion simply doesn't accommodate gay marriages.

I don't see why anyone is making such a fuss about it.

For the record, I have no issue with gay unions or adoptions. My issue is more with ANYONE caring for a child without first being tested for suitability first. That goes for straights, gays, single parents, grandmothers, babysitters, teachers, and next-door-neighbors.

[Brat8525]

If you can honestly say "yes" to these questions, then I'm very glad the decisions aren't left up to you. Because after I killed the kid I was forced to adopt, I'd come after you - with a baseball bat. Bestatte>

Just gotta love the honesty here, I appreciate your posts by the way, very straight forward and clear.

[Bestatte]

Careful Brat - I get ornery this time of month.

But thanks for the compliment.

[Xcalibur]

...Love is in the air...

Religion, in general, (most would agree on that) need to make their idea a little bit more "modern"

[GSLeloo]

I have no religious belief at all so I do not see the problem of a gay couple marrying. I don't see it going against "God's" ways because I don't believe there is one.. and many people would think it's bad that I don't believe but I find it a blessing in some ways because it allows me to make up my own mind instead of having a religion make it up for me.

[Bestatte]

GSLeloo, your saying you don't think it goes against God's rules because you don't believe in God...

Is like me saying I don't believe NBC-TV has a good news program, even though I've never watched NBC-TV news in my life.

You can't claim you believe something doesn't exist, and then apply a value to it. You're not qualified to determine what "God's will" is since you don't recognize God's existence.

Personally I don't think Goddess Zelda gives a shit who marries whom. He just wants to experience everything - and nothing. She's into Zen. In a big way.

[GSLeloo]

I am saying that because I don't believe in God I don't have to follow any beliefs that he represents. I am free to believe what I wish because nothing is there to restrain me.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
Religion, in general, (most would agree on that) need to make their idea a little bit more "modern"


Orginally posted by Bestatte
Personally I don't think Goddess Zelda gives a shit who marries whom. He just wants to experience everything - and nothing. She's into Zen. In a big way.


Well that's taken care of.

I'm glad we all got this (sort of) resolved :D

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
Religion, in general, (most would agree on that) need to make their idea a little bit more "modern"

I'm not a fan of organized religion of any sort. I believe spirituality should be a personal thing without anyone telling you what is or is not True.

That being said, I think a healthy religion is one that grows and changes with the times. Tradition isn't automatically a wonderful thing and 'modern man' requires different things than they did two thousand years ago.

Take the ban against pork as an example. Back then it might have made sense because of trichinosis. Now, with modern cooking methods and a very advanced science of microbiology, it's unnecessary. Eating pigs is no longer the cause of mysterious deaths.

Reform Judaism has rejected the whole 'anti gay' thing as have the Reconstructionists and, to a lesser degree, Conservatives. At least part of the Episcopalian Church seems to be in the process of doing so.

Religions need to adapt and grow just like humanity has adapted and grown. What is different is no longer evil. What is unknown is no longer scary. Change is not a bad thing.

Raven

[Edited on 12-6-2003 by Ravenstorm]

[Zeyrin]

To each their own. As long as no one tries to cram their believes or lifestyles down my throat...I don't care.

[Caiylania]

God said to go forth and multiply, that is the point of men and women. The world is full, its brimming, its over full. We have gone forth and multplied.

So now that that is over, gay people aren't going against God's will.

He wants people to love one another, since its not all about procreation anymore, what is the argument?

:D

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Zeyrin
To each their own. As long as no one tries to cram their believes or lifestyles down my throat...I don't care.

Ahmen brother.:thumbsup:

[Weedmage Princess]

What people do in their bedrooms is their business...just like what I do in mine is my business. As far as homosexual couples getting married and having the same benefits as heterosexuals (ie shared health coverage, life insurance, etc.) Why not? It's only fair.

I will say this though..I agree with Latrinsorm's comment about "Not in his church" on this level: If there is a group/organization who's beliefs are that being homosexual is a sin, it shouldn't be imposed upon them to take homosexuals into their fold...JUST LIKE homosexuals shouldn't be imposed to be preached to and told that what they do is wrong, a sin, they're going to burn in hell, etc. etc. Respect is a two way street...as long as no one is trying to force their ideology on everyone else, all's well.

[Tsa`ah]

See what I get for skipping over this thread? 8 pages!

Lots of good points here. I have new respect for most you. So I'll try not to repeat what has been already said.


Originally posted by GSLeloo
So he was like 10 I guess and he had AIDS. So did his baby brother.

I'm dating myself, but anyone remember Ryan White?

In the 80's, a child with HIV attending school was the worse possible thing to happen to the kid. That it can happen today and be acceptable literally speaks volumes for social evolution. A prime example of what can happen in 20 years time.


Originally posted by i remember halloween
being raised in a deviant environment is simply not fair.

How ignorant of you. News flash for you, every member of today's society is deviant in one form or another. That you pick a subject pertaining to homosexuality only strengthens my argument for a breathing license.


Originally posted by Hulkein
Well, seeing as Muslims don't approve of gay marriages, and neither do Christians, I'd say we have about 80 percent of the worlds population right there, lol.

If you're going to use statistics in an argument, please, make sure they are accurate.

Biased sources have Christians at 33% and Muslims at 18%. Again these are biased sources. I would be willing to bet that the numbers are actually smaller. Say 35-40% combined.

Aside from pulling numbers from your rectum, you make sweeping statements.

Do you know that every Muslim and Christian on the face of the earth refuses to accept gay unions? I certainly don't believe that. This Jew does not object to such a union. Such adamant objections normally come from hard-line members of each faith. These tend to be ill educated and fostering a mental illness or two. Very interesting.


Originally posted by LazyBard
I t was originally written in a context that is long since dead and originally written in Aramaic. The King James version of the bible is a translation of a translation of a translation and so much is lost or changed in translations if even unintionally or simply because for lack of the words to translate to.

Good point, but not completely accurate.

Aramaic is only considered dead for the same reasons Latin is considered such. Aramaic is indeed spoken today. Khadish is read and spoken in Aramaic in many synagogs.

Sacred Jewish writings were primarily written in both Aramaic and Hebrew. The way these languages are spoken today differ greatly from the original forms spoken thousands of years ago. Hebrew is a prime example of that. Modern Hebrew actually has vowel points, those did not exist until less than 1000 years ago. The New Testament I believe was originally written in Greek, or a form there of. So we have people that speak Greek trying to translate Aramaic and Hebrew in order to canonize a bible of three different languages. From there it goes to Latin, to Spanish... translated from one language to the next. It still continues today. We just modernize the versions as we go.


Originally posted by Bestatte
Okay the whole religious thing is being taken totally out of context. I'll try to piece it together.

IF YOU ARE A CATHOLIC - you would abide by Catholic Law. Catholicism is a specific religion with its own specific rules. And according to the rules of Catholicism, being homosexual is a bad thing. You should love people EVEN IF they're homosexual, but you are condemning the -sin- and not the -sinner.- So sayeth the catechism.

In Judaism, you would not lay with a man as if he were your woman. Just like it says in Leviticus. Judaism comes with -its- own set of rules, the entire book of Leviticus being the primary set. If you want to BE a Jew, you must abide by the laws of Judaism. And therefore you cannot be a Jew and be gay at the same time.

Men are not allowed to marry within a synagogue. Women are not held to this and are accepted grudgingly in most sects.

Faith is rather moot in the argument however.

As Myshel pointed out, we have a separation between church and state. There are benefits to marriage, and children when one considers taxes and insurance. While it is up to the individual states to make rulings on this, they will stall unless the federal government makes the first step.

Currently it is not illegal to refuse homosexual couple health coverage. It's not illegal to bar them from donating things like blood. The federal government can and does refuse to pay benefits to the partner in a homosexual union should one of them die. It goes to the biological family if any exist.

With all of the unplanned pregnancies in this country, the rise in abuse, the rise in children born to addicts, the rise in children born with defect, the rise in unaddopted "ethnic" children, why exactly would we not want a homosexual couple to adopt?

This is not something a couple decides to do one day. Generally they think things through very cautiously, not on a whim. I am even willing to bet social acceptance of the child is the primary concern.

I have yet to see a single argument with any substance against same sex unions and same sex parentage.

[Ravenstorm]

*bump*

This coming Monday, May 17, Massachussettes will issue the very first entirely legal, indisputable, state sanctioned marriage license to a same sex couple. All efforts by the extreme right to put a halt to it have failed including an emergency petition to the US Supreme Court. Due to the required three day wait, the first marriage will take place on Thursday at which point the full benefits of marriage will be conferred on the couple.

This will immediately be followed by an anticipatory pause as everyone awaits the collapse of American society, an increase of seven hundred percent in the heterosexual divorce rate, and the second coming of Christ. After none of these things happen, society as a whole will continue without change except that many more people and children will have the same legal protections extended to all other families.

The drinks are on me.

Raven

[HarmNone]

:HarmNone raises a Bailey's to Ravenstorm: I think I shall avoid the obligatory anticipatory pause and just go on with my life, while wishing the happy couple, and all others to follow, a wonderful life together! May it bring to them all that they have so long been denied. :)

[Snapp]

:thumbsup: Truly an amazing first step at equality!

By the way, I'll take a whiskey sour please, Raven.

[TheEschaton]

This actually makes my Friday night. Yay.


-TheE-

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
*bump*

This coming Monday, May 17, Massachussettes will issue the very first entirely legal, indisputable, state sanctioned marriage license to a same sex couple. All efforts by the extreme right to put a halt to it have failed including an emergency petition to the US Supreme Court. Due to the required three day wait, the first marriage will take place on Thursday at which point the full benefits of marriage will be conferred on the couple.

This will immediately be followed by an anticipatory pause as everyone awaits the collapse of American society, an increase of seven hundred percent in the heterosexual divorce rate, and the second coming of Christ. After none of these things happen, society as a whole will continue without change except that many more people and children will have the same legal protections extended to all other families.

The drinks are on me.

Raven

until they file their first federal tax return.

[Bobmuhthol]

The only problem is it takes 3 years to change the state constitution. Guess they forgot that part.

[Ravenstorm]

There will, without doubt, be problems on the federal level that will almost certainly lead to more lawsuits. Regardless, it's a huge step.

To what problem are you referring, Bob? Their state constitution requires no changing whatsoever for this to happen. Their constitution makes no mention of same sex marriage at all while prohibiting all forms of discrimination. That's exactly why the court ruled the way it did and why the right is frantic to change the constitution.

No, to the best of my knowledge, now that the US Supreme Court has refused to step in, it's a done deal. State-sanctioned same sex marriage has come to America. They can try to take it away in the future but they can't stop it from happening now.

Raven

[TheEschaton]

I just had this random thought: I wonder what Bush, Robertson, Falwell, et al, think about those "activist judges" on the Supreme Court, now...yanno, Scalia, and Thomas and Rehnquist.


-TheE-

[Galleazzo]

They love activism when it's activism for what THEY want.

Man, this is so cool. And 20 years from now the fuckheads'll all wonder what the fuss was about.

[Tendarian]

I must assume since i only recently changed my mind on this issue and now it is becoming legal in MA that its all cause of me obviously.

I do have a question though. On Fox News they were discussing this and a guy said that they wouldnt let people from other states come to get legally married and then go back to their own state. That MA wouldnt become the Las Vegas of gay marriage. Is it because of the defense of marriage act or some other law they cant do this? And if not why wouldnt any state want to become the Las Vegas of gay marriage? Even if you personally disagree with it imagine the windfall of money for tourism and how beautiful the state would become(Queer Eye For The Straight Guy on a state level hehe) with the huge influx(or just the money even).

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tendarian

On Fox News they were discussing this and a guy said that they wouldnt let people from other states come to get legally married and then go back to their own state. That MA wouldnt become the Las Vegas of gay marriage. Is it because of the defense of marriage act or some other law they cant do this?

The governor of Massachussettes, Mitt Romney, has done everything in his power to try to stop same sex marriage from day one. He has, obviously, failed utterly. The most he can do is try to stop people from out of state coming to Massachussettes to get married.

He is doing this by invoking a little known law that has almost never been invoked. It dates back to 1913 when marriage between blacks and whites was legalised in Massachussettes. There was such an uproar that the law was made to prohibit it if such a marriage was illegal in the state the couple lived in (which was just about all others at the time).

I'm sure he's proud of using a law that was made to discriminate against interracial marriage to do the same thing to same sex ones.

As a side note, Forbes magazine estimated that same-sex marriages would bring in a total of 16.8 billion dollars nationwide if it became legal.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/04/05/cx_al_0405gaymarriage_print.html

Raven

[TheEschaton]

I think the whole point is that the issuing of marriage licenses was based on an economic ruling - that homosexual couples were being discriminated against financially. Since this is a state law, out-of-state people would have no benefit in getting a marriage license for Massachusetts, because they couldn't file taxes there. Their reason to get the marriage license would be purely symbolic - however, the ruling is clear that it is based on economic reasons.

I didn't explain that clearly, hope you got it. The reasons a Las Vegas marriage allows you to federally file taxes, etc, is because marriages like that, in Las Vegas, are legally recognized and accepted by both the federal gov't and other states. If you see gay marriages become a federally-sanctioned deal, as well as sanctioned by the other states, then Massachusetts would probably have the same laws for as for hetero marriages, where the license is valid everywhere.

Edited to add: Well, I didn't know Romney handed that down. I thought the justices did, which is why I analyzed it as above.

-TheE-

[Edited on 5-15-2004 by TheEschaton]

[DianaBanana]

I'm not gay, but w00t for gay marriages! :up:

[Ravenstorm]

Update:

The seven couples who filed suit that resulted in this have been assured the three day wait will be waived. They will be marrying tomorrow.

Cambridge City Hall will be open and begin issueing marriage licenses one minute after midnight.

Raven

[Zanagodly]

I consider myself rather conservative on a lot if not most issues, but I'm glad to see some equal rights going to these people. Someone mentioend how in 20 years, our children will be like "WTF was the issue with letting 2 people marry that want to be?!" Government will now have to tax gay married couples as such but big deal. Congradulations to the gays, just keep the affection out of the public for the sake of the rest of us heteros.

[Edited on 17-May-2004 by Zanagodly]

[Satira]

I'm voting to let any gay/lesbian/whoever couples get married. There's nothing sacred about marriage anymore. Most people who are married don't even love each other. Plus we have who wants to marry a millionaire and The Bachelor and Bachelorette. Who the hell cares.

Supposedly everyone is created equal...OH, except select groups which some people like to overlook because they just "don't like it" or because "Well, the Bible says..."

Gag me. :grr:

[TheEschaton]

There's nothing sacred about marriage anymore. Most people who are married don't even love each other.


Even if marriage was still sacred in this country (and I still believe the sacrament of marriage IS sacred, even though most people fuck it up), I would still think homosexual marriage was a good thing.

-TheE-

[Tendarian]

All the pictures ive seen of same sex couples getting married in MA are all really old couples. Why doesnt any of the under 30 gay crowd get married? I might actually want to see them kiss :)

PS I dont want to see old hetero couples kissing either.

[TheEschaton]

Because young gay people don't stay in MA? I dunno.


-TheE-

[Ravenstorm]

I'd guess it's because it's a bigger story to show a couple who have been waiting ten to twenty years to get married than a couple who have been waiting four or five.

It's a good day. And how fitting that it happens exactly fifty years to the day after Brown vs the Board of Education.

Raven

[Galleazzo]

It's what the media shows. I saw young couples in line today when I went to BCH to see the fun.

[Ravenstorm]

Some interesting numbers...

About 1000 licenses were issued by Massachusetts to same sex couples Monday. Approximately 750 of those couples were informally surveyed:

2/3 were lesbian.
40% of those families included children.
Half the couples have been together ten years or more.
The largest age group marrying was in the 40-49 category.
The median age of those getting married was 43.

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

<--- against gay marriages.

[CrystalTears]

This is great. It's nice to see that it's coming to fruition. Gay couples deserve as much support as hetero couples.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Some interesting numbers...

About 1000 licenses were issued by Massachusetts to same sex couples Monday. Approximately 750 of those couples were informally surveyed:

2/3 were lesbian.
40% of those families included children.
Half the couples have been together ten years or more.
The largest age group marrying was in the 40-49 category.
The median age of those getting married was 43.

Raven Thats good shit. :saint:

[Artha]

I have come to the conclusion I have no real problem with gay marriage.

Go get married now.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I have come to the conclusion I have no real problem with gay marriage.>>

You're not cool anymore.

[TheEschaton]

Because it's "cool" to be against gay marriage, right Bob? And coolness is all that matters.


-TheE-

[Bobmuhthol]

Yes.

[Galleazzo]

Eh, he's a boy yet. Give him time to grow up.

[TheEschaton]

But they say the children are our future. :barf:

[Artha]

But I'm the future too!