what is so wrong about gay marriage???

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Your comparison to receiving a lower pay than an equal in rank worker is invalid. Why? Because it is stated in the constitution that woman have equal rights to men. Show me which amendment of the constitution tells you that gays have the right to marry? Let me think. There's an amendment that abolishes slavery. An amendment for the rights of Woman. But still, I do not recall there being a right for gays. Therefore, and I'm not saying it's right, BUT anyone who is against gay marriage STILL has the RIGHT to fight to abolish gay marriage.

On what grounds can the government keep same-sex marriage illegal? It is SECULAR (whether you like it or not, it IS secular). It cannot make decisions based on what a popular religion happens to dictate. That is called discrimination. It is taking away the rights of people who are not hurting anyone.

Whether or not it's outlined in the constitution, it's the same damn thing in practice. DISCRIMINATION. I personally believe in equality and happiness for all humans beings, but if you feel good about yourself being a discriminatory person, then there isn't much I can do. I can find you the website to the KKK if you like.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

According to that very declaration you mentioned:
"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." Apparently the very declaration you are speaking of also leaves out homosexuals.

Does it say that the men and women have to marry members of the opposite sex? Apparently the document also does not say that homosexuals are to be discriminated against.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

No. Because everyone (including women, visible minorities, and gays) are allowed to smoke, drink, vote, etc once they reach legal age. This is equality.

Think back to times when blacks were being discriminated against. Slavery was outlawed, "all men were equal" but that didn't stop discrimination from happening. It didn't stop black men not having the right to vote, did it? Simply because it is stated that all men are created equal does not mean that gays should have the right to marry. It's not because straight people are more superior, but that marriage is not meant for people of the same sex. The reason it would not be illegal to abolish same sex marriage would be because gays are still offered rights. They may not be the same rights, but they are rights. Equal rights are a joke. If we all had equal rights, the big shots up on wall street wouldn't be being paid billions for doing nothing, when those who actually work for their money are in debt. So don't give me any bologna about equal rights, the government always finds a way to sneak past the rights listed in the constitution. Therefore if they have their mind set to abolish same sex marriage, they'll definitely find a way to go through with it. Equal rights don't always play a part, as much as we would like to think so.

Originally Posted by Khadra

On what grounds can the government keep same-sex marriage illegal? It is SECULAR (whether you like it or not, it IS secular). It cannot make decisions based on what a popular religion happens to dictate. That is called discrimination. It is taking away the rights of people who are not hurting anyone.

Whether or not it's outlined in the constitution, it's the same damn thing in practice. DISCRIMINATION. I personally believe in equality and happiness for all humans beings, but if you feel good about yourself being a discriminatory person, then there isn't much I can do. I can find you the website to the KKK if you like.

Simply because I believe that marriage should be kept simply for men and women does not mean that I am a discriminatory person. Have I stated that I am against same sex relationships? No, I haven't. I am aware that Christianity does not make the laws, I am aware of that. But if they do not make the laws, why are so many gays so damn worried that Christians are going to somehow abolish gay marriage?

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Simply because I believe that marriage should be kept simply for men and women does not mean that I am a discriminatory person. Have I stated that I am against same sex relationships? No, I haven't. I am aware that Christianity does not make the laws, I am aware of that. But if they do not make the laws, why are so many gays so damn worried that Christians are going to somehow abolish gay marriage?

BECAUSE CHRISTIANS HAVE ALREADY ABOLISHED GAY MARRIAGE, DUH!

And you are discriminatory because you are DENYING same-sex couples EQUAL rights. Anything less than EQUAL is discriminatory.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by Khadra

BECAUSE CHRISTIANS HAVE ALREADY ABOLISHED GAY MARRIAGE, DUH!

And you are discriminatory because you are DENYING same-sex couples EQUAL rights. Anything less than EQUAL is discriminatory.

Oh my God... not this again. For the millionth time. Christians are not going to change their beliefs to benefit gays! If you seem to hate Christians so awfully much, why do you care what they abolish in their church anyways? I doubt you would get married there if you see Christians as such evil discriminatory people. If you were referring to certain states already abolishing gay marriage, then I have no idea why you would say that, for it was not the church that made the law, but the government.

And, well, no offense, but simply accusing people of being discriminatory is definitely not going to win the whole gay marriage argument going on in society.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Oh my God... not this again. For the millionth time. Christians are not going to change their beliefs to benefit gays! If you seem to hate Christians so awfully much, why do you care what they abolish in their church anyways? I doubt you would get married there if you see Christians as such evil discriminatory people. If you were referring to certain states already abolishing gay marriage, then I have no idea why you would say that, for it was not the church that made the law, but the government.

And, well, no offense, but simply accusing people of being discriminatory is definitely not going to win the whole gay marriage argument going on in society.

Honey I agree with you to a point. Christians don't have to change their beliefs because belief is something everyone is entitled to. It's like the people who are personally against abortion but are still pro-choice. You can believe marriage is between a man and a woman all you want. But you do recognize that denying gay couples the legal rights of marriage is wrong correct?

[Grizabella]

Oh my God... not this again. For the millionth time. Christians are not going to change their beliefs to benefit gays!

For the billionth time, Christians are not expected to change their beliefs. We are talking about secular marriage, which has nothing to do with christians. What part of this confuses you? Court houses would be allowed to marry same sex couples, and churches would be allowed to continue rejecting them.

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Oh my God... not this again. For the millionth time. Christians are not going to change their beliefs to benefit gays! If you seem to hate Christians so awfully much, why do you care what they abolish in their church anyways? I doubt you would get married there if you see Christians as such evil discriminatory people. If you were referring to certain states already abolishing gay marriage, then I have no idea why you would say that, for it was not the church that made the law, but the government.

And, well, no offense, but simply accusing people of being discriminatory is definitely not going to win the whole gay marriage argument going on in society.

I don't care what christians do or do not abolish in their church. I care about what they abolish in the GOVERNMENT. Who do you think voted against gay marriage in California? CHRISTIANS. The church in California had a massive campiagn for people to vote against legalizing same-sex marriage. Keep your religion to your church and I'm happy, imposing it on governmental policy is incredibly wrong.

I'm not accusing you of being discriminatory. I'm TELLING you that you are, because you are. Denying people equal rights is the definition of discrimination. It IS the same as letting women be paid less than men for the same job. The government is not a religious institution and has NO basis for keeping same-sex marriage illegal.

[MadPoet]

Alright, so I am assuming that you two are on the same side of this argument. Yet you state:

Originally Posted by Grizabella

For the billionth time, Christians are not expected to change their beliefs. We are talking about secular marriage, which has nothing to do with christians. What part of this confuses you? Court houses would be allowed to marry same sex couples, and churches would be allowed to continue rejecting them.

And you state:

Originally Posted by Khadra

I don't care what christians do or do not abolish in their church. I care about what they abolish in the GOVERNMENT. Who do you think voted against gay marriage in California? CHRISTIANS. The church in California had a massive campiagn for people to vote against legalizing same-sex marriage. Keep your religion to your church and I'm happy, imposing it on governmental policy is incredibly wrong.
I'm not accusing you of being discriminatory. I'm TELLING you that you are, because you are. Denying people equal rights is the definition of discrimination. It IS the same as letting women be paid less than men for the same job. The government is not a religious institution and has NO basis for keeping same-sex marriage illegal.

Part of having equal rights is to have the right to vote however you feel is best. If you believe that gay marriage should be made illegal, then of course that is how you would cast your vote. If you are saying that Christians should not vote for what they believe, then you are telling them not to believe what they do believe, which in my opinion, is just as bad as Christian's telling you that you cannot marry the same sex. Both sides are guilty of not treating each other as equal, and neither is willing to admit it.

And simply because I am seeming to be against gay marriage does not mean that I actually am, you know. There is always the possibility that I accept and understand both sides of the argument. So you calling me discriminatory is completely ridiculous. The bottom line is that you are guilty of being discriminatory also, as you are saying that Christians are wrong for voting against gay marriage, when their right as Americans is to vote for the side of the disagreement that they believe is right, isn't that correct?

[Grizabella]

Part of having equal rights is to have the right to vote however you feel is best.

Having equal rights does not mean you have the right to place restrictions on other members of society. Are you saying that if I'm a neo-nazi KKK member, I am fully within my rights to create laws restricting black people? It would be my belief that they don't deserve certain things after all, and stopping me from forming such laws would restrict my rights.

If you believe that gay marriage should be made illegal, then of course that is how you would cast your vote.

And that's why matters of human rights should not be put to vote - we have a responsibility to protect minorities against the majority.

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Alright, so I am assuming that you two are on the same side of this argument. Yet you state:

And you state:


Part of having equal rights is to have the right to vote however you feel is best. If you believe that gay marriage should be made illegal, then of course that is how you would cast your vote. If you are saying that Christians should not vote for what they believe, then you are telling them not to believe what they do believe, which in my opinion, is just as bad as Christian's telling you that you cannot marry the same sex. Both sides are guilty of not treating each other as equal, and neither is willing to admit it


And simply because I am seeming to be against gay marriage does not mean that I actually am, you know. There is always the possibility that I accept and understand both sides of the argument. So you calling me discriminatory is completely ridiculous. The bottom line is that you are guilty of being discriminatory also, as you are saying that Christians are wrong for voting against gay marriage, when their right as Americans is to vote for the side of the disagreement that they believe is right, isn't that correct?

I fail to see how what we're saying differs.

I am not saying christians don't have the right to believe what they do. I'm just saying they have no right to impose it on others. Equal rights are not something that should be voted on. If all the men voted that women should get less pay would you say that's not discrimination since they have the right to vote whatever they want? The population does not get to decide who is given rights and who is not. EVERYBODY is supposed to have EQUAL rights.

And if you're not against gay marriage that's irrelevant, what I'm saying pertains to the argument you're making.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by Khadra

I fail to see how what we're saying differs.

I am not saying christians don't have the right to believe what they do. I'm just saying they have no right to impose it on others. Equal rights are not something that should be voted on. If all the men voted that women should get less pay would you say that's not discrimination since they have the right to vote whatever they want? The population does not get to decide who is given rights and who is not. EVERYBODY is supposed to have EQUAL rights.

This is what I have been saying! As part of equal rights, everybody has the right to believe what they want to believe, which is stated in the first amendment. Therefore, everyone is able to vote for or against whatever the issue may be. Just because you do not agree with the belief of another does not mean you are any more superior than they are. WE ALL HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. Rights to believe that gays should not be married, and rights to believe that they should be able to be married. That is exactly what I have said from my first post. Everyone is going to disagree, but attacking Christians and those against gay marriage solves absolutely nothing. As I said, both sides are guilty. Homosexuals for attacking Christians, Christians for attacking homosexuals. Neither side is perfect. It will not be perfect if homosexuality is made illegal, for that will not be fair to the homosexuals. It will not be fair to the Christians if gay marriage remains legal. So you see, it's not simply "poor homosexuals" because their beliefs are not the only beliefs at stake here.

[Grizabella]

This is what I have been saying! As part of equal rights, everybody has the right to believe what they want to believe, which is stated in the first amendment. Therefore, everyone is able to vote for or against whatever the issue may be. Just because you do not agree with the belief of another does not mean you are any more superior than they are. WE ALL HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. Rights to believe that gays should not be married, and rights to believe that they should be able to be married.

Alright, let me try to understand your logic. If the majority of people believe a certain minority should have certain rights restricted, that is perfectly acceptable. Screw you minority, majority has spoken. Let me offer this similar scenario:

A group of people sincerely believe Christianity should be banned. They think it's a horribly outdated religion and that its insistence on imposing its beliefs into secular law needs to be curbed. They put it to a referendum, and the majority votes in favour. Christians religion will only be allowed within the home and within approved church buildings. Mention of religion in any other place is unlawful.

They have the right to vote for this, yeah? The supporters sincerely believe Christians shouldn't practice their beliefs, and Christians have no right to tell them to vote otherwise. Because that would be violating the rights of the anti-Christian supporters to believe whatever they want to.

I have the right to think Christianity should be banned, I have the right to think whatever I want about Christianity - are you honestly going to argue that I have the right to pass a law about it? I'm guessing you would object to an anti-Christian law, so why should Christians be able to vote to restrict the rights of homosexuals?

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

This is what I have been saying! As part of equal rights, everybody has the right to believe what they want to believe, which is stated in the first amendment. Therefore, everyone is able to vote for or against whatever the issue may be. Just because you do not agree with the belief of another does not mean you are any more superior than they are. WE ALL HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. Rights to believe that gays should not be married, and rights to believe that they should be able to be married. That is exactly what I have said from my first post. Everyone is going to disagree, but attacking Christians and those against gay marriage solves absolutely nothing. As I said, both sides are guilty. Homosexuals for attacking Christians, Christians for attacking homosexuals. Neither side is perfect. It will not be perfect if homosexuality is made illegal, for that will not be fair to the homosexuals. It will not be fair to the Christians if gay marriage remains legal. So you see, it's not simply "poor homosexuals" because their beliefs are not the only beliefs at stake here.

You have the right to BELIEVE, not IMPOSE.

For the record, I'm not attacking christians. I am attacking this one aspect of some christians. Also for the record, there are christian individuals AND churches who support gay marriage.

Giving gay people the right to marry is not taking ANYTHING away from the christians. They don't have to be gay or perform gay marriages. They can continue living their lives as straight people who disagree with gay marriage. They still have ALL their rights. Not allowing gays to marry IS TAKING away rights from the gays. That is a HUGE difference. I don't know why you can't see that. Equal Rights is not a belief, it's called a fundamental freedom.

[MadPoet]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

Alright, let me try to understand your logic. If the majority of people believe a certain minority should have certain rights restricted, that is perfectly acceptable. Screw you minority, majority has spoken. Let me offer this similar scenario:

A group of people sincerely believe Christianity should be banned. They think it's a horribly outdated religion and that its insistence on imposing its beliefs into secular law needs to be curbed. They put it to a referendum, and the majority votes in favour. Christians religion will only be allowed within the home and within approved church buildings. Mention of religion in any other place is unlawful.

They have the right to vote for this, yeah? The supporters sincerely believe Christians shouldn't practice their beliefs, and Christians have no right to tell them to vote otherwise. Because that would be violating the rights of the anti-Christian supporters to believe whatever they want to.

I have the right to think Christianity should be banned, I have the right to think whatever I want about Christianity - are you honestly going to argue that I have the right to pass a law about it? I'm guessing you would object to an anti-Christian law, so why should Christians be able to vote to restrict the rights of homosexuals?

This is, again, what I mean. Neither side can truly win, if this were the current situation. Christianity would be voted both for and against. If the majority of the vote were that Christianity should remain legal, those against Christianity would be rather pissed, and Christianity, though it had won, would still be discriminated against (this would represent the homosexual side winning the vote). However, if Christianity were to be outlawed, Christians would of course be angry, and the anti-Christians would then be discriminated against (this would represent the side of the argument that those against gay marriage are on). So like I said, neither side is going to win. There are always going to be people who are ticked off at the outcome of the vote.

So to decide whether or not gay marriage should be legal or illegal, both sides of the argument need to be considered and understood, not just one. You can shout and boo down Christians all you want, and Christians can do the same to the gays, but they are not coming to an understanding or agreement that way. Both opinions should be considered in order to reach a conclusion that will settle with everyone involved. What that agreement could be, I have no idea. But nothing, absolutely nothing, is solved by failure to try to understand the other side of the debate. I may be an idiot and this may not be how the voting system or whatever works, but compromise is the way to keep things moving along smoothly, and I personally do not believe that "majority rules."

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by Grizabella

For the billionth time, Christians are not expected to change their beliefs. We are talking about secular marriage, which has nothing to do with christians. What part of this confuses you? Court houses would be allowed to marry same sex couples, and churches would be allowed to continue rejecting them.

Well you failed to address my point I posted earlier on the previous page, it answers you question.

"Who is THEY? Some people have argued that they DO want to do that (change the church), even on here. So probably a lot more people want to change the church than you believe/ want to believe. It is obvious that you are not speaking for the whole movement, and there are parts of the movement that are more threatening to the church that you do not speak for."

Again, you don't speak for the whole movement when you say "they don't want to change the church". I'm sure there are probably plenty of gays who don't want that to happen. But the politicians, the ones IN CHARGE of the movement, do want this to happen.

Originally Posted by Grizabella

Alright, let me try to understand your logic. If the majority of people believe a certain minority should have certain rights restricted, that is perfectly acceptable. Screw you minority, majority has spoken. Let me offer this similar scenario:

A group of people sincerely believe Christianity should be banned. They think it's a horribly outdated religion and that its insistence on imposing its beliefs into secular law needs to be curbed. They put it to a referendum, and the majority votes in favour. Christians religion will only be allowed within the home and within approved church buildings. Mention of religion in any other place is unlawful.

They have the right to vote for this, yeah? The supporters sincerely believe Christians shouldn't practice their beliefs, and Christians have no right to tell them to vote otherwise. Because that would be violating the rights of the anti-Christian supporters to believe whatever they want to.

I have the right to think Christianity should be banned, I have the right to think whatever I want about Christianity - are you honestly going to argue that I have the right to pass a law about it? I'm guessing you would object to an anti-Christian law, so why should Christians be able to vote to restrict the rights of homosexuals?

You are WAY off base with your ridiculous hypothetical situations. Freedom of religion is CLEARLY allowed to the people by the Bill of Rights. The right to be homosexual is also in the bill of rights, but it does not ensure them the right to get married in the bill of rights. Since their right to marry is not in the bill of rights, then there has to be a separate law to ensure that, and separate laws are up to the people.

[Khadra]

Amanda you are not understanding that this is not an issue of opposing beliefs needing to compromise. This is an issue of giving people their rights or not. The gay people are not asking for extra rights, they are asking to be treated EQUAL. How can that be up for debate? Doesn't everyone deserve to be treated equally by the government? The government should never be allowed to discriminate. Today they might be discriminating in a way that you agree with, but tomorrow they could be discrimination against YOU. That's why it's important to ensure everybody is equal under the law.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

Well you failed to address my point I posted earlier on the previous page, it answers you question.

"Who is THEY? Some people have argued that they DO want to do that (change the church), even on here. So probably a lot more people want to change the church than you believe/ want to believe. It is obvious that you are not speaking for the whole movement, and there are parts of the movement that are more threatening to the church that you do not speak for."

Again, you don't speak for the whole movement when you say "they don't want to change the church". I'm sure there are probably plenty of gays who don't want that to happen. But the politicians, the ones IN CHARGE of the movement, do want this to happen.



You are WAY off base with your ridiculous hypothetical situations. Freedom of religion is CLEARLY allowed to the people by the Bill of Rights. The right to be homosexual is also in the bill of rights, but it does not ensure them the right to get married in the bill of rights. Since their right to marry is not in the bill of rights, then there has to be a separate law to ensure that, and separate laws are up to the people.

However in the court case Loving v. Virginia it was ruled that interracial marriage could not be illegal because of the 14th amendment which states that every American citizen has a right to basic human liberties and the court ruled that marriage is a basic human liberty. So are gays not American then?

Also you keep saying that laws are up to the people but that's not always true. The illegalization of alchohol came from an amendment, sure it was caused by SOME people speaking out and complaining and starting the illegalization of their own, but the law came from the amendment which was made by the government, and the law was removed by the government. There were no votes. Same thing happened with abortion, and note that at least recently every time a state tries to pass a law that would restrict abortion it fails. So obviously some times we can trust the government to make decisions for us, that's why we put them there.

Originally Posted by slickguy55

Concrete Girl- Don't even bother arguing. People like Grizabella don't want to hear your reasoning. You can throw facts in their face, you can give them links that prove a specific point wrong, and they write it off as "meaningless". They blame Christians for forcing views on people, yet they are the type of people who won't stop to get their way; and even when they do get their way they are offended and feel they haven't achieved anything unless they make everyone (even people in private organizations) see things their way. This is because the they are followers of liberalism, and the ultimate goal of liberalism in this country can not succeed without silencing those who oppose their way, that should be a hint that their form of Government is wrong; on the other hand, the republic with a small federal Government, which is the goal of Conservatives, can operate with opposing views.

lolz. First, one word, HYPOCRITE. Don't want to hear reasoning, you've ignored EVERY SINGLE post I've directed at you. EVERY SINGLE post.

We are trying to silence people who disagree? Um, no, I engaged with you in discussion, you ignored me. Since when has conversativism ever tried to consider conflicting views? Conservative is far more narrow the liberalism. Liberalism is after allowing laws to bring as much freedom to everyone (not just the majority or rich), as possible without infringing on the rights of other. Therefore the idea of gay marriage, without forcing churches to marry gays, but at least having the option, and court marriages maintains the anti-gay churches' rights to not marry gays, yet allows gays to get married if they want. This would be freedom.

You are a smart girl. This is clearly happening, yet these people deny that their agenda has any plans to infiltrate the church. There are 2000 years of church teachings set in stone, and the gay agenda want to come in and say "let me just cross out this part, delete that, modernize this...and we're good".

lolz again. Our agenda? Infiltrating the church? Um, no... for example, a few weeks ago, I went to the National Union of Students LGBT Campaign conference, which is the biggest student LGBTQ movement in the UK. The conference is to decide policy on campaigns are such to focus on in the year. Guess what? The church didn't even come up. Not once. So you go find some evidence that the movement is infiltrating the church, and maybe you can make that point.

Whereas, as I pointing out, there is very little actual knowledge of the church's teachings on gay marriage in much of the early church, and middle ages. As I pointed out, as homosexuality wasnt a real concept till the lasdt few hundred years, there was little discussion on gays, and when there was, it was from specific individuals, mostly from the view that every one is straight, so gay sex is explicitly a rebellion to human nature. There is a lot of academic research on the 'clobber' passage against gays to suggest its really not all that straight forward. Go watch a documentary called 'So The Bible Tells Me So' (no, this wasnt my only source of information, they just made an easily understandable documentary, and its more interesting then all the reading I've done).

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

If gays were being treated as second class citizens, and as terribly as they let on, they would not have any rights whatsoever. I do agree that gays should be allowed to have the same rights as married couples, only as registered couples, but I do not agree that gays should be allowed to participate in the sacrament of marriage in a Christian church, as that is controversial to Christian beliefs.

No, thats not second class citizens, that would be non-human status. Second class citizens are anyone who are not being given equal rights by law.

And again, secular marriages exist, the Church is not the only place of Marriage in the Western world... plus, for those churches not against gay marriage, they should be allowed freedom of religion too.

Originally Posted by slickguy55

No not really. I don't think that not having marriage benefits qualifies a person as a "second class citizen", that is a gross over-exaggeration. That would mean any single person who is lacking those benefits is also a second class citizen. Not to mention, the lack of the benefits doesn't come with harassment, being disregarded from protection of laws, and it doesn't limit their ability to get a career.

Lack of marriage, at least in America does mean in many places the partners of gays can't get the same benefits the spouses of employees can get from jobs, like health insurance, etc. It also makes adoption harder, even if it's of the partner's own genetic children. It also means they don't get family rights in relation to their partner in the health system in some places... so for example, they can't find out the status of their partner's health, if their partner has had to go into hospital. As they aren't considered family.

Also, it continues this idea that if gays don't deserve marriage, that they are different, and indirectly reinforces prejudice. Prejudice leads to discrimination.

- And thats nice, I'll pick up the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for some vacation reading next time i go up to Canada. Oh, and that would be never.

Since when was this thread explicitly, exclusively American, this is discussion on a concept. In fact, there are more non-Americans in this thread then Americans. If you Americans want us to give a shit about your constitution, you better damn well respect the laws of other countries in the same way.

Originally Posted by PhoenixAlive

Are you capable of participating in a friendly debate without becoming arrogant and offensive? I live in Canada. And just so you know, our laws are just as valid as yours in the States. So tone down your ethnocentric attitude if you please.

I love you.

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

And Leviticus 18:22 states: [/font] "Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin" I am not saying that bible scripture is superior to law, but rather that the bible is a bit like Christian law. Christians are not trying to deny gays the right to be together, but gays DO NOT have the right to be married, for marriage is a sacrament for a man and a woman. Christians follow and are always going to follow the word of their God, however unfair homosexuals seem to think it is.

Um... Leviticus doesn't state that. Like, really, even if you interperate it that way, it does not actually say those words. The word homosexual should never appear in the Bible, because it did not exist in the days the Bible was written. Also.... the term they use for abomination (which I asusme you've translated as enormous sin?), is a term for some that isn't inheritantly evil, but was made so to the people of Isreal.

I still don't understand where your understanding of marriage comes from either? Throughout history, its not been about love... it's been about contracts, money, protection, providing, etc. Also, why is the conservative Christian definition of marriage the only correct one? Marriage can be secular, marriage can be religious of people with different views, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

But what's the difference? Marriage is marriage. Gays have the right to fight for their rights to get married. But just the same, any person who is against gay marriage also has the right to fight in order to make gay marriage illegal. Everyone has rights to what they believe, no matter who deems their beliefs as unfair.

Ok, here's the thing, you are missing the point, and even though it's been explained to you clearly, you are missing the point. There is a difference to a right to believe something, and what laws shoud prevent people from doing. The law should be objective.

Originally Posted by slickguy55

I never said your laws weren't valid. But they are only valid IN CANADA.

Well then, shut up, the only points you made reflected your view on America. If anyone is expected to listen to your views, based on your country, respect others based on their's.

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Your comparison to receiving a lower pay than an equal in rank worker is invalid. Why? Because it is stated in the constitution that woman have equal rights to men. Show me which amendment of the constitution tells you that gays have the right to marry? Let me think. There's an amendment that abolishes slavery. An amendment for the rights of Woman. But still, I do not recall there being a right for gays. Therefore, and I'm not saying it's right, BUT anyone who is against gay marriage STILL has the RIGHT to fight to abolish gay marriage.

Amendants were made because people were trying to loop hole your constitution to deny women and blacks equal rights.

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Think back to times when blacks were being discriminated against. Slavery was outlawed, "all men were equal" but that didn't stop discrimination from happening. It didn't stop black men not having the right to vote, did it? Simply because it is stated that all men are created equal does not mean that gays should have the right to marry. It's not because straight people are more superior, but that marriage is not meant for people of the same sex. The reason it would not be illegal to abolish same sex marriage would be because gays are still offered rights. They may not be the same rights, but they are rights. Equal rights are a joke. If we all had equal rights, the big shots up on wall street wouldn't be being paid billions for doing nothing, when those who actually work for their money are in debt. So don't give me any bologna about equal rights, the government always finds a way to sneak past the rights listed in the constitution. Therefore if they have their mind set to abolish same sex marriage, they'll definitely find a way to go through with it. Equal rights don't always play a part, as much as we would like to think so.

And theoretically, you think this is exceptable, that equal rights aren't there? Nice.

And please, explain where you get the idea that marriage isn't applicable to the same sex? Divorce is against Christianity. Still legal in the US. Not to mention, the meaning of things can change with society. Otherwise you wouldnt be going to school, or having a chance for a career.

Simply because I believe that marriage should be kept simply for men and women does not mean that I am a discriminatory person. Have I stated that I am against same sex relationships? No, I haven't. I am aware that Christianity does not make the laws, I am aware of that. But if they do not make the laws, why are so many gays so damn worried that Christians are going to somehow abolish gay marriage?

You are the one who is obsessing most about the Christians? But Christianity in the US does make laws, even though in a country claiming to be the land of the free (which for the record, it really really isnt), it shouldnt.

And it kinda is discriminatory, as you, as of yet, haven't given a logical, rational reason to hold your view against this group.

Originally Posted by slickguy55

Well you failed to address my point I posted earlier on the previous page, it answers you question.

"Who is THEY? Some people have argued that they DO want to do that (change the church), even on here. So probably a lot more people want to change the church than you believe/ want to believe. It is obvious that you are not speaking for the whole movement, and there are parts of the movement that are more threatening to the church that you do not speak for."

Again, you don't speak for the whole movement when you say "they don't want to change the church". I'm sure there are probably plenty of gays who don't want that to happen. But the politicians, the ones IN CHARGE of the movement, do want this to happen.



You are WAY off base with your ridiculous hypothetical situations. Freedom of religion is CLEARLY allowed to the people by the Bill of Rights. The right to be homosexual is also in the bill of rights, but it does not ensure them the right to get married in the bill of rights. Since their right to marry is not in the bill of rights, then there has to be a separate law to ensure that, and separate laws are up to the people.

You are denying freedom of religion to other people...

Also, just out of curiousity, what makes you a voice on the gay movement and 'agenda'

[Titanium]

Originally Posted by Concrete Girl

Oh my God... not this again. For the millionth time. Christians are not going to change their beliefs to benefit gays!

That is what Christians do. Religion is a political weapon.

You don't go around stoning people even though the old testament allows it, why? Because it isn't socially right (i.e. politically) or buy slaves (which was allowed by the Church) now because it goes against human rights.

You have to understand that a lot of religion policies vary with time according to what people think. Religion is nothing more than a document (like a constitution) that can be edited to suit societies beliefs. I firmly believe it has nothing to do with God.

Spirituality, on the other hand, is what you believe in your heart. The sort of thing nobody can tell you, and no book can guide you. Do you believe in something is a question of spirituality. Religion attempts to brand and market it, and make itself powerful of it.

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by Invert

lolz. First, one word, HYPOCRITE. Don't want to hear reasoning, you've ignored EVERY SINGLE post I've directed at you. EVERY SINGLE post.

We are trying to silence people who disagree? Um, no, I engaged with you in discussion, you ignored me. Since when has conversativism ever tried to consider conflicting views? Conservative is far more narrow the liberalism. Liberalism is after allowing laws to bring as much freedom to everyone (not just the majority or rich), as possible without infringing on the rights of other. Therefore the idea of gay marriage, without forcing churches to marry gays, but at least having the option, and court marriages maintains the anti-gay churches' rights to not marry gays, yet allows gays to get married if they want. This would be freedom.




lolz again. Our agenda? Infiltrating the church? Um, no... for example, a few weeks ago, I went to the National Union of Students LGBT Campaign conference, which is the biggest student LGBTQ movement in the UK. The conference is to decide policy on campaigns are such to focus on in the year. Guess what? The church didn't even come up. Not once. So you go find some evidence that the movement is infiltrating the church, and maybe you can make that point.

Whereas, as I pointing out, there is very little actual knowledge of the church's teachings on gay marriage in much of the early church, and middle ages. As I pointed out, as homosexuality wasnt a real concept till the lasdt few hundred years, there was little discussion on gays, and when there was, it was from specific individuals, mostly from the view that every one is straight, so gay sex is explicitly a rebellion to human nature. There is a lot of academic research on the 'clobber' passage against gays to suggest its really not all that straight forward. Go watch a documentary called 'So The Bible Tells Me So' (no, this wasnt my only source of information, they just made an easily understandable documentary, and its more interesting then all the reading I've done).

I ignored you because you posted at a point when I was trying to get out of this thread. So get over yourself, you don't have any genius arguments that I haven't addressed already.

-Now, who is the hypocrite? Liberalism wants to bring freedom to minorities, in fact they want to give them more freedom than anyone else. They want to give freedom to illegal immigrants who have no business being here while we pick up the tab. And in them giving more freedom than necessary, more than the average American citizen, it takes rights away from regular hard working people. So by stopping ridiculous laws, or as you say "stopping freedom", they are actually working to preserve freedom for the average American. But I don't expect you to understand how that works as you probably don't work hard every day, and you probably don't pay taxes, and you've probably never been denied a scholarship/job to affirmative action.

-I've made it clear that I do not believe that most individual gays have much concern for infiltrating the church; although some obviously do, so there is no way your personal opinion speaks for the whole movement. I believe that the political leaders of the movement want to do this. Liberalism in America=socialism, and in order for socialism to succeed the church need to be over powered. Thats all I have to say about this point because I do not feel the need to repeat myself more. But it is something that a good percentage of conservatives believe; so regardless of how you feel about it there is no sense in arguing this point, because there are people who believe this, so therefor it will be an obstacle whether you like it or not.

-I've been studying catholicism for 12 years. If you want to argue about what the church teaches with me then you are barking up the wrong tree. I personally know more about what the church believes over a gay rights activist who read a few verses and talked to a self-proclaimed minister.

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by Invert

1- Lack of marriage, at least in America does mean in many places the partners of gays can't get the same benefits the spouses of employees can get from jobs, like health insurance, etc. It also makes adoption harder, even if it's of the partner's own genetic children. It also means they don't get family rights in relation to their partner in the health system in some places... so for example, they can't find out the status of their partner's health, if their partner has had to go into hospital. As they aren't considered family.

Also, it continues this idea that if gays don't deserve marriage, that they are different, and indirectly reinforces prejudice. Prejudice leads to discrimination.


2- Since when was this thread explicitly, exclusively American, this is discussion on a concept. In fact, there are more non-Americans in this thread then Americans. If you Americans want us to give a shit about your constitution, you better damn well respect the laws of other countries in the same way.


3- Well then, shut up, the only points you made reflected your view on America. If anyone is expected to listen to your views, based on your country, respect others based on their's.


4- You are denying freedom of religion to other people...

Also, just out of curiousity, what makes you a voice on the gay movement and 'agenda'

1: There are other routes to take in order to obtain those benefits. And I still don't buy that gays are second class citizens because they don't get certain benefits offered to married couples. To me, second class citizens are the African Americans before the Civil Rights movement. And please don't say that gays today have it as bad as African Americans did back then, it is just demeaning/offensive to those African Americans.

2: I didn't say that. I just assumed since many of my arguments have to do with America that he/she would connect the dots... oh well. I never said anything along the lines of me not respecting Canada, I am just not entirely debating for them.

3: I don't see why this is a big deal for you, it has nothing to do with debate, but I know you get side tracked and its OK. And if you can comprehend what you read, then you would realize that the moral/religious arguments that I have used are international arguments. So again, you are wrong.

4: How so? And "Also, just out of curiosity, what makes you a voice on the gay movement and 'agenda'?"... I am not a voice for the gay movement, as you can see I am against it. If you meant "what makes you a voice against the gay movement" the answer is because I am a voter with an opinion. I am not claiming to speak for everyone on my side like you do, you guarantee that "no gays want to infiltrate the church", therefor you are trying to speak for your entire side when you CAN'T. Some of them clearly do want to infiltrate the church.

Originally Posted by Titanium

That is what Christians do. Religion is a political weapon.

You don't go around stoning people even though the old testament allows it, why? Because it isn't socially right (i.e. politically) or buy slaves (which was allowed by the Church) now because it goes against human rights.

You have to understand that a lot of religion policies vary with time according to what people think. Religion is nothing more than a document (like a constitution) that can be edited to suit societies beliefs. I firmly believe it has nothing to do with God.

Spirituality, on the other hand, is what you believe in your heart. The sort of thing nobody can tell you, and no book can guide you. Do you believe in something is a question of spirituality. Religion attempts to brand and market it, and make itself powerful of it.

True. But the church evolves through lengthy processes. The beliefs have not changed. People don't get stoned for adultery anymore, but the church still is against adultery. The punishment and the times are different, the morals are the same.

[Oiseau the Little Bird!]

Alright. After reading, here's my bit.

Faith and state should be separate. When an entire church rallies AGAINST gay marriage, I'd say that's the church being political, which they should not be. Human rights versus The Word of God. My rights are more important than your god. And that's the beautiful thing about living in America.

[slickguy55]

Well you could have it backwards. Gays and the state are saying that there should be laws allowing them to marry. Thats the state butting in on religion, and there should be a separation right? I'm just saying there is a counter point to yours so it is not really valid.

[PhoenixAlive]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

Well you could have it backwards. Gays and the state are saying that there should be laws allowing them to marry. Thats the state butting in on religion, and there should be a separation right? I'm just saying there is a counter point to yours so it is not really valid.

No its not, because court marriages (which is what gays are fighting for) have nothing to do with religion.

So, this really isn't a counter point at all.

Originally Posted by slickguy55

I ignored you because you posted at a point when I was trying to get out of this thread. So get over yourself, you don't have any genius arguments that I haven't addressed already.

You haven't addressed them, you've just regurutated (sp) all the same things as you were saying before, without actually answering any of the questions. Such as how, where, why, evidence, etc.

-Now, who is the hypocrite? Liberalism wants to bring freedom to minorities, in fact they want to give them more freedom than anyone else. They want to give freedom to illegal immigrants who have no business being here while we pick up the tab. And in them giving more freedom than necessary, more than the average American citizen, it takes rights away from regular hard working people.

A few points, liberalism does not equal the gay movement. Many gays are liberal, and liberal political climates have facillitated much of the gay movement, admittedly, but liberalism is a much broader thing, not always actually even in consideration of gay rights. Liberalism is actually a rather vague term, and not all liberals are socialists. Not all gays are liberal, left wing, or even moderate. Also, illegal immigration is off topic, and often misrepresented by the media, and you are singing to the choir, I don't agree in unlimited immigration, or benefits that go beyond that of other citizens for immigrants.

So by stopping ridiculous laws, or as you say "stopping freedom", they are actually working to preserve freedom for the average American.

Ok, I'll word this simply for you, because it still seems to be alluding you. How does allowing gay marriage, through the courts, not forcing churches who disagree with gay marriage to participate, take away any rights in your life. How does it possibly infringe on you? I don't like catch pharses, but I feel its applicable, 'dont agree with gay marriage? Dont get one'. You still have your right to exercise your beliefs that same sex couples shouldnt get married, just like you can exercise your right to express that fornication is wrong (which I sincerely hope you believe).

But I don't expect you to understand how that works as you probably don't work hard every day, and you probably don't pay taxes, and you've probably never been denied a scholarship/job to affirmative action.

I've never worked hard? Um... wrong. I've had jobs, one was an incredibly physically demanding job, 10pm-10am, 5 days a week, in a warehouse, in which many of my adult male co-workers quit early as they couldnt hack it. Whereas I, at the time, an 18 year old girl, stayed for my whole contract. I also, in my teens, was a youth worker in my church. I've worked in a cinema. I've dedicated an awful lot of time to staff work on this website, which is actually volunteer work, but it's still a demanding job. I've worked for my grades in school, and I'm set to be graduating from the 5th best uni in the UK with a decent mark if I maintain my present performance, or an amazing mark if I step it up a bit.

No, I don't pay taxes right now, I'm a student, in the UK, students don't. I did however pay taxes when I worked in the year before coming to uni. And my parents have paid taxes their entire life, and with my mom being 60, yeah, I come from a family use to paying taxes.

I've never been denied a job due to the spaces being filled by people on an affirmative action scheme, because I've never applied for a job or scholarship where such a scheme existed? That's not my fault? Though to be fair, the majority of people misunderstand how affirmative action actually works... but again, I don't understand what this has to do with anything?

-I've made it clear that I do not believe that most individual gays have much concern for infiltrating the church; although some obviously do, so there is no way your personal opinion speaks for the whole movement. I believe that the political leaders of the movement want to do this.

I'll admit, after rereading my paragraph on the NUS LGBT Campaign, it may not have been clear what I was intending to say. What I was trying to highlight was that a large part of the movement, didnt have any focus on this. Yes, there are some gays who will want such a thing, but it's generally not a wide focus on the movement, from my experience. I also happen to know quite a lot of the youth and student movement political leaders, and as of yet, I havent meet one who particuarly desires to infiltrate the church. It was more of a challenge to go source something that implies this plan is a big scale part of any 'agenda'. More then refusing that ANY gays want this. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Though I have noticed a lot of gays couldn't care less about the church, because yeah, a lot of them have disdain for the church, to the extent they want nothing to do with it, more commonly then they want to change it.

Liberalism in America=socialism, and in order for socialism to succeed the church need to be over powered. Thats all I have to say about this point because I do not feel the need to repeat myself more. But it is something that a good percentage of conservatives believe; so regardless of how you feel about it there is no sense in arguing this point, because there are people who believe this, so therefor it will be an obstacle whether you like it or not.

If its an obstacle, regardless if its true or not, but due to how people feel, then surely communication is the best way to approach the topic? Though I dont understand way the church needs to be over powered, except in terms of seperation of church and state. The church should not be making the laws of the land in a country of multiple faiths, or even just Biblically. Paul didn't go round trying to change the laws of the world, instead he focused on conversion, and taught Christian values to those within the church.

-I've been studying catholicism for 12 years. If you want to argue about what the church teaches with me then you are barking up the wrong tree. I personally know more about what the church believes over a gay rights activist who read a few verses and talked to a self-proclaimed minister.

See, you know very very little about me. I suppose putting the gay issue aside, we'd both argue over religion till we are blue in the face, because you are Catholic, from what I can tell, and I'm far more leaning to Baptist. But regardless, yeah, you would know more about what the church believes over a gay rights activist who only read a few verses and talked to a self-proclaimed minister. But thats not me. I've been involved in the church since I was born effectively. I come from a religious family, my dad is a pastor, my uncle is a vicar, my mom was my Sunday teacher. I've studied my faith, its been challenged, and strengthened. I know more about my faith then many others of my age. For the record, my parents, and the churches I've been involved in are not accepting of gays. nor was I until recent years, and that change with a long process or soul searching, pray, and general complete spiritual breakdown that God had to pick me back up from.

I very much know what certain denominations are most likely to believe, against gay marriage. Including Catholism. You dont know about my religious beliefs or background.

Now, I haven't once said that the Bible does allow gay sex, I said there is academic work that suggests the conventional church translations and readings of certain verses may not actually be accurate. I've never talked to a gay minister by the way,But this is going off topic, and I'm willing to talk to you about this if you want, in another thread or PM. Though with Catholicism, these issues mean much less, as you have loads of other doctrine and rules and stuff.

1: There are other routes to take in order to obtain those benefits. And I still don't buy that gays are second class citizens because they don't get certain benefits offered to married couples. To me, second class citizens are the African Americans before the Civil Rights movement. And please don't say that gays today have it as bad as African Americans did back then, it is just demeaning/offensive to those African Americans.

Things can vary in degree and remain with the same name. For example, women were second class citizens, but didnt 'have it as badly as African Americans before the civil rights movements'. Though, before the gay civil rights movement gays did have a much worse time then in the present Western World (lots of other countries still arent even at that point, and still have death penalties, lack of police protection from physcial harm/murder, no anti-discrimination laws socially or in employment, etc)

Then even in the west, about 50 years ago (and probably continuing till more recent years), gays could be given electric shock therapy (against their will), chemical treatments, forced marriages, a range of other rather bizzaire things have been known to have been done to gays (such as in the early 1900s in Germany, some doctors would swap a gay man's testicles with that of a dead man's, without even telling the gay guy). Gays got some of the most horrific treatment in the Holocuast, and considering how few people are gay, a lot of gays were killed in concentration camps. Out homosexual American citizens are not allowed to join the army, etc.

Sure the current status of rights is not that bad, but it doesn't mean that gays are equal under the law, because they simply aren't. And if you want to make other routes to give gay's partners equal legal benefits, then please, at least encourage that. But at the present, there isn't even that in some places.

2: I didn't say that. I just assumed since many of my arguments have to do with America that he/she would connect the dots... oh well. I never said anything along the lines of me not respecting Canada, I am just not entirely debating for them.

3: I don't see why this is a big deal for you, it has nothing to do with debate, but I know you get side tracked and its OK. And if you can comprehend what you read, then you would realize that the moral/religious arguments that I have used are international arguments. So again, you are wrong.

I'll admit I can sometimes overreact when I feel/percieve someone as being enthocentric, particularly about America, because it always seems to happen on the internet, so I jump to the gun a bit too fast sometimes.

And I don't feel your arguments are all that applicable universally. Different cultures have different purposes for marriage, different beliefs behind marriage, different social climates and such forth. For example, in some countries, marriage is geniunely secular. Family values can also be different, etc.

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by Invert

You haven't addressed them, you've just regurutated (sp) all the same things as you were saying before, without actually answering any of the questions. Such as how, where, why, evidence, etc.



A few points, liberalism does not equal the gay movement. Many gays are liberal, and liberal political climates have facillitated much of the gay movement, admittedly, but liberalism is a much broader thing, not always actually even in consideration of gay rights. Liberalism is actually a rather vague term, and not all liberals are socialists. Not all gays are liberal, left wing, or even moderate. Also, illegal immigration is off topic, and often misrepresented by the media, and you are singing to the choir, I don't agree in unlimited immigration, or benefits that go beyond that of other citizens for immigrants.



Ok, I'll word this simply for you, because it still seems to be alluding you. How does allowing gay marriage, through the courts, not forcing churches who disagree with gay marriage to participate, take away any rights in your life. How does it possibly infringe on you? I don't like catch pharses, but I feel its applicable, 'dont agree with gay marriage? Dont get one'. You still have your right to exercise your beliefs that same sex couples shouldnt get married, just like you can exercise your right to express that fornication is wrong (which I sincerely hope you believe).



I've never worked hard? Um... wrong. I've had jobs, one was an incredibly physically demanding job, 10pm-10am, 5 days a week, in a warehouse, in which many of my adult male co-workers quit early as they couldnt hack it. Whereas I, at the time, an 18 year old girl, stayed for my whole contract. I also, in my teens, was a youth worker in my church. I've worked in a cinema. I've dedicated an awful lot of time to staff work on this website, which is actually volunteer work, but it's still a demanding job. I've worked for my grades in school, and I'm set to be graduating from the 5th best uni in the UK with a decent mark if I maintain my present performance, or an amazing mark if I step it up a bit.

No, I don't pay taxes right now, I'm a student, in the UK, students don't. I did however pay taxes when I worked in the year before coming to uni. And my parents have paid taxes their entire life, and with my mom being 60, yeah, I come from a family use to paying taxes.

I've never been denied a job due to the spaces being filled by people on an affirmative action scheme, because I've never applied for a job or scholarship where such a scheme existed? That's not my fault? Though to be fair, the majority of people misunderstand how affirmative action actually works... but again, I don't understand what this has to do with anything?



I'll admit, after rereading my paragraph on the NUS LGBT Campaign, it may not have been clear what I was intending to say. What I was trying to highlight was that a large part of the movement, didnt have any focus on this. Yes, there are some gays who will want such a thing, but it's generally not a wide focus on the movement, from my experience. I also happen to know quite a lot of the youth and student movement political leaders, and as of yet, I havent meet one who particuarly desires to infiltrate the church. It was more of a challenge to go source something that implies this plan is a big scale part of any 'agenda'. More then refusing that ANY gays want this. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Though I have noticed a lot of gays couldn't care less about the church, because yeah, a lot of them have disdain for the church, to the extent they want nothing to do with it, more commonly then they want to change it.



If its an obstacle, regardless if its true or not, but due to how people feel, then surely communication is the best way to approach the topic? Though I dont understand way the church needs to be over powered, except in terms of seperation of church and state. The church should not be making the laws of the land in a country of multiple faiths, or even just Biblically. Paul didn't go round trying to change the laws of the world, instead he focused on conversion, and taught Christian values to those within the church.


See, you know very very little about me. I suppose putting the gay issue aside, we'd both argue over religion till we are blue in the face, because you are Catholic, from what I can tell, and I'm far more leaning to Baptist. But regardless, yeah, you would know more about what the church believes over a gay rights activist who only read a few verses and talked to a self-proclaimed minister. But thats not me. I've been involved in the church since I was born effectively. I come from a religious family, my dad is a pastor, my uncle is a vicar, my mom was my Sunday teacher. I've studied my faith, its been challenged, and strengthened. I know more about my faith then many others of my age. For the record, my parents, and the churches I've been involved in are not accepting of gays. nor was I until recent years, and that change with a long process or soul searching, pray, and general complete spiritual breakdown that God had to pick me back up from.

I very much know what certain denominations are most likely to believe, against gay marriage. Including Catholism. You dont know about my religious beliefs or background.

Now, I haven't once said that the Bible does allow gay sex, I said there is academic work that suggests the conventional church translations and readings of certain verses may not actually be accurate. I've never talked to a gay minister by the way,But this is going off topic, and I'm willing to talk to you about this if you want, in another thread or PM. Though with Catholicism, these issues mean much less, as you have loads of other doctrine and rules and stuff.



Things can vary in degree and remain with the same name. For example, women were second class citizens, but didnt 'have it as badly as African Americans before the civil rights movements'. Though, before the gay civil rights movement gays did have a much worse time then in the present Western World (lots of other countries still arent even at that point, and still have death penalties, lack of police protection from physcial harm/murder, no anti-discrimination laws socially or in employment, etc)

Then even in the west, about 50 years ago (and probably continuing till more recent years), gays could be given electric shock therapy (against their will), chemical treatments, forced marriages, a range of other rather bizzaire things have been known to have been done to gays (such as in the early 1900s in Germany, some doctors would swap a gay man's testicles with that of a dead man's, without even telling the gay guy). Gays got some of the most horrific treatment in the Holocuast, and considering how few people are gay, a lot of gays were killed in concentration camps. Out homosexual American citizens are not allowed to join the army, etc.

Sure the current status of rights is not that bad, but it doesn't mean that gays are equal under the law, because they simply aren't. And if you want to make other routes to give gay's partners equal legal benefits, then please, at least encourage that. But at the present, there isn't even that in some places.



I'll admit I can sometimes overreact when I feel/percieve someone as being enthocentric, particularly about America, because it always seems to happen on the internet, so I jump to the gun a bit too fast sometimes.

And I don't feel your arguments are all that applicable universally. Different cultures have different purposes for marriage, different beliefs behind marriage, different social climates and such forth. For example, in some countries, marriage is geniunely secular. Family values can also be different, etc.

- It doesn't. I just don't want is to spread through society. I don't want the gay agenda to work it's way into schools and everyday life. And gay marriage is a step in that direction.

-Come to America and you will get a taste of the Affirmative Action.

-And I agree. I don't feel that most gays want to change the church. I just don't want to grant them this victory because their struggle to gain gay marriage rights is already being manipulated and used by liberal politicians, and if the gays succeed then the liberal politicians will use the gay's victory to their benefit. For example they might start to say "Hey, if gays can get married then we should also teach their ways in our schools" and when it gets to the schools and reaches the young students it will undermine what parent's teach and what their religion teaches. Creationism can not be taught in schools for obvious reasons (other than the fact it is bull shit), so if a rule like that should be enforced then the church has a right to say "well then you can't MAKE LAWS allowing gays to get dressed up and get married in front of an alter with a phony minister in the mean time making a joke out of a sacred ritual that dates back 100 years." I think gays should get the benefits, but no marriage and no wedding.

-WHY the church needs to be over powered for socialism to succeed is a totally different topic. You can PM me if you are curious, but if I were to discuss why then this whole convo would get way off base.

-I have to apologize, I was not referring to you personally when I said "gay activist who talked to gay minister", I believe I was referring and over exaggerating the contents of one of your quotes or links.

-So you agree then that modern day gays are not second class citizens? They had harsh treatment in the past, but the lack of a few benefits given to married couples hardly supports the argument that they are currently second class citizens.
-And I addressed earlier in this post that i think benefits are good, but should be obtained by different means.

-And I respectfully disagree. Yes cultures are different in different countries, but I still feel that the moral/religious argument in international, however slightly stronger in America.

[VanishingActs]

Nothing is wrong with gay marriage - love is love.

[DoesThisLookInfected?]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

- It doesn't. I just don't want is to spread through society. I don't want the gay agenda to work it's way into schools and everyday life. And gay marriage is a step in that direction.

As in, being taught that being gay is okay in schools? That some people are gay? Of course that should be taught in schools.

-Come to America and you will get a taste of the Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage are different topics

-And I agree. I don't feel that most gays want to change the church. I just don't want to grant them this victory because their struggle to gain gay marriage rights is already being manipulated and used by liberal politicians, and if the gays succeed then the liberal politicians will use the gay's victory to their benefit. For example they might start to say "Hey, if gays can get married then we should also teach their ways in our schools" and when it gets to the schools and reaches the young students it will undermine what parent's teach and what their religion teaches. Creationism can not be taught in schools for obvious reasons (other than the fact it is bull shit), so if a rule like that should be enforced then the church has a right to say "well then you can't MAKE LAWS allowing gays to get dressed up and get married in front of an alter with a phony minister in the mean time making a joke out of a sacred ritual that dates back 100 years." I think gays should get the benefits, but no marriage and no wedding.

What do you mean "their ways"? Some people are gay, get over it, it should be taught in schools.
What their religion teaches? If a religion says something that is pretty much refuted by science, then it shouldn't be taught in schools.
Why? Why should gays not be allowed to have a marriage ceremony that people dream about having from childhood on? It's not a minister, and it's in a courtroom... What's wrong with having a small ceremony?

-So you agree then that modern day gays are not second class citizens? They had harsh treatment in the past, but the lack of a few benefits given to married couples hardly supports the argument that they are currently second class citizens.
-And I addressed earlier in this post that i think benefits are good, but should be obtained by different means.

Again, I'll repeat, why? Why should gays be treated differently from straight people? Separate but equal =/= the same

[thebigmole]

Your view of liberals is severely warped in my opinion. Most of the politicians in this country are religious, I really don't think that all of the liberals have this agenda where they want to change the church. Because first of all it's stupid to think that the church will ever change and it's even more stupid to think that anyone has a right to tell it to change. I'm sure some do but I highly doubt that all of the liberals out there are like, "Let's change the church. Let's take away their rights to believe what they want to believe."

And there is nothing wrong with kids being taught about gay people in schools, as long as it's a neutral teaching, not against or for, just informative. I'm not talking about teaching them about gay sex life, but just the FACTS about being gay. You say this is wrong because it undermines parents who want to teach their kids that being gay is bad, but I think that that is okay. Personally I don't think that parents should force any of their beliefs, religious or otherwise, on their children. My parents never talked to me about their beliefs on anything and I'm very happy to say that I was able to come to my own conclusions by myself and not by being brainwashed by my parents.

[slickguy55]

It is ridiculous to teach about homosexuality in schools. It undermines what the parents teach and what their religion teaches. If you can't teach creationism in schools because it undermines what non-religious people believe (creationism is BS but I'm using it as an example) then you shouldn't be able to teach homosexuality in schools because it undermines what religious people believe.

When you teach it in schools you tell kids "If you enjoy the company of boys more than girls you might be gay" or tell a slightly feminine kid who doesn't like sports "You might be that way because your gay". When you say these things to children who don't even have a sexual drive yet, they are forced into thinking that they might be gay. Of course a 9 year old boy will prefer to be around boys over girls, and when you tell him "if you prefer the company of boys over girls you might be gay" what the hell is he suppose to think?

The gays need to keep their god damn hands away from schools and children and let kids figure out what they are on their own. There is no way in hell I am ever sending my children to a public school. Private schools provide a MUCH better education anyway, and I won't have to worry about the god damn government putting their gay bullshit agenda in my kids heads. The liberals have it in their agenda to do this to our schools, and if you cant see it then you are either stupid or blind. They want to do the same fucking thing to church, they publicly dismiss the church for not teaching that homosexuality is OK. So don't tell me I have a warped view on the liberal agenda when I have to hear and see their god damn bullshit every fucking day.

[DoesThisLookInfected?]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

It is ridiculous to teach about homosexuality in schools. It undermines what the parents teach and what their religion teaches. If you can't teach creationism in schools because it undermines what non-religious people believe (creationism is BS but I'm using it as an example) then you shouldn't be able to teach homosexuality in schools because it undermines what religious people believe.

It's not the same. Creationism is not right, based on science

When you teach it in schools you tell kids "If you enjoy the company of boys more than girls you might be gay" or tell a slightly feminine kid who doesn't like sports "You might be that way because your gay". When you say these things to children who don't even have a sexual drive yet, they are forced into thinking that they might be gay. Of course a 9 year old boy will prefer to be around boys over girls, and when you tell him "if you prefer the company of boys over girls you might be gay" what the hell is he suppose to think?

No, you just say that some people love their own gender, or something like that...

The gays need to keep their god damn hands away from schools and children and let kids figure out what they are on their own. There is no way in hell I am ever sending my children to a public school. Private schools provide a MUCH better education anyway, and I won't have to worry about the god damn government putting their gay bullshit agenda in my kids heads. The liberals have it in their agenda to do this to our schools, and if you cant see it then you are either stupid or blind. They want to do the same fucking thing to church, they publicly dismiss the church for not teaching that homosexuality is OK. So don't tell me I have a warped view on the liberal agenda when I have to hear and see their god damn bullshit every fucking day.

There is no agenda. Gays want to be more accepted, and that comes from teaching kids that being gay is okay, and I see nothing wrong with it.
Uhm, if you publicly denounce the church in this country your shot at winning an election plummets... So I don't think that someone in politics is going to do that.

[toastiee]

Quick question for the Christians:
If a christian respects gay couples ( not necessarily marriage) is this considered a sin?

sorry if this is off topic T__T;

[Synaestheasiaen]

I personally do not agree with the bible and never even attempted to follow it. There are so many changings within the rules in the branches of Christianity and so many contradictions. I'm not about to let my life be dictated by someone who put so many restrictions on it. That, to me is absolutely no way to live. I believe in a higher power and if there is a God out there who created us, there must be some reason for why he put gays on this Earth. I believe that a God-like being created us, there would be more freedom within this creation and no need for all this contradictions within the bible. If anyone on here follows a religion that's wonderful, really it is, but I just don't see the point of revolving a life around something just because you are told to. I value my life and the people in it and as long as I and my loved ones are happy I will die without regrets. Being gay is nobody else's business but the gay himself/herself. It's not as if gays don't lead a hard enough lifestyle as it is. I think they should just be left alone and left to live their lives the way they want to.

[slickguy55]

Originally Posted by toastiee

Quick question for the Christians:
If a christian respects gay couples ( not necessarily marriage) is this considered a sin?

sorry if this is off topic T__T;

It may depend on what you mean by "respect". But the short answer is no, it is not a sin.

[Oiseau the Little Bird!]

Originally Posted by slickguy55

It may depend on what you mean by "respect". But the short answer is no, it is not a sin.

Yeah, I believe that guy with the beard once said "love the sinner, not the sin."

[Pelios]

I just read alittle bit of the posts, but I will say that if a Christian person wants to vote against gay marriage why not?
Even if they vote because of their religion. I can bet that may people votes against gay marriage in California that are NOT religious.
Religions didn't vote, Californians did. Who are you to tell people what their beliefs should be.

[Khadra]

Originally Posted by mexico

I just read alittle bit of the posts, but I will say that if a Christian person wants to vote against gay marriage why not?
Even if they vote because of their religion. I can bet that may people votes against gay marriage in California that are NOT religious.
Religions didn't vote, Californians did. Who are you to tell people what their beliefs should be.

Religion size yes no
Protestant 43% 65% 35%
Catholic 30% 64% 36%
Jewish 5% 22% 78%
Other6%**
None 16% 10% 90%

The above ^ is from Prop 8 in California. It is quite evident that christians are the majority of the people voting against gay marriage there.

And why should they not be allowed to? Because equality should NEVER be up for vote. It is scary to think that if the majority wants a minority to have fewer rights they are allowed to do that. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, so the government really has no basis for prohibiting it.

[Pelios]

Originally Posted by Khadra

Religion size yes no
Protestant 43% 65% 35%
Catholic 30% 64% 36%
Jewish 5% 22% 78%
Other6%**
None 16% 10% 90%

The above ^ is from Prop 8 in California. It is quite evident that christians are the majority of the people voting against gay marriage there.

And why should they not be allowed to? Because equality should NEVER be up for vote. It is scary to think that if the majority wants a minority to have fewer rights they are allowed to do that. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone, so the government really has no basis for prohibiting it.

Gay couples already have equal LEGAL rights under domestic partnership and civil union. That is what law should and can do. Civil Unions allow gays to receive the same health benefits and tax breaks married people get.

[Gidig]

Originally Posted by mexico

Gay couples already have equal LEGAL rights under domestic partnership and civil union. That is what law should and can do. Civil Unions allow gays to receive the same health benefits and tax breaks married people get.

If you're implying that we should just be happy with what we've got, then I entirely disagree. Why can't we get married just like everyone else and call it marriage?