Discussion: Gay Rights

[The Sperminator]

From a Yahoo news article:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist vowed on Thursday that the Senate would block any effort to legalize same-sex marriage, a day after Massachusetts' top court ruled the state must allow homosexuals to wed.


"I want to be very clear. We reject intolerance, we reject hatred. We must treat all our fellow citizens with civility and kindness," Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said in speech on the Senate floor. "But marriage should not be redefined by the courts and we in this body can't let it, we won't let it."


Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which last year struck down a state ban on same-sex marriages, on Wednesday said lawmakers must allow marriage for gay couples because anything less would make them "second-class" citizens.


That apparently closed the door on civil unions -- a parallel form of legal partnership for gays and lesbians -- that some states have tried to use to bridge deep political, religious and social divides over the hotly-contested issue.


"We must protect, preserve and strengthen the institution of marriage against activist judges," Frist said. "If that means we must amend the constitution, as seems increasingly likely, then we will do just that."


Congress in 1996 passed a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages and giving U.S. states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.


But opponents of same-sex marriage are now also pressing for a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is an institution reserved for one man and one woman.


President Bush (news - web sites) has never quite committed himself to supporting such an amendment, but White House officials said he was actively considering throwing his full support behind the idea in light of the Massachusetts decision.


Surveys have shown a majority of U.S. voters oppose same-sex marriage and the issue could feature prominently in November's presidential election.


Sad, gay people cant even impale rectums with the sanctity of marriage. Why dosent the Right just leave these people alone? :confused:

[Victor Von Doom]

Eh what r u gonna do

[Morg]

WASHINGTON — President Bush, reacting to a new Massachusetts state court ruling, says a constitutional amendment will be necessary to ban gay marriages (search) if judges persist in approving them.


In a written statement late Wednesday, Bush termed "deeply troubling" the decision that same-sex couples in Massachusetts have a right to marry — not just form civil unions — and reiterated a position staked out in his State of the Union (search) speech last month.

"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said in the statement. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

The Massachusetts Supreme Court's (search) advisory opinion that gays are entitled to nothing less than marriage set the stage for the nation's fi1rst legally sanctioned same-sex weddings by the spring.

The issue has the potential to become a hot factor in the presidential campaign.

Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in his own statement: "I believe and have fought for the principle that we should protect the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian couples — from inheritance to health benefits. I believe the right answer is civil unions. I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court's decision."

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, another Democratic presidential candidate, said: "I leave that to the states and the courts — whether you call it a marriage or not, I leave up to the states and churches and synagogues and mosques."

Bush's statement was similar to his remarks in his Jan. 20 State of the Union address in which he said that if judges "insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

Conservative activists and religious groups, banding together under the name the Arlington Group, gathered in Washington this week to plot strategy. Some participants said they left with a White House commitment to fight for a constitutional amendment.

"We were given direct assurances from the very top," said Kelly Shackelford, president of the Texas-based Free Market Foundation. "There's no doubt. It's our understanding that the president is waiting for a day when there is not a massive news story to do it himself."

Another group, the Alliance Defense Fund based in Scottsdale, Ariz., sent out an e-mail asserting, "This morning, President Bush agreed to join the effort to push for the passage of this amendment."

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading group of social conservatives, said, "I would not be surprised at all to see the president come out very soon calling on Congress to act." He said he could not speak for Bush but that "it appears that things are falling in line for that to happen."

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a conservative who is close to the White House, said a constitutional amendment "is what you'd expect the president to do. ... They are forcing the president's hand — if you say only an amendment can fix this, guess what, you're going to get an amendment."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the administration would review the Massachusetts' opinion.

Recalling Bush's remarks in his State of the Union speech, McClellan said, "What he said at that time, that if judges continue to force their arbitrary will upon the people, that the only alternative to the people would be a constitutional process. And that remains his view."


all hail the dictator! :mad:

[Lackey]

I sure do hope same-sex marriage is legalized.



Then I'll be one step closer to being able to legally marry my pet Llama. :)

[DocStrange516]

Yeah, llamas are sexy. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :batman: :rolleyes:

[vegeta21]

I support same sex marriages... but only for medicinal purposes.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by DocStrange516
Yeah, llamas are sexy. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :batman: :rolleyes:


don't judge me! :mad:

[Dew k. Mosi]

This is ridiculous. ONE man and ONE woman. What's next? Making divorce illegal? How the hell can you justify not allowing two CONSENTING adults the rights of any other CONSENTING adults?

Oh, this government pisses me off so much

[Erik Magnus Lehnsherr]

NO

[Immortalfire]

I say no.

[Lackey]

then me and Toven will finally be able to get married. :)

[Erik Magnus Lehnsherr]

Originally posted by vegeta21
I support same sex marriages... but only for medicinal purposes.

Here Here!

[Morg]

Yes, doesn't bother me.

[Socrates]

I don't believe in it, it's just not right, not at all.

[The Incredible Hulk]

He wont be in office to see it passed regardless... He probably doesnt even know what he'd have to do to have an amendment passed.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Bloody Mary
why dont we revolve around subjects that actually need attention...like how ****ty this government is :mad: :o


there we go, that's the root of the whole problem http://superherohype.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

[DDRSkata]

"Forcing their arbitrary will upon" us? Yeah, the gay people will make everyone marry someone of their own sex. :rolleyes:

****in' twit.

[kritic]

Homosexuals are so gay.

[The Sperminator]

I’d like to think that an administration that has suffered through some of the most egregious gaffs both domestic and foreign would have something more important to concern themselves with than who sticks their dick where. :o Makes you just lose all faith sometimes…

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Bloody Mary
that took me a while.

**** you


I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Toven. :mad:


http://www.themanwhofellasleep.com/puppy.jpg

[Alf]

Originally posted by Bloody Mary
that took me a while.

**** you why did you not assume he was calling himself a female?

[DDRSkata]

Originally posted by The Incredible Hulk
He wont be in office to see it passed regardless... He probably doesnt even know what he'd have to do to have an amendment passed. Actually, I think he does. Even an idiot to the caliber of Bush can watch School House Rock. :D

[DocStrange516]

Originally posted by Erik Magnus Lehnsherr
NO

Originally posted by Immortalfire
I say no.

Why not? You can't say no to something like this and not give a reason.

I say Yes, they should be able to get married like heterosexual couples. Homosexuals are people too, they should have the same rights that everyone else does, including the right to marry the ones we love.

[Hyper Venom]

I don't see why gay people can't marry. Doesn't affect me. If a gay couple gets married, I'll still be broke tomorrow. I'll still have a crappy job tomorrow. I'll also continue to post at the Hype tomorrow. Let them get married if they want to.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Bloody Mary
was that sarcasm


actually, no it wasn't


All people need to ask themselves is why do homosexuals need the government to legalize their marriage?

[Superboy]

F**k the Bushie.

[Immortalfire]

Originally posted by DocStrange516
Why not? You can't say no to something like this and not give a reason. Yes I can :confused:

[DDRSkata]

Why can't they? Makes no sense. Sure, we may think homosexuality is wrong. I sure do. But homosexuals are people and they don't think it's wrong, obviously. It's not harming anyone, so why the hell not? As Dew said, two consenting adults should be able to marry, regardless of anything.

[Spider-Nerd]

bush is an idiot. In 20 years kids will be talking about this and making it analogous to the civil rights movement/women's rights/desegregation. For now, it's popular to oppose it, but in the long run, bush is the one who's gonna look evil.

[Istari Wizard]

morg link?

[The Sperminator]

It's those Goddamn Republican's incessant obession over penises HAVING to enter vagina and vagina alone. :rolleyes:

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Superboy
F**k the Bushie.


that's the problem, they don't want to :(

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Istari Wizard
morg link?


www.google.com :p

[Morg]

Originally posted by Istari Wizard
morg link?

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110509,00.html)

[vegeta21]

Hey, I love my cat, but does that give me the right to marry him? Seriously though, what other people do with their lives is really no business of mine.

[Immortalfire]

Ah, so now a biological function is now a republican obsession. Interesting.

[Emilio's Mom]

ok so yea...

There are 2 ways I see this.

1. I think gay marriage should be allowed, there's no reason homosexuals,etc shouldn't have the same rights.

HOWEVER

2. I'm sick and tired of state laws superceeding federal laws. That renders federal laws pointless and that makes no sense whatsoever. I'm sick of stupid hotshot judges thinking they're above everything and overturning laws. This applies to many issues.


That's how I see it, so I'm not exactly sure what to think.

[Istari Wizard]

Originally posted by Morg
Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110509,00.html)

thank you :) :up:

[Istari Wizard]

Originally posted by Lackey
www.google.com :p

:rolleyes:




























:mad:























:D :p

[Dew k. Mosi]

they are talking about CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION!!!! How ridiculous is this? Have you people heard of palimony or common-in-law marriages? How about this new concept of us paying taxes to support "life partners." Legalised marriages give the couples the right to all the same benefits and downfalls as a hetero marriage without all the governmental rigamorale of the other concepts.

Jesus Christ, we are one step away from burning the gays at the stake

[Alf]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
ok so yea...

There are 2 ways I see this.

1. I think gay marriage should be allowed, there's no reason homosexuals,etc shouldn't have the same rights.

HOWEVER

2. I'm sick and tired of state laws superceeding federal laws. That renders federal laws pointless and that makes no sense whatsoever. I'm sick of stupid hotshot judges thinking they're above everything and overturning laws. This applies to many issues.


That's how I see it, so I'm not exactly sure what to think. why do those 2 things do that one thing that l;m forgetting the word for, like,...why cant they go together, but theres a word for it...know what l'm saying?:confused::(

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
I'm sick and tired of state laws superceeding federal laws. That renders federal laws pointless and that makes no sense whatsoever. I'm sick of stupid hotshot judges thinking they're above everything and overturning laws. This applies to many issues.



that's actually as it should be.... Federal gov't should have no say in this issue.

Read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution

[Dew k. Mosi]

And for those of you who said no, tell me why. I am geninuely curious what business is it of yours

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
that's actually as it should be.... Federal gov't should have no say in this issue.

Read the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution The Constitution is obviously something many judges have never heard of. dur dur dur, just make it up as you go along:rolleyes:

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Alf
why do those 2 things do that one thing that l;m forgetting the word for, like,...why cant they go together, but theres a word for it...know what l'm saying?:confused::( "That's how I see it, so I'm not exactly sure what to think. " awww, Alf can't read. :(

[Erik Magnus Lehnsherr]

Originally posted by DocStrange516
Why not? You can't say no to something like this and not give a reason.

I say Yes, they should be able to get married like heterosexual couples. Homosexuals are people too, they should have the same rights that everyone else does, including the right to marry the ones we love.

Because I don't think it's right for two guys to be married. Who's the wife and who's the husband? Bride and Groom?

I've never been really fond of homosexuality in the first place, so I guess I wouldn't be happy if they were married. I just think it's wrong.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
The Constitution is obviously something many judges have never heard of. dur dur dur, just make it up as you go along:rolleyes:

that's very true, but that doesn't apply to my point.


and don't just stop with judges, congress and the president too

[Spider-Nerd]

Originally posted by Erik Magnus Lehnsherr
Because I don't think it's right for two guys to be married. Who's the wife and who's the husband? Bride and Groom?

I've never been really fond of homosexuality in the first place, so I guess I wouldn't be happy if they were married. I just think it's wrong. yeah, it's wrong for blacks to be free and have rights, same with women, and non white landowners across the US.

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
that's very true, but that doesn't apply to my point. oh, but it does, unless you just disreguarded my whole point and quoted me for no reason

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Bloody Mary
in the future everyone will be gay, i had a dream or atleast bi

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
oh, but it does, unless you just disreguarded my whole point and quoted me for no reason

"I'm sick and tired of state laws superceeding federal laws."


state laws SHOULD superceed federal laws, that's as it should be.


--Tenth Amendment

[Alf]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
"That's how I see it, so I'm not exactly sure what to think. " awww, Alf can't read. :( NO!:mad::(
l'm asking a question l don't know the answer to...
but l cant think of the one word l need, so its not making sense...
:(
l'll try to figure out what l'm asking, and ask later...:)

[kritic]

Originally posted by Bloody Mary
in the future everyone will be gay, i had a dream


Vagina will replace testicles and penisses will replace the clitoris.

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
"I'm sick and tired of state laws superceeding federal laws."


state laws SHOULD superceed federal laws, that's as it should be. No, then there's no need for the federal government. I know you believe in chaos and all that crap, but this is complete trash. Idiots like this would probably cause another civil war. They make amendments for a reason, the world isn't how it was.

[Dew k. Mosi]

Originally posted by Erik Magnus Lehnsherr
Because I don't think it's right for two guys to be married. Who's the wife and who's the husband? Bride and Groom?

I've never been really fond of homosexuality in the first place, so I guess I wouldn't be happy if they were married. I just think it's wrong.

Why isn't it right?
What does it matter who is the bride or groom?
Why would someone else's happiness make you unhappy? Are you that insecure?

[kritic]

Originally posted by Bloody Mary
huh?

We will all essentially be the same.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
No, then there's no need for the federal government. I know you believe in chaos and all that crap, but this is complete trash. Idiots like this would probably cause another civil war.

You said the Constitution is something these judges have never heard of... it looks like you don't know much about it either.

I don't believe in chaos, I don't know where you got that.

The federal government should only have those powers given to it in the Constitution and given to it by the states... in other words, it should only be able to do what the states let it do. That's not the way it is, and that's what causes problems like this legalize gay marriage thing.

If the Federal government paid attention to the Constitution there would be no need to legalize gay marriage or any marriage.

Also, if the federal government had paid attention to the Constitution and the intentions of the founding fathers, there wouldn't have been a Civil War.

[Erik Magnus Lehnsherr]

Originally posted by Dew k. Mosi
Why isn't it right?
What does it matter who is the bride or groom?
Why would someone else's happiness make you unhappy? Are you that insecure?

I don't see why I have to answer to you.

Homosexuality is not right, IMO. That's all there is to it.

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
You said the Constitution is something these judges have never heard of... it looks like you don't know much about it either.

I don't believe in chaos, I don't know where you got that. probably because it's all you ever say, smart guy

The federal government should only have those powers given to it in the Constitution and given to it by the states... in other words, it should only be able to do what the states let it do. That's not the way it is, and that's what causes problems like this legalize gay marriage thing.

If the Federal government paid attention to the Constitution there would be no need to legalize gay marriage or any marriage.

Also, if the federal government had paid attention to the Constitution and the intentions of the founding fathers, there wouldn't have been a Civil War. I know the law and you've strayed from my original comment.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
probably because it's all you ever say, smart guy

for example...?

I know the law and you've strayed from my original comment.

if you knew the law, you wouldn't have said this "I'm sick and tired of state laws superceeding federal laws."

...your original comment

[Dew k. Mosi]

Originally posted by Erik Magnus Lehnsherr
I don't see why I have to answer to you.

Homosexuality is not right, IMO. That's all there is to it. you've just proven my point. If you don't have to answer to me, why does anyone have to answer to you?

[Movies205]

Same Sex Marriages, I think it's fine. I'd hate to go through life alone, as for them having children that's much more complicated:o

[Matt]

I love how Dictator Bush says courts "Force their arbitrary will on people"

Last I checked the courts weren't saying "ALL PEOPLE MUST BE GAY!"

[Slipknot]

If there going to legalize gay marriages then do it for every state... not just particular ones, I hate that because the state that allows gay maariages becomes invaded by homosexual people... atleast if they legalize it everywhere it would be a lot more spread out.

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
for example...? look in almost all of the political threads you've posted in



if you knew the law, you wouldn't have said this "I'm sick and tired of state laws superceeding federal laws."

...your original comment Yes, because I'm sick of "hot shot" judges, I believe I already made that comment.

Ages of consent are a good example of what I'm talking about.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
look in almost all of the political threads you've posted in




Guess you can't come up with example, then.

[Spider-Nerd]

and back on topic.......I'm yet to hear a good answer other than a childish "just because."

[Matt]

Originally posted by Slipknot
If there going to legalize gay marriages then do it for every state... not just particular ones, I hate that because the state that allows gay maariages becomes invaded by homosexual people... atleast if they legalize it everywhere it would be a lot more spread out.

Gays are allowed to get married in Massachusettes and then return to their home state and sue for recognition and there is pretty much not a damn thing their home state can do about it if the license is from Massachusettes...they have to accept it.

[Hooligan32]

Ofcourse gay people should be allowed to be married. Why the hell is this even an issue?

[Spider-Nerd]

Originally posted by Hooligan32
Ofcourse gay people should be allowed to be married. Why the hell is this even an issue? :up:

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Hooligan32
Ofcourse gay people should be allowed to be married. Why the hell is this even an issue? People like to listen to a dated story book.

[Movies205]

Originally posted by Hooligan32
Ofcourse gay people should be allowed to be married. Why the hell is this even an issue?

Because people have trouble opening there minds:o Some people have been told one thing for so long, that it's hard for them to accept the complete opposite, does that answer your question:o

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
Guess you can't come up with example, then. No, that means your lazy and have a horrible memory.

[Matt]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
People like to listen to a dated story book.

Ya know what...I'm a catholic, and I'm still going to take this shot cuz you walked right into it.

The only reason you are opposed to gay marriage is because of the bible...hmm...and you talk of dated story books?

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
No, that means your lazy and have a horrible memory.


No, it just means you said something wrong so you can't back it up.

[Slipknot]

Originally posted by Matt
Gays are allowed to get married in Massachusettes and then return to their home state and sue for recognition and there is pretty much not a damn thing their home state can do about it if the license is from Massachusettes...they have to accept it.
Oh... thats pretty good then, but homosexuals seem to go to the states that legalize gay marriages and stay there more than stay in the states that dont legalize it. I know there is a bunch of homosexual people up in Vermont because they legalized it... but yeah they should just legalize it everywhere.

[Movies205]

Originally posted by Matt
Ya know what...I'm a catholic, and I'm still going to take this shot cuz you walked right into it.

The only reason you are opposed to gay marriage is because of the bible...hmm...and you talk of dated story books?

Bible on some points is quite universal, on others like this it is quite dated:(

[Alf]

Originally posted by Matt
Ya know what...I'm a catholic, and I'm still going to take this shot cuz you walked right into it.

The only reason you are opposed to gay marriage is because of the bible...hmm...and you talk of dated story books? l think (s)he's not against it, but (s)hes saying thats why some people are...

[Matt]

Originally posted by Slipknot
Oh... thats pretty good then, but homosexuals seem to go to the states that legalize gay marriages and stay there more than stay in the states that dont legalize it. I know there is a bunch of homosexual people up in Vermont because they legalized it... but yeah they should just legalize it everywhere.

I agree completely...the federal government is in no position at all to tell people who they can and cannot marry...I don't even know how the supreme court could consider it close to constitutional to do that....That is boarderline totalitarianism.

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Matt
Ya know what...I'm a catholic, and I'm still going to take this shot cuz you walked right into it.

The only reason you are opposed to gay marriage is because of the bible...hmm...and you talk of dated story books? what the hell are you talking about?:confused:

[Hooligan32]

Originally posted by Movies205
Because people have trouble opening there minds:o Some people have been told one thing for so long, that it's hard for them to accept the complete opposite, does that answer your question:o Well I'm sure that those who are reasonable outweigh those who are nit-wits, so why isn't something being done about it. I think it's a crime that people can't be married in your country because of their sexual preferences. You might as well not let them vote either.:(

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
No, it just means you said something wrong so you can't back it up. No, or else I would've said nothing at all.:rolleyes:

[twylight]

Originally posted by Movies205
Bible on some points is quite universal, on others like this it is quite dated:(
Such as Salvation for sinners.:o

[Movies205]

Originally posted by Hooligan32
Well I'm sure that those who are reasonable outweigh those who are nit-wits, so why isn't something being done about it. I think it's a crime that people can't be married in your country because of their sexual preferences. You might as well not let them vote either.:(

Well there were a very small number in the Nazi party in germany, yet WW2 still happened:o Sorry to break this to you but people like to go with the flow, rather go against it:(

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
No, or else I would've said nothing at all.:rolleyes:


yeah, sure... you can back it up and that's why you said it.

and that's why you did back it up, right?

You don't even want to give an example because you're wrong. :o

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
yeah, sure... you can back it up and that's why you said it.

and that's why you did back it up, right?

You don't even want to give an example because you're wrong. :o Yea, that must be why I said what I did.:rolleyes: You know I'm right.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
Yea, that must be why I said what I did.:rolleyes: You know I'm right.


Oh please, the burden of proof is on you since you made the statement.


I can't prove that I didn't say something here short of quoting every single post I've ever made here.


But I understand, it's hard to admit when you're wrong. :(

You just keep telling yourself your right, even with no proof, and maybe you'll convince a few other people.

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
Oh please, the burden of proof is on you since you made the statement.


I can't prove that I didn't say something here short of quoting every single post I've ever made here.


But I understand, it's hard to admit when you're wrong. :(

You just keep telling yourself your right, even with no proof, and maybe you'll convince a few other people. What are you on? I said to check pretty much every political thread you go into. Especially the ones involving just the government, like discussions about how they're conducting things. "
I can't prove that I didn't say something here short of quoting every single post I've ever made here."bingo :rolleyes:

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Matt
I agree completely...the federal government is in no position at all to tell people who they can and cannot marry...I don't even know how the supreme court could consider it close to constitutional to do that....That is boarderline totalitarianism.

http://superherohype.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
What are you on? I said to check pretty much every political thread you go into. Especially the ones involving just the government, like discussions about how they're conducting things. "
I can't prove that I didn't say something here short of quoting every single post I've ever made here."bingo :rolleyes:


Yeah, and I have no problem remembering I never said "I believe in chaos" or anything related to that.

The burden of proof is on you. Guess you don't understand how that works.

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
Yeah, and I have no problem remembering I never said "I believe in chaos" or anything related to that.

The burden of proof is on you. Guess you don't understand how that works. You're in denial, you're ignoring the proof that I did give. The evidence is plentiful, you're the one trying to prove that you didn't say that. That's just not true. :)

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
You're in denial, you're ignoring the proof that I did give. The evidence is plentiful, you're the one trying to prove that you didn't say that. That's just not true. :)


Ok, well I didn't want to bring this up but you've forced me to... you said you were a commie and anti-capitalist in practically every political thread you've posted in.
Don't try to deny that it's true, the evidence is plentiful. :p

[Movies205]

You've turned one potential page of intelligence and debating into childlike gibberish:mad: GOOD JOB!!!:(

[Alf]

Lackey
Emilio's Mom
Lackey
Emilio's Mom
Lackey
Emilio's Mom
back and forth, so annoying:(:o:confused::up:

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
Ok, well I didn't want to bring this up but you've forced me to... you said you were a commie and anti-capitalist in practically every political thread you've posted in.
Don't try to deny that it's true, the evidence is plentiful. :p You know I'm right and that's what's funny. Maybe sometime this week, I'll go through some of your posts. :)

[Lackey]

I'm sorry... I'll go punish myself. :(

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Alf
Lackey
Emilio's Mom
Lackey
Emilio's Mom
Lackey
Emilio's Mom
back and forth, so annoying:(:o:confused::up: I love you.:o

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Movies205
You've turned one potential page of intelligence and debating into childlike gibberish:mad: GOOD JOB!!!:( I AM VICTORIOUS!

[Movies205]

Originally posted by Lackey
I'm sorry... I'll go punish myself. :(

Take Emilio's Mom out back and shoot him in the foot, and chain him to the floor, then shoot both his hands off, and let him bleed to death. Then come back because you're cool:up:

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
You know I'm right and that's what's funny. Maybe sometime this week, I'll go through some of your posts. :)


I'm right too... about you saying your a commie anti-capitalist.

maybe I'll go through some of your posts this week too. :)

[Movies205]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
I AM VICTORIOUS!

You're also a failure at life, but of course you already knew that since you're mom has called you that since the day you were born:o

[Alf]

Originally posted by Movies205
Take Emilio's Mom out back and shoot him in the foot, and chain him to the floor, then shoot both his hands off, and let him bleed to death. Then come back because you're cool:up: l think Emilio's Mom might be female...:o:confused:;)
but who knows?

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
I'm right too... about you saying your a commie anti-capitalist.

maybe I'll go through some of your posts this week too. :) You do that. Heads, I win, Tails, you lose...that's just how it is.:o :)

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Movies205
Take Emilio's Mom out back and shoot him in the foot, and chain him to the floor, then shoot both his hands off, and let him bleed to death. Then come back because you're cool:up: You're not very smart. :)

[Movies205]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
You're not very smart. :)

And you're a failure at life, maybe we can start a club:)

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Movies205
Then have her ass-raped by a big black guy, and then let her bleed to death from that:o DEW, CHECK THIS OUT! :D

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Movies205
And you're a failure at life, maybe we can start a club:) Yes because you obviously know me. You're not even good at insulting people.

[Movies205]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
DEW, CHECK THIS OUT! :D

Eh... That's the best you got...

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Movies205
You're also a failure at life, but of course you already knew that since you're mom has called you that since the day you were born:o "your" Next time you insult me, don't look stupid. :)

[Movies205]

Originally posted by Emilio's Mom
Yes because you obviously know me. You're not even good at insulting people.

And you're not very good at anything:o

[Lackey]

Well anyway...

conservatives and the "religious right" have become increasingly disappointed in Bush because of the health bill, the big spending...catering the left and such.

I think this is just a way for him to appeal to his conservative base again... sort of appease them and get their minds off the missing WMDs and all the other problems.

it's all for the votes, which makes this even worse.

[Movies205]

Isn't it kind of pointless to try and stay in office, if you're not going do anything of any good?

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Lackey
Well anyway...

conservatives and the "religious right" have become increasingly disappointed in Bush because of the health bill, the big spending...catering the left and such.

I think this is just a way for him to appeal to his conservative base again... sort of appease them and get their minds off the missing WMDs and all the other problems.

it's all for the votes, which makes this even worse. Most things are for votes. I don't agree with this, but I understand it.

[The Sperminator]

Originally posted by Movies205
Then have her ass-raped by a big black guy, and then let her bleed to death from that:o

If the rape occured in the vagina it'd be alright. But since the anus was violated then George Bush would be pissed. :o

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by The Sperminator
If the rape occured in the vagina it'd be alright. But since the anus was violated then George Bush would be pissed. :o Yes, but it's ok now. Just like it's ok for Movies to get banned.:)

[Childlike Wild]

I say let homosexuals get married. There's no reason not to do so.

We let men and women marry who have no intention of having children, don't we? There's no definition of marriage (legal definition in the United States, anyway) that states that a requirement of marriage is raising children. So, what is the difference between and man and a woman married without procreating, and a same sex couple doing the same?

And even if same sex couples do have/adopt kids, they could have done so unmarried. Not all states will let gays adopt, but even those that don't honor the parental rights of those who adopted in other states and then move.

To not allow gays to marry is to deny a right without reason or even remotely basic logic.

[Dew k. Mosi]

Not one person opposed gave a decent reason

[Man-Thing]

http://www.nogaymarriage.com/gaymarriagequestions.html

[Hattie79]

Originally posted by The Sperminator
From a Yahoo news article:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist vowed on Thursday that the Senate would block any effort to legalize same-sex marriage, a day after Massachusetts' top court ruled the state must allow homosexuals to wed.


"I want to be very clear. We reject intolerance, we reject hatred. We must treat all our fellow citizens with civility and kindness," Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said in speech on the Senate floor. "But marriage should not be redefined by the courts and we in this body can't let it, we won't let it."


Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which last year struck down a state ban on same-sex marriages, on Wednesday said lawmakers must allow marriage for gay couples because anything less would make them "second-class" citizens.


That apparently closed the door on civil unions -- a parallel form of legal partnership for gays and lesbians -- that some states have tried to use to bridge deep political, religious and social divides over the hotly-contested issue.


"We must protect, preserve and strengthen the institution of marriage against activist judges," Frist said. "If that means we must amend the constitution, as seems increasingly likely, then we will do just that."


Congress in 1996 passed a law, the Defense of Marriage Act, denying federal recognition of same-sex marriages and giving U.S. states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.


But opponents of same-sex marriage are now also pressing for a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is an institution reserved for one man and one woman.


President Bush (news - web sites) has never quite committed himself to supporting such an amendment, but White House officials said he was actively considering throwing his full support behind the idea in light of the Massachusetts decision.


Surveys have shown a majority of U.S. voters oppose same-sex marriage and the issue could feature prominently in November's presidential election.


Sad, gay people cant even impale rectums with the sanctity of marriage. Why dosent the Right just leave these people alone? :confused:


I say let gays marry. What's the big deal? (I didn't read this whole thread.) If they really love each other, they really love each other. Just because they're gay doesn't make them any less of a person nor does it mean they don't have feelings and whatnot. Let them marry and be happy.

:up:

[GLfan]

I voted no, it's not natural for same sex marriages.

[Spider-Storm]

I have nothing against gay people, but it may affect our culture very well

[USMC]

For the people here saying NO... what logical reasoning do you have?

Well?

[Mr.Furious]

give everyone equal rights to marry whoever the hell they want!

[lord vegeta]

this is f^^$^$ up, if two people love each other whats the problem,this is so stupid its not funny

[Dorian Gray]

If they want to get married its fine by me.

[The Sperminator]

Republicans are so hypocritical on this issue. I just saw a sex tape of George Jr. sodomizing the hell of Dick Cheney while Ann Coulter sat in a corner masturbating. :o

[Phoney Bone]

I'm fine with same sex marraiges. It's not me, and I don't know why I should be in other people's business about who they like or marry. Whatever floats their boat.

[USMC]

No one can give a good reason, and the one's that try just sound like idiots.

[Man-Thing]

Questions and Answers:
What’s Wrong with Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”

Peter Sprigg

What’s wrong with letting same-sex couples legally “marry?”

There are two key reasons why the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities of civil marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples.

The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist—namely, the union of a man and a woman.

The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive.

Either argument, standing alone, is sufficient to reject the claim that same-sex unions should be granted the legal status of marriage.

Let’s look at the first argument. Isn’t marriage whatever the law says it is?

No. Marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.

But isn’t marriage just a way of recognizing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together?

If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny “marriage” to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.

All right—but if you add a sexual relationship to love and companionship, isn’t that what most people would consider “marriage?”

It’s getting closer but is still not sufficient to define marriage.

In a ruling handed down June 26, 2003, the U. S. Supreme Court declared in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws (and any other laws restricting private sexual conduct between consenting adults) to be unconstitutional. Some observers have suggested that this decision paves the way for same-sex “marriage.” But in an ironic way, the Court’s rulings that sex need not be (legally) confined to marriage undermine any argument that sex alone is a defining characteristic of marriage. Something more must be required.

So—what IS marriage, then?

Anthropologist Kingsley Davis has said, “The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval … of a couple’s engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children.”

Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says that “marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce.”

Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville says, “Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life.”

Another Canadian scholar, Paul Nathanson (who is himself a homosexual), has said, “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.” [emphasis in original]

Are you saying that married couples who don’t have children (whether by choice, or because of infertility or age) aren’t really “married?” If we deny marriage to same-sex couples because they can’t reproduce, why not deny it to those couples, too?

A couple that doesn’t want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment may deter an elderly man from conceiving children outside of marriage with a younger woman. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases.

It must be admitted that society’s interest in marriages that do not produce children is less than its interest in marriages that result in the reproduction of the species. However, we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a heterosexual couple’s privacy to require that they prove their intent or ability to bear children.

There is no reason, though, to extend “marriage” to same-sex couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is incapable—ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age, health, or intent—of producing babies naturally. In fact, they are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual act that results in natural reproduction. And it takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries to determine that.

Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your “best friend?” No—which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of marriage.

Indeed, the facts that a child cannot reproduce, that close relatives cannot reproduce safely, and that it only takes one man and one woman to reproduce, are among the reasons why people are barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married. Concerns about reproduction are central to those restrictions on one’s choice of marriage partner—just as they are central to the restriction against “marrying” a person of the same sex.

But people can also reproduce without getting married. So what is the purpose of marriage?

The mere biological conception and birth of children are not sufficient to ensure the reproduction of a healthy and successful society. Paul Nathanson, the homosexual scholar cited above, says that there are at least five functions that marriage serves—things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:

Foster the bonding between men and women
Foster the birth and rearing of children
Foster the bonding between men and children
Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
Maggie Gallagher puts it more simply, saying that “children need mothers and fathers” and “marriage is the most practical way to get them for children.”

But why should homosexuals be denied the right to marry like anyone else?

Homosexuals already have exactly the same “right” to marry as anyone else. Marriage license applications do not inquire as to a person’s “sexual orientation.”

However, the freedom of homosexuals to marry is subject to the same restrictions as anyone else, as well. No one is free to marry simply any willing partner. Every person is legally barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex.

The fact that a tiny but vocal minority of Americans desire to have homosexual “marriages” does not mean that they have a “right” to them, any more than the desires of other tiny (but less vocal) minorities of Americans gives them a “right” to pedophilic “marriages,” incestuous “marriages,” or polygamous “marriages.”

Isn’t prohibiting homosexual “marriage” just as discriminatory as prohibiting interracial marriage, like some states used to do?

This analogy is not valid at all. The purpose of laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation) was to protect the social system of racial segregation, not to protect the nature of marriage. Preserving “racial purity” was an unworthy goal, and certainly not one of the fundamental purposes of marriage common to all human civilizations. Uniting men and women, on the other hand, is both a worthy goal and one fundamental to the nature of marriage.

Hasn’t the nature of marriage already changed dramatically in the last few generations? In defending “traditional marriage,” aren’t you defending something that no longer exists?

It’s true that American society’s concept of marriage has changed, especially over the last fifty years. But not all change is positive, and our experiences in that regard may be instructive. Consider some of the recent changes to the institution of marriage—and their consequences:

· The divorce revolution has undermined the concept that marriage is a life-long commitment. As a result, there’s been an epidemic of broken homes and broken families, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The sexual revolution has undermined the concept that sexual relations should be confined to marriage. As a result, there’s been an epidemic of cohabitation, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and broken hearts, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The concept that childbearing should be confined to marriage has been undermined. As a result, there’s been an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, single parenthood, and fatherless children, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The pornography revolution, particularly with the advent of the Internet, has undermined the concept that a man’s sexual desires should be directed toward his wife. As a result, there’s been an epidemic of broken relationships, abused wives, and sex crimes, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

And now there is social and political pressure to redefine what constitutes marriage itself. What grounds does anyone have for thinking that the consequences of that radical social revolution, unprecedented in human history, would be any more positive than the consequences of the much less sweeping changes already described?

Why does “defending marriage” and “defending the family” require opposing same-sex unions? How does a homosexual union do any harm to someone else’s heterosexual marriage?

It may come as a surprise to many people, but homosexual unions often have a more direct impact on heterosexual marriages than you would think. For example, the Boston Globe reported June 29, 2003, that “nearly 40 percent” of the 5,700 homosexual couples who have entered into “civil unions” in Vermont “have had a previous heterosexual marriage.”

Of course, it could be argued that many of those marriages may have ended long before a spouse found their current homosexual partner. And some may assume that no opposite-sex spouse would want to remain married to someone with same-sex attractions. Nevertheless, the popular myth that a homosexual orientation is fixed at birth and unchangeable may have blinded us to the fact that many supposed “homosexuals” have, in fact, had perfectly functional heterosexual marriages. And as Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby points out, “In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable.”

[Man-Thing]

But isn’t the number of homosexuals too small for same-sex unions to have much impact on other people’s marriages?

It’s probably true that the percentage of marriages that fail because of the desire of one spouse to pursue a homosexual relationship will always be fairly small.

The most significant impact of legally recognizing same-sex unions would be more indirect. Expanding the definition of what “marriage” is to include relationships of a homosexual nature would inevitably, in the long run, change people’s concept of what marriage is, what it requires, and what one should expect from it. These changes in the popular understanding of marriage would, in turn, change people’s behavior both before and during marriage.

How would allowing same-sex couples to marry change society’s concept of marriage?

For one thing, it would reinforce many of the negative changes described above. As an example, marriage will open wide the door to homosexual adoption, which will simply lead to more children suffering the negative consequences of growing up without both a mother and a father.

Among homosexual men in particular, casual sex, rather than committed relationships, is the rule and not the exception. And even when they do enter into a more committed relationship, it is usually of relatively short duration. For example, a study of homosexual men in the Netherlands (the first country in the world to legalize “marriage” for same-sex couples), published in the journal AIDS in 2003, found that the average length of “steady partnerships” was not more than 2 ¼ years.

In addition, studies have shown that even homosexual men who are in “committed” relationships are not sexually faithful to each other. While infidelity among heterosexuals is much too common, it does not begin to compare to the rates among homosexual men. The 1994 National Health and Social Life Survey, which remains the most comprehensive study of Americans’ sexual practices ever undertaken, found that 75 percent of married men and 90 percent of married women had been sexually faithful to their spouse. On the other hand, a major study of homosexual men in “committed” relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent. The Dutch study cited above found that even homosexual men in “steady partnerships” had an average of eight “casual” sex partners per year.

So to the other pillars of marriage that have already fallen, the idea that marriage should be a sexually exclusive and faithful relationship would undoubtedly be added—with, again, overwhelmingly negative consequences for Americans’ physical and mental health.

If you want people to be faithful and monogamous, shouldn’t you grant same-sex couples the right to marry in order to encourage that?

Some have argued that marriage will change the behavior of homosexuals, but it is far more plausible that the behavior of homosexuals will change people’s idea of marriage, further undermining the concepts that marriage is a lifelong commitment and that sex should be confined to marriage.

The entire “gay liberation” movement has been but a part of the larger sexual liberation movement whose fundamental tenet is that anybody should be able to have sex with anybody they want any time they want. To suggest that the crowning achievement of that pro-homosexual movement—obtaining society’s ultimate stamp of approval through civil marriage—is suddenly going to result in these “liberated” homosexuals settling down into faithful, monogamous, childrearing is foolishly naïve.

Don’t homosexuals need marriage rights so that they will be able to visit their partners in the hospital?

The idea that homosexuals are routinely denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital is nonsense. When this issue was raised during debate over the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, the Family Research Council did an informal survey of nine hospitals in four states and the District of Columbia. None of the administrators surveyed could recall a single case in which a visitor was barred because of their homosexuality, and they were incredulous that this would even be considered an issue.

Except when a doctor limits visitation for medical reasons, final authority over who may visit an adult patient rests with that patient. This is and should be the case regardless of the sexual orientation or marital status of the patient or the visitor.

The only situation in which there would be a possibility that the blood relatives of a patient might attempt to exclude the patient’s homosexual partner is if the patient is unable to express his or her wishes due to unconsciousness or mental incapacity. Homosexual partners concerned about this (remote) possibility can effectively preclude it by granting to one another a health care proxy (the legal right to make medical decisions for the patient) and a power of attorney (the right to make all legal decisions for another person). Marriage is not necessary for this. It is inconceivable that a hospital would exclude someone who holds the health care proxy and power of attorney for a patient from visiting that patient, except for medical reasons.

The hypothetical “hospital visitation hardship” is nothing but an emotional smokescreen to distract people from the more serious implications of radically redefining marriage.

Don’t homosexuals need the right to marry each other in order to ensure that they will be able to leave their estates to their partner when they die?

As with the hospital visitation issue, the concern over inheritance rights is something that simply does not require marriage to resolve it. Nothing in current law prevents homosexual partners from being joint owners of property such as a home or a car, in which case the survivor would automatically become the owner if the partner dies.

An individual may leave the remainder of his estate to whomever he wishes—again, without regard to sexual orientation or marital status—simply by writing a will. As with the hospital visitation issue, blood relatives would only be able to overrule the surviving homosexual partner in the event that the deceased had failed to record his wishes in a common, inexpensive legal document. Changing the definition of a fundamental social institution like marriage is a rather extreme way of addressing this issue. Preparing a will is a much simpler solution.

Don’t homosexuals need marriage rights so that they can get Social Security survivor benefits when a partner dies?

The Social Security system originally provided a pension benefit to workers based on their actual earnings during their career. In 1939, Congress added a “survivor” benefit, which provided payments to the widow and/or children of a worker or retired worker who had died, even if the survivor(s) had not had any employment earnings of their own.

It is ironic that activists are now seeking Social Security survivor benefits for homosexual partners, in light of the fact that Congress had originally intended them as a way of supporting a very traditional family structure—one in which the husband worked to provide the family’s cash income while the wife stayed home to keep house and raise the children. Social Security survivor benefits were designed to recognize the non-monetary contribution made to a family by the homemaking and child-rearing activities of a wife and mother, and to ensure that a woman and her children would not become destitute if the husband and father were to die.

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1970s that such benefits must be gender-neutral. However, they still are largely based on the premise of a division of roles within a couple between a breadwinner who works to raise money and a homemaker who stays home to raise children.

Apart from the fundamental reason that homosexual relationships do not benefit society in the way that heterosexual marriages do, there are several other reasons why these specific benefits should not be granted to homosexual couples. One is that very few homosexual couples organize their lives along the lines of such a “traditional” division of labor and roles. Indeed, since the entire pro-homosexual movement is the fruit of a sexual revolution and a gender roles revolution premised on attacking such traditional family forms, few if any homosexual couples are likely to even desire a division of labor like that envisioned under Social Security. They are far more likely to consist of two earners, each of whom can be supported in old age by their own personal Social Security pension.

Furthermore, far fewer homosexual couples than heterosexual ones are raising children at all, for the obvious reason that they are incapable of natural reproduction with each other. This, too, reduces the likelihood of a traditional division of labor among them. Some homosexuals do raise children—either their own biological offspring (conceived in previous heterosexual relationships or through artificial reproductive technologies), or children adopted by them, where such adoptions are legal. But this is a practice that places children at risk of developmental problems and exposure to an unstable home environment, and it should therefore not be encouraged through government subsidies.

Survivor benefits for the legal (biological or adopted) children of homosexual parents (as opposed to their partners) are already available under current law, so “marriage” rights for homosexual couples are unnecessary to protect the interests of these children themselves.

Haven’t scholars discovered that some cultures have recognized same-sex unions?

A few pro-homosexual writers, such as William N. Eskridge, Jr. (author of a 1996 book called The Case for Same-Sex Marriage), have asserted this. They support this claim by citing evidence, mostly from obscure, primitive tribes, suggesting some tolerance of gender non-conformity or even homosexual relationships (particularly between men and boys). But the important point is that in none of these cultures was such behavior seen as the moral and social equivalent of lifelong heterosexual marriage.

Even if “marriage” itself is uniquely heterosexual, doesn’t fairness require that the legal and financial benefits of marriage be granted to same-sex couples—perhaps through “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships?”

No. The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all (if they were, single people would have as much reason to consider them “discriminatory” as same-sex couples). Society grants benefits to marriage because marriage has benefits for society—including, but not limited to, the reproduction of the species in households with the optimal household structure (i.e., the presence of both a mother and a father).

Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, have no comparable benefit for society, and in fact impose substantial costs on society. The fact that AIDS is at least ten times more common among men who have sex with men than among the general population is but one example.

Do most same-sex couples even want to assume the responsibilities of marriage?

There is considerable reason to doubt that they do. A front-page article in The New York Times (August 31, 2003) reported that in the first 2 ½ months after Ontario’s highest court legalized “marriage” for same-sex couples, fewer than 500 same-sex Canadian couples had taken out marriage licenses in Toronto, even though the city has over 6,000 such couples registered as permanent partners.

The Times reported that “skepticism about marriage is a recurring refrain among Canadian gay couples,” noting that “many gays express the fear that it will undermine their notions of who they are. They say they want to maintain the unique aspects of their culture and their place at the edge of social change.” Mitchel Raphael, he editor of a Toronto “gay” magazine said, “I’d be for marriage is I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever.” And Rinaldo Walcott, a sociologist at the University of Tornoto, lamented, “Will queers now have to live with the heterosexual forms of guilt associated with something called cheating?”

It appears that many homosexuals want the right to “marry” only because marriage constitutes society’s ultimate stamp of approval on a sexual relationship—not because they actually want to participate in the institution of marriage as it has historically been understood.

What about the argument that homosexual relations are harmful? What do you mean by that?

Homosexual behavior is directly associated with higher rates of promiscuity, physical disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence. There is no reason to reward such behavior by granting it society’s ultimate affirmation—the status of civil marriage—or any of its benefits.

For more information on the harmful consequences of homosexual behavior, see the following publications by FRC’s Senior Fellow for Marriage and Family Studies, Dr. Timothy J. Dailey:

Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2003).

“Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” Insight (Washington: Family Research Council, 2002)

“The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality,” Insight (Washington: Family Research Council, 2001)

“Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk,” Insight (Washington: Family Research Council, 2001)Ã

Peter Sprigg is senior director of the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council.

[USMC]

Originally posted by Man-Thing
Questions and Answers:
What’s Wrong with Letting Same-Sex Couples “Marry?”

Peter Sprigg

What’s wrong with letting same-sex couples legally “marry?”

There are two key reasons why the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities of civil marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples.

The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist—namely, the union of a man and a woman.

The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive.

Either argument, standing alone, is sufficient to reject the claim that same-sex unions should be granted the legal status of marriage.

Let’s look at the first argument. Isn’t marriage whatever the law says it is?

No. Marriage is not a creation of the law. Marriage is a fundamental human institution that predates the law and the Constitution. At its heart, it is an anthropological and sociological reality, not a legal one. Laws relating to marriage merely recognize and regulate an institution that already exists.

But isn’t marriage just a way of recognizing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together?

If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny “marriage” to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.

All right—but if you add a sexual relationship to love and companionship, isn’t that what most people would consider “marriage?”

It’s getting closer but is still not sufficient to define marriage.

In a ruling handed down June 26, 2003, the U. S. Supreme Court declared in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws (and any other laws restricting private sexual conduct between consenting adults) to be unconstitutional. Some observers have suggested that this decision paves the way for same-sex “marriage.” But in an ironic way, the Court’s rulings that sex need not be (legally) confined to marriage undermine any argument that sex alone is a defining characteristic of marriage. Something more must be required.

So—what IS marriage, then?

Anthropologist Kingsley Davis has said, “The unique trait of what is commonly called marriage is social recognition and approval … of a couple’s engaging in sexual intercourse and bearing and rearing children.”

Marriage scholar Maggie Gallagher says that “marriage across societies is a public sexual union that creates kinship obligations and sharing of resources between men, women, and the children their sexual union may produce.”

Canadian scholar Margaret A. Somerville says, “Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation and nurture and protect that life.”

Another Canadian scholar, Paul Nathanson (who is himself a homosexual), has said, “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival, … every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively . … Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.” [emphasis in original]

Are you saying that married couples who don’t have children (whether by choice, or because of infertility or age) aren’t really “married?” If we deny marriage to same-sex couples because they can’t reproduce, why not deny it to those couples, too?

A couple that doesn’t want children when they marry might change their minds. Birth control might fail for a couple that uses it. A couple that appears to be infertile may get a surprise and conceive a child. The marital commitment may deter an elderly man from conceiving children outside of marriage with a younger woman. Even a very elderly couple is of the structural type (i.e., a man and a woman) that could theoretically produce children (or could have in the past). And the sexual union of all such couples is of the same type as that which reproduces the human race, even if it does not have that effect in particular cases.

It must be admitted that society’s interest in marriages that do not produce children is less than its interest in marriages that result in the reproduction of the species. However, we still recognize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a heterosexual couple’s privacy to require that they prove their intent or ability to bear children.

There is no reason, though, to extend “marriage” to same-sex couples, which are of a structural type (two men or two women) that is incapable—ever, under any circumstances, regardless of age, health, or intent—of producing babies naturally. In fact, they are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual act that results in natural reproduction. And it takes no invasion of privacy or drawing of arbitrary upper age boundaries to determine that.

Another way to view the relationship of marriage to reproduction is to turn the question around. Instead of asking whether actual reproduction is essential to marriage, ask this: If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it? Would we even tolerate the government intervening in such an intimate relationship, any more than if government defined the terms of who may be your “best friend?” No—which reinforces the conclusion that reproduction is a central (even if not obligatory) part of the social significance of marriage.

Indeed, the facts that a child cannot reproduce, that close relatives cannot reproduce safely, and that it only takes one man and one woman to reproduce, are among the reasons why people are barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married. Concerns about reproduction are central to those restrictions on one’s choice of marriage partner—just as they are central to the restriction against “marrying” a person of the same sex.

But people can also reproduce without getting married. So what is the purpose of marriage?

The mere biological conception and birth of children are not sufficient to ensure the reproduction of a healthy and successful society. Paul Nathanson, the homosexual scholar cited above, says that there are at least five functions that marriage serves—things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:

Foster the bonding between men and women
Foster the birth and rearing of children
Foster the bonding between men and children
Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
Maggie Gallagher puts it more simply, saying that “children need mothers and fathers” and “marriage is the most practical way to get them for children.”

But why should homosexuals be denied the right to marry like anyone else?

Homosexuals already have exactly the same “right” to marry as anyone else. Marriage license applications do not inquire as to a person’s “sexual orientation.”

However, the freedom of homosexuals to marry is subject to the same restrictions as anyone else, as well. No one is free to marry simply any willing partner. Every person is legally barred from marrying a child, a close blood relative, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex.

The fact that a tiny but vocal minority of Americans desire to have homosexual “marriages” does not mean that they have a “right” to them, any more than the desires of other tiny (but less vocal) minorities of Americans gives them a “right” to pedophilic “marriages,” incestuous “marriages,” or polygamous “marriages.”

Isn’t prohibiting homosexual “marriage” just as discriminatory as prohibiting interracial marriage, like some states used to do?

This analogy is not valid at all. The purpose of laws against interracial marriage (miscegenation) was to protect the social system of racial segregation, not to protect the nature of marriage. Preserving “racial purity” was an unworthy goal, and certainly not one of the fundamental purposes of marriage common to all human civilizations. Uniting men and women, on the other hand, is both a worthy goal and one fundamental to the nature of marriage.

Hasn’t the nature of marriage already changed dramatically in the last few generations? In defending “traditional marriage,” aren’t you defending something that no longer exists?

It’s true that American society’s concept of marriage has changed, especially over the last fifty years. But not all change is positive, and our experiences in that regard may be instructive. Consider some of the recent changes to the institution of marriage—and their consequences:

· The divorce revolution has undermined the concept that marriage is a life-long commitment. As a result, there’s been an epidemic of broken homes and broken families, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The sexual revolution has undermined the concept that sexual relations should be confined to marriage. As a result, there’s been an epidemic of cohabitation, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and broken hearts, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The concept that childbearing should be confined to marriage has been undermined. As a result, there’s been an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, single parenthood, and fatherless children, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

· The pornography revolution, particularly with the advent of the Internet, has undermined the concept that a man’s sexual desires should be directed toward his wife. As a result, there’s been an epidemic of broken relationships, abused wives, and sex crimes, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

And now there is social and political pressure to redefine what constitutes marriage itself. What grounds does anyone have for thinking that the consequences of that radical social revolution, unprecedented in human history, would be any more positive than the consequences of the much less sweeping changes already described?

Why does “defending marriage” and “defending the family” require opposing same-sex unions? How does a homosexual union do any harm to someone else’s heterosexual marriage?

It may come as a surprise to many people, but homosexual unions often have a more direct impact on heterosexual marriages than you would think. For example, the Boston Globe reported June 29, 2003, that “nearly 40 percent” of the 5,700 homosexual couples who have entered into “civil unions” in Vermont “have had a previous heterosexual marriage.”

Of course, it could be argued that many of those marriages may have ended long before a spouse found their current homosexual partner. And some may assume that no opposite-sex spouse would want to remain married to someone with same-sex attractions. Nevertheless, the popular myth that a homosexual orientation is fixed at birth and unchangeable may have blinded us to the fact that many supposed “homosexuals” have, in fact, had perfectly functional heterosexual marriages. And as Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby points out, “In another time or another state, some of those marriages might have worked out. The old stigmas, the universal standards that were so important to family stability, might have given them a fighting chance. Without them, they were left exposed and vulnerable.”


That was BEAUTIFUL, Man-Thing! :)

And for more right-wing Christian loving conservatism, go to this website for which this article came from: :D :up:

http://209.157.64.200/

"Welcome to Free Republic!

Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah! "

Now that we all know your opinion is biased, why don't you run along?;)

[Alf]

aren't all opinions biased?

[USMC]

Originally posted by Alf
aren't all opinions biased?

Opinions, yes. Facts? No.

[Man-Thing]

Originally posted by USMC
That was BEAUTIFUL, Man-Thing! :)

And for more right-wing Christian loving conservatism, go to this website for which this article came from: :D :up:

http://209.157.64.200/

"Welcome to Free Republic!

Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah! "

Now that we all know your opinion is biased, why don't you run along?;) so what if my opinion is biased?:confused: I presented MY OPINION, that's what this board is for. I agree with the article. Did you read it?

[Alf]

Originally posted by USMC
Opinions, yes. Facts? No. ok...:)

[USMC]

Yes, I read the whole thing. I just mean to say that people like Sprigg's, Limbaugh, Bush, Coulter, Franken, Michael Moore, etc... their "facts" don't hold much water to me because they have construed factual and fictional elements together to make their own truth. Conservatives, such as the one presented here, do it. Liberals, such as Al Franken and Michael Moore, do it, too.

I'm not going to base my beliefs off of their propaganda, and I feel those that do are fools.

[Alf]

Originally posted by Bloody Mary
quit *****ing, none of you will ever be right :up::)

[Man-Thing]

Originally posted by Bloody Mary
quit *****ing, none of you will ever be right except me.:)

[SLYspyda]

all i have to say is man and woman, the way it was, the way it is, the way it will always be.

man and man? LOL, what a joke

woman, and woman? wtf, lol, you better get yourself a penis in there somewhere

[The Exalted]

Im just gonna back out and avoid this one...Everyone knows what The

Exalted thinks, no need to state it more...

[Alf]

l don't...and now l'm curious...

[Emilio's Mom]

aw, we should all sit around and listen to Jonny McGovern - Soccer Practice or Full Frontal - You Think You're A Man.:)

[Lackey]

Originally posted by USMC
That was BEAUTIFUL, Man-Thing! :)

And for more right-wing Christian loving conservatism, go to this website for which this article came from: :D :up:

http://209.157.64.200/

"Welcome to Free Republic!

Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah! "

Now that we all know your opinion is biased, why don't you run along?;)


You were begging for someone who chose NO to state their reasons, and now that someone has, you just shrug it off as "biased opinion" instead of addressing their points.

If that's all you're going to do, then why even ask for someone with an opposing view point to state their reasons?

You probably wouldn't like your biased opinion pushed aside the way you just did to Man-Thing...and, afterall, you were the one asking for it.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by Alf
l don't...and now l'm curious...


Exalted would probably agree with Man-Thing.

[Alf]

l see...:)

[RadOne11]

No, it is not morally right. I'm not saying the government should get all arbitrary since I dislike the government getting involved in daily life. There hasn't been jail time or formal punishment procedures so quit saying this is arbitrary. These people will do what they want anyway and are afforded the oppurtunity to. It seems many people only value what's appropriate based on what can effect one's own daily life.

[The Sperminator]

Originally posted by USMC
Yes, I read the whole thing. I just mean to say that people like Sprigg's, Limbaugh, Bush, Coulter, Franken, Michael Moore, etc... their "facts" don't hold much water to me because they have construed factual and fictional elements together to make their own truth. Conservatives, such as the one presented here, do it. Liberals, such as Al Franken and Michael Moore, do it, too.

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

[TheSumOfGod]

Originally posted by MarvelMovies
So, I guess lesbians can't marry either.. Officially that is..

No, but a straight guy can marry a lesbian, though.

[VON DOOM]

NO

[Hooligan32]

Originally posted by TheSumOfGod
No, but a straight guy can marry a lesbian, though. Or a gay guy could marry a lesbian.;)

[Hudson]

Originally posted by Hooligan32
Or a gay guy could marry a lesbian.;) why would a gay guy marry a lesbian.. maybe because the lesbian is manly enugh to be considered a man and the gay guy is woman enough to be considered female?:confused:

[Spider-Will]

Yes

[USMC]

Originally posted by Lackey
You were begging for someone who chose NO to state their reasons, and now that someone has, you just shrug it off as "biased opinion" instead of addressing their points.

If that's all you're going to do, then why even ask for someone with an opposing view point to state their reasons?

You probably wouldn't like your biased opinion pushed aside the way you just did to Man-Thing...and, afterall, you were the one asking for it.

No. I asked for their reasoning, not a cut-and paste and then say "Yeah, that sounds good, I'm gonna just follow their reasoning, it's much easier than forming my own opinion."

[Dew k. Mosi]

Yeah USMC has a point there. If I had thought that he was stating his own opinion rather than recycling christain neo-nazi doggrel, I may have read his entire post

[SLYspyda]

Originally posted by Man-Thing
But isn’t the number of homosexuals too small for same-sex unions to have much impact on other people’s marriages?

It’s probably true that the percentage of marriages that fail because of the desire of one spouse to pursue a homosexual relationship will always be fairly small.

The most significant impact of legally recognizing same-sex unions would be more indirect. Expanding the definition of what “marriage” is to include relationships of a homosexual nature would inevitably, in the long run, change people’s concept of what marriage is, what it requires, and what one should expect from it. These changes in the popular understanding of marriage would, in turn, change people’s behavior both before and during marriage.

How would allowing same-sex couples to marry change society’s concept of marriage?

For one thing, it would reinforce many of the negative changes described above. As an example, marriage will open wide the door to homosexual adoption, which will simply lead to more children suffering the negative consequences of growing up without both a mother and a father.

Among homosexual men in particular, casual sex, rather than committed relationships, is the rule and not the exception. And even when they do enter into a more committed relationship, it is usually of relatively short duration. For example, a study of homosexual men in the Netherlands (the first country in the world to legalize “marriage” for same-sex couples), published in the journal AIDS in 2003, found that the average length of “steady partnerships” was not more than 2 ¼ years.

In addition, studies have shown that even homosexual men who are in “committed” relationships are not sexually faithful to each other. While infidelity among heterosexuals is much too common, it does not begin to compare to the rates among homosexual men. The 1994 National Health and Social Life Survey, which remains the most comprehensive study of Americans’ sexual practices ever undertaken, found that 75 percent of married men and 90 percent of married women had been sexually faithful to their spouse. On the other hand, a major study of homosexual men in “committed” relationships found that only seven out of 156 had been sexually faithful, or 4.5 percent. The Dutch study cited above found that even homosexual men in “steady partnerships” had an average of eight “casual” sex partners per year.

So to the other pillars of marriage that have already fallen, the idea that marriage should be a sexually exclusive and faithful relationship would undoubtedly be added—with, again, overwhelmingly negative consequences for Americans’ physical and mental health.

If you want people to be faithful and monogamous, shouldn’t you grant same-sex couples the right to marry in order to encourage that?

Some have argued that marriage will change the behavior of homosexuals, but it is far more plausible that the behavior of homosexuals will change people’s idea of marriage, further undermining the concepts that marriage is a lifelong commitment and that sex should be confined to marriage.

The entire “gay liberation” movement has been but a part of the larger sexual liberation movement whose fundamental tenet is that anybody should be able to have sex with anybody they want any time they want. To suggest that the crowning achievement of that pro-homosexual movement—obtaining society’s ultimate stamp of approval through civil marriage—is suddenly going to result in these “liberated” homosexuals settling down into faithful, monogamous, childrearing is foolishly naïve.

Don’t homosexuals need marriage rights so that they will be able to visit their partners in the hospital?

The idea that homosexuals are routinely denied the right to visit their partners in the hospital is nonsense. When this issue was raised during debate over the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, the Family Research Council did an informal survey of nine hospitals in four states and the District of Columbia. None of the administrators surveyed could recall a single case in which a visitor was barred because of their homosexuality, and they were incredulous that this would even be considered an issue.

Except when a doctor limits visitation for medical reasons, final authority over who may visit an adult patient rests with that patient. This is and should be the case regardless of the sexual orientation or marital status of the patient or the visitor.

The only situation in which there would be a possibility that the blood relatives of a patient might attempt to exclude the patient’s homosexual partner is if the patient is unable to express his or her wishes due to unconsciousness or mental incapacity. Homosexual partners concerned about this (remote) possibility can effectively preclude it by granting to one another a health care proxy (the legal right to make medical decisions for the patient) and a power of attorney (the right to make all legal decisions for another person). Marriage is not necessary for this. It is inconceivable that a hospital would exclude someone who holds the health care proxy and power of attorney for a patient from visiting that patient, except for medical reasons.

The hypothetical “hospital visitation hardship” is nothing but an emotional smokescreen to distract people from the more serious implications of radically redefining marriage.

Don’t homosexuals need the right to marry each other in order to ensure that they will be able to leave their estates to their partner when they die?

As with the hospital visitation issue, the concern over inheritance rights is something that simply does not require marriage to resolve it. Nothing in current law prevents homosexual partners from being joint owners of property such as a home or a car, in which case the survivor would automatically become the owner if the partner dies.

An individual may leave the remainder of his estate to whomever he wishes—again, without regard to sexual orientation or marital status—simply by writing a will. As with the hospital visitation issue, blood relatives would only be able to overrule the surviving homosexual partner in the event that the deceased had failed to record his wishes in a common, inexpensive legal document. Changing the definition of a fundamental social institution like marriage is a rather extreme way of addressing this issue. Preparing a will is a much simpler solution.

Don’t homosexuals need marriage rights so that they can get Social Security survivor benefits when a partner dies?

The Social Security system originally provided a pension benefit to workers based on their actual earnings during their career. In 1939, Congress added a “survivor” benefit, which provided payments to the widow and/or children of a worker or retired worker who had died, even if the survivor(s) had not had any employment earnings of their own.

It is ironic that activists are now seeking Social Security survivor benefits for homosexual partners, in light of the fact that Congress had originally intended them as a way of supporting a very traditional family structure—one in which the husband worked to provide the family’s cash income while the wife stayed home to keep house and raise the children. Social Security survivor benefits were designed to recognize the non-monetary contribution made to a family by the homemaking and child-rearing activities of a wife and mother, and to ensure that a woman and her children would not become destitute if the husband and father were to die.

The Supreme Court ruled in the 1970s that such benefits must be gender-neutral. However, they still are largely based on the premise of a division of roles within a couple between a breadwinner who works to raise money and a homemaker who stays home to raise children.

Apart from the fundamental reason that homosexual relationships do not benefit society in the way that heterosexual marriages do, there are several other reasons why these specific benefits should not be granted to homosexual couples. One is that very few homosexual couples organize their lives along the lines of such a “traditional” division of labor and roles. Indeed, since the entire pro-homosexual movement is the fruit of a sexual revolution and a gender roles revolution premised on attacking such traditional family forms, few if any homosexual couples are likely to even desire a division of labor like that envisioned under Social Security. They are far more likely to consist of two earners, each of whom can be supported in old age by their own personal Social Security pension.

Furthermore, far fewer homosexual couples than heterosexual ones are raising children at all, for the obvious reason that they are incapable of natural reproduction with each other. This, too, reduces the likelihood of a traditional division of labor among them. Some homosexuals do raise children—either their own biological offspring (conceived in previous heterosexual relationships or through artificial reproductive technologies), or children adopted by them, where such adoptions are legal. But this is a practice that places children at risk of developmental problems and exposure to an unstable home environment, and it should therefore not be encouraged through government subsidies.

Survivor benefits for the legal (biological or adopted) children of homosexual parents (as opposed to their partners) are already available under current law, so “marriage” rights for homosexual couples are unnecessary to protect the interests of these children themselves.

Haven’t scholars discovered that some cultures have recognized same-sex unions?

A few pro-homosexual writers, such as William N. Eskridge, Jr. (author of a 1996 book called The Case for Same-Sex Marriage), have asserted this. They support this claim by citing evidence, mostly from obscure, primitive tribes, suggesting some tolerance of gender non-conformity or even homosexual relationships (particularly between men and boys). But the important point is that in none of these cultures was such behavior seen as the moral and social equivalent of lifelong heterosexual marriage.

Even if “marriage” itself is uniquely heterosexual, doesn’t fairness require that the legal and financial benefits of marriage be granted to same-sex couples—perhaps through “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships?”

No. The legal and financial benefits of marriage are not an entitlement to be distributed equally to all (if they were, single people would have as much reason to consider them “discriminatory” as same-sex couples). Society grants benefits to marriage because marriage has benefits for society—including, but not limited to, the reproduction of the species in households with the optimal household structure (i.e., the presence of both a mother and a father).

Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, have no comparable benefit for society, and in fact impose substantial costs on society. The fact that AIDS is at least ten times more common among men who have sex with men than among the general population is but one example.

Do most same-sex couples even want to assume the responsibilities of marriage?

There is considerable reason to doubt that they do. A front-page article in The New York Times (August 31, 2003) reported that in the first 2 ½ months after Ontario’s highest court legalized “marriage” for same-sex couples, fewer than 500 same-sex Canadian couples had taken out marriage licenses in Toronto, even though the city has over 6,000 such couples registered as permanent partners.

The Times reported that “skepticism about marriage is a recurring refrain among Canadian gay couples,” noting that “many gays express the fear that it will undermine their notions of who they are. They say they want to maintain the unique aspects of their culture and their place at the edge of social change.” Mitchel Raphael, he editor of a Toronto “gay” magazine said, “I’d be for marriage is I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever.” And Rinaldo Walcott, a sociologist at the University of Tornoto, lamented, “Will queers now have to live with the heterosexual forms of guilt associated with something called cheating?”

It appears that many homosexuals want the right to “marry” only because marriage constitutes society’s ultimate stamp of approval on a sexual relationship—not because they actually want to participate in the institution of marriage as it has historically been understood.

What about the argument that homosexual relations are harmful? What do you mean by that?

Homosexual behavior is directly associated with higher rates of promiscuity, physical disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse, and domestic violence. There is no reason to reward such behavior by granting it society’s ultimate affirmation—the status of civil marriage—or any of its benefits.

For more information on the harmful consequences of homosexual behavior, see the following publications by FRC’s Senior Fellow for Marriage and Family Studies, Dr. Timothy J. Dailey:

Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2003).

“Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse,” Insight (Washington: Family Research Council, 2002)

“The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality,” Insight (Washington: Family Research Council, 2001)

“Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk,” Insight (Washington: Family Research Council, 2001)Ã

Peter Sprigg is senior director of the Center for Marriage and Family Studies at the Family Research Council.

beautiful, BEAUTIFUl article, brings tears to my eyes.

[USMC]

Originally posted by SLYspyda
beautiful, BEAUTIFUl article, brings tears to my eyes.

Just makes me nauseous at all the ignorance in the world.

[Dew k. Mosi]

I am willing to bet that SlySpyda and the others who "agree" with this article have no clue of the real facts and statics, have never studied this equation objectively, and probably don't even know a homosexual couple, yet, would actively support a girl/girl couple with great enthusiasm

[SLYspyda]

i can't ****in believe it, i think my post was deleted because i said penis ONCE in there, well, i've come up with an even better argument.

men have sperm, women have eggs, which shows that man and woman are supposed to be together naturally, plain and simple.

if men and women have eggs AND sperm in their systems, or were randomly born with either an egg or sperm, that would be a totally different issue and it would show that men & men, or women & men, or women & women unions were natural. BUT THAT IS NOT SO! therefore making same sex marriages unnatural

[SLYspyda]

Originally posted by Dew k. Mosi
I am willing to bet that SlySpyda and the others who "agree" with this article have no clue of the real facts and statics, have never studied this equation objectively, and probably don't even know a homosexual couple, yet, would actively support a girl/girl couple with great enthusiasm

uh huh, yeah whatever, he states the facts in the article, what is there to study objectively? i'm not taking an exam on it. why would i want to know a homosexual couple? oh i know, to become friends to become friends with them, so my views can get clouded by personal feelings.

activiely support girl/girl couple?! lol, i don't think so. i'm just as against men/men unions as i am with women/women unions. i even see girl/girl unions are even more of a joke, the men/men unions i view as sad.

[Spider-Nerd]

Originally posted by SLYspyda
i can't ****in believe it, i think my post was deleted because i said penis ONCE in there, well, i've come up with an even better argument.

men have sperm, women have eggs, which shows that man and woman are supposed to be together naturally, plain and simple.

if men and women have eggs AND sperm in their systems, or were randomly born with either an egg or sperm, that would be a totally different issue and it would show that men & men, or women & men, or women & women unions were natural. BUT THAT IS NOT SO! therefore making same sex marriages unnatural yep, and black people were born into slavery, so they should be there forever. That's the way they were made, that's the way god made them. So black people should never be free, ever.
































:rolleyes:

[SLYspyda]

Originally posted by USMC
Just makes me nauseous at all the ignorance in the world.

ignorance? what's ignorant about what he wrote? THIS is an example of ignorance: "i hate gay people, therefore gay marriages suck!"

[Alf]

Originally posted by Spider-Nerd
yep, and black people were born into slavery, so they should be there forever. That's the way they were made, that's the way god made them. So black people should never be free, ever.




:rolleyes: that's pretty horrible logic...

[SLYspyda]

Originally posted by Spider-Nerd
yep, and black people were born into slavery, so they should be there forever. That's the way they were made, that's the way god made them. So black people should never be free, ever.




uh huh. really? hate to break it to you buddy but no one was born into slavery, races just get captured and put into slavery, and the same applies for their off-spring, like jews for example, survival of fittest, no one was ever born a slave from where they came from originally.

so if a white guy captured some jews and took them to his home, from what you said, it means that jews were born into slavery.

you didn't even address what i said in my post. are same-sex marriages natural or not? you know they are not.

[Dew k. Mosi]

do you honestly believe that reproduction is the only reason for marriage? What about financial support, emotional comfort, physical rapport outside of sexual congress? What about the simple reasoning of being in love? Do you think that heterosexual couples without children, who don't want children, are wrong as well?

[Childlike Wild]

Originally posted by SLYspyda
i can't ****in believe it, i think my post was deleted because i said penis ONCE in there, well, i've come up with an even better argument.

men have sperm, women have eggs, which shows that man and woman are supposed to be together naturally, plain and simple.

if men and women have eggs AND sperm in their systems, or were randomly born with either an egg or sperm, that would be a totally different issue and it would show that men & men, or women & men, or women & women unions were natural. BUT THAT IS NOT SO! therefore making same sex marriages unnatural
But homosexuality occurs naturally, so then it must be natural for some people to like others of their own gender.

[Spider-Nerd]

Originally posted by Alf
that's pretty horrible logic... it's an example of the train of thought of 1860's America. This gay marriage argument is stupid. People are different, therefore they should be deprived of rights. Bush wants an amendment that would DISCRIMINATE against a large number of people. This is something that I am very much against. Reminds me of arguments in the 1950's. "Do you want your kids going to school with black kids? Do you want to live near black people?" Replace black with gay and the fact that history repeats itself is pretty aparent. The rnc knows that in the long run they ARE going to lose this battle and gay marriage WILL be accepted. They know this, it's just popular now to be against it. They did the same thing with slavery. They knew it was gonna go eventually, but that didn't stop them from fighting for it because of it's popularity.

[Spider-Nerd]

Originally posted by SLYspyda
you didn't even address what i said in my post. are same-sex marriages natural or not? you know they are not. First of all, there's no clear distiction as to whether it's something one is born with or not. And who exactly defines what is natural?

[SLYspyda]

Originally posted by Dew k. Mosi
do you honestly believe that reproduction is the only reason for marriage? What about financial support, emotional comfort, physical rapport outside of sexual congress? What about the simple reasoning of being in love? Do you think that heterosexual couples without children, who don't want children, are wrong as well?

did i say anything about reproduction being the only reason for marriage? it's not the only reason, but it's certainly the main reason.

all the living things on this earth have one thing in mind, to reproduce.

[Alf]

Originally posted by Spider-Nerd
it's an example of the train of thought of 1860's America. This gay marriage argument is stupid. People are different, therefore they should be deprived of rights. Bush wants an amendment that would DISCRIMINATE against a large number of people. This is something that I am very much against. Reminds me of arguments in the 1950's. "Do you want your kids going to school with black kids? Do you want to live near black people?" Replace black with gay and the fact that history repeats itself is pretty aparent. The rnc knows that in the long run they ARE going to lose this battle and gay marriage WILL be accepted. They know this, it's just popular now to be against it. They did the same thing with slavery. They knew it was gonna go eventually, but that didn't stop them from fighting for it because of it's popularity. history doesn't repeat it's self...and all l'm saying is what SlySpyda said was something physical about the body, and how that makes it natural, and what you said about black people being born into slavery, and cuzza that should be there forever didn't make sense...a)it's not true, and b)it was something that could be changed...it is because of people that slavery exists, not something unchangable about the human body...

maybe horrible logic wasn't the right way to describe it, but it didn;t really fit as a comparision to slyspyda's post...:)

[Spider-Nerd]

Originally posted by SLYspyda
did i say anything about reproduction being the only reason for marriage? it's not the only reason, but it's certainly the main reason. is love not a main reason for marriage?

[Spider-Nerd]

Originally posted by Alf
maybe horrible logic wasn't the right way to describe it, but it didn;t really fit as a comparision to slyspyda's post...:) point taken.

[SLYspyda]

Originally posted by Spider-Nerd
First of all, there's no clear distiction as to whether it's something one is born with or not. And who exactly defines what is natural?

don't give me that. "who defines what is natural"

you can't deny that it's a little fishy that only heterosexual couples can reproduce.

[SLYspyda]

Originally posted by Spider-Nerd
it's an example of the train of thought of 1860's America. This gay marriage argument is stupid. People are different, therefore they should be deprived of rights. Bush wants an amendment that would DISCRIMINATE against a large number of people. This is something that I am very much against. Reminds me of arguments in the 1950's. "Do you want your kids going to school with black kids? Do you want to live near black people?" Replace black with gay and the fact that history repeats itself is pretty aparent. The rnc knows that in the long run they ARE going to lose this battle and gay marriage WILL be accepted. They know this, it's just popular now to be against it. They did the same thing with slavery. They knew it was gonna go eventually, but that didn't stop them from fighting for it because of it's popularity.

what the hell does being black have to do with same-sex couples?!

[Alf]

Originally posted by Spider-Nerd
is love not a main reason for marriage? if love is good enough for marriage, why can't a brother marry his sister?

[SLYspyda]

Originally posted by Spider-Nerd
is love not a main reason for marriage?

i love my best friend, that doesn't mean im going to marry him, love plays a part, but i don't believe it's equal to the part reproduction plays.

how horrible is it to be an old man, and look back at your life, and not have anything to show for it, or represent your name when your gone, noone to inherit your wealth, to reproduce your dna.

[SLYspyda]

Originally posted by Alf
if love is good enough for marriage, why can't a brother marry his sister?

lol, same thing i was thinking

[SLYspyda]

from the looks of the poll, i'd say that mostly homosexuals actually care about this topic. 58 votes says it all

[Childlike Wild]

Originally posted by SLYspyda
from the looks of the poll, i'd say that mostly homosexuals actually care about this topic. 58 votes says it all
What? I've posted a few times, but I'm not a lesbian. Maybe we just don't see a reason to deny homosexuals the institution of marriage.

:confused:

[Spider-Nerd]

Originally posted by SLYspyda
from the looks of the poll, i'd say that mostly homosexuals actually care about this topic. 58 votes says it all you say that as if there's something wrong with being gay.

[Dew k. Mosi]

Originally posted by SLYspyda
all the living things on this earth have one thing in mind, to reproduce. tell that to my spinster aunt who has no desire either to marry or have children.

[Dew k. Mosi]

Originally posted by Alf
if love is good enough for marriage, why can't a brother marry his sister? Is that actually against the law or is it against societal laws? And, since there are cases in the bible of brothers and sisters having kids (I believe I remember that) then, shouldn't it be allowed?

[Dew k. Mosi]

Originally posted by SLYspyda
from the looks of the poll, i'd say that mostly homosexuals actually care about this topic. 58 votes says it all This results of the poll are about on par with any poll in this forum, and since I am a heterosexual, I think that you are making a huge assumption about the people who voted here.

Look, the main issue I have with this whole topic is why is it anyone's business at all?

[Alf]

Originally posted by Dew k. Mosi
Is that actually against the law or is it against societal laws? And, since there are cases in the bible of brothers and sisters having kids (I believe I remember that) then, shouldn't it be allowed? l do not know...
l think it is illegal, but...:confused:
maybe so...:confused:

[Lackey]

Originally posted by USMC
No. I asked for their reasoning, not a cut-and paste and then say "Yeah, that sounds good, I'm gonna just follow their reasoning, it's much easier than forming my own opinion."


So basically...because his reply wasn't to your specifications, properly summarized for you, then you can shrug it off.

[Dew k. Mosi]

Originally posted by Alf
l do not know...
l think it is illegal, but...:confused:
maybe so...:confused: Yeah, I bet it is covered under incest laws, but I don't know for certain.

[Movies205]

Originally posted by Dew k. Mosi
Yeah, I bet it is covered under incest laws, but I don't know for certain.

What are we talking about?

[Dew k. Mosi]

brothers and sisters getting married

[Movies205]

Originally posted by Dew k. Mosi
brothers and sisters getting married

You're GETTING MARRIED?;) :D

[Dew k. Mosi]

No I only have one brother and he is already married

[Movies205]

Originally posted by Dew k. Mosi
No I only have one brother and he is already married

Oh... :) SO NE WAY....

[USMC]

Originally posted by Lackey
So basically...because his reply wasn't to your specifications, properly summarized for you, then you can shrug it off.

Responses from ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal viewpoints...

hell yes.

[USMC]

Originally posted by SLYspyda
how horrible is it to be an old man, and look back at your life, and not have anything to show for it, or represent your name when your gone, noone to inherit your wealth, to reproduce your dna.

To you, horrible. To other people, no big deal.

[The Sperminator]

I just wanna know why people ( the Bush Admin specifically ) have such a raging hard-on about this situation. No pun intended.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by USMC
Responses from ultra-conservative and ultra-liberal viewpoints...

hell yes.


then that goes back to my original question... then why ask for a response?

[Victor Von Doom]

For me? No. for other? I don't care.

[USMC]

Originally posted by Lackey
then that goes back to my original question... then why ask for a response?

To get some original thought... ya know, honest and open discussion, not robotic responses. Ever heard of it?:confused:

[Lackey]

there are no original thoughts

[Dew k. Mosi]

only original actors

[Clerk]

Originally posted by Dew k. Mosi
only original actors


What about food combinations?

Banana and toe nails.

[spideyboy_1111]

i personally think government shouldnt control this.. if to people love eachother and want it official then why not? now i could see a church saying ... no we wont marry you in this church (depending on what that church believes) but other then that its there own buisness... and for nay sayers put ur self in there shoes.. i know if i was gay and in love i would want to marry them. and i would want the right to!

[spideyboy_1111]

i think to many people are putting there personal beliefs and feelings into this.. and guess what... when it comes to some one else and there love for one another.. should your 2 cents matter? NO

[Project Mayhem]

Sure, why not? As long as I get to stay liking chicks, what should I care?

[Dew k. Mosi]

yeah its not like a gay marriage in your state will cause you to turn gay

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Dew k. Mosi
yeah its not like a gay marriage in your state will cause you to turn gay oh my god! Everything I've been led to believe is wrong.:eek: :( :o

[spideyboy_1111]

its paranoia... strait guys for some reason think all gay guys like and look at them...

[Dew k. Mosi]

I know. A friend of mine came out to his grandpa and his grandpa said, "That's ok, Danny, as long as you don't hit on me."

WTF! Like he was gonna HIT on his GRANDFATHER!

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Dew k. Mosi
I know. A friend of mine came out to his grandpa and his grandpa said, "That's ok, Danny, as long as you don't hit on me."

WTF! Like he was gonna HIT on his GRANDFATHER! He's not from Alabama or Arkansas, is he? :confused:

[Dew k. Mosi]

nope, california

[Emilio's Mom]

Originally posted by Dew k. Mosi
nope, california yea...that's frickin scary

[Superman]

I voted "Yes / Doesn't Bother Me"

[Superboy]

Originally posted by Superman
I voted "Yes / Doesn't Bother Me"

[USMC]

Originally posted by Lackey
there are no original thoughts

There original to the person who thought them up for the first time.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by USMC
There original to the person who thought them up for the first time.


that doesn't include anyone here at SHH

[USMC]

Which is why I said the cut-and-paste is not a valid response. Just a lazy one.

[Lackey]

Originally posted by USMC
Which is why I said the cut-and-paste is not a valid response. Just a lazy one.


You misunderstood.... there are no original thoughts from anyone who has posted in this thread or who would have responded to your question.

[USMC]

No, you misunderstood. I understand there's no such thing as an original thought. I'm saying that a thoght can be original to the person who thinks it for the first time, just not to everyone else who has heard that thought before.

[WEB OF SPIDEY]

I think in Holland it's legal.

It doesn't bother me if they want to get married.

[Teh Punisher]

maybe we need an athiest president :confused:


maybe THEN we wont have his religion infecting the laws he is trying to pass. the USA is home to many religions. and the way hes running it is like his religion is the only one in the country. he has to think thats better for the people.


bush is homophobic

[TheSumOfGod]

Its legal here in the Province of Québec (Canada). Vive le marriage gai!

[logansoldcigar]

I dont see any harm in allowing Gay marriage, and TBH, i dont see why pple get so het up about it.
but thats just my two penn'th

[GunBlade]

NO.

Homosexuality is against God. Period.

[USMC]

Originally posted by GunBlade
NO.

Homosexuality is against God. Period.

No, it's not.

[logansoldcigar]

Originally posted by GunBlade
NO.

Homosexuality is against God. Period.

I dont believe in God. neither do many others. so why should it matter to them?

[Mindworm]

No,for it is against the very will of God.It is written : " It is an Abomination " in Leviticus as said by Lord God Almighty himself.Pretty strong words,to be sure.If you wish another view of this same subject,look at it this way : Man and Woman come together to create children.What does homosexual unions create ? Nothing,for it is not based on true love but on lust.Why do I say this ? Has anyone ever heard of a celibate homosexual couple ? No ? No kidding......What's next,Hookers married to their Johns ? Dogs marrying Cats ?:rolleyes:

[USMC]

Originally posted by GunBlade
NO.

Homosexuality is against God. Period.

So are you, but you're still allowed to walk around and do your thing.

[USMC]

Originally posted by Mindworm
No,for it is against the very will of God.It is written : " It is an Abomination " in Leviticus as said by Lord God Almighty himself.Pretty strong words,to be sure.If you wish another view of this same subject,look at it this way : Man and Woman come together to create children.What does homosexual unions create ? Nothing,for it is not based one true love but on lust.Why do I say this ? Has anyone ever heard of a celibate homosexual couple ? No ? No kidding......

Never heard of a celibate heterosexual couple, either.

What do you care if they marry anyway?

[Mindworm]

Originally posted by USMC
Never heard of a celibate heterosexual couple, either.

What do you care if they marry anyway? I have.I know one now.Homosexuality promotes disease.The vagina is a birth canal,while the anal cavity is a waste recepticle.The anus is filled what the body has finished using.It is not a place for anything to enter.

[USMC]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mindworm
I have.I know one now.

Of course you do.

Homosexuality promotes disease.The vagina is a birth canal,while the anal cavity is a waste recepticle.The anus is filled what the body has finished using.It is not a place for anything to enter.

How what two people do in their own life has anything to do with you, I'm not sure.

Again, what do you care if they marry anyway?

[GunBlade]

Originally posted by USMC
No, it's not.
And quoting :

"And likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL USE OF WOMEN, burned in their lust one toward another ; men with men working that which is unseemly and recieving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Yes it is.

They choose to be this way therefore they sin.

[USMC]

Originally posted by GunBlade
And quoting :

"And likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL USE OF WOMEN, burned in their lust one toward another ; men with men workng that which is umseemly and recieving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Yes it is.

They choose to be this way therefore they sin.

Direct source please, or move along.

[Evolution]

Originally posted by GunBlade
And quoting :

"And likewise also the men, leaving the NATURAL USE OF WOMEN, burned in their lust one toward another ; men with men workng that which is umseemly and recieving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Yes it is.

They choose to be this way therefore they sin.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[GunBlade]

Originally posted by USMC
Direct source please, or move along.
That's from the bible.

And if you're speaking of my answer, then why would God create homosexuals if he's against it?

[Man-Thing]

Homosexuality is a choice. Hetrosexuality is a choice. Sometime before someone has sex, they must decide (choose) to do so. Before someone has homosexual sex, they must ponder about. Therefore they choose. Homosexuality is a choice.

[USMC]

Originally posted by GunBlade
That's from the bible.

And if you're speaking of my answer, then why would God create homosexuals if he's against it?

Thank you for the update, GB.:rolleyes:

I meant, WHERE in the Bible. What passage?

[Man-Thing]

Originally posted by USMC
Thank you for the update, GB.:rolleyes:

I meant, WHERE in the Bible. What passage? I belive that is in Romans Chapter 1. Not sure which verses though.

[USMC]

Originally posted by Man-Thing
Homosexuality is a choice. Hetrosexuality is a choice. Sometime before someone has sex, they must decide (choose) to do so. Before someone has homosexual sex, they must ponder about. Therefore they choose. Homosexuality is a choice.

So you choose to get erections for women...

You woke up and decided never to get one for a man, though... right?:rolleyes:

[USMC]

Originally posted by Man-Thing
I belive that is in Romans Chapter 1. Not sure which verses though.

If you don't know, then don't make **** up.

Put up or move along.

[GunBlade]

Originally posted by USMC
Thank you for the update, GB.:rolleyes:

I meant, WHERE in the Bible. What passage?
Romans chapter 2, verse 27. :)

[Man-Thing]

Originally posted by USMC
If you don't know, then don't make **** up.

Put up or move along. Why are you being a jerk?:confused:

[Evolution]

Originally posted by GunBlade
That's from the bible.

And if you're speaking of my answer, then why would God create homosexuals if he's against it?

Why would God give us free will if he knew exactly what would happen to each and every one of us in the future?

Why would God damn those he claims to love with compassion?

Why doesn't God keep bad things from happening to good people?

Why is God only available to those who join a certain club?

Why do you think the absolute answers to everything are in a book written by a couple of guys smoking cactii in the desert?

Where was God when three thousand people died on September 11th?

What kind of goddamn fantasy world do you think you're living in?

[Man-Thing]

Originally posted by USMC
So you choose to get erections for women...

You woke up and decided never to get one for a man, though... right?:rolleyes: I believe the moment when one becomes a homosexual is when they have homosexual sex.

[USMC]

Originally posted by GunBlade
Romans chapter 2, verse 27. :)

Romans 2
27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[1] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.


Uh, right. Try again.

[USMC]

Originally posted by Man-Thing
I believe the moment when one becomes a homosexual is when they have homosexual sex.

So jacking off to male porn doesn't make you gay...

[Evolution]

Originally posted by Man-Thing
I believe the moment when one becomes a homosexual is when they have homosexual sex.

Tell me about the moment when you became heterosexual?

Was it painful? Were you excited about your choice? What kind of literature did you read to help you make your decision?

Did you try anal sex beforehand just to see if you might enjoy it better than vaginal sex?

[GammaBeast]

Here is a letter to Dr Layra, someone I hate very much, speaking out against homosexuality due to religous reasons.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstances. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I especially like Leviticus too. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord -- Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness -- Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination -- Lev. 11:10-- it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -- Lev.24:10-16.

Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan
------------------------------------------------------
I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry, it pisses me off anytime someone says that it somehow dilutes the state of marriage. Explain to me how a homosexual couple marrying in any way effects the marriage of anyone else.

The fact that a constitutional ban is being considered makes me weep for the state of america. The constitution is meant to preserve rights, not take them away.

This "civil union" crap pisses me off too, our history shows that seperate is never equal.

These are my thoughts, Im open to any debate.

[Man-Thing]

Romans 1God's Wrath Against Mankind

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Is this what you were implying GB?
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

[USMC]

Originally posted by Man-Thing
I believe the moment when one becomes a homosexual is when they have homosexual sex.

So you just flipped a coin before you got it on with a woman instead of a guy? Damn, good thing it landed on tails. :)

[Man-Thing]

Originally posted by Evolution
Tell me about the moment when you became heterosexual?

Was it painful? Were you excited about your choice? What kind of literature did you read to help you make your decision?

Did you try anal sex beforehand just to see if you might enjoy it better than vaginal sex? I just done what is natural. I didn't manipulate good, and change it into evil. I waited until marriage.

[Evolution]

Originally posted by Man-Thing
I just done what is natural. I didn't manipulate good, and change it into evil. I waited until marriage.

So gay people are evil? Like the terrorists?

[Man-Thing]

Originally posted by USMC
So you just flipped a coin before you got it on with a woman instead of a guy? Damn, good thing it landed on tails. :) Where did you get that idea from?
:rolleyes: