'Same Sex Marriage'? Is it natural?

[blksoul_x]

In its most natural extension, what is the advantage of a 'same sex marriage'? Is it a civil right to marry what/or whom ever you choose? Why is it that the 'gay/lesbian/bi-sexual' community believe that there is a need for exclusive/inclusive 'special rights' in their so-called community. Is it fair for the gay/lesbian/bi-sexual believers to compare or group the Black civil rights struggle in with their current struggles,beliefs, and agendas.

I understand that this is a growing and ongoing discussion, perhaps due to the growing political ramifications attached. I personally don't agree in same sex beliefs. I believe, that there ought to be laws promoted to help keep humans from self-harm. I'm not promoting that 'gay' behavior is harmful, however, I believe gay philosophy, if you will, negates the future advancement and production between a man and women, that is to say, in its most natural state, the marriage between a man and a women is essential for human development, where as, same-sex marriage can be an impediment (similar to any anatomic dysfunction) to human development. In the universal order (which I think includes natural biological processes ), same-sex, is a disadvantage to human procreation/reproduction/and ultimately existence.

Are you for same sex marriage or are you against? Do we want to began to open Pandora's box for other numerous behavior paraphilias/or sexual deviationisms, and those supporters that wish the right to 'legally' practice their orders ? Is this human evolution, or is this another 'nail-in the-coffin,' if you will, toward the destruction of mankind?

I'm interested in your opinions toward this matter.

blksoul_atcha!
The BJL, the Color you love to hate!

[rajdet]

If you are fortunate enough to find someone who you love and they love you, then what's more natural than that? I don't get what the fuss is all about, if you don't believe in same sex marriage, then I suggest you not marry someone of your own sex. I think that there are issues that the country should be discussing I.E. the economy, the environment, and being at war on two different fronts, that are more crucial to our survival, than who gets to love and marry who.

[Flanders]

Homosexuality and bisexuality have existed since before recorded time, it just wasn't as "exposed" to the masses as it is now. Personally, I feel that males swapping spit in public is a huge turnoff and repulsive to witness, but obviously females doing so is not as socially unacceptable in many situations, such as college age females at bars and on spring break (you never see DVDs of "Guys Gone Wild" being advertised on TV). Male frontal nudity earns an X rating in movies, but female frontal nudity or two females engaged in sexual intimacy (minus closeup oral sex) rates only an R..go figure...

[rb336]

Is it a civil right to marry what/or whom ever you choose?

Why wouldn't it be? Seriously, who the hell is the government to tell you or me whoever who we can marry?

[jt1]

"In its most natural extension, what is the advantage of a 'same sex marriage'? Is it a civil right to marry what/or whom ever you choose? "

It is a state supported dedication to a monogomous relationship. Adding what is condescending and speaks to your attitude about it.

"Why is it that the 'gay/lesbian/bi-sexual' community believe that there is a need for exclusive/inclusive 'special rights' in their so-called community"

What special rights? The same rights that hetero couples get? Claiming 'special rights' is a red herring when it is just an expectation of equal rights. Was the civil rights movement about getting 'special rights'? Of course not. Just as this is not about special rights, just equal rights.

"Is it fair for the gay/lesbian/bi-sexual believers to compare or group the Black civil rights struggle in with their current struggles,beliefs, and agendas"

Yes of course both groups have faced struggles in the past btu it is not to say that the struggles have been the same.

"I believe, that there ought to be laws promoted to help keep humans from self-harm. I'm not promoting that 'gay' behavior is harmful, however, I believe gay philosophy, if you will, negates the future advancement and production between a man and women, that is to say, in its most natural state, the marriage between a man and a women is essential for human development, where as, same-sex marriage can be an impediment (similar to any anatomic dysfunction) to human development."

How exactly is it an impendiment? If gay marriage is approved will hetero couples stop having children? The belief that marriage is to result in children is an outdated belief. If you really believe it to be the case then marriages should be absolved if people do not have children.

"In the universal order (which I think includes natural biological processes ), same-sex, is a disadvantage to human procreation/reproduction/and ultimately existence".

Existence, yes. Happiness, no. Marriage is not an instituation that is in place to promote pro-creation. It is a union of two people to pledge their love and life to each other. There is no reason we as a society should prevent loving adults from doing this.

"Are you for same sex marriage or are you against?"

100% for.

"Do we want to began to open Pandora's box for other numerous behavior paraphilias/or sexual deviationisms, and those supporters that wish the right to 'legally' practice their orders ? Is this human evolution, or is this another 'nail-in the-coffin,' if you will, toward the destruction of mankind?"

Hetero couples have done enough to open this Pandora's box. Equating sexuality to deviancy, especially in marriage is a bs argument. Sexual deviancy and sexual orientation have no parallels as they are in both homo and hetero people.

The destruction of mankind has been driven by the likes of heteros for thousands of years. I challenge you to point out what the homsexual community has done to lead to the destruction of mankind?

It seems to me that many of the 'issues' you see with gay marriage are prevalent in hetero marriages.

[Pam]

8 year old organizes marriage equality rally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKB4sOdy-PI

[lilpup]

It can be argued that homosexuality is a natural evolutionary response to over-population. Unlimited pro-creation is not a positive thing. Not only does homosexuality reduce the likelihood of pro-creation but it also provides caregivers for children who have lost their biological parents.

The fact that homosexuality is passed on through the maternal line is a strong indicator that it's an evolutionary element meant to persist rather than die out.

[oldredfordette]

Are you for equal rights for all, or equal rights for some? As long as it's a civic, legal contract, it's wrong to ban some people from marriage.

Marriage is unnatural anyway.

[rb336]

How exacltly is gay marriage a threat to marriage?

Simple: a guy is married and a gay homophobe. legalize gay marriage, and suddenly it might make him realize that he is really gay, and he would end his marriage to stop living a lie

[rb336]

What kills me is that it is the same morons who go on and on about the "nanny state" who seem to have no problem with the government telling you whom to marry, no problem with the government spying on what you check out of the library, no problem with the government tapping your phone line w/o warrants, etc. etc.

[Johnlodge]

With over 70% of Detroit's children being born into families with no fathers in the home, I think you can find something better than "the gay agenda" to blame for disintegration of the family structure.

[exdetroiter]

Gay/Lesbians have always want the hetrosexual to stay out of their business, so I think they should keep their business to themselves rather than go to the government and before the public asking for the right to be acknowledged as man and wife.

[ejames01]

Isn't it THEIR government too?


Gay/Lesbians have always want the hetrosexual to stay out of their business, so I think they should keep their business to themselves rather than go to the government and before the public asking for the right to be acknowledged as man and wife.

[Blarf]

Has anyone's life been negativily affected by two gays getting married?

On the flip side, there isn't one straight man who would object to two hot lesbians getting married.

[gazhekwe]

It is so easy to separate different people out and then we can legislate for the ones we designate are not like us. Whenever the discussion gets into "we" and "They" there is trouble afoot. Good call up there, many states had laws against miscegenation forbidding people of different races to marry, specifically, whites could not marry blacks, Asians or American Indians, depending on which state. Such state laws were enforced through the first 2/3 of the twentieth century. The 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Loving vs Virgina declared all such laws unconstitutional. Yet here we go again...

[gibran]

the lack of understanding of an individuals love and humanity never ceases to amaze me..we are talking about the one of the ultimate expressins of love between to people and if two people find it why should we not accept it...after all we are not going to break the two up..so why not let them have the same benefits and have their expression of love out there for their families to celebrate.

[rajdet]

After reading this thread I am beginning to think that the only people who object to same sex marriage are the ones who know the secret foot tapping code in airport mens rooms and or have sleep overs for the alter boys at the parish rectory.

[LodgeDodger]

Of course, it's natural. Silly.

[ccbatson]

Natural or not...who cares? Whether or not it is a vehicle for expanding entitlements is my concern....by "my" I mean as a taxpayer.

[jt1]

Pesky entitlements like having access to your loved one when they are on a deathbed? Pesky entitlements like having access to your child in the hospital (since only one may be listed as a parent).

I wish the anti gay marriage crowd went to see their dying spouse at the hospital just to be turned away due to a clerical error. For thatbrief moment they could see what gay couples face due to their opposition to gay marriage.

[Philbo]

Not to thread jack but whats the secret foot tapping code used in mens rooms by gays. I never heard of this before, just curious.:confused:

[firstandten]

Not to thread jack but whats the secret foot tapping code used in mens rooms by gays. I never heard of this before, just curious.:confused:

go to google and put in " gay bathroom sex tap foot" and there is more information on this than either you or I need to know.

[lilpup]

On the flip side, there isn't one straight man who would object to two hot lesbians getting married.unless he doesn't get to watch

[detmich]

No more unnatural than two heterosexuals being married for life. For many folks Monogamy is unnatural.

Your question is stupid, not you BLK_SEX, your question.

[Alley]

Love, or lust, or whatever it is that leads people to marry, is usually natural. I really don't understand why people care who marries whom when it doesn't truly affect them.

[rb336]

No more unnatural than two heterosexuals being married for life. For many folks Monogamy is unnatural.

From a purely biological viewpoint, monogamy is unnatural. for the majority of cultures, historically polygamy has been preferred. historically, some sort of cousin-marriage was also preferred (and was quite common in the US until the late 19th century, and only became rare in the second half of this century in some areas)

[jcole]

You notice how he dropped this question yesterday, and has not been back to weigh in? Can you spell T-R-O-L-L?

[1KielsonDrive]

Why would same-sex be any more 'un-natural' than opposite sex? It might not occur in nature as frequently as opposite sex but it does occur in nature. It's as natural as can be. As for marriage - that's a creation of man, so it's not natural in any manner. Marriage may be considered normal or regular in cultures, but not natural. Unfortunately, religions think (or just lie about it, which is more likely) that they created the instituion and so they can define it. It's another canard they lay on people that they hate, just as religions and faiths did with black people (and still do) for many centuries. Just look back in history and see how blacks were treated by religions in the U.S. south and in South Africa.

[1KielsonDrive]

PS: religions would still like to fight the race issue openly, but they can't because they didn't have the sophisticated and expensive apparatus to build their case during previous centuries. So they're fighting it in in more devious manners. The new 'black' people for religions are gays. Religions have decades and centuries of experience, and now have the money to establish think tanks and religious institutions to fight their battles cloaked in 'values'. Gay marriage is just another way for religions to wage their war on 'others' not of their religion.

[1KielsonDrive]

Another PS: have you noticed how religions state their support and opposition to issues based upon 'values' or the 'bible' or the 'quran'. They state, "we interpret the bible (or quran) literally". Have you noticed that they're all so united in their opposition to certain issues like abortion and gay marriage, but in reality they all have differing versions and interpretations of the 'one, true bible'? It's good they have these issues to unite their vastly different congregations, because though they're trying to kill each other on a daily basis based upon their differing interpretations of the 'one, true bible and quran', all 'hell' (so to speak) would be loosed upon each other if they didn't have these uniting issues.

[mjs]

You notice how he dropped this question yesterday, and has not been back to weigh in? Can you spell T-R-O-L-L?

I noticed 57 other people checked his profile to see if he was real or just some made up character. And nobody took the bait.

[mjs]

It is incredibly well written though. Notice how he uses a long run on sentence to make it seem his opinion is the opposite of the one he promotes. Later on, he makes effective use of a pronoun to change the original question into a choice between the answer he wants and a similar answer. Then he asks for input to try to sound neutral on the reformed question. He finally ends with a comment meant to make the debate more emotional than intellectual. He even sells it by introducing a last minute piece of slang at the end of a pretty formal piece. He's a master. A plus work! I was completely fooled until jcole made me take a closer look.


I'm not promoting that 'gay' behavior is harmful, however, . . . same-sex is a disadvantage to human procreation/reproduction and ultimately existence.

Do we want to began to open Pandora's box . . . ? Is this (Pandora's Box) human evolution, or is this another 'nail-in the-coffin,' if you will, toward the destruction of mankind?

I'm interested in your opinions toward this matter. . .

blksoul_atcha! . . . the Color you love to hate!

[Pam]

A plus work!


No. Points off for overuse of quotation marks and italics. (That and the homophobic trolling.)

[Sstashmoo]

"Marriage" is a bond in holy matrimony between God, a man and a woman. The Bible is pretty specific about the definition of marriage and the objections to homosexuality. The problem really is and why the principle exists, and that is separation of church and state. The Government should have never meddled in the affairs of marriage to begin with. If two of the same sex see Marriage right for them then so be it. That is freedom of religion. I'm not sure why they would want to, but that's there business, not mine.

[Bong-Man]

I believe in the natural laws of "tab A" being inserted in "tab B". That makes me slightly homophobic. However at this time, two gay men could buy the house next to me....put in a built-in pool.....and play marco-polo the rough way all night long, and there ain't a thing I can do about it as long as they don't break the law. With that in mind, why the hell would I care if they got married ?

[vetalalumni]

It is beneficial that we are beginning to witness greater robust (and hopefully comprehensive) discussions regarding opposite marriage. Open, honest discussion is appropriate. Organized leadership, lacking previously, will carry the cause. Will of the people and all. Crisis or chaos management ensues when relevant issues such as this one are not adequately addressed.

Strategists know that ignoring, mongering fear, or ridiculing opposing views helps to zap the energy out of ideas before exhausting their potential merit.


Gay/Lesbians have always want the hetrosexual to stay out of their business...
Categorically untrue.


After reading this thread I am beginning to think that the only people who object to same sex marriage are the ones who know the secret foot tapping code in airport mens rooms and or have sleep overs for the alter boys at the parish rectory.
Funny.

[Johnlodge]

I believe in the natural laws of "tab A" being inserted in "tab B". That makes me slightly homophobic. However at this time, two gay men could buy the house next to me....put in a built-in pool.....and play marco-polo the rough way all night long, and there ain't a thing I can do about it as long as they don't break the law. With that in mind, why the hell would I care if they got married ?

Is that how it works? That doesn't sound fun at all.

[rb336]

1 Samuel 18:

18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul
18:2 And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
18:3Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
18:4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle

nearly identical wording is used to describe a marriage, except that the husband gave his sword to the new wife

[detmich]

"Marriage" is a bond in holy matrimony between God, a man and a woman. The Bible is pretty specific about the definition of marriage and the objections to homosexuality. The problem really is and why the principle exists, and that is separation of church and state. The Government should have never meddled in the affairs of marriage to begin with. If two of the same sex see Marriage right for them then so be it. That is freedom of religion. I'm not sure why they would want to, but that's there business, not mine.


The bible also encourages daughters to rape and seduce their fathers. The old testament is a work of fiction with some nice ideas and some bad ideas. Sort of like a Stephen King novel.

[rb336]

The bible also encourages daughters to rape and seduce their fathers. The old testament is a work of fiction with some nice ideas and some bad ideas. Sort of like a Stephen King novel.

and an incredibly vile, nasty, insecure main character

[Sstashmoo]

Oops I mentioned the Bible around people that don't believe in it. Man they turn wrong side out and their head starts spinning. :D

[detmich]

Oops I mentioned the Bible around people that don't believe in it. Man they turn wrong side out and their head starts spinning. :D

Oops we didn't agree with sstash, so now he wants to make fun of us because he looks stupid.ooohohhhh

[otter]

To address the parts of the OP's post that pertain to the subject line, if not to all of the body (no time for long replies now), I don't know how marriage of any kind can be considered 'natural' as it is a human cultural institution, whether it is considered as a civil one (sanctioned by governmental bodies) or a religious one (sanctioned by religious bodies). To make any kind of argument about 'naturalness' you would first have to make the case for a definition of 'natural' that includes human culture in all of its varieties of practices.

I don't think that this is what the OP had in mind, though. I get the impression that their use of 'natural' goes to the 'eww, buttsecks!' hetero discomfort with homosexuality.

O.

[mjs]

The bible also encourages daughters to rape and seduce their fathers. The old testament is a work of fiction with some nice ideas and some bad ideas. Sort of like a Stephen King novel.

Encourages or mentions? The two children born from the incest began the Moabites and Ammonites who remained in conflict with the Israelites for the rest of the book and wouldn't help the Jews when they wandered the desert. Jews did not consider them as part of God's chosen people. The Jews and Christians began their disputes in the Old Testament when Jesus and his disciples taught that non-Jews can choose to earn God's favor and Jews can fall out of favor depending on whether they obey his teachings. Neither religion encourages incest and the Muslims say the event never even happened.

I believe gays and lesbians should be able to marry by the way.

[Blueidone]

IMHO, marriage is a decision between two people who love each other and choose to spend their lives together. There is no reason for me, or anyone else for that matter, to take part in that decision. Once two people decide to get married, they should be able to do so, whether in a church of their choice, or a civil ceremony.

To me, it's not a matter of freedom of religion, because a marriage ceremony is not necessarily a religious ceremony. It is a matter of personal freedom...the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Detroitej72]

Encourages or mentions? The two children born from the incest began the Moabites and Ammonites who remained in conflict with the Israelites for the rest of the book and wouldn't help the Jews when they wandered the desert. Jews did not consider them as part of God's chosen people. The Jews and Christians began their disputes in the Old Testament when Jesus and his disciples taught that non-Jews can choose to earn God's favor and Jews can fall out of favor depending on whether they obey his teachings. Neither religion encourages incest and the Muslims say the event never even happened.

Good points, Mjs, but I think some people on this board are pretty anti-religion, and will take any opportunity to bash Christianity.



I personally think the right uses gay marriage as the new boogieman to scare people into voting for their candidates. I mean, seriously, we have far greater problems in this country right now than weather or not two men, or two women get married. But if you listen to many of the righties, if gay marriage becomes legal, all of civilization will cease.

Its another one of those hot button issues that creates controversy and allows the Republicans to maintain their fundamentalist, (faux) Christian faithful following.

[East Detroit]

How about a law that only people who engage in the missionary position every other Saturday are allowed to get married?

The anti-gay contingent should be happy that more people want to engage in the institution of marriage. What if people just started rejecting marriage and everyone decided to stay single? Would that be preferable?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Oops we didn't agree with sstash, so now he wants to make fun of us because he looks stupid.ooohohhhh "

No, I was just pointing out, if you mention religion in any fashion some vile A hole can't spew their caustic blather fast enough. They start cherry picking Bible verses in an almost comical manner, their ignorance of the matter is pathetic. They view Christians as weak and easy prey as most are. Attacking someone of faith is a very ignorant and cowardly act. It proves nothing, but the person doing it is extremely insecure with themselves.

[East Detroit]

Quote: "Oops we didn't agree with sstash, so now he wants to make fun of us because he looks stupid.ooohohhhh "

No, I was just pointing out, if you mention religion in any fashion some vile A hole can't spew their caustic blather fast enough. They start cherry picking Bible verses in an almost comical manner, their ignorance of the matter is pathetic. They view Christians as weak and easy prey as most are. Attacking someone of faith is a very ignorant and cowardly act. It proves nothing, but the person doing it is extremely insecure with themselves.

Yes, they are insecure, no doubt. So, just ignore them. Why bait more reactions to their insecurities?

[gibran]

I find that when you get to know the couples wanting to express their ultimate love in marriage very rewarding..they have a strong love for each other and enough love to face the bullshit that many throw at them...every person in the world is unique and have individual rights; (isn't that what the conservatives always say; "the good of one outweighs the good for all"...something like that?) so if the so called conservatives rally against government intervention so much-why do they rally against two people who love each other and want to exercise their love...what more of an expression of self advocacy and independence than the ability to give and receive love...who are we to judge two peoples love

[vetalalumni]

... I don't know how marriage of any kind can be considered 'natural' as it is a human cultural institution, whether it is considered as a civil one (sanctioned by governmental bodies) or a religious one (sanctioned by religious bodies). To make any kind of argument about 'naturalness' you would first have to make the case for a definition of 'natural' that includes human culture in all of its varieties of practices.

Excellent position made here! Refreshing.

[ccbatson]

If it is a personal matter, then why does anyone care whether it is "banned" or "legal"? Make your vows and all should be right....right?? Or...is something else afoot?

[ccbatson]

Had a rehabilitative epiphany have you Slim?

[ccbatson]

Apart from the quasi governmental endorsement, what is so desirable about an official/sanctioned same sex marriage policy?

[jt1]

"If it is a personal matter, then why does anyone care whether it is "banned" or "legal"? Make your vows and all should be right....right?? Or...is something else afoot? "

The issue is that gay people in long term relationships do not have the same right that married couples have. If my wife is on her deathbed I have full access to see her. If my gay friends spouse (not recognized by law) is on his/her deathbed they do not have the same rights as family.

If a gay couple adopts children only one can be listed as a partent and have legal custodial rights, etc.

[ccbatson]

Rights to what? Seeing the body of a person that has died? Only one parent as a legal custodian, but the other as a back up in the event that the first dies? Trivialities...any more significant "rights" which you are referring to?

[mjs]

From your Perspective: Spousal benefits, legal inhereitence, and the right to sue on the deceased's behave if someone kills them.
In a more Spiritual Perspective: Acceptance, public acknowledgement of a monogomous relationship, honor, pride.
From a State Perspective: The usual, community stability.

[ccbatson]

Anyone can will their assets to anyone they like, anyone can be named beneficiary on a life insurance policy, Murder is not a civil matter for an individual to sue over.

SPOUSAL BENEFITS is the one I was fishing for...and that is the reason not to extend marriage rights.

Spiritually?? Who cares what other's think, unless the person/persons in question are highly insecure.

Community stability? You must be joking with that one....a community made of same sex couples is demographically doomed to breed itself out of existence....not very stable.

[rb336]

Anyone can will their assets to anyone they like, anyone can be named beneficiary on a life insurance policy .

yet numerous cases exist where a same-sex partner was excluded from the estate by those damn right-wing activist judges, and where insurance companies have refused to pay to non-wed partners (both straight and gay)


SPOUSAL BENEFITS is the one I was fishing for...and that is the reason not to extend marriage rights.

actually, that is PRECISELY the reason they need to be extended

[oladub]

One solution might be some sort of a universal contract allowing individuals to designate anyone they want to have listed benefits and shared responsibilities toward each other. For instance, an elderly sister and brother who may love each other do not have the right to each other's survivor benefits. Gay marriage proponents would allow two gays to have the right to each other's social security survivor benefits. However, this does nothing for an elederly siblings who also might love each other and might have known each other much longer. They would be relatively discriminated against because they still would not be able to get each other's social security survivor benefits. A universal contract that wouldn't have to be called a marriage contract would allow anyone to designate another person whether their gay lover, their sibling, a good friend, or even partners (plural) to have visitation, survival, medical access and other rights being sought now by gays. Gays would get what they want as well as others catagories of people needing the same benefits.

Any additional groups dipping into social security funding would, of course, require more funding for social security, pensions, and similar programs but that is a separate matter to be decided by people and their elected representatives. A lack of extra funding to go with gay marriages or my idea of a more encompassing contract option would be an attack on the viability of social security and similar public institutions.

Historically, traditional marriages have not been based on romantic love. Arranged marriages, marriages of convenience for practical reasons, alliances, and other things have often usurped the quest for romance as the primary reason for marriages. Just wanted to get that in there because loving someone is not an entitlement let alone a requirement of marriage. From a public standpoint, love is not a qualification and is hardly measurable. Since there are different types of love, it would be a nightmare for government to try to favor one sort of love over the others anyway.

[mclark]

While I do believe same-sex marriage should be legalized, I understand the argument that it is a religious institution. In that case, there should be a legally recognized alternative, an official civil union with the same benefits of marriage available to anyone who doesn't want a "traditional Christian" marriage.

[rb336]

No, just legalize same sex marriage but do not compel religious officials to perform the ceremonies. non-religious officials, however, should have to regardless of their beliefs because it is not a church matter

[1KielsonDrive]

How about a law that says 'MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS'. People who are concerned what others are doing with their lives and in their bedrooms(or the garage, or the backseat of the car, etc, etc) have too much time on their hands. Go home and take care of your own damn business. Go to church and pray for the deliverance of your own soul. Stay out of my life. There's nothing more immoral, degenerate and sinful than being judgemental, nosey and meddling.

[cheddar bob]

I understand the argument that it is a religious institution. In that case, there should be a legally recognized alternative, an official civil union with the same benefits of marriage available to anyone who doesn't want a "traditional Christian" marriage.
Really? Because when I got married in April, there was nothing religious about it and there certainly weren't any clergy around.

[mclark]

I understand that, and have had several friends that had very "secular" (for lack of a better term) weddings. But one of the main arguments I hear against allowing homosexual marriage has to do with religion. Personally I think it's B.S., but I'm just proposing an alternative.



Really? Because when I got married in April, there was nothing religious about it and there certainly weren't any clergy around.

[Detroitej72]

Not allowing couples to marry is another example of the right wing limiting our freedoms. This from a party that claims to stand for freedom, yet once again, they show their hypocrisy.

Funny, now that he is not running for office, even their hero Chaney thinks gays should be allowed to wed:http://www.yahoo.com/s/1079736

[ccbatson]

My argument is to avoid expanding entitlement roles as they are already to big.

[Detroitej72]

Many companies already do this, by their own choice, so it really isn't expanding entitlements, unless you mean government workers.

[1KielsonDrive]

Religion is an institution. But certainly not an institution of higher learning.

[ccbatson]

With government growing at astonishing rates, is there much private industry left?

[Detroitej72]

Halliburton still is doing well, even though it has moved the headquarters to Dubai, in order to screw the U.S. out of tax money that it makes by the wonderful no bid contracts that W gift wrapped for them.

[Pam]

Conservatives Warn Quick Sex Change Only Barrier Between Gays, Marriage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhKa-NVWEg8

[defendbrooklyn]

Without reading any posts... Addressing the threads question:
Yes!

[ccbatson]

Is marriage of any type "natural"? If not, the premise is moot.

[Detroitej72]

Is marriage of any type "natural"? If not, the premise is moot.

You tell me, as your Republican Party has made it one of the key cornerstones of their platform.

[smogboy]

No, just legalize same sex marriage but do not compel religious officials to perform the ceremonies. non-religious officials, however, should have to regardless of their beliefs because it is not a church matter

I never knew that the clergy of ANY religious sect were compelled to perform any ceremonies they weren't ordained or comfortable with. Quite honestly what two loving people do together of their own volition neither infringes upon my relationship at all nor should it affect anyone else's.

[ccbatson]

You misfocus....natural is the term out of place.

[rb336]

Is marriage of any type "natural"? If not, the premise is moot.

If you understand that every human culture in recorded history has practiced some form of marriage (with polygyny the most common), it may well be a natural part of our cultural evolution, and since humans are a biologically cultural animal it is, therefore, natural

[detmich]

Quote: "Oops we didn't agree with sstash, so now he wants to make fun of us because he looks stupid.ooohohhhh "

No, I was just pointing out, if you mention religion in any fashion some vile A hole can't spew their caustic blather fast enough. They start cherry picking Bible verses in an almost comical manner, their ignorance of the matter is pathetic. They view Christians as weak and easy prey as most are. It proves nothing, but the person doing it is extremely insecure with themselves.


When a vile A-hole who is dumb enough to base their world view on a work of fiction interjects cherry picked verses from said work of fiction into a discussion, and claims these fictional accounts as the basis for their denial of another citizen's rights, then that person is mentally weak and very easy prey. If you do not want to discuss the bible, then don't bring it up. I write this assuming that you can understand my words, but that may be expecting too much. Maybe you should just pretend that an angel whispered them into your ears while you were asleep.

To paraphrase Sassmo, attacking someone because of your faith is a very ignorant and cowardly act. It proves nothing, but the person doing it is extremely insecure with themselves.

By the way, to all you supposed Bible scholars who claim that I was attacking Christianity. The Bible passages presented by RB, and my response to them, all come from the OLD TESTAMENT. The old Testament is the JEWISH Bible. How a discussion of the Old Testament became an attack on Christianity is beyond me, unless the answer is that you are a group of insecure, ignorant cretins. How about you read the NEW TESTAMENT and tell me what JESUS CHRIST, whom you purport to follow, has to say about homosexuals. If you like the Old Testament so much more, than stop claiming to be followers of Christ, and convert to Judaism, because you now appear to be poorly read and poorly educated imbeciles.

[WolverinesA2]

Is marriage of any type "natural"? If not, the premise is moot.

Very few animal species engage in lifelong, monogamous relationships.

From an evolutionary standpoint, men are biologically-driven to procreate with as many women as possible. Marriage is actually quite unnatural.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "dumb enough to base their world view on a work of fiction"

Just your opinion. If you folks want to insult others for their beliefs that's fine, but don't cry when one of us hands it right back to you. When someone mentions homosexuality, do I or anyone else start making comments or jokes about it? No we don't. You know why? It's called respecting others and not condemning others for their life's choices, Liberal. Sorry if it's not "cool" enough for you, but too bad.

[detmich]

Quote: "dumb enough to base their world view on a work of fiction"

Just your opinion. If you folks want to insult others for their beliefs that's fine, but don't cry when one of us hands it right back to you. When someone mentions homosexuality, do I or anyone else start making comments or jokes about it? No we don't. You know why? It's called respecting others and not condemning others for their life's choices, Liberal. Sorry if it's not "cool" enough for you, but too bad.

I didn't make fun of the Bible. I stated a fact. That made you upset.
Now, if you want to try to paint any of this as an insult so that it will bedeleted, then I say well played Assmo. However, it was you who began calling people, and I quote, "vile A holes". It seems that when the truth is put before you, you become angry.

To my other point, did you find anything that Jesus said about Homosexuality? Or did you find where Jesus says his is the New Covenant? Are you going to become Jewish? Will you stop lying about Christ's teachings?

We'll find out here, same Bat time, Same Bat channel.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "I didn't make fun of the Bible."

Calling it a work of fiction, you know well that was a bait to start an argument.

Quote: "I stated a fact."

Bullshit.

Quote: " That made you upset."

Nope, I just like putting hypocrites like yourself in their place. "I'll say what I want about you, Insult you, but leave me alone" types. It's fun.

Quote: "We'll find out here, same Bat time, Same Bat channel."

You should be careful calling people "dumb".

[detmich]

Quote: "I didn't make fun of the Bible."

Calling it a work of fiction, you know well that was a bait to start an argument.

Quote: "I stated a fact."

Bullshit.

Quote: " That made you upset."

Nope, I just like putting hypocrites like yourself in their place. "I'll say what I want about you, Insult you, but leave me alone" types. It's fun.

Quote:



Sorry, poor Sassmo, if I upset you by repeating a Bible story. Poor, poor baby. Hypocrite? No, that would be more like someone who claims to be Christian, but doesn't follow the teachings of Christ. You know, someone like yourself. Maybe, just maybe, It would do you good to read the New Testament. Oh wait, sorry about that, maybe you could have someone read it to you?

Oh, and about the Old Testament, I wasn't baiting you. The vast majority of it is a work of fiction. Sorry to ruin your day.



"We'll find out here, same Bat time, Same Bat channel."
You should be careful calling people "dumb".Are you insulting my beliefs? I believe in Batman, you infidel.

[DetroitDad]

Good posts on both sides!

Well, the unaddressed point I always see made, usually by the religious crusaders, is that it is a choice, and therefore cannot be compared to the rights afforded to non choice differences like race, or sex, or a disability. What is interesting, and a point I never see brought up, is that it is comparable to religion, and freedom of religion is a right protected by our constitution, yet religion is technically also a choice (and arguably unnatural).

You have a group of people (homosexuals) who believe in something so strongly that they are willing to face persecution and even death for it, now what other groups does that sound like to you, Catholics, Jews, Muslims? I see no real difference between gay sex and religion at all.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Oh, and about the Old Testament, I wasn't baiting you. The vast majority of it is a work of fiction."

I know you are having a bit of hard time getting it through, when you type that you are insulting people. For a better understanding, go to an Arab state, stand on a corner and tell them their book of faith is a work of fiction. I dare ya. :)

[detmich]

Quote: "Oh, and about the Old Testament, I wasn't baiting you. The vast majority of it is a work of fiction."

I know you are having a bit of hard time getting it through, when you type that you are insulting people. For a better understanding, go to an Arab state, stand on a corner and tell them their book of faith is a work of fiction. I dare ya. :)

The Koran? Totally fake.

[rb336]

Well, the unaddressed point I always see made, usually by the religious crusaders, is that it is a choice, and therefore cannot be compared to the rights afforded to non choice differences like race, or sex, or a disability.
You have a group of people (homosexuals) who believe in something so strongly that they are willing to face persecution and even death for it, now what other groups does that sound like to you,gay sex and religion at all.

Homo- and hetero- are not choices. I never decided to be sexually attracted to women, I just am. I didn't choose to not be gay. The vast majority of evidence says that there are a number of biological causes for sexuality, from genetics to the release of hormones at certain times during pregnancy. Therefore, they are fighting simply for the right to be who they are, not who they choose to be.

[DetroitDad]

rb336, I agree, but until more studies are done, you can't prove that, even though it's more than likely true. Their argument also goes so far as to say that we should be going against the biological programming, so it requires multiple counterpoints to both scenarios. I know some of those arguing both sides aren't being rational, when that happens you have to catch that moment and shine light on the hypocrisy.

[ccbatson]

Here is a better solution...disconnect marriage from any entitlements for everyone. No, wait, dissolve all entitlements period. Then this falls completely into the private sector where it belongs.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "The Koran? Totally fake."

And you're basing this on what?

[detmich]

Quote: "The Koran? Totally fake."

And you're basing this on what?


Have you read the Koran? Read it, then get back to me with that question if you still don't understand.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Have you read the Koran?"

Just as I figured, nothing...

[detmich]

Quote: "Have you read the Koran?"

Just as I figured, nothing...

Just as I figured, you didn't read it.

The Koran references the same mythological people that the bible does, e.g. Noah. I ti s fiction in the same way that "reference" books about Middle Earth, StarTrek, or Hogwarts are fictional.

Again, read it and then let me know what you think. Till then you are just another lost soul with their light covered by a basket. Did that reference make you horny?

Yeah this happened, just like the DPD is going to hire 1000 new officers. See ya at the rapture!

http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/attachment.php?attachmentid=51465

[Sstashmoo]

Since you're bestowing us with your infinite wisdom, what about the Torah? Is that fiction too?

Seriously, look at what is going on around us, read the new testament, it's all in there just like they said it would be. It even mentions people like you. You're mentioned in there as well.

[vetalalumni]

Back to the thread topic. The answer depends on our ability to look at our understanding, and analytically arrive at developed and fair conclusions. Well articulated, fearless leadership will eventually move this discussion beyond the current confines of social dysfunction.

[ccbatson]

Actually, yes, all scripture is fiction. Powerful symbolic fiction with many historic and modern lessons of great value, but still fiction.

[detmich]

Since you're bestowing us with your infinite wisdom, what about the Torah? Is that fiction too?

Seriously, look at what is going on around us, read the new testament, it's all in there just like they said it would be. It even mentions people like you. You're mentioned in there as well.


"What a Maroon!"
http://realitymarbles.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/bugsbunny.png

[Lorax]

The title of this thread speaks volumes on the OP's pre-determined position on this subject.

What is "natural" or "unnatural" isn't finally the point of this issue.

What is, is that marriage is a CIVIL and SECULAR institution in America, and always has been.

Gays are denied by statute equal rights as other Americans in this arena, and they are only wanting a level playing field.

Since marriage is a legal, binding contract, it falls under the same legal definitions as any other binding contract. The implications for inheritance, medical decisions, etc, are deeply impacted by whether or not two people are married.

So any religious, moral, or other discussion is irrelevant, since these attachments to marriage are not binding in law. Period.

[ccbatson]

That is my point as well, but my conclusion is opposite. Do not expand the dependency class, it is already too big.

[Lorax]

What?

Married people are dependent on????