savvypup

Let me first start by saying that I'm a happy hetrosexual who's married, but currently seperated. My marriage - well I'm yet to find out whether it can be revived, but it was not even 5 years when my husband moved out.

Now tonight there was an article on 60 Minutes about gay marriages. Me personally, I do not have a problem whatsoever about 2 people of the same sex making a 'commitment to each other' and having that be classed as legal. Let me clarify further, by saying that in Australia it is not legal and is a far way off from ever becoming so.

I'm not religious at all. So to my way of thinking, 'marriage' is exactly that. A commitment between 2 people to be truthful to each other and support that person thru thick and thin. No where in the vows that I recited did it ever say anything about abiding by every homophobic's conditions. My marriage is between my husband and I and no one has ever butted in on this. Now why do some people feel that they have the right to stipulate whether a gay couple can have this same right. And by saying this, I'm talking purely about the commitment side - not about having children as my views are slightly different on this subject.

I'm interested in TFPer's views as perhaps I keep missing something when this topic arises.

__________________

ciao bella!

Silvy

I just have a short answer: I agree with you for 100%

And I'm glad that in the Netherlands it's completely legal since a few years.

__________________
"Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. "
- Murphy MacManus (Boondock Saints)

ratbastid

Well, look, I think those who oppose gay marriage are generally offended by homosexuality, and have a gut reaction to anything that would legitimize it. Remember that, in most states, homosexual sex was illegal until relatively recently. There are still sodomy laws on the books in some states that make gay sex a crime (not that they're generally enforced that way, but still).

It's what Jon Stewart said--the most rational, sensible thing anyone on either side of the debate has said. It's not an argument about the nature of marriage, it's an argument about whether you view homosexuality as something that's a natural component of the progression of humanity, or some random fetish.

savvypup

There's an awful lot of people out there with this 'random fetish' then.

And that still being the case, who's being hurt here?

__________________

ciao bella!

CaliLivChick

I'm of the same view point, so maybe we need some homophobics to chime in. What's wrong with a happy couple getting married?

__________________
Don't trust anything that can bleed for a week and not die. Oh wait, that's me... nevermind... you can trust me.

Willravel

Excellent question. I've been pro gay marriage for a while now, but I was raised Lutheran, so I did at one time dissaprove of homosexuality (becase I didn't know any better). My understanding is this: the Bible is God's word; everything in the Bible, at least to a christian or pseudo-christian (someone who only attends church on Easter and Christmas, but at the same time pretends to know the bible like the back of their hand), homosexuality is completly and totally banned without any question or doubt. Several churches have excommunicated homosexuals for not repenting. It's a very serious belief that cannot be overstated (whether it's serious becuase of actual faith or political reasons depends from person to person). Most christians believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Allowing homosexuals to get married in the church is like condoning the sin (I imagine that the see it like allowing prostitution in the narthex after church along with coffee and cake).

The problem is that not only do many conservatives (not just Christians, many Jews and Muslims feel the same) do not understand the necessary seperation of church and state when your government isn't a theocracy. Many countries are "free" countries, allowing civil liberties by law. This, to me, means that homosexuality should be recognised in legal marriage, but churches cannot be forced to marry them.

Lady Sage

I wont lose any sleep tonight if a homosexual couple gets married. Bravo to them for taking the plunge. There are two major causes of opposition: 1) Religion 2) Lack of Openmindedness. The church though based on rules such as "love one another" "judge not lest ye be judged" "let ye who is without sin cast the first stone" "preach not on deaf ears" they teach their "members" to be judgemental and intolerant of anything not just like them. Hellfire and brimstone and its YOUR job to go fix them. They should butt out and mind their own business. If a gay couple wants to get married, is that going to make their pizza taste bad tonight?

Others say they do not want their children being exposed to such "gayness" as holding hands and kissing in public. Wakie wakie and smell the eggs and sausage bucko! Your kids watch tv? Go to school? Then they see it in the halls. If they manage to live into adult hood they are going to see it. Why make it such a shock? This will make them into haters as well. It is a viscious circle and I wish it would stop.

Most homosexual couples I know pretty much keep to themselves and have a few close friends. Why cant the intolerant people follow their example and mind their own business too?

magictoy

Since you presume that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a "homophobe," does that make everyone in favor of it a "heterophobe?"

Now that your original bias has been addressed, I'll answer your question. There's nothing wrong with it. I know of no one who opposes two people linking their lives in such a fashion. The general opinion, as I (and many other people) see it, is that you're calling an apple an orange.

Words mean things. If gays and other people in search of preferential treatment are going to declare that some words are offensive to them, they're going to have to get used to the fact that some heterosexual couples think that a change in the definition of what they consider a sacred relationship is offensive.

NoSoup

Good Point - I'm sure people both oppose and are in favor of gay marriage for many different reasons than being homophobic, but all too often people jump to conclusions.

My question, I suppose, is that if two heterosexual people are committed to each other, why does it matter what the legal definition is?

As far as gay people and preferential treatment - I have seen that to be true in some cases. However, in this case, gay people are simply asking for the same right that most other men/women in this country have. If nothing else, for financial reasons. I don't find it particularily fair that gay people are not currently allowed to file taxes jointly, nor insure their significant other on their insurance, ect.

That being said, I am for gay marriage.

__________________
I have an aura of reliability and good judgement.

Just in case you were wondering...

mixedmedia

I understand that some people may claim ownership to the word marriage by attaching their own definitions to it, but the facts are, the word is open to use by everyone, EXCEPT homosexuals, including atheists and agnostics.....satanists, even.

How about marriages of convenience for legal and/or financial reasons, without a shred of love or sacred commitment? Quickie marriages in Vegas that dissolve within weeks, days, hours? Where is the meaning of the word marriage in these instances? Common sense would seem to dictate that the more loving and committed marriages, the better.

In light of all this, perhaps you can understand why those of us who support gay marriage see the opposition to it as biased at best and irrationally bigoted at its worst.

And that said, I am not saying that you are a bigot, just that, personally, most dissent concerning gay marriage seems to be knee jerk reactionary and not given much thought.

maleficent

I personally am not a fan of marriage... if two people want to spend the rest of their lives together, committed to one another, knock yourself out... you don't need a piece of paper to legitmize it... I know people who are married, who commitment to each other is just a word, I know others who aren't married, who's commitment to each other reaches places I can't even begin to understand.

What two people decide to do, I really don't care.

But should gay marriage be legal? No i don't think it should be, because to legalize it, means that there was something wrong with it to begin with. It may just be semantics, but it should not be illegal, it should not be illegal, it should just ... be...

I'm going with the New Hampshire mindset here... It you doing it doesnt effect me... doesn't need to be a law.

__________________

Redlemon

That's a false negative. Being in favor of gay marriage says nothing about your commitment to straight marriage.

Personally, up until mid-College, I was "homo-ignorant", which is similar to homophobia, but is based on absolutely no information. Then I met some gay people (or, rather, gay people who were "out"), and the ignorance went away. There are two gay couples on my wife's side of the family, and I think they should be able to get married.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Toaster126

I have no problems with gay marriage, but wow that's a terrible comment. Why must people be afraid of or embody what they don't agree with?

I blame pop psychology.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

raeanna74

Though I don't personally have a problem with it myself, I know why many religious groups see homosexual marriage as a sin. I also think that most Christians are guiding themselves and attempting to guide others byt he laws of the Old Testament. I think they are forgetting the greatest commandment given in the new testament - "To love the Lord thy God with all your heart and with all your sould and with all your might, and thy neighbor as thyself." They would not want other's to force their beliefs on them so they should not force their own beliefs on others.

I do believe that homosexuals should not expect ANY church to perform a marriage ceremony for them because that would be asking the church to condon something that they are against. It's a two way street - do not force others to believe the way you do, regardless of what you believe.

I also believe that there are occasions when homosexuals and heterosexuals alike should behave with discretion. I say this because of an incident that occured in our town about a year ago as I recall. There were two teachers in the highschool or middle school (I don't remember which exactly) who are homosexuals. Both guys work there and both were on duty while the kids loaded up on the busses after school. They are a couple and while the kids were getting on busses, not AFTER the kids were all gone, the teachers were seen kissing. I was not there but the way the news spun it, the kiss was not a peck. No matter what kind of couple this is, the behavior was inappropriate when they are on duty and in a professional environment. When people complained they complained about the couple being homosexual instead of the universal problem of inappropriate behavior in a professional setting. There was quite a hullabaloo with regards to prejudice against homosexuals. This couple caused other homosexuals more trouble than anything and harmed their cause.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

mixedmedia

I agree, raeanna, that no church should be forced to marry a gay couple if they have strong objections to it. As it is now, no church can be forced to marry a couple against its objections. My first husband and I were refused a church wedding because of our age difference. Such is their right. But marriages are performed outside of the oversight of religion all of the time. Which is why the opposition to gay marriage on a religious basis rings false to me. There has never been an outcry about the "unsacred" use of the word before. People "marry" dogs to each other for crying out loud! And I'm all for it, lol.

As for the two teachers, I think their behavior was inappropriate as well, but I imagine there wouldn't have been as much outrage if the couple were hetero. Simple fact. Sometimes, I think, in reaction to claims of homophobia (a term which is inapprpriately overused), people tend to try and deny that bias against homosexuals exists, when in actuality it is more realistic to admit that it does and that it still colors and magnifies people's reactions to the issues that involve them.

SpikeQX99

No problems with gay marriage here. However, once the papers are signed and it is an 'official' legally binding deal, be ready for a divorce, and the separation of assets, funds, property to ensue. If hetero have to deal with that nonsense of divorce, let NO one be exempt from it.

__________________
I'm so in love with a girl... she is my everything

Infinite_Loser

I'm fairly sure that you took that passage out of context. The Bible commands people to love God and hate sin. As you know, according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. You can treat people with respect without being accepting of their practices. It's a "Love the person, hate their actions" type of thing. No one is forcing, or even expecting, someone who is a homosexual to suddenly turn heterosexual. Marriage has always been considered to be strictly between male and female(s) (That's not just by Christian standards) and most people would like to see it remain that way.

Anyway, sorry to get off-topic there. I don't really agree with gay marriages but, then again, I really don't care what two people do in their own privacy. I'm not going to take up arms if gay mariages are ever legalized in the state of Florida. It doesn't affect me in any way, shape or form.

raeanna74

Infinite Loser - I know what you're saying is exactly what my mother would say.

I do not recall reading in the New Testament anything against homosexuality. I would have to research it again.

I guess where I'm coming from, Christians today often throw out certain parts of the Old Testament as they feel fit. Not eating pork, not working on the Sabbath, and many other parts. Yet they old TIGHTLY to other laws of the old Testament that are not talked about much or even at all in the New Testament.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Charlatan

First off, while Liv's desire to get the opinion of a "homophobe" is a tad spurious it *does not* suggest that all who are against same sex marriage are homophobes. It *does* suggest that all who are homophobic would be against same sex marriage.

As to your suggestion that all who are in favour are "heterophobes"... Why escalate it?

As for "calling an apple an orange"... What are you talking about? Two people , in a loving, committed relationship are no different from any other couple... regardless of their genders.

Same-sex couples are not looking for "preferential treatment". They are looking for equal treatment in the eyes of the law. Big difference.


I support willravel's comment:

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Mojo_PeiPei

This is a moral issue stemming from religious principles, I don't see how or why that is a problem, as all of our codified law and moral beliefs stem from arguably the same place. People have beliefs, why should they have to compromise them for the agenda of a small segment of the population? It really doesn't matter to me if you are gay, or if you are gay and want to get married; but it does piss me off when people call me a homophobe or start running their mouths because I don't agree with homosexuality as a practice or institution. To me it does come down to a slippery slope argument, at the same time I'm not trying to compare homosexuals to deviants or evil. Marriage is a religious institution, so lets give homosexuals civil unions and be done with it.

For the record there are a few verses from the New Testament directly relating to homosexual being Romans 1: 24-27, 1 Cor 6:10, 1 Tim 1:10 of the top of my head.

Edit: Sorry I had to add this, as with all things I can find a South Park line that I feel is relevant. This is from Mr. Garrison in the Death Camp of Tolerance episode. (Editted for Relevance).

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

filtherton

I don't know. I have yet to hear an argument against homosexuality that holds weight. The religion card doesn't really mean that much to me, especially in light of the fact that, at least in my experience, most people who cite the bible as a factor can't even tell me where the bible says it's bad, some can't even tell me which particular denomination of christianity they subscribe to. I know plenty of "antigay cause god said so" people who have no qualms breaking with their lord's good word when it comes premarital sex or the sanctity of heterosexual marriage or interest free loans. The fact that god's opinion on homosexuality is more relevant than god's clearly expressed opinions on any number of other things to me points to a clear case of "blaming your bigotry on your god".

Citing the lord as a reason to look down your nose at the gays is pretty convenient, though, in that it takes the person doing the judging off of the hook for having to take responsibility for their particular beliefs on an issue.

Even if an "antigay cause god said so" person actually is devout and consistent in their beliefs, i still don't really care what their god says. I don't feel that justifying one's behavior by the opinions of one's god automativally validates that behavior. Fred phelp's god tells him to picket the funerals of american soldiers because of teh gays, and i don't hear anyone going out of their way to claim that he isn't a douchebag, despite the fact that as far as he's concerned he's just doing what god demands of him. Maybe it isn't your god, but it's a christian god nonetheless.

If everyone can believe what they want about gay marriage, i can believe what i want too. I believe that about 99.9999999999% of those opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality are bigots. If you're one of them and that hurts your feelings, well, tough. If anything you can take comfort in the irony of your taking offense at being judged for your judgement of homosexuals. I don't know what i'd call that other .0000000001%, i'll have to wait until i meet one of them.

magictoy

"A tad?" If this were a discussion on receipt of government assistance, I wouldn't ask for "losers" to chime in. I don't know whether 'chick meant it to be insulting, because it's pervasive throughout the media (and this forum) to label as a "homophobe" anyone who doesn't support whatever gay agenda is making the news. Had there been reason to suspect that she knew better, I would have used a stronger word than "bias."

To illustrate the obvious point that not all who disagree with gay marriage are homophobes. That fact does not appear to be known widely in some circles.

Marriage has been historically been defined as the union of a man and a woman, both from a religious and a legal standpoint. However, gays that garner the most press are unwilling to accept any legal arrangement, even one equivalent to marriage, that is not called marriage. To me, that indicates a lack of tolerance for others, and beyond that, a desire to rub the entire situation in the faces of those who don't agree with them. A compromise that gives the gay faction every legal right it wants, without calling it marriage, is acceptable to me, and every gay or straight I know, but not to the gays who make the most noise.

The gays I was referring to are seeking preferential treatment in a variety of arenas. I didn't want to range too far off-topic, so I didn't go into detail, but I was not referring to gay marriage.

Mojo_PeiPei

What's funny about people like you Filth is that you are as bigotted as the people you label.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

filtherton

I don't think so, though you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I'm not rationalizing my perspective. I'm not irrationally afraid of the sexual behavior of strangers when that behavior has have no bearing on the way i live my life. I'm not selectively embracing the words of my most favored diety. I don't require, to feel comfortable in the world, control over the sexual activities of consenting adults. I don't require, to feel comfortable in the world, control over how consenting adults label their relationships. I don't reserve the right, to feel comfortable in the world, to judge the sexual activities and relationships of consenting adults(provided no one is getting hurt). Even if i were being a bigot, there is one key difference between myself and those i would label. I can take credit for my perspective on this issue. I don't need a diety on which to pawn off my bigotry.

To me, the issue of gay marriage is similar to the issue of interracial marriage. I hear very similar arguments against it from certain folks of certain religious persuasions i.e. it's not natural, it's an abomination, etc. Those people were clearly bigots. Religiously motivated bigots, to be sure, but bigots nonetheless. Calling someone a bigot doesn't make me a bigot.

Mojo_PeiPei

Rationality has no bearing on bigotry, only perspective, a bigot is merely someone who is intolerant of somebody elses view, which you clearly are on this matter.

Also as an aside, not to jump to far down the trail of absurdity, but last time I checked, A black man and a white woman, or any color combination thereof, can procreate. Procreation, you know natures grand decision for the survival of a species, is wholly natural; that having been said, it seems homosexuality would there by be an aberration of nature, right or wrong.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

filtherton

I was actually using the old definition of bigot:"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ," or some similar variation. Bigots are intolerant of people who aren't like them because they aren't like them. I am intolerant of the perspective of the vast majority of people who opposed the existence of homosexuality and homosexual marriage because i find them by and large to be short on intellectual honesty concerning the subject of homosexuality. That is my personal experience. I'm intolerant of people who aren't capable of stating with conviction that they just don't like the gays and that's that. There's always some kind of convoluted explanation like the one you offered right here in this very post.

Well, first of all, i wasn't asking you about your opinion on interracial marriage. I was comparing arguments used against interracial marriage with arguments used against gay marriage and finding some similarities. Obviously the clever "gays can't have kids" distraction doesn't apply to interracial marriage. The whole "It just ain't right" and "god don't like it" arguments do apply.

About that distraction: Homosexuality happens. In nature. All the time. It is as natural as an elm tree. I've never heard of it being a threat to the existence of humanity, or any species in general. As far as i know there aren't any animals on the endangered species list because of homosexuality, though that certainly would make for some interesting conservation efforts.

Gays can and do procreate. Some of your friends probably have homosexual mothers or fathers. One nice thing about nature(unless you're a social conservative) is that nature doesn't check for a marriage license prior to allowing mating. As you said "procreation... natures grand decision for the survival of a species, is wholly natural" Homosexuals can procreate, therefore they are natural, at least as far as your logic goes.

As an aside and not directed at mojo, it is interesting to hear so many religious folk suddenly abandon any kind of notions concerning the intention of their "intelligent designer" and embrace "flawed" evolutionary theories when the subject of homosexuality comes up. Apparently, even though the lord created us in his image as part of some divine plan, when it comes to the propogation of our species it's all survival of the fittest. Regardless of god's intentions or omnipotence the future of his favorite species can be thrown into doubt by the smallest of nonhereditary potentially maladaptive behavioral changes.

thespian86

It seems to me it is a simple case of growing awareness. I know in my region of Canada we have the two extremes, to play on a cliche, north and south poles. I live in a huge university town which is prodominately liberal (one is prodomiantely liberal arts school, the other completely liberal arts) but we also are home to a large elderly community. I find that there is both a "hate" for the homosexual lifestyle and a respect for it. For a town of 60,000 we have a gay bar and our annual gay pride parade during pride week. As for marriage, I'm actually unaware of the progress of it?

i think it's as simple as people having to get used to it. It'll happen.

__________________
EX: Whats new?
ME: I officially love coffee more then you now.
EX: uh...
ME: So, not much.

Gilda

Not any longer. Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 struck down all existing consensual sodomy laws. They may technically still be on the books, but they're no longer in effect.

No, and the two situations are not parallel. Favoring gay marriage is favoring equal rights. The equivilent position to opposing gay marriage while keeping it an exclusively heterosexual institution would be opposing heterosexual marriage and wanting it to be an exclusively homosexual institution.

No, we're calling a marriage a marriage.

Well, you've got two or three things jumbled together there, so let me see if I can untangle them.

First, we don't want preferential treatment, we want equal treatment. We want to get married, adopt children, not be fired or denied promotions or housing or equal protection under the law. Equal, not preferential.

Second, we're not addressing the sacred aspect of the institution. That's a religious matter, and churches are already free to deal with marriage as they see fit. Some will marry same-sex couples, including some Christian churches, while others won't. The laws won't touch them. This is strictly a matter of the civil marriage contract.

Third, there is no attempt to change the definition of what marriage is in terms of rights, privileges, and responsibilities, the only thing that would be changed would be which groups are granted this right. Granting equal rights to formerly disenfranchised groups has historically always turned out to be viewed in a positive light.

Fourth, there are already married couples in the sacred, religious sense. I see a dozen or so, often along with their children, at church every week. Laws prohibiting homosexuals from getting married legally are not going to prevent us from being married in churches.

Fifth, I'm assuming that you're referring to words used as slurs against homosexuals in your comparison. If so, it falls apart on it's face. We're not using "marriage" as a slur or insult, nor are we applying it to other people. We want to honor the institution, not attack it.

No, actually, I don't know that, because it isn't.

However, keep in mind that the bible is irrelevant. We aren't discussion Christian or Jewish marriage, or any form of religious marriage. Those are already protected. We're discussion solely laws relating to civil marriage.

No it hasn't.

Exactly.

Recognizing gay marriage would not require anybody to compromise their beliefs. Nobody would be required to enter into a gay marriage, attend one, and churches would not have to perform them. Those who remain opposed would be free to be completely uninvolved, just as they are, I assume, in respect to existing religious gay marriages.

The religious institution of marriage would remain unaffected. Many homosexuals are already married in a religous sense.

None of those directly condemn homosexuality or homosexuals.

Irrelevant. Procreation is not, and has never been, a requirement or an element of the marriage contract. Couples are permitted to marry who are not capable of procreating, the elderly for example.

I would be incapable of procreation regardless of who I married, as I'm sterile. Does this mean I shouldn't be permitted to marry a man? I can't have a baby with him. I don't think anybody would reasonabley say I shouldn't or is attemting to prevent me from doing so.

Why then, should it prevent me from having my marriage to the woman I love legally recognized?

On the other hand, there are laws that allow certain couples to marry only if they can prove that they are not capable of producing offspring--a few states have this requirement for first cousins, a ridiculous requirement if you ask me.

Gilda

Charlatan

Why should any citizen settle for anything less than equality? A marriage is a marriage. Definitions shift with usage. It is the nature of language to do this.


As for any argument that includes procreation as a pre-condition of marriage, I will be sure to tell all of my married and childless friends that their marriages are null and void -- I'm looking at you Lurkbastids.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Infinite_Loser

I was merely responding to raeanna74's post.

As I posted earlier, I really don't care whether or not homosexual's are allowed to marry or not. However, for centuries, marriage has always been deemed betweeen a male and female. I could be wrong, but off the top of my head I don't know of any culture which has ever promoted gay marriages (If you know of any, then enlighten me). Whatever the reasons-- Religious, political, social or otherwise-- The status quo regarding marriage is that it's strictly between a man and a woman.

Ample

What upsets people about Gay Marriage?

I really think it has nothing to do with marriage at all. I think these people were bread from birth to hate homosexuals, or a product of their environment, and hate to see them get any rights, or in their mind “special rights”. They can always quote the bible and they can always use the “sanctity of marriage” line, but really that is a polite way that makes their cause have more creditability and makes them look not so inhumane.

I wonder how many people that are strongly against gay marriage are for other gay rights? Betcha not many. I wonder how many people that are strongly against gay marriage actually have a close friend that is gay? And no, Jason that works four cubicles down that you and you say “hi” doesn’t count.

__________________

Her juju beads are so nice
She kissed my third cousin twice
Im the king of pomona

raeanna74

Procreate: To beget and conceive offspring; reproduce.

Do they REALLY? I have never heard of a homosexual couple who were able to concieve with their reproductive abilities alone. I have heard of couples who were able to reproduce with the help of medical technology and implantation, with the help of male sperm implanted in one or the other of a female homosexual couple. But this, is this really possible? When and where did this happen?

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Gilda

Not with each other, no, but most homosexuals are capable of procreation, and many do procreate either through heterosexual contact or through the use of scientific aids.

Gilda

Infinite_Loser

Just to play Devil's Advocate, if only for a second, why should homosexual's be allowed to marry?

Erm... Homosexuality rarely occurs in nature. The majority of the times it does occur are between two organisms which possess both male and female organs. It's not nearly as commonplace as you say it is.

Gilda

No, it hasn't. Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Canada currently recognize same sex marriage. South Africa will by the end of the year.

Marriage is a basic civil right that is being denied to homosexual couples. All people should be treated equally under the laws.

In additiion, it benefits them, it benefits their children, and it harms nobody.

Rare though it may be, it does occur in nature, and thus is natural.

Gilda

Infinite_Loser

Those changes have only happened RECENTLY. For centuries-- No matter what the culture-- Marriage always has been deemed as a sacred union between males and females. No matter what the causes, many cultures have always openly looked down on homosexual practices.

Oh! And marriage isn't a right. It's a privilege.

Homosexuality in nature occurs for procreation purposes (All right, in some species which lack both sexual organs (Such as some primates), homosexual tendencies have been observed, but the actual act of sex between same genders have not). Nothing more, nothing less. Not to gay bash or offend anyone, but the reasons for homosexuality occurring in nature are far different than the reasons homosexuality occurs in humans, as two homosexuals can not reproduce (I believe someone stated that earlier).

Moyaboy

In Ancient Greece and Roman cultures homosexuality was allowed, yet was struck down by the rise of the christian faith.

So those recent changes are not the first time in history that has happened.

If marriage is a privlage then why do you have the quick marriages in Nevada. Such a privilage!

Then why has there been homosexuality for over 4000 years?

__________________
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg

Charlatan

Equality before the law is what is being discussed here.

Of course, I suppose we could go back to using science, religion, or any other rhetorical tool to justify inequity.

I suppose we could go back to justifying that blacks are racially inferior. That way we can get them back on the plantations where they belong.

Women are clearly not as smart or as able as men, I don't know how they managed to get the right to vote, let alone speak their minds in public.

Heck, what is this spurious concept called citizenship? Only the aristocracy, fingered by God, have the right to rule (and tax!).



We live in a secular culture (last time I checked). Religion doesn't (shouldn't) enter into discussions of this nature. Religion has nothing to do with the rule of law (yes, of course our laws have grown out of religious tradition but that has little to no bearing on current day interpretation of law).

Your religion may tell you that homosexuality is a sin. Bully for you! Don't become a practiving homosexual. The key here is that all citizens are supposed to be equal before the law. Those who would fight to discriminate based on something as silly as sexuality need to seriously examine their place in the division of church and state.


I like Mal's approach. Abolish all marriage.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Moyaboy

Beautifully said.

__________________
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Steven Weinberg

Charlatan

And more to the point, quickie divorces...

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke