Gay Marriage Video(s)

[Gabrielman]

My reason for opposing gay marrige is by faith only. In my faith it is wrong so I, by expressing what my faith believes, do not agree with gay marrige. I will not argue from the "it's for procreation" thing, many times in the Bible there were barren women and sterile men who were still married. Therefore that argument does not fly with me. What I said earlier was if we saw it from a evolutionary stand point, so in retrospect if we were going all animal gays would have been weeded out. Thankfully I do not agree with that stand point. I have a gay friend at work who also opposes gay marrige. He does so on the grounds that he has found, by his own practices mind you, that a homosexual couple may not be the best conditions for kids. That is his reasoning, so he figures why get married if he will not have or raise kids.
So far as STDs go, though this is a completely different subject in some ways, people should not have sex until they are married. I bet that if everyone held off from inaproirate sexual behaviour things would be better, and not just because stds would decline. There are many phycological arrguments against premarital sex as well.
Little off topic I know, but you get the point. Like I said, to be honest it is just my faith that leads me to oppose it. I will follow through with what I believe in a contry where I am free to do so. Mind you I do not hate gays at all, like I said I am friends with one. The Bible defines marriage as between one man and one woman, so maybe if it were called something else people would not oppose it as much. I am not sure how I would approach it through my faith, I don't know what the word says about that, but it would surely shake some opposition. However like I stated before, somewhere, Marriage is a Christian institution, made to follow Christian standereds. I know not what the Bible says of different unions, but to be honest I don't like the idea. Couldn't imagine how a man could be attracted to another man... it's weird to me. And again I must raise the idea that it causes many issues with my faith. God didn't create us that way, he made man and woman for a reason. A man, biologically, is ment to be with a woman. We could go over the human anatomy, lol, but that may get a little too graphic.

Hopefully our President will fix that soon

I hope someone does! though I don't hold out hope that Obama will do anything good in that respect. But that too is another disscussion for another time... and thread.
Zoe makes a good point here too. If we redifne marriage, a Christian institution, then we would not be able to discrimante against any one, not even petophiles. What if a man (or woman) convinces a little child (13-15, maybe a little younger) to marry them? Should it be allowed so he/she can fullfill their sexual desires? This generation is too sex driven and does not look at the deeper things in life. That, imo, is why gay people are so adament about this. They want to make their sexual activites lagit. I wonder what would happen if we all looked past the sexual urges and looked for a deeper, more meaningful, connection.
God bless!

[Imperial]

If the definition of marriage is now open to change, then ANYONE and ANY GROUP MUST be allowed now to marry. ANYONE. ANY GROUP. Because one you establish that the definition is not standard, than we must examine not only genders but numbers. What makes gays so special now that they should be allowed and not polygamists??!?!??!?

POlygamy...

Three women

Five men

Three women and two guys....

Bestiality...why not? Some could argue that animals are voluntarily in a relationship with the affection they hold with their owners.

If we declare that marriage by definition is open to change, then we *cannot* then discriminate against another group who all love each other.

I do beleive this was answered in the essay i linked in the earlier posts as point #9 on "reasons against gay marriage" which reads as follows:

9. Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to instill fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

Bestiality will ALWAYS be a form of animal abuse, we aren't talking about somthing as drastic as that. Polygamy is drastic in a way that no one would support it because it's ridiculous. Multiple wives/husbands is stupid because there's no way a person could truly love a *GROUP* of people as they could love 1 person.

He does so on the grounds that he has found, by his own practices mind you, that a homosexual couple may not be the best conditions for kids. That is his reasoning, so he figures why get married if he will not have or raise kids.

Just because he doesn't think raising kids would be a good idea for him, doesn't make it true for all gays. And i've stated already why gays are just as fit to raise kids as a heterosexual couple. If you wanna stick to your faith then fine, but i don't think people that base their opinion on faith should have a say in it since freedom of religion still applies (yes im using that bit again). It's unfair to push how you think people should live on people who don't agree at all.

Legally there is no reason why gay's should not be married, and getting married is a legal situation, therefore it should not be illegal for gays to marry.

[ageofknowledge]

--> Only in your own mind does it derail what I said and that is because you choose to hold on to and reiterate an illogical construct based on false suppositions. Homosexuals marrying each other is as bad as the others. My authority for saying that is both God's revelation (e.g. scripture), the legal system in the U.S. (which certainly has traditionally and still does in most places continue to forbid all of these practices), and science (e.g. general revelation). We aren't against gay marriage because it's unpopular to be so. We are against gay marriage because it is biologically unnatural, societally undesirable, scripturally forbidden, etc... We have very good reasons for being against gay marriage. Don't slander us friend. At least accurately depict what we are saying in plain english. And bring some real arguments. Saying "no it's not" and sticking out your tongue isn't good enough... lol

Are you kidding me?

--> No I am being serious.

You're not even giving reasons as to why you really oppose it anymore.

--> Sure I am. I am giving you specific, concise, clear reasons why I am against it. All you have to do is READ my posts.

All you're doing now is saying everything that im saying is invalid.

--> You used the word all which makes this yet another incorrect statement on your part. Part of what I am doing is giving you reasons why I don't support gay marriage and part of what I am doing is pointing out the flaws in your arguments. You ignore the reasons as if I never gave them and then fail to comprehend the specific arguments I make showing why your arguments are incorrect.

"Biologically Unnatural" and all that other stuff doesn't apply at ALL.

--> Of course it does.

Why? Because it doesn't matter if its unnatural and societally undesirable.

--> Of course it does.

The point is "Gay's Getting Married Does Not Even Effect You Or Anyone Else That Is Not Gay."

-->Of course it does.

So WHY??? are you all trying SOOO hard to prevent it from happening?

-->There are many excellent reasons. We are giving them but you are ignoring them and continuing to make false assertions.

If anything i'd say what YOU'RE doing is a sin looking at a religious standpoint.

-->Of course I'm not. Just the opposite, in fact. Aligning myself with the perversion of a sacred institution given by God to humanity would be a sin. Not protecting it. That's why you need to be careful friend because the devil is out there as an angel of light seeking to deceive people. On this issue: you took his bait hook, line, and sinker.

You're not helping anyone by preventing gays from marriage, it's just selfishness.

--> We're helping our society, our families, ourselves, and our world.

NOTHING bad can come from gay's getting married.

-->Sure it can.

And it's only a stupid argument because there are deceived people in this world that think gross perversion is perfectly acceptable and that God accepts there perversions as normal.

[ageofknowledge]

If the definition of marriage is now open to change, then ANYONE and ANY GROUP MUST be allowed now to marry. ANYONE. ANY GROUP. Because one you establish that the definition is not standard, than we must examine not only genders but numbers. What makes gays so special now that they should be allowed and not polygamists??!?!??!?

As I understand their material zoe, many gays would love to have gay polygamy too in addition to gay marriage and also some wish to return to the practices of the ancient pagans and open up gay relationships with children. There is no bottom.

Bestiality...why not? Some could argue that animals are voluntarily in a relationship with the affection they hold with their owners.

--> Some secularists are already arguing for this. They believe and argue for human rights for chimps (sort of like planet of the apes but in reverse) followed by sexual and marriage relationships between the willing. A chimp can mark an X on a marriage document and an X is certainly legal if witnessed. Some like pigs and cows though. What people like Imperial fail to understand is that there really is no bottom. They just want to lower the bar to their comfort level. Where they are happy sinning but there's always someone beneath them that wants it lower.

Which makes his argument to your post from that pro-homosexual site simply an untrue one.

[zoegirl]

. Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to instill fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage?

My argument is not based on slippery slope, merely a basic observation on changing definitions and, of course, protecting "rights".

If all of the pro-gay marriage groups were really interested in liberating this antiquated notion of marriage, then they should fight to free the notion of marriage for *any* group. Simple as that.

Basically, this is the difference between making an *exception* to the rule and not realizing that the rule is now open to interpretation. The definition of marriage now becomes one of simple commitment....nothing more. If ANY group of people want to be committed to each other, then they should be alloewd to be married.

After all, the arguments for allowing gender to be thrown out of the definition is nothing more than one of wanting "two people who love each other" to be able to make that commitment.

But if that is all, then there are no rules for numbers, or even groups...

Shoot, what's so special about two people? what's so special about two gay men? About one man and one woman?

See, my point is not about slippery slopes. It has taken many many years for even the idea of gay marriage to take place. already there are groups out there that are multiple women and men. Obviously polygamy is one. Certianly none of these sins are new to this era. "nothing new under the sun". I'm not against gay marriage because of some idea of keeping away form the "slippery slope", although that is certainly a strong worry. I'm against it, as has already been established, because it has been *Defined* for us.

It is about this idea that marriage should be defined to allow homosexuals because they love each other and are committed to each other and this is a right. If it IS then they should be fighting for marriages between any committed group of people.

The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

again, not a scare tactic, you aren't seeing the point. Whether or not it has been out there vocalizing doesn't mean that it won't happen, NOR does it mean that we shouldn't be thinking in this direction.

If it IS a RIGHT, then we should be striving for allowing this RIGHT for any committed group. Polygamy should be immediately back on the books for legalisation.

Again, what makes gays so special that they get to have this right and yet we shouldn't think about the ULTIMATE DEFINITION that this brings about? If marriage is simply about individuals being COMMITTED towards one another, then let's define marriage now in that light.

After all, there is really nothing special about the number two...is there?

Bestiality will ALWAYS be a form of animal abuse, we aren't talking about somthing as drastic as that.

Why?!?!? If the animal is not hurt, then what does it matter? And what about those that insist that there's is a celibate relationship? after all, sex isn't everything...

Polygamy is drastic in a way that no one would support it because it's ridiculous.

Whoa, there, I'm overwhelmed by the logic in your argument!! ( ). So YOU say, but who are YOU to deny their RIGHT to love each other in a committed fashion?!?!?

Multiple wives/husbands is stupid because there's no way a person could truly love a *GROUP* of people as they could love 1 person.

Oh, so now you are projecting YOUR idea of love?!?!? Hmmm, sounds like discrimination to me. Why are you so hateful to a group a committed loving people??!?!? why so intolerant? why are YOU projecting YOUR definition of love and commitment and denying a group because of your intolerance?!?!?

How do you know that a group of people cna't love each other in a committed relationship? How limited is your thinking? Hmmm, wow, sounds a lot likethe arguments the pro-gay marriage folks are yelling at us. Here you have, over a hundred years or so, a "marriage" that has been defined as illegal in the United States and you can't even come up with an argument for why it should be illegal other than it's ridiculous and *you* don't understand how they can love each other as a group.

I can't believe that your argument is basically "it's ridiculous". What a laugh...why is it? Why should you define "love" and then limit who can love. How...silly is this!! You are willing to extend marriage to those that you understand and are willing to deny it to those that you don't understand.

Ultimately, then *you* are willing to define marriage....and even you have your parameters. So then it is established that it is ok to have parameters (or admit that you too are discriminatory).

And if it is okay to have parameters, then it is okay to discuss these parameters. Obviously your parameters are two people....ours is two people of the opposite sex. We have a clear basis for our definition.

so far, all you seem to have is this gooey idea of "loving each other" and "committment"...which makes your discrimination of these very committed polygamous groups seem very bizarre.

[Gman]

How many gays do you see nowadays act and admit openly that they're gay nowadays? Now compare that to how many straights you see. Now think about how many gays were open about it in 1978... How could ONE gay person find more than 1000 other gay people to have sex with? A dating site? Not likely since in 1978 dating sites weren't even out yet. This reason combined with the fact that, gay people are like heterosexuals, they DO NOT like every person they see, proves that this statistic is drastically wrong.

Baloney.. I lived through the 70's and I knew many people that were open to it.. Do you really think that homosexuality is a new concept? In fact in the 1970s, San Francisco became a center of the gay rights movement, with the emergence of The Castro as an urban gay village, the election of Harvey Milk to the Board of Supervisors, along with Mayor George Moscone, in 1978.

Please stop skewing the facts and playing the victim...

Second part of that statement is true, but all of the sexual practices ARE practiced by enormous amounts of heterosexuals. You may not do it, but that doesn't mean everyone else doesn't either. Like it or not, oral and anal sex are widely used by all couples.

No... You can't lump them all together. Anal sex is not the norm amongst heterosexual couples.. It's a perversion. Most people, like me, are happy doing it the old fashioned healthy way. That is why the statistics show that anal cancer, HIV, and other various diseases are stronger amongst gay couples..

What kind of idiot would give their kid away and then a few years later "oh no wait i want it back." This is not a valid reason for not allowing gays to adopt. It's the parents choice to put a kid up for adoption, if they might want it back later then they should make an arrangement for that. Common Sense.

Many parents often regret giving up their children and want them later.. Often times they give them up because of financial reasons.. And yes, there are occasions when they want their children back.

Idiot's like this...

"The first case involved a Florida boy, now 3 ½, whose birth mother placed him for adoption in May 2001, when he was two days old. A month before the adoption was supposed to be finalized, the boy's biological father filed a motion demanding custody. At that time, the judge informed the adoptive parents that the birth father would likely gain custody."

http://adoptionblogs.typepad.com/adopti ... ns_wh.html

It is NOT because like i already said, you don't HAVE to be married to have sex, therefore the issue will -ALWAYS- be there. And if you REALLY want to know for sure that heterosexuals do the exact same stuff, go ahead and search for somthing like that on the internet (if you dare). You can't not do somthing yourself and assume that everyone else also won't do it.

I'm sure that there are some heterosexuals doing it.. Percentage wise however, there are more homosexuals performing these perverted acts than heterosexuals which is why the disease factor goes up for them. Again the statistics show otherwise.. Look it up yourself..

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual ... _Lifestyle

[Imperial]

Its rather late now, and thats a LOT of responses that i don't feel like quoting (again)... I dont even think i HAVE to ageofknowlage what's severly wrong about his response to my post...

We've been running in a circle here, and if i've learned anything from arguing with my friend about it - there's NEVER a winner.

So all i ask now - is for each and every one of you to tell me how gay marriage will drastically change your own lives.

[ageofknowledge]

Its rather late now, and thats a LOT of responses that i don't feel like quoting (again)... I dont even think i HAVE to ageofknowlage what's severly wrong about his response to my post...

We've been running in a circle here, and if i've learned anything from arguing with my friend about it - there's NEVER a winner.

So all i ask now - is for each and every one of you to tell me how gay marriage will drastically change your own lives.

No offense Imperial but you are just making ridiculous assertions again and not doing ANYTHING else. Here's what it looks like. "Everybody is wrong but me and they are so wrong I don't even have to respond to what they say or make a defense because I know I'm right." Even though you aren't.

So



Your "scripture"/authority is the comical illogical arguments you found on a pro-homosexual website friend.

[Gabrielman]

So all i ask now - is for each and every one of you to tell me how gay marriage will drastically change your own lives.

It would be a direct attack on my faith and values that were the founding ideas for this contry. It would lead to more and more attacks on my faith with people saying "just accept what we want and don't resist". There is a book about this "Speachless: Silencing The Christians" Don't believe it is happining? You will see. If we give an inch then you will take a mile. It starts with allowing gay marriage, and next thing you know they are monitoring what is said at the pulpit by pastors to make sure they are not opposing gay marriage. That isn't unreal, it has happened before. Pastors have been incarcerated for speaking "hate speech" because they said they did not believe in gay marriage and they oppose it Biblically. Like I said, give any ground and we will lose it all. It will cause problems, and if it is leagalized I will be proven right.
God bless!

[Imperial]

It would be a direct attack on my faith and values that were the founding ideas for this contry. It would lead to more and more attacks on my faith with people saying "just accept what we want and don't resist".

So your answer is, it'll effect you because some people will go against christianity. "Just accept what we want and don't resist" is what i see as what Christians are doing.

No offense Imperial but you are just making ridiculous assertions again and not doing ANYTHING else. Here's what it looks like. "Everybody is wrong but me and they are so wrong I don't even have to respond to what they say or make a defense because I know I'm right." Even though you aren't.

"Of course it does." was your answer for 3 things. Once again you gave no true reasoning. There.. are you happy? Two sentances can show how stupid your post was. I have no idea what kind of mind game you're playing, but its not working. So far you are the least credable person posting. Gabrielman has the highest credibility here so far even though it seems he's posted only a few times. Like i said in a previos post, stop accusing me for doing somthing that you yourself have been doing repeatedly.


While im at it, i suppose i'll give a clear answer to Zoe's post...

Oh, so now you are projecting YOUR idea of love?!?!? Hmmm, sounds like discrimination to me. Why are you so hateful to a group a committed loving people??!?!? why so intolerant? why are YOU projecting YOUR definition of love and commitment and denying a group because of your intolerance?!?!?

How do you know that a group of people cna't love each other in a committed relationship? How limited is your thinking? Hmmm, wow, sounds a lot likethe arguments the pro-gay marriage folks are yelling at us. Here you have, over a hundred years or so, a "marriage" that has been defined as illegal in the United States and you can't even come up with an argument for why it should be illegal other than it's ridiculous and *you* don't understand how they can love each other as a group.

Ok let me put it this way... I personally wouldn't get into Polygamy BUT if the US was trying to decide whether Polygamy should be made legal or not, i would not be a selfish ass hole and try to stop it from happening, because nothing truly bad will happen because of it.

As for bestiality, if a person married a cat or a dog, their spouse would die like 50-80 years before they did. The only reason i would be against it would be because its pointless. One of the reasons to get married is to gain certain rights that would have nothing to do with animals. Also, a dog/cat can't really raise a kid now can they? And by that i mean RAISE a kid, not just BIRTH a kid.

We are talking about gays, not animals. They DO gain useful benifits from marriage, and CAN raise kids just fine.


Side Note: Another comparison to opossing gay marriage would be what's discussed here -> http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 30&t=33566. Hmmmm everyone seems pretty shooken up that these people can't do a simple thing as studying the bible. Yet those same people then try to make somthing like gay marriage illegal? If you can study what you believe, why cant they do what they believe is right? Hypocritical ftl...

[topic]

Outside observation by an inquisitive person. ( I am not from the U.S.A.)

So what homosexuality is actually asking to be married or does it cover the full gambit? If people are going to vote fore or against shouldn't they be fully informed on what it is they are voting for? If they have been can someone put up an official government link please?
What I am referring too when I ask “what type of homosexuality”. Is it from an anthropological analysis where homosexuality is defined as —----

1.Egalitarian — This is prevalent in Western societies, however also found in other world cultures as a minority.
2.Gender structured — regarded as traditional male gender from Central and South East Asia, Middle East and the Mediterranean basin? If a same sex couple migrated to the U.S. would this also have judicially approval or would they be excluded?
3.Age structured — i.e. Southern Chinese boy-marriage rites and is again followed in Central Asian society.

NOTE: (my reasoning for reviewing the context from an anthropological analysis is that originally it was studied by this science-forensic & criminal anthropology (and Sociology) to the late 19th early 20th century. The mantel was relinquished too medicine and psychology (post 1945), then handed back to Anthropology in the 1970's.)


Regarding the “sexual minority” issue, which I have heard claimed by those who propose that the laws should be changed and permit such marriages. The issue I wish to have clarified is that originally “sexual minority” related only too Lesbians and Gays. However it now incorporates bisexual and transgender, known as LGBT. So is this marriage law exclusive of BT or inclusive? If exclusive then is this the same argument that LG can use? so it only follows to its hypothetical imperative that BT would ask the same right.
Referring to the fact that homosexuality is found throughout history, actually needs to be quantified. What I am asking is that if reference is made to this as being natural,and history is used to support this, does this mean that “Pederast” (which was practiced in many parts of Ancient Civilizations) is looked upon to be acceptable?? If yes, then I strongly have issues with such a reflection, if no, then you are being exclusive of Homosexuality in an historical context — you can't have it both ways.
Evolutionary aspects of Homosexuality, at this time, have no definitive agreement on how Homosexuality is prevalent in Humans or the Animal Kingdom. To use this assertion; as a weight in either direction is only speculative at best, or a fabrication to the extreme.
None of the science disciplines have yet to come to an agreement.

Marriage
The concept, psyche and fundamentals (structure and creed) follow the Judeo Christian ideal. As such, this ideal was adapted to Western society through Christian influence. Clearly other cultures within the European dynamics such as Celts, Goths, Gauls to name a few had their own marriage ideals but they adopted the Christian manner in marriage over time. Historically this is a fact. As such I find it inventive that a secular society can disengage this concept from its original foundation, hold true to it fundamental creed and when Christians argue the point of homosexual marraige which is out of context to the original design, they are frowned upon by secular authority — is clearly absurd.
Whether secular society believes that such an opinion is archaic is irrelevant. To put it in a comparable context, would the secular disapproval be used if they had adopted the Jewish marriage format and when Jewish society complained about it? Would secular society say “come on your being archaic, and you don't have a stand in the subject unless you come to it from our point of view.And anyway, we have taken it for our own,so majority rules!!"

[ageofknowledge]

"Of course it does." was your answer for 3 things. Once again you gave no true reasoning. There.. are you happy? Two sentances can show how stupid your post was. I have no idea what kind of mind game you're playing, but its not working. So far you are the least credable person posting. Gabrielman has the highest credibility here so far even though it seems he's posted only a few times. Like i said in a previos post, stop accusing me for doing somthing that you yourself have been doing repeatedly.

Wrong again Einstein. I had already given true reasoning, pointed it out to you after you failed to acknowledge it, and explained to you that you were ignoring or dismissing it. Go reread our posts. But you continue to make false assertions, not provide any real proof other than some gibberish from a homosexual website, and march forward with a chip on your shoulder.

Now come on.. how can we take you seriously when that's your behavior for that's the behavior of a child.

[Harry12345]

Why is the government even involved in marriage in the first place?

[Imperial]

Wrong again Einstein. I had already given true reasoning, pointed it out to you after you failed to acknowledge it, and explained to you that you were ignoring or dismissing it. Go reread our posts. But you continue to make false assertions, not provide any real proof other than some gibberish from a homosexual website, and march forward with a chip on your shoulder.

Now come on.. how can we take you seriously when that's your behavior for that's the behavior of a child.

hm, the posts have stopped their steady pace of flow. Maybe it was because of my last question? or maybe you didn't read it...

Here it is again : how will gay marriage drastically change your own lives?

[waynepii]

Why is the government even involved in marriage in the first place?

Maybe because one needn't be affiliated with a church to get married?
Maybe because marriage is mainly a secular institution?
Maybe because church's interest in marriage is quite recent (4-500 yrs) and they got into it because at that time most of the persons that were literate were clergy, so the church kept the records.
What gives religions the idea they "own" marriage?