Your thoughts on Gay Marriage / Homosexuality?

Post Reply New Topic

Probably only if they film the honeymoon and it mysteriously found it's way to the internet.

There's no rational reason to oppose gay marriage, it's ridiculous this is even an issue.

Agreed, incredibly ridiculous.

what a copout. when christians say things like this, it makes me want to nail their imaginary savior to a stick.

there's nothing in the bible about same sex marriage. there are a few lines about homosexuality and a few more lines that are ridiculously loosely interpreted to be about homosexuality but absolutely nothing about same sex marriage.

so you oppose homosexuality because it is against your christian beliefs and you oppose same sex marriage because you oppose homosexuality.
marriage is supposed to be a lifetime partnership. marriage is a legal contract between consenting adults. your church can choose whose marriage they bless and whose they reject. the government can't stop you. it's constitutionally forbidden from making a law about your religion. it's also constitutionally forbidden to make a law of your religion. so every time you bring up your "christian beliefs" to explain your "anti-equal rights position," you're spitting on the part of the constitution that protects your freedom to practice whatever brand of christianity you enjoy.

but... i'm sure
that you'd feel
like a bit of a heel
if you were forced
to reveal
your true zeal.

you don't think homosexual behavior is a valid expression of humanity. it is, to you, unworthy of the same respect your own sexual behavior is due.

your god is a dick
but he's just pretend.
don't blame your ancestor's
imaginary friend
for your inability
to act with civility
(and maybe humility)
about the propriety
of our modern society.

you people and your damnable gods.
genocide, slavery, martyrdom, stoning unruly children..... that's all well and fine but FFS no buttsex!

i know, i know, you can rationalize all that other bad stuff away.... but FFS gotta keep the "no buttsex" rule! think of the children!

just try not to think of the children who are attracted to their own gender and will grow up hated for no better reason than that they're different and their schoolmates' parents taught them that an all loving god isn't ok with that kind of love.


...christians....

I personally don't understand how two people can live together at all, straight or gay or bi or whatever. I mean, just the thought of sharing EVERYTHING with another person your WHOLE life almost makes me break out in hives! Especially when they've got some horrible contagious virus, and want you to take care of them! EEEWWW!! ! I will never get married and I think I'm immune to love. At least I hope I am.

Are you opposed to other(non Christian) religions preforming marriages for gays?

That would be interesting, but I'm not straight.


So your saying it's wrong for me, someone who is bisexual, to object to the idea that we are slaves to our sexuality?

Because that is what we as Christians try to impart, and that I find it more offensive when I hear people who assume that just because I feel something, that I must automatically follow it. And that if I have gay/bisexual/straight children, that they are more then their sexuality.

But the good media only says to us 'You are such and such, and by that your life is defined.'

Please don't claim to speak for all Christians on the matter. I know plenty of Christians who are for gay marriage.

There is nothing wrong with not following your own desires. You are free to choose for yourself. There is something wrong with demanding others to share the same ideals. I would have a serious problem if I was told that I could not marry someone of the opposite sex, as this has been my choice. I don't feel it's right to make the choice for someone else.

+1

As much as I am against gay marriage, my research has indicated that the overwhelming majority of the homosexual community are against pedophilia and think people whom are pedophiles are wackos that need to be locked up.

The argument about slippery slope isn't directed toward the majority of homosexuals.


The problem arrises from the fact if you open it up for marriage between two people of the same gender, you give polygamists and groups like NAMBLA grounds for having more than one wife and sexual relations with minors.

That's why I don't think a civil union between two people of the same gender should be called 'marriage.' Say it's entering a joint contract between two consenting adults and it hopefully prevents pedophiles from having a legal standpoint to legalize sex with minors.

Again I'm not insulting homosexuals, I'm simply pointing out that first of all with Judicial Activism going crazy there is no telling what would happen. I have no idea why lawyers, politicians, and quite a few judges seem to usually have absolutely no common sense but they tend not to.

Already, we have seen that women that sexually molest young boys get off with slaps on the wrist. They should get the book thrown at them just like if a man sexually molests or rapes a young girl.

Being gay does not affect a persons morality. This is not something we require 'research' on.



You're about to contradict this.



And there it is.

In fairness, I see no problem with polygamy either, as long as all involved parties consent. If you live with 2 or more partners, one of whom may or may not be married to you, and have a sexual relationship with each of them, you break no laws. If you want both (or all) of your partners to be your husband/wife then it suddenly becomes illegal.

And then we get to your idiotic statement about having sex with minors. Nobody is going to pass such a law. Ever.



A contract signed between two people that gives them spousal rights is a marriage, whatever you want it to be called.



Yes you are.



What's your point exactly? We should abandon moral principles for the sake of maintaining the status quo?



What does this have to do with gay marriage?

I was agreeing with waltur.



Okay, if you had continued to read what I had said in context you would see I was insulting politicians, lawyers, and liberal activist Judges, not homosexuals. That they (i.e. politicians) have no common sense and would draw a moral equivalence from gay marriage to pedophilia.



50 years ago nobody would believe that gay marriage would ever be legal anywhere in the US to begin with. This has to do with what people think is right and wrong.



For starters, the 1st and 14th amendments of the Constitution can be thrown into play. Again I'm attacking lawyers, politicians, and activist judges on this not homosexuals.



So which age of consent are we talking about here, the age of consent for a contract in some states is younger than the age of consent concerning sex...



You may want to look again because you're taking what I am saying out of context.



To turn that around you're arguing people should abandon their moral principles for the sake of changing the status quo. I suggested something that is a fair middle ground that many people whom are against gay marriage are willing to compromise over.




It has to do with how the justice system is already not applying the law equally. As well as the fact it sends a message that sexually molesting boys is more okay than molesting girls. Which sets up a moral standards argument.

Again, as I've stated the overwhelming majority of homosexuals consider groups like NAMBLA to be complete wacks that need to be thrown in padded rooms in straight jackets and never be allowed out among the general populace again. I am not insulting homosexuals, I'm just pointing out where the slippery slope is from a legal standpoint.

You were making an unnecessary and patronising point.



There is no evidence to suggest this.



That's a ridiculous response. 50 years from now, having sex with children will not be morally acceptable to a large percentage of the population. Get it into your head that homosexuality and paedophilia are entirely unrelated. More to the point, homosexual marriage and paedophilia are entirely unrelated.

Let's put things into perspective. Since homosexuality became accepted by society, how many countries have had serious lobbying for 'equal rights for child molesters'?

Marriage between two consenting adults is acceptable.
Having sex with a minor is not.



And again, your argument is ridiculous and unfounded.



I'm fairly sure that no states allow a 'marital contract' to be signed by minors.



Actually no. Your context is quite plain. You wish to disguise your bigotry behind a mask of concern, but your reasoning in fundamentally flawed and utterly lacking in supporting evidence.



I didn't argue anything, I asked you a question. Contextually, you might suggest that I was adopting the polar opposite of the concept in my suggestion, but you would be clutching at straws.

No, I'm suggesting that the right to equality outweighs any argument against same-sex marriage. A 'fair' middle ground would be the abolition of marriage, including dissolution of current marriages. I suspect that most married couples wouldn't agree to that.



Once again, how is this related to homosexuals getting married?

Why not break it down, step-by-step, with logical causality from a to b.



The views of 'the majority of homosexuals' - whom you do not speak for - on the subject of NAMBLA are irrelevant to this discussion.



Nope. You're pretty much just insulting homosexuals. Especially with your talk of a 'middle ground'.

Equality is not a matter for debate.

@adifferentname

If I say my intent was not to insult homosexuals, then that was my intent.

I'm hoping that it is just you are misinterpretting the intent behind what I said.

I could go all out and say, "Are you accusing me of being a bigot because I'm not a liberal?"

Again, that's what I could say with intent to paint you as left wing fanatic but I'm not doing that because I don't think that is the correct interpretation of the situation.

If you find what I said offensive to you, I'm sorry that you find it offensive. I'm not going to apologize for stating my honest opinion on the issue.

I does not matter what your intent is. When your ignorance causes an insult, and it is brought to your attention, continuation of the insult becomes an informed choice.

I'm not personally insulted by your opinions; you lack valid meaning as an entity to me. I merely disagree with you completely. I do, however, find the complete lack of reason in your dismissal of opposing viewpoints rather irritating.

What concerns me is that your posts might mislead somebody into equating same-sex marriage to paedophilia. If you cannot understand why comparing the two is wrong, please stop doing so out of respect for those who do understand.

Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't make them ignorant or stupid. I was pointing out changes in morality and the track records of the courts in recent years.

Ever consider I might be just as informed as you are only I'm aproaching it from a different line of reasoning?



Any other insults you care to throw at me? I'm not casually dismissing opposing viewpoints. And I certainly don't think you lack valid meaning as an entity... You say something like that and have the nerve to say I'm dismissing people's opinions.

Well like any other rational individual you go out of your way to insult me, and yes I will dismiss your opinions out of hand because you've lost credibility. I'm not trying to insult people, I have the diplomatic ability of a freight train sometimes, but I'm not deliberately going out of my way to try to offend someone.



That's why I said repeatedly that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals think that pedophiles and groups like NAMBLA are a bunch of nutcases. Do I need to put it in neon lights? Seriously, I think people know how to read. If I was insulting anyone it was lawyers, politicians, and activist judges whom apparently have no common sense and based on some of the other stupid things they've done I wouldn't find that unlikely that they might actually go along with legalizing pedophilia. The overwhelming majority of homosexuals like the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals would be out with torches and pitchforks for peoples heads. My point is, when you have a tax cheat confirmed by the Senate to handle tax law, it doesn't inspire confidence in the decisionmaking ability of our elected officials, nor much confidence in the judges that are appointed.

Ignorance and stupidity are not one and the same.

If you wish to claim that your findings are correct, I invite you to share your reasoning, not merely your conclusions.



That you believe same-sex marriage is in any way morally related to paedophilia suggests you are not informed.



I stated that you lack valid meaning as an entity to me. Please do not paraphrase in order to suggest I stated something that I did not.

You have insufficient importance in my world to cause me insult. You are an anonymous being, typing your ill-informed lunacy about how there is a causal relationship between legalising same-sex marriage and widespread acceptance of paedophilia.



Actually, no, I gave you an accurate assessment of your intrinsic value to me personally.



There's no reason to overtly state this. It is apparent that you have already dismissed the possibility that you are wrong.



If you were driving negligently and accidentally killed somebody you would be found guilty of a crime. You know you should be paying attention to the road, but chose not to. Similarly, you have been informed that your statements are misinformed and bigoted, yet you choose to negligently repeat them.



Your statement does not excuse your claims that legalising gay marriages would cause a moral slide, leading to acceptance of paedophilia. And once more, you have not spoken to 'the overwhelming majority of homosexuals'.

I can state with certainty that I have never been told by a homosexual that they believe paedophiles are nutcases. Please cite your sources. You speak of credibility, yet make sweeping statements on behalf of an entire section of humanity to which you do not belong.



It does not matter what your opinions of lawyers, politicians or judges are. It does not matter if you believe they are capable of legalising paedophilia. None of this is relevant in a discusion about same-sex marriage.

Forget neon lights. Here's some genuine illumination for you, in the form of a thing we call 'logic'.

-Thus far, in every country in which homosexual intercourse is legal, paedophilia remains illegal.
-Allowing two people of the same gender to marry is a recognition of the acceptance that a same-sex partnership is equal to a mixed-sex partnership in modern society.
-There is no link between two people getting married, and a person having sex with a child.
-Marriage has nothing to do with having sex, regardless that married couples generally have sex with each other.

Granting gay people equal rights will not cause the legalisation of paedophilia.

Unless you're willing to show some reasonable evidence that supports the opposite of the above, you are deliberately drawing a false line between homosexuality and paedophilia. This makes you nothing less than a bigot.



Even if this were true, it remains irrelevant to the subject of same-sex marriage.



Then start a new thread entitled "appointing corrupt people in government leads to a moral decline". At least then you may have a valid point, albeit a trite one.