Thought on homosexuality and same sex marriage

[c9h13no3]

Originally Posted by amrtin77

polygomy or incest

Both have documented harmful effects to the practitioners and their families. Homosexuality doesn't.

[amrtin77]

i agree with you. but those are two that can actually be argued. if you both cant have children, then whose to say incest is wrong? sure it gross, but thats no basis if its no basis for homosexuality.

and polygamy, this is why i think the government should get our of marriage completely. let people do what they want, dont make a big legal issue out of it.

[Laharl]

Liquer boy, yet again let me point out a fact that you appear to be completely ignoring. God does not persecute homosexuals - just people who participate in "gay sex". You don't appear to possess the mental capacity to have picked this up by now, so I will stop repeating it.

Note: I am a VIRGIN - god has no problem with me. Mind shutting up now, mindless one?

[Lights]

Let me intrude into this conversation to point out what I believe, and what I think any rational thinker should agree with.


Banning gay marriage is an absolutely absurd idea. If there is one reason beyond religion, I would love to hear it. A man and another man are just as capable to make a mutual, mature consent to be lifelong partners as a man/woman. And what is this business about it being 'immoral'? What the ****? Is anal sex immoral for hetero's to partake in, should they have to sign a paper saying they will not have sex in that position? What about a marriage between the infertile? Between those who do not want children? Love is love. The government has NO right to not allow two persons a legal bonding because of gender. My neighbor has no business deciding whom I will live with.

Do you know the benefits they are not allowed to have soley because they are 'gay'?
Here's some:

-Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee
-Appointment as guardian of a minor
-Award of child custody in divorce proceedings;
-Beneficial owner status of corporate securities;
-Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses;
-Burial of service member's dependents;
-Certificates of occupation;
-Consent to postmortem examination;
-Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases;
-Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property
-Criminal injuries compensation;
-Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee
-Disclosure of vital statistics records;
-Division of property after dissolution of marriage;
-Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing,
-Finance and Development Corporation;
-Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments;
-Exemption from conveyance tax; Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants;
-Funeral leave for government employees;
-Homes of totally disabled veterans exempt from property taxes;
-Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;
-Inheritance of land patents;
-Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society;
-Legal status with partner's children;
-Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts;
-Making partner medical decisions;
-Nonresident tuition deferential waiver;
-Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings;
-Notice of probate proceedings;
-Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee;
-Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death;
-Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation;
-Proof of business partnership;
-Public assistance from the Department of Human Services;
-Qualification at a facility for the elderly;
-Right of survivorship to custodial trust;
-Real property exemption from attachment or execution;
-Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate;
-Right to change names;
-Right to enter into premarital agreement;
-Right to file action for nonsupport;
-Right to inherit property;
-Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land;
-Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act;
-Right to support after divorce;
-Right to support from spouse;
-Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment;
-Rights by way of dour [dower?] or courtesy;
-Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code;
-Sole interest in property;
-Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;
-Spousal immigration benefits;
-Status of children;
-Support payments in divorce action;
-Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
-Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death;
-Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment;
-In vitro fertilization coverage;
-Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics

Now why again can they not be privileged to these? The government does not control the bedroom between two legal, consenting adults.

[Kuzmich]

Civil Union allows them to get those benefits, marriage is not nececcary.

[Lights]

Originally Posted by Kuzmich

Civil Union allows them to get those benefits, marriage is not nececcary.

It isnt about the benefits, not totally. It is about discrimination and prejudice. They are no different, they have every right to a legal marriage and not just a civil union. How is this different than the school segregation of the past?

[Tempest Storm]

I think most sensible gays would settle for civil unions. In the eyes of the law, there is no difference between a civil union and marriage. Both entitle the same rights and priviledges.

If it's a union in the eys of God you want, or a public celebration, then you can easily find a church that will marry gays and have a celebration or union in the eyes of God, and with the civil union, they get the same rights as married couples.

Personally, I think the gay rights movement has gone about this gay marriage thing the wrong way. Civil rights advancements are made in baby steps. The majority of Americans just aren't ready for gay marriage, and by trying to push it on them, they've made it even harder to get gay marriage. If they had pushed for civil unions instead, most Americans could have agreed with that, and in 20 years, would have been more accepting of gay marriage. But now, they will have to overturn the state constitutions of 11 new states if they wish to get gay marriage in those states. 8 of which also banned gay civil unions along with gay marriage.

[Eternal Resurrection]

Ive always viewed marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Men were genetically created (by whomever .. insert name here ________ for what or who you believe in) to be with women. (The penis vagina concept.)

I think its immoral, and should NOT be allowed by all means.

[Forged]

As Marriage is not a christian exclusive ceremony I don't think it matters what the christian church thinks...

[B~E]

I wonder, after those 3 pages, did anyone changed is mind about anything ? Or at least learned something ? at all ?

[Forged]

no, this is one of those things that people have super strong opinons on. You won't change anyones mind.

[c9h13no3]

Originally Posted by Black~Enthusiasm

Or at least learned something?

I learned a long time ago that I will never learn anything from these boards.

[Kuzmich]

Originally Posted by c9h13no3

I learned a long time ago that I will never learn anything from these boards.

Its probably just because you're brain dead.

[B~E]

Gentlemans, gentlemans, please ! If you absolutly have to go at it, please take it there at least !

[Laharl]

I've decided long ago that women can not truely understand men. Thus making heterosexuality a minor sham in many, many ways. Can any of you prove otherwise? It would be really quite hard to do.

[B~E]

Maybe men were supposed to love women in the first place, not to understand them.

[Laharl]

Love? The FIRST step towards true love is understanding.

And I meant that women cannot truely understand MEN. They are too busy thinking that we, men, are simply about sex.

Discrimination shows an blatent lack of understanding, and ergo no capacity for love.

[B~E]

Originally Posted by Big-Fat-Homo

Love? The FIRST step towards true love is understanding.

And I meant that women cannot truely understand MEN. They are too busy thinking that we, men, are simply about sex.

See, this blatant stereotype show how much you understand them in the first place. It probably explain why you cant love them.

[Laharl]

Women, contrary to all appearances, are just as hormonal as men, B~E. They just hide it better, due to social expectations. Can't love them? I have MANY girls as FRIENDS. Maybe I can't love them emotionally, because I don't want to - and physically because I find them repulsive (physically). Can't understand them? Tell that to my many fag hags. They like me almost only because I "can understand them"

Maybe you should actually do a little research on gay guy -> straight girl relationships before you accuse me of that, mkay B~E? It'll make you look a little less silly.

[The_Raven7]

Oh for the love of god people:

#1) this law wouldn't keep them from ****ing
#2) stop argueing over a ****ing word. marrige, civil union, who the hell cares? it's about the ****ing marrige benefits, the sharing of finances, the liabilities, the living will issues, insurance, legal rights, god damn the list goes on. But since you can't be married legally if you are gay, you cant do any of the shit above even if you are in a "civil union". I hate when this shit goes into "OMG ARE GAYS THAT WAY AT CONCEPTION OR DO THEY JUST WAKE UP ONE DAY AND SAY 'OMG I GET HORNY FROM THE SAME SEX!'?" because that is not the point of the argument. The question is should we be wasting perfectly good parchment and ink on an amendment that is immoral and completely retarded in the first place? I mean why not make an amendment banning gay fantasies? OMG! YOU THOUGHT ABOUT BEING GAY DEATH ROW 4U!

it just pisses me off how blind people are
my 2 cents