PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Current Events
     Gay Marriage
       should gay people have equal rights? yes or no?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
aznboiz1993

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello. I had this assignment about gay marriage. It was difficult and i want to see other people's oppions do u think they should have equal or not?

 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 1:32 PM on July 5, 2005 | IP
aznboiz1993

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I support gay marriage come up with anything to deny it and ill counter.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 1:33 PM on July 5, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i support it, so i can't offer you a personal counter.
Hint: most arguments against will be religiously-based. Actually, i'd say all will be.

Some arguments against I've heard so far include:
May lead to adoption, therefore the child will be "confused" by having gay parents and will encourage them to "become" homosexual

Homosexuality is "unnatural" and "immoral" (according to the Bible anyway...) and we should therefore not encourage such behaviour

Spreads HIV/AIDS virus to children (ABSOLUTELY ridiculous argument, but i have heard it)

"Destroys" the "sanctity of marriage" (which really only ever exists to the individual/s, and is not a tangible object so cannot therefore be "destroyed")

Um, that's all i can think of right now...hope that helps!
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 03:12 AM on July 6, 2005 | IP
aznboiz1993

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To K8,

This is a true statement but this statement cannot make gay marriage illegal. If you know the constitution well, you will notice that the First Amendment says, seperation from church and state.
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 7:38 PM on July 6, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OH GOD!!! YOU DON'T THINK I BELIEVE ANY OF THE ABOVE STATEMENTS DO YOU???
I support the legalization of gay marriage fully, and don't believe any of the arguments i mentioned above are valid at all - i was just giving you some that i have heard people use in order to deny it. You understand that, right?
 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 11:56 PM on July 6, 2005 | IP
aznboiz1993

|       |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I understand now .
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 12:45 AM on July 7, 2005 | IP
luke9

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think that gays should be entitled to all the rights that every one else has.  But... they should not be able to get officially married.  Marrige is between a man and a women and that has been the way it has always been and hopefully always will be.  But they should recevie alll the other rights entitled to them.


-------
luke
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 3:31 PM on July 7, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why shouldn't they be married? Any good reasons? or is it the sanctity of marriage BS, I can't see how gays getting married would in any way effect me getting married in the future or what it would mean to be married.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 9:20 PM on July 8, 2005 | IP
skins38

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where will it stop then? will next be Mother and son or mother and daughter? Maybe even someone will even get crazy and want to marry an animal.   Maybe we should let fifty yearold men marry ten year old boys.  Whats wrong with that? Nothing at all if they love each other according to your arguments.

If you look at nearly every society what bases the concept of right and wrong?  Religion.  With out religion there is no right and wrong.  

What is natural about being gay besides the fact that they have feeling for each other? nothing

If you know the constitution well seperation of church and state is not the government cant pray or things like that its that the government cant have a national religion.  

Them getting married wouldnt affect you or me at all.  And if gays want to live together let them.  It is fact though that children without a male and female role model in thier life like parents are not raised as well.  Either thier missing the father side or the mother side.  same goes with single parents as well.


-------
2nd Amendment- First line of defense;Last resort to combat tyranny and oppression.
 


Posts: 97 | Posted: 5:58 PM on July 9, 2005 | IP
JDet2005

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The argument of where it will stop is nothing but a cop out of anger and quite honestly is ludicrous. The question of how much sense our society has should not be measured to whether or not we will decide to legalize the marriage of man to dog. To say the least, such an argument is utterly ridiculous.

The fact that many other nations base their government on religion is not enough reason for us to do so. In my philosophy class, it is our goal to determine where morality comes from. There are plenty of American citizens who have unquestionable ethics who do not practice a religion or have actively chosen to be atheist.

For the record, there is not a seperation of church and state clause. I do know the constitution pretty well and the first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Which yes, that does mean there should be no government institution publicly enforicing things such as prayer. That amendment to the constitution then means that each individual senator and representative and supreme court justice and president should be able to objectively look at laws that will continue to uphold a religious point of view. This includes the Christian belief of homosexuality being a sin. Thus any law prohibiting homosexuality on such a basis stands to be unconstitutional.



-------
Honestly, <br> Truthfully, <br> Sincerely, <br><br> Johnnie L. Lewis<br> BGSU<br><br>"Change starts with choice."-TDL<br><br>"Unless one is a genius, it is best to aim at being intelligible." -Anthony Hope
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 9:44 PM on September 24, 2005 | IP
gumbo

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The only people who are opposed to Gay Marraige and homosexuality have naver really met any gays. if gay marriage bothers people, then just call it something different like ... i don't know...a union you make up something.


-------
Heron of Alexandria invented modern times.

-Gumbo A.
yes my real name is Gumbo Akmed
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 7:48 PM on December 1, 2005 | IP
AirBrontosaurus

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's a matter of constitutionality.  Marriage is not outlined anywhere in the United States constitution, and thus is left up to the states.  The states, which are ALL controlled by the majority (we live in a democracy), can decide what is legal and what isn't as long as it is not expressly written in the constitution.

There are currently about 38 states that consider gay marriage illegal (it's about 38 because some are ambiguous and they change a lot).  That means that out of 50 states, 76% have a majority stating that they DO NOT want gay marriage.

While I know that the constitution does not alow the rights of the majority to outweigh the rights of the minority, it does expressly state that we are a country ruled by the people.

The reason that there might be a constitutional amendment is because if some states consider it legal, then all states need to recognize it, which is unconstitutional.  The government cannot force the states to recognize a law like marriage if the states do not wish to.

this alone is enough to discount the entire argument, but it doesn't even call into question the logistics of it.

First:  If a man can marry a man, something expressly outlawed by the current definition of marriage, then why can't I marry my dog?  Just because YOU can't understand inter-special love doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  To say someone can't marry a dog because a dog can't love you the way a person can is like saying you can't marry a man because a man can't love you like a woman can.  It is being just as closed-minded and bigoted, yet you think you are being so open minded.  It's actually quite funny.

some far-leftists say that "Fine, then you can marry your dog.  I don't care."  well, in reality you do.  If that were to happen, then marriage would become a joke.  Do you really want your sacred vows to be on the same palying field as someone who wants to marry their dog?  Of course not.

Gay marriage advocates just want people to do everything their way.  Marriage is a like a country club; sure, not everyone is elidgable, but it doesn't mean anything.  You are no less of a person if you can't join Shady oaks Gold Club, and you're no less of a person if you can't get married just because you can't conform to social norms.  So stop whining and do something productive with your time.  End of story.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 10:37 AM on March 2, 2006 | IP
Jake19

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AirBrontosaurus at 09:37 AM on March 2, 2006 :
It's a matter of constitutionality.  Marriage is not outlined anywhere in the United States constitution, and thus is left up to the states.  The states, which are ALL controlled by the majority (we live in a democracy), can decide what is legal and what isn't as long as it is not expressly written in the constitution.

There are currently about 38 states that consider gay marriage illegal (it's about 38 because some are ambiguous and they change a lot).  That means that out of 50 states, 76% have a majority stating that they DO NOT want gay marriage.

While I know that the constitution does not alow the rights of the majority to outweigh the rights of the minority, it does expressly state that we are a country ruled by the people.

The reason that there might be a constitutional amendment is because if some states consider it legal, then all states need to recognize it, which is unconstitutional.  The government cannot force the states to recognize a law like marriage if the states do not wish to.

this alone is enough to discount the entire argument, but it doesn't even call into question the logistics of it.

First:  If a man can marry a man, something expressly outlawed by the current definition of marriage, then why can't I marry my dog?  Just because YOU can't understand inter-special love doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  To say someone can't marry a dog because a dog can't love you the way a person can is like saying you can't marry a man because a man can't love you like a woman can.  It is being just as closed-minded and bigoted, yet you think you are being so open minded.  It's actually quite funny.

some far-leftists say that "Fine, then you can marry your dog.  I don't care."  well, in reality you do.  If that were to happen, then marriage would become a joke.  Do you really want your sacred vows to be on the same palying field as someone who wants to marry their dog?  Of course not.

Gay marriage advocates just want people to do everything their way.  Marriage is a like a country club; sure, not everyone is elidgable, but it doesn't mean anything.  You are no less of a person if you can't join Shady oaks Gold Club, and you're no less of a person if you can't get married just because you can't conform to social norms.  So stop whining and do something productive with your time.  End of story.



There are a couple of flaws within your theory... In order for someone to marry an animal the animal has to have some legal standing and that is impossible. Dog dont get benefits dont have life insurance plans or anything else the legal puroses of marriage would be pointless. Now the animal human expression of love does not exist because to men can verbalize and rationalize to one another that they are in love. A dog can not reciprocate a humans love for it. Not to mention that the dog can not verbally consent to sex is just the same as a person raping another... there is no consent there fore the sex should not take place. This would mean since the dog did not consent the human is raping it and that it is animal cruelity.  



-------
~*JaKe*~
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 11:12 AM on March 2, 2006 | IP
AirBrontosaurus

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In order for someone to marry an animal the animal has to have some legal standing and that is impossible.


Animals do too have legal standing.  It is illegal to torture animals and be cruel to them, hence they are protected by the laws.

Now the animal human expression of love does not exist because to men can verbalize and rationalize to one another that they are in love.


So you're saying that mute people (peopel who cannot talk) can't show love either?  What about people who don't speak the same language?  In both these situations love was not verbally communicated, but I bet you don't think they aren't really in love.

A dog can not reciprocate a humans love for it.


My dog reciprocates my affection for him all the time.  If I do something he likes, he wags his tail and acts happy and social.  If I make him mad, he barks and growls.  Again, just because YOU don't believe that love can exist in this relationship doesn't mean others do too.  You are being just as bigoted as peopel who say a man can't love a man.

Not to mention that the dog can not verbally consent to sex is just the same as a person raping another... there is no consent there fore the sex should not take place.


Again, what about mutes and people of different languages?  Are you saying every time someone who is a mute has sex they are being raped?  I think not...

Even these arguments aside, this fails to address any of the other serious arguments.  What about the constitutionality of the whole thing?  What about majority rule?  What about the fact that gay marriage has nothing to do with civil liberties or civil rights, and more to do with people who just love to complain about everything.  I would love to have these explained to me, but something tells me no one will be able to...
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 3:33 PM on March 2, 2006 | IP
Jake19

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Animals do not communicate love! Love is different from affection. And No animals do not have legal standing in the since that they can not sign a marriage license and laws protecting animals is because they can not protect themselves from injustices. There has to be limitations. And i like how you pointed out only the verbal part and paid no attention to the rationalization part. A man who loved a horse was recently killed because the horse killed him during sex. If this horse really loved the man he would have been able to rationalize that by having sex with him he would kill him. But the horse didnt know because animals function on a level of mating, eating, and sleeping. No one can give hardcore evidence (proof) that the animal loves a human. Now two men can actually say that they both love each other. Mutes can write, people who speak different languages still speak they still verbalize... and just so you know verbalization is not just vocal. but the bottom line is animals do not rationalize concepts such as love thats why most animals are not monogomous. Most animals eat their young. They are not creatures of sentiment or rational minds.

And you also have to look at the aspect that no one is asking to marry their dog. that is just an argument that anti-gay activist came up with to try to prove that gay marriage will lead to moral decay. Man to man or woman to woman marriage is a same species relation and has nothing to do with different species relationships and it is a far-fetched argument to make.

(Edited by Jake19 3/2/2006 at 5:07 PM).


-------
~*JaKe*~
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 5:03 PM on March 2, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Jake, I do know of a guy that got his dog a driver's liscence, but thats besides the point.

Actually, I'm chiming in on this to talk to AB.  That was the worst argument for "our side" that I've seen.  You're just trying to be dumb now.  You'll never convince anyone of anything with that line of reasoning.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:13 PM on March 2, 2006 | IP
Jake19

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanx EMyers! you're right thatis a dumbe argument. And that is really interesting about the dog with the license but still the man went and got his dog a license the dog didnt freely walk into the DMV and file for one.

At least you are a challenge to debate with and have something good to add to the discussions. I always am interested to hear what you have to say.



-------
~*JaKe*~
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 5:45 PM on March 2, 2006 | IP
AirBrontosaurus

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ouch.  OK, maybe I can clarify a little...

The Dog-Man love is a very abstract concept that most people have trouble dealing with (cough, jake19, cough).  However, that is not my main point AT ALL.  It is just something I like to use to show an interesting parallel.  Obviously, that isn't welcome here.

EMyers, My main points have to do with the constitutionality and the legallity of it all.  Do you disagree with those as well?

If so, I would really like to see some of your arguments.  I am always interested in the different viewpoints on this subject, and it seems like yours are completely different than mine, so I would like to see them.

However, in the interest of saving face, I would like to you to know that the only reason that I was arguing the man-dog love was because people (cough, Jake19, cough) kept bringing it up.  If you read my whole argument, it included points that spread across a broad spectrum of social issues, not just a non-sense scenario.

In conclusion:  I won't try to use parallel resoning anymore;  I never meant for the man-dog love to be taken seriously; How in god's name is a constitutional and legal reference the "worst argument" you've ever heard?  Finally, EMyers, what are your thoughts on the subject so I can get some more insight into the issue?

(Edited by AirBrontosaurus 3/2/2006 at 6:42 PM).
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 6:41 PM on March 2, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To be honest I've put little study into the constitutionality (sp?) or legallity of it.  As a Christian, I don't condone homosexuality in and of itself (not trying to restart an argument that is already been beaten to death in the Gay Rights forum, but just outlining position for AB's sake {I'm not typing your whole name everytime }).  As a Christian, I follow the laws of the land (unless such laws are in direct contradiction with biblical teaching).  Abortion is legal, but I would not have (were I a woman :P) one.  If gay-marriage becomes legal, I'm not going to go marry some guy.  Marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman.  Yes, I know that the definition is trying to be changed (that sounded awkward) but I'm unsure what actual changes would be brought about other than the wording.  Almost all legal benefits that a husband and wife have now can be obtained currently between any two people providing the proper paperwork is filled out.  From a Christian standpoint, I don't believe in divorce except for adultery either.  The sanctity of marriage is already being trodden upon by plenty of heterosexuals as it is (don't get me wrong, this doesn't make me pro-gay marriage, just admitting that heterosexual marriage is a bit of a joke in this country already).  This issue of gay-marriage is really more of a social (or religious, depending upon whom you ask) fight than a legal one.  I stand against gay-marriage because I stand against homosexuality.  I do not stand against gay-marriage on any sort of political or legalistic argument (nor can I see much of a legalistic argument presented for it either).

Sinc,
 Ed


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:31 PM on March 2, 2006 | IP
brandonmccleney

|        |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, let me get this straight...
According to what i've read in this...

Me marrying another man would justify someone else marrying their pet? That's odd, I don't recall any animals being able to sign marriage licences, or giving you the right in writing or verbally to pull the plug on them if they're in the hospital. Basically, you're saying that because I was born into a world that simply chooses not to accept that I am a homosexual that you're allowed mock any idea I might be behind that would benefit other homosexuals? Yes, I'm homosexual, and my sexuality in no way, shape, or form effects you, even if I marry another man. You say a woman can offer you things that only a woman can...well, I can say the same: A man can offer me that ONLY a man can offer me. And it's what I want. I choose to accept that I am homosexual, but do not choose to BE homosexual. And please, don't get me started on the sancity of marriage. Half of all marriages (straight marriages, mind you) in the US end in divorce, and I don't think you NEED gay marriage to make a mockery of it; I think you're already doing a great job of doing that yourselves. Countless reality shows based on strangers marrying strangers, pop stars getting married time after time after time, and even getting it anulled three days later. Not to mention, the idea that gay parents would raise their children to be gay is probably the most laughable theories of them all. Yes, of COURSE children of gay parents would be gay! But in that case, that would mean that children of straight parents would be straight, correct? I got news for you: My parents are both straight ^_-
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 11:38 PM on March 16, 2006 | IP
birchie1983

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All that is being said is that there mist be a line drawn i nthe sand somewhere. I agree with that line. Two people of the same sex cannot naturally reproduce. Thus should not have that right to be married.

Also this relates to the earlier argument about marrying young boys girls. I mean it just makes sense to ban it. I mean if we let this slide...what is likley to slide i nthe future?? That is the point that is being made.

I have a gay brother so don't come here and tell me I have no idea what I am talking about. What they do say and act like (the majority of the comunity of gays) is immoral by anyones standards, regardless of their creed. I have heard and seen things I don't want to remember, and I will be stuffed and see gays walk over what is simply one of the last shreds of morality left in our society. It will only ever be right between a man and a woman. Anything else is an aboniation.

And another point - gays are so immoral anyway why invade this as well? Most hetro people don't want to get married...so I don't understand why this is a big deal to gays?

You are like children wanting something they don't have and screaming and shouting till you get it, and loosing interest in it later on and the end result is the gay people would rather be with multiple partners than just one.
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 10:13 PM on June 22, 2006 | IP
Bubble

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I disagree with gay marriage...if people wish to behave in an immoral way it's ultimately their decision. However, if the law of the land is altered to allow for that immorality, society will subsequently suffer. Just look around at the high level of sexual crimes committed in today's society, i believe this is a result of a desperate lack of sexual integrity. Sure, we can not do much to quell the rising tide of sexual immorality, but allowing gay marriage is definitely not a step in the right direction.
My second gripe is with the sanctity of marriage. Divorce, adultery etc (all the result of a lack of sexual integrity) have lead to marriage being degraded. If same sexes are allowed to join as husband and wife it is just making a mockery of this union...its similar to a dresscode in an upperclass restaurant. They can't let any old guy enter unless he's dressed appropriately, in the same way gays should not be allowed to enter marriage as they do not have the correct gender.


-------
"A great many open minds should be closed for repairs"
- Toledo Blade
 


Posts: 16 | Posted: 04:30 AM on June 23, 2006 | IP
birchie1983

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just refering to what Emyers said in a different forum (paraphrasing)

The dictionary definition states that marriage is the legal union of man and woman as husband and wife. Anything other than that wouldn't make it marraige. What are you going to call it? Union? What?

And someone argued that gays want gay marriage because of what? So they can be included in priveledges that only married people can enjoy? The only thing I can think of is the same name. Hetrosexual people have an arrangement called "a defacto spouse" and they can own bank accounts together and buy a house together. Again I reiterate my previous point - why is it so important? Refer to the child screaming analogy I made before.

Marriage started with the Bible, and therefore its roots are Christian, and thus if you gay people do not even hold that God exists, then why even bother? Same thing applies to Christmas and Easter, why take a Christian holiday as a day off - you're basically saying God exists by acknowledging the holiday. Public holidays are made to remember people places or events.

"Paul in Ephesians 5, as well as Jesus Christ, taught that husband and wife become one in marriage (one spiritually and also one physically) based upon the fact that they were one flesh-Eve was taken out of Adam's side. The first recorded words of Adam were that his wife was 'bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.' Therefore, oneness in marriage is based upon the historical oneness of one flesh."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/overheads/pages/oh20010413_14.asp
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 07:00 AM on June 23, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just refering to what Emyers said in a different forum (paraphrasing)


Don’t paraphrase again. You made poor Eddy look stupid.

The dictionary definition states that marriage is the legal union of man and woman as husband and wife. Anything other than that wouldn't make it marraige. What are you going to call it? Union? What?


The definition of marriage is dependant on what marriage constitutes—not the other way around. Obviously, if homosexuals were granted marriage rights, the definition of marriage would be changed. Furthermore, the defininition you allude to doesn’t apply to Canada, the Netherlands, and a number of other countries that allow homosexuals to marry.

It’s also worth noting that a civil union is different than marriage. Civil unions only grant about 300 rights.

And someone argued that gays want gay marriage because of what? So they can be included in priveledges that only married people can enjoy? The only thing I can think of is the same name. Hetrosexual people have an arrangement called "a defacto spouse" and they can own bank accounts together and buy a house together. Again I reiterate my previous point - why is it so important? Refer to the child screaming analogy I made before.


You listed two of the 1029 federal rights marriage grants. You’ve shown that you know virtually nothing about the argument for gay marriage by failing to do even the slightest bit of research.

Marriage started with the Bible


I contest that claim. Please show evidence that no one married before Christ.

and therefore its roots are Christian, and thus if you gay people do not even hold that God exists, then why even bother?


1.) The majority of American gays are Christian.

2.) Buddhists marry one another. Muslims marry one another. Atheists marry one another.

3.) Religion has nothing to do with a government-sanctioned agreement.

Same thing applies to Christmas and Easter, why take a Christian holiday as a day off - you're basically saying God exists by acknowledging the holiday. Public holidays are made to remember people places or events.


Irrelevant to the argument, but whatever.

1.) Not all people do take Christmas and Easter off. (Also note that Easter is always on a Sunday, so most people don’t work during Easter anyway.)

2.) Many non-Christian families take the opportunity to get together with family and friends during the holiday season of December and January. Some others, like my family, even celebrate Christmas by putting presents under the tree on the night of Dec. 24, but we acknowledge no religious aspect of it.

3.) Do not pursue this issue; I will not respond if you do. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry, and will not aid your case.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:29 PM on July 16, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I contest that claim. Please show evidence that no one married before Christ.

Perhaps I'm simplifying his point, but I think it was this... no one married before Adam and Eve (the man shall leave his mother and father {gotta give Adam an exception on this one } and shall cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh.  IF one believes in God (obviously I'm not including Baal, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, etc...) then the idea that marriage began with the Bible is a moot point.  If one does not believe in God, then gay marriage is a secondary issue at best.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:41 AM on July 17, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Perhaps I'm simplifying his point, but I think it was this... no one married before Adam and Eve (the man shall leave his mother and father {gotta give Adam an exception on this one } and shall cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh.  IF one believes in God (obviously I'm not including Baal, Zeus, Odin, Jupiter, etc...) then the idea that marriage began with the Bible is a moot point.  If one does not believe in God, then gay marriage is a secondary issue at best.


First I'd like to know what you mean by a secondary issue. As for there being no marriages befores Adam and Eve... Well, that's a given, but only if one believes Adam and Eve actually existed. Not even all (dare I say most) Christians believe they did.

In any case, a contradiction of Biblical law is for homosexual Christians to concern themselves with, and not a single other soul. The incontestable fact is that marriage exists without religion at this point in time. It may not have in the past, and it may not in the future, but here and now, you don't have to be a Christian to get married, and that's all I need to point out to refute the idea that marriage should be strictly Christian-based.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 01:30 AM on July 17, 2006 | IP
Mashedtaters

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yes there is no cause to make gays into second class citizens, unless u consider a religious position which is beyond reason until it agrees with them.
Suffering and happiness...should be a free peoples cause not to impose a religious faith (no reason and no objective facts) to others.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 7:35 PM on August 22, 2006 | IP
newvalor

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"If you know the constitution well, you will notice that the First Amendment says, seperation from church and state." - aznbois1993

Um HUH?

1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Ok where in the up above amendment do you see separation of church and state?  That actual term is not in the constitution! Read this:

Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business. Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.
- Ex script from http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

Now that this is cleared. On to the real topic at hand.  I personally do disagree with the gay marriage.  And your right, it specifically deals with religious views.  I have noticed that many people pointed out that if we do give in to our moral beliefs where will the giving end?  Simple fact is that it wont, people will do what ever it takes to make them feel better about the choices that they make.  

It's all about equality huh? well you have an equal right to choose to be straight or gay.  And the minute you can prove solidly that it is not a choice, then I might believe that you were "born" that way.  My real point is there are consequences for all of our decisions whether good or bad.  I personally believe that if you choose to be gay you will forfeit the benefit of the other possible choice, so be it, it was your decision.  I sacrifice many things and rights for the decisions I make... am I complaining?




-------
"Stupid People are Strong in Groups"- My Father.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 9:18 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would chalange to find seperation of church and state in the Constitution.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:57 PM on October 18, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Separation of Church and State--the words themselves--aren't in the Constitution. Of course, the meaning is. The Supreme Court has upheld this regularly.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:26 PM on October 22, 2007 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gay marriage is not illegal. Humans have equal rights without question.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 6:45 PM on December 11, 2007 | IP
FROGGER

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the way i look at it, currently everyone has equal rights, and if we legalize gay marriage, we are giving gays extra rights.


-------
Fully<br>Rely<br>On<br>God<br>G<br>E<br>R
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 10:18 PM on February 29, 2008 | IP
FROGGER

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1 Timothy chapter 1 verse 10 states:
The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, [ Or kidnappers.] liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching...

This is for Christians (i am  one) who believe gay marriage is ok. There are also several verses in Leviticus and Romans.


-------
Fully<br>Rely<br>On<br>God<br>G<br>E<br>R
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 10:25 PM on February 29, 2008 | IP
FROGGER

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I also forgot to mention I have a forum under Gay Rights on the main forum page that is a debate forum for mainly Christians.


-------
Fully<br>Rely<br>On<br>God<br>G<br>E<br>R
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 10:28 PM on February 29, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:26 PM on October 22, 2007 :
Separation of Church and State--the words themselves--aren't in the Constitution. Of course, the meaning is. The Supreme Court has upheld this regularly.


What part of the constitution implies the "Separation of Church and State"?



-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 2:10 PM on April 21, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 1:10 PM on April 21, 2008 :
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:26 PM on October 22, 2007 :
Separation of Church and State--the words themselves--aren't in the Constitution. Of course, the meaning is. The Supreme Court has upheld this regularly.


What part of the constitution implies the "Separation of Church and State"?



That would be the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Perhaps you would prefer having Congress telling you how to worship and what to believe?

Of course jail for YEC beliefs would save a lot of internet time. . .


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:11 PM on April 30, 2008 | IP
Stunt_Pirate

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There have been scientific studies which have shown that homosexual men and women's brains have more in common with the opposite gender than do heterosexuals. So, pretty much already proven that it is not a choice. Actually having sex would be a choice, choosing who you are attracted to sexually would not.

So how many of you that oppose gay marriage have been divorced? Guess what, you managed to destroy the sanctity of marriage all on your own. For those that are opposed and are still married, is your marriage so insecure that the knowledge of gay people marrying will destroy it? Will you suddenly stop loving your wife or no longer think your marriage is special?
 


Posts: 38 | Posted: 05:46 AM on July 29, 2008 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.