gay marrige

[Adamore]

how do u guys feel about the congress trying to make gay marrige illegal

personaly i think its wrong to say they cant because its an oppression of freedom
and if america is a free country then gay people should be able to get married thats like them telling us that we all 'have' to have a religion to get married or follow a certian religion period its infringing on those homo's civil rights

[Y2A]

I belive in seperation of Church and State. The state has no right to enforce gay marriage on a church just as the church goers can not say a damn thing about gay marriage outside of the Church.

And by the way. I'm not religous at all. I was born Catholic but I couldn't careless about religon. I am a realist. There is no way to know if there is a god nor is there a way to disprove his existence. Let people believe what they wish to believe is what I say.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:41 PM
how do u guys feel about the congress trying to make gay marrige illegal

personaly i think its wrong to say they cant because its an oppression of freedom
and if america is a free country then gay people should be able to get married thats like them telling us that we all 'have' to have a religion to get married or follow a certian religion period its infringing on those homo's civil rights
I think even if you disagree with it religiously , going out of your way to make gay marriage illegal is extrremely petty and stupid.

I personally am for gay marriage, but I'll leave it up to the individual states to decide

[LSD]

I personally am for gay marriage, but I'll leave it up to the individual states to decide

Exactly, it has nothing to do with the federal government, and it certainly shouldn't be a constitutional ammendment.

The American federal government has been taking way too much power, far more than even the constitution allows (e.g., DEA), the whole conservative right movement to try to set a federal marriage definition (like the DMA) is just another example of the hypocracy of the American right.

[Fidel Castro]

I myself am not Homophobic, but isn't the whole idea of Christian marriage supposed to be the union between a man and woman and the establishment of a family?

If there is a non-religious alternative then that's fine, but I don't think the idea of gay marriage should be forced upon Christians or Jews or any other religion that disagrees with the concept.

[LSD]

If there is a non-religious alternative then that's fine, but I don't think the idea of gay marriage should be forced upon Christians or Jews or any other religion that disagrees with the concept.

No body wants to force the Church to do anything, but legal marriage is a governmental affair. Not only does if give you legal status, but you and your spouse get rights and bennefits that a non-married couple don't get. Currently only heterosexual couples can enjoy these rights and, even if "married" in a ceremony, a man still has no control over his husband's estate, has no rights to his children, no power of attourney.....

It isn't about religion, it's about rights.

[Osman Ghazi]

It isn't about rights at all, at least not in Canada and I'm pretty sure that goes for the U$ as well.
Same-sex relationship's still qualify as common-law marriages and common-law couples still recieve the same rights as married couples. (In Canada, at least. Not entirely sure about the states.
What it is mostly about is the gov recognizing that they are equal people and entitled to the same status as hetero couples.

[Freiheitfuralle]

The banning of gay marriage is immoral as well as homophobic.
Right-wingers justify this kind of prejudice and discrimination by stating that they are just "Defending the definition of marriage as the union of man and woman."

Well, that's a noble cause! They are defending definitions now instead of people? Noble indeed, if of course you happen to live in a dictionary.

I however, live in the real world where people need BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, NOT FUCKING DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS!

Why can't a gay couple receive the benefits of a "legal marriage"?

And I won't buy that "sacred union" crap! If marriage is sooo very sacred why can two strangers get married for fifty bucks in Las Vegas and divorce a couple hours later when they sober up?

[allixpeeke]

I'm too lethargic to read the rest of the responces. So, I'll just make this short, simply, and accurate.
Straight marriage, Gay marriage, Bi-marriage, and trans-gendered marriage should be legalized in all 50 states. Marriage is a states' rights issue, and should be legalized in every state. The Federal government has no right to affect/create marriage laws.

EDIT: it should be legalized in other countries, too. Sorry if that wasn't implied.

[Solace]

I have a question.

Can you oppose gay marriage with a fairly good argument?

Apart from the usual "definition" of marriage, I don't see any.

[shintso]

i dont think you can even oppose with the "definition" of marriage.
a marriage is a pact between two lovers, what differance does ot make if their from the same sex

[che's long lost daughter]

There is nothing wrong in gay marriage. Anyone who opposes this is therefore opposing freedom.

[Guest1]

"They can't stand freedom" - George W. Bush

No, no they can't Georgy... and now they control the country.

[Pete]

I oppose the institution marriage without bias. :P

[Xvall]

I think it is bullshit. I'm not sure exactly what they're attempting to accomplish in terms of their own agenda, but it has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage. If anyone actually cared about that, they would be *****ing about more important things, like how people have been going to the 'City of Sin' for the last thirty years and marrying drunk strangers at 24 hour chapels housed by people dressed like Elvis.

(Didn't realize Freiheitfuralle said a similar thing until now. You get the picture.)

[Purple]

excuse me, but can someone enlighten me why gay marriage is not legal... are people just running around saying; "no, you can't, i don't like you..."

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

You know, all this talk about marriage, polygamy, polandy etc. got me thinking...
Why do we need marriage at all? I say elimate govt recognition of marriage altogether.

[shintso]

we need marriages both as a symbol of love/ togetherness and also as an economical symbol.
but its true we dont actually need the recognition of the state.

[DarkAngel]

If a gay person wants to make the commitment, why not? What makes them so diffrent? Their people and they deserve to be treated no better or worse then a straight couple. Times are changing and the Church has no right to turn down religios gay people. I do think it has to do with the goverment because if it was just 2 people getting married, ok. But theres divorce, anolments, and all that other b/s that involves money....hints: GOVERMENT!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

mariage in general is not for me but if two people want to get married strait or gay why the fuck not

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:41 PM
personaly i think its wrong to say they cant because its an oppression of freedom
and if america is a free country then gay people should be able to get married thats like them telling us that we all 'have' to have a religion to get married or follow a certian religion period its infringing on those homo's civil rights
Well I think that by now we all know that freedom for this people is the freedom to exploit others with the money your rich daddy gave you. That means that personal freedoms, political freedoms, innovating freedoms, and other type of freedoms aren't important.

I don't like the concept of marriage, but it think what they are trying to do is another attemp on imposing their old-fashioned agenda on people, and of course discriminating.

[Guest1]

Conservatives fail to stop same-sex weddings in San Francisco (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4251510/)

The Associated Press
Updated: 6:48 p.m. ET Feb. 13, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO - Despite accusations that the mayor is riding roughshod over the law, conservative groups failed to stop San Francisco from issuing same-sex marriage licenses Friday as hundreds more gay couples rushed to tie the knot before the opportunity slipped away.

All day long, the marble passages beneath City Hall’s ornate gold dome echoed with applause as one couple after another got hitched, promising to be “spouses for life.” As of Friday afternoon, 489 couples had gotten married.

Gay couples received more good news when a judge denied a request by conservatives to immediately block the marriage spree, allowing the weddings to continue on Valentine’s Day and through the long holiday weekend. The judge ordered attorneys to come back Tuesday and make their case.

------------

Hurray for San Francisco, a city almost as beautiful as Montreal :)

Those fucking Neo-Cons must be fuming. I'm getting the feeling that the Mayor did it as a sort of "valentine's day present", a good man he is. I hope he doesn't become another victim of the Schwarzenagger take-over.

[Exploited Class]

Same sex marriages in no way encroaches upon religion.

First off religion doesn't really own the term "marriage" they own "Holy Matrimony" which is much different. Allowing same sex marriages by the state doesn't force religion to do a damm thing. Granted however I am sure in 30 years religion won't care. You might think that is funny, but mormons didn't allow blacks to be full members into the church until the 60/70s right around there. So the church does progress once laws are in place for society.

As far as why should there be marriages at all? Well other than the of course obvious financial impact, if a partner dies and the house isn't in both their names, then the partner doesn't get anything. Adoption is a problem and a split up makes visitation rights a nightmare. There is the also the question of health care and being allowed to pull the plug on your signifcant other versus your wife or husband.

I don't think there is many good arguments against gay marriage, other than the same old one's that came out in the 50's against the blacks and before that against women. I mean, when you look back it in the past, there were laws against black and white mixed marriages, blacks even had to go through special hoops to get married to eachother. It was all very vulgar.

It is too bad that people don't learn from the past. They get upset that the "Courts" are deciding issues for them, and they have been repeating that phrase since they struck down sodomy laws.

Majority rules don't count for everything. If 60% of the population decided that hey, killing blacks is okay now. I don't think it would fly. That is what a constitution is for. To go around and change the constitution so the 60% can do something against good concious, is poor taste. Especially just because the population it effects is such a small one.

I doubt that the Supreme Court would allow gay marriages. I don't think that the senate would be able to pass an amendment either. It is hard to get 3/4th rule to remove rights or discriminate against people in a constitutional manner. It is one thing to try a law that might not make it over the test of the supreme court, but another to actually change the constitution.

[A Free Mind]

Gay Marriges are wrong!!! Marrige is (in the west) a christian institution and the bible clearly says that homersexuality is wrong so Why should Gays be given the right to enter in to a church and under the sight of god to comit a sin.
Can anyone point out where it says in the bill of rights that people can chose their own sexuality? I can not find it.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by A Free [email protected] 14 2004, 08:27 AM
Gay Marriges are wrong!!! Marrige is (in the west) a christian institution and the bible clearly says that homersexuality is wrong so Why should Gays be given the right to enter in to a church and under the sight of god to comit a sin.
Can anyone point out where it says in the bill of rights that people can chose their own sexuality? I can not find it.
Why should I care what you little cult's book says? Why should there be churches to discriminate against gays? Can anyone point out a reason why people should not be able to choose their own sexuality? It says right here *scribibbles in* see? If its not there now, then it should be.

[Valishin]

It isn't about rights at all, at least not in Canada and I'm pretty sure that goes for the U$ as well.
Same-sex relationship's still qualify as common-law marriages and common-law couples still recieve the same rights as married couples. (In Canada, at least. Not entirely sure about the states.
What it is mostly about is the gov recognizing that they are equal people and entitled to the same status as hetero couples.
You were close with this one. First off, no common-law marriage does not take into effect for same sex couples, at least not in most states. You are right though that this issue has nothing to do with rights, it is just as easy to draw up a blanket power of attorney as it is to get married and get all the same rights as a married couple, with the exception of retirement benifits. What this is about is quite simple. This is the issue that the gay community has decided to make their stand upon. They want to be openly accepted socially and they think they need the government's help to get that. The problem is the government already accepts them, it treats them just like everyone else they are not penalized in the least for the choice they made. But that isn't doing them any good. Their logic is that they need to be treated differently to force people to deal with the openly instead of acting as though they are just like everyone else.


I however, live in the real world where people need BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, NOT FUCKING DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS!
Marrage is not a basic human right.


Can you oppose gay marriage with a fairly good argument?
In so far as the government shouldn't be in the marrage business to begin with, ya sure I can.


excuse me, but can someone enlighten me why gay marriage is not legal... are people just running around saying; "no, you can't, i don't like you..."
They can go through the ceramony, what they can't get is the marrage license. Well excpet for the last few days in SF. But those are all going to be revoked because state law in Cali forbids it.


Times are changing and the Church has no right to turn down religios gay people
The Church is a group of private citizens. They have every right to turn down anyone they want from participation in their organization.


It is too bad that people don't learn from the past. They get upset that the "Courts" are deciding issues for them, and they have been repeating that phrase since they struck down sodomy laws.
And they have a good point. The courts don't have the authority to create law. Yet they do it all the time.


an anyone point out where it says in the bill of rights that people can chose their own sexuality
10th Amendment

[A Free Mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 01:42 PM

Why should I care what you little cult's book says? Why should there be churches to discriminate against gays? Can anyone point out a reason why people should not be able to choose their own sexuality? It says right here *scribibbles in* see? If its not there now, then it should be.

If people want to have sex with people of their own sex than let them. It is their life.
"The LORD dose not change" he has said it is wrong so how can homersexuals get married (in a church/traditinal ceromony). Let them do their evil deeds but What right do they have to demand that we validate them in front of the LORD our god under the holy covernant of marrige


All i am saying is they have no right to a christian marrige

[A Free Mind]

The powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

how dose this condone gay marriges?
please explain

[shintso]

All i am saying is they have no right to a christian marrige
just because a person prefers his own gender it doesnt make any less christain.
you call yourself 'a free mind', then start using it. all of these so called religous "rules" were written by MAN, hundreds of years ago, before knowning homosexually is not a choice. in past times, a person would respected by the amount of children he can produce. then all of a sudden comes two people who are in love and cant make babies. but we all know, in order for the race to continue there must be reproduction. so some said: "ohh lets tell them god said dont be gay...". the rest is history.
we have the same kind of problem with orthodxic jewdizm, only more severe because in order for the marriage to be exceptable in israel, both partners must be jewish.
we need to open our mind and change these thousands year old "rules". we have two choices, either bend religion to our time, or abandon it and live with no hope.

[Valishin]

how dose this condone gay marriges?
You asked about choosing sexuality, not gay marrage. However it is the same answer either way. Unless you can find where in the Constitition the federal government can deny the right or where it is explicitly denied already then the 10th amendment states that it remains a right of the people. Or at the very most for the individual states to decide themselves.



just because a person prefers his own gender it doesnt make any less christain.
you call yourself 'a free mind', then start using it. all of these so called religous "rules" were written by MAN, hundreds of years ago, before knowning homosexually is not a choice.
Ok first off all noone has proven homosexuality is anything but a choice. Secondly you do realize that being christian means very specificly being "Christ like". Which is why technically you strive to be Christian not that you actually are. This means that if you want to be Christian you then you follow Christ's rules. That doesn't mean you can't still be a good person, but being a good person and being Christian are not mutually exclusive.

[shintso]

Ok first off all noone has proven homosexuality is anything but a choice. Secondly you do realize that being christian means very specificly being "Christ like". Which is why technically you strive to be Christian not that you actually are. This means that if you want to be Christian you then you follow Christ's rules.
i didnt know christ himself wrote any religous rules. in fact i remember he was jewish. if you want to be christ-like, why dont you live a jewish lifestyle?
another thing. in the past people believed that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. today, thanks to medical and psycological researches we know that homosexually is a given. the fact that it takes a person sometime to "figure it out" doesnt mean he's developing homosexuality. it means he denying it.

That doesn't mean you can't still be a good person, but being a good person and being Christian are not mutually exclusive.
thats very true. look at europe in medevil times.

[Valishin]

thanks to medical and psycological researches we know that homosexually is a givenThat is a blaten lie.

Don't get me wrong I am all for gay marrage and to let homosexuals do their own thing. It isn't any of my business what they do or don't do as long as they are concenting adults. But your trying to pass off unproven theorys as fact. Sorry not going to let you get away with that.

As for living a jewish lifestyle, well there is that whole disagreement over Jesus being the son of God. But other than that, I am not sure why they went a different way with it.

[canikickit]

Originally posted by A Free [email protected] 14 2004, 12:27 PM
Can anyone point out where it says in the bill of rights that people can chose their own sexuality? I can not find it.
What are you talking about? What is the meaning of this?

[shintso]

Don't get me wrong I am all for gay marrage and to let homosexuals do their own thing. It isn't any of my business what they do or don't do as long as they are concenting adults. But your trying to pass off unproven theorys as fact. Sorry not going to let you get away with that.

ok. lets say homosexuality is a choice of lifestyle. i wake up tomarrow and decide i want to be gay. there's still the problam of me not getting an erection when i see i naked man.
homosexuality has a lot do with what our mind see as sexy and apealing, and most things concidering the human mind are theories.

youre right, its unproven. but do you actually belive, logicaly, that homosexuality is a choice, that you can change you desire like you change a t-shirt

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 03:48 PM

Don't get me wrong I am all for gay marrage and to let homosexuals do their own thing. It isn't any of my business what they do or don't do as long as they are concenting adults. But your trying to pass off unproven theorys as fact. Sorry not going to let you get away with that.

ok. lets say homosexuality is a choice of lifestyle. i wake up tomarrow and decide i want to be gay. there's still the problam of me not getting an erection when i see i naked man.
homosexuality has a lot do with what our mind see as sexy and apealing, and most things concidering the human mind are theories.

youre right, its unproven. but do you actually belive, logicaly, that homosexuality is a choice, that you can change you desire like you change a t-shirt
I agree...also to bolster your arguement...

Why on earth would Anyone choose to be homosexual and put up with all the opression and bigotry? That would be like someone choosing to be black in South Africa under aparthied, it just doesn't make sense

[squatter]

Okay, first of all. I think that marriage between homosexuals should be permitted, but not in a church. You'd probably then call it "registered partnership" or something. But the christian church believes that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural.

I believe in personal freedom. That people should have a high morale and not choose to live like a homosexual. My problem with homosexual is that many couples want to have children, although they know how unnatural their way of life is. Homosexuals that adopt children (or if lesbian get artificially inseminated) can't accept nature's way. I believe that people should practice their homosexuality if they want to, but don't expect that people accept that they want to have children. Not if they have chosen to live their life in a way that is so unnatural.
I know that many heterosexual couples can't get children too, but that is because of toxins that we have used in food or the like. Again because that people didn't accept nature's way! Because people didn't accept that insects eat plants and therefore used/use toxins to kill them...

I lost track of this discussion, but I just wanted to share my point of view.

[Fidel Castro]

Let me just re-iterate that I support equil rights for homosexuals. Like I said, a state marriage between homosexuals should be considered in all nations, however I would also point out that institutions outwith the state (i.e the Christian Church etc) should be alowed to discuss the matter for themselves and be allowed their right to hold their own oppinions on the matter.

[LSD]

Look, no one gives a damn what specific churches want to do.

There are still some churches that will not perform interracial marriage.


But as long as the government gives marriage liscenses and respects marriage, it is not a Christian affair.

Gays can't get married in ANY form today. They can't get a Christian marriage, a Muslim marriage, a Jewish marriage, a civil marriage....

If you want to the government to get out of marriage, fine, but until it does, marriage must be open to everyone.

[Osman Ghazi]

A Free Mind is more right than he thinks.
Obviously the government doesn't have any right to force churches to do anything because of the separation of church and state. The government will never be able to force the church to accept same-sex marrige.

Some churches in Canada have already accepted it though.

For any Canadians, specifically Ontarians, we already had this about 8 months or so ago.

The United church and the metropolitan church are the only ones who will perform same-sex marriages right now though.

[Fidel Castro]

Exactly my point, it has to be realised that marriage from a legal point of view and a religious point of view are two rather different things.

Yes, I accept the idea of a LEGAL marriage under state law, binding tow persons of any sex together.

My point was that from a religious point of view it is up to individual churches to form their own stance and create their own rules about marriage within their institutions.


Look, no one gives a damn what specific churches want to do.

I totally disagree, there are still millions of devoted Christians out there who do give a damn. There influence cannot be discounted.

[Xvall]

we need marriages both as a symbol of love/ togetherness

I don't think so. After all, it's just a little ceremony. It's kind of like saying that I need a birthday party as a symbol of my maturity, and if I don't get it, I'll never really be a grown up. It's not like the love is put in place during the marriage. (Most) people get married because they are already in love and seek some means of 'verifying' this and letting everyone else know. Though I can agree on the whole economic thing, to degrees.

[A Free Mind]

Im sorry this is so late but here goes
canikickit: it was a question I was wanting to find out if the bill of rights said that people could decide thir sexuality (apparently it dose not)

And While I despise homosexuals and their ways I can not and do not have a problem with them haveing legal reconition under the law like a marrige but Their is no way they should be given weddings in a church

Also What Churches say is right and wrong dose change what the bible says and while church may be giving in to homosexuals I assure you The LORD GOD dose not change It is as wrong as it always has been

[ImmortalOphelia]

I think you should be allowed to marry whoever you love no matter what race or even sex....just not any weird animal marriage rites....thos are creepy :P
And noone can say gay isnt natural... theres two pengines (shoot cant spell) in NY zoo who are gay that are getting alot of nationwide attention. There a mighty cute couple too :rolleyes:

[A Free Mind]

I can and I will
It is NOT NATURAL :P

[BuyOurEverything]

I can and I will
It is NOT NATURAL

At risk of sounding cliched, how do you know what is and isn't natural? Did "god" tell you? Or did you read it in some 2000 year old fantasy book? You know the best part of making an irrational argument is that nobody can adequately rebute it.

[squatter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 06:13 AM

And noone can say gay isnt natural... theres two pengines (shoot cant spell) in NY zoo who are gay that are getting alot of nationwide attention. There a mighty cute couple too :rolleyes:
If you ask me it still isn't natural.
If it was natural in any way, I think that homosexuals could reproduce.

Let's go down to basics. The strongest instinct in all creatures on (Let them be penguines or lemures) is to reproduce, to multiply. To make sure that the species will live on. If it, from nature's side, was an option to become homosexual, and not a minor flaw, they would be able to reproduce.

That's my view on things.

[A Free Mind]

I think squatter answered the question for me
But The bible is not 2000 years old its more like 6000years old (acording to some historians) and a lot of what is in it has been proven as facts (one example is the exidos form Egypt scientists proved that it could have happend

and I have been explaining my view point all day read the previous posts

[Guest1]

Have you considered the possibility that homosexuality is evolution's natural population control? A way for nature to keep species from literally fucking their way to extinction?

The word lesbian comes from the isle of lesbos, an island overpopulated with seagulls. What surprised the scientists was almost all the female seagulls on this island were lesbian.

Maybe, as a species' population growth speeds up in one area, outstripping the population growth of its natural food sources, nature begins introducing higher and higher percentages of homosexuals to slow the growth and balance the surrounding ecosystem.

There has been supporting research for this theory, though I am no scientific expert.

Think about it. Homosexuals and their inability to reproduce might just be as essential to our survival as a species as reproduction. Maybe even more essential, considering the limited resources we have and the amount of overpopulation across the globe.

----

I personally believe homosexuality is just as "natural" as heterosexuality. Here's the better question though... who gives a fuck?

Are condoms natural?
Is porn natural?
Is clothing natural?
Are vibrators natural?

No, none of these things are natural, but we don't care, because people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want as long as they harm no one else.

Who cares if people are gay by nature or by choice, it's not your business, and not your business to tell them what to do either.

[canikickit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 08:11 AM
If it was natural in any way, I think that homosexuals could reproduce.
Do you think it is unnatural for infertile couples to have sex?


Let's go down to basics. The strongest instinct in all creatures on (Let them be penguines or lemures) is to reproduce, to multiply. To make sure that the species will live on. If it, from nature's side, was an option to become homosexual, and not a minor flaw, they would be able to reproduce.

Homosexual people can still, in general, reproduce. You don't have to be attracted to someone to fertilise an egg.

[LSD]

But The bible is not 2000 years old its more like 6000years old (acording to some historians) and a lot of what is in it has been proven as facts (one example is the exidos form Egypt scientists proved that it could have happend

Yah...but the bible also says the world is flat and the sun orbits the earth and there are giants and the earth was made in six days.

I don't think anyone has "proved as facts" any of the above.

In terms of what's natural, the bible says its good to let your daughters get raped[b/] and [b]children should be murdered for insulting an old man's head or working on Saturday.

I don't think anyone today would consider any of the above "natural".


Values change with society, that's natural.

[Valishin]

ok. lets say homosexuality is a choice of lifestyle. i wake up tomarrow and decide i want to be gay. there's still the problam of me not getting an erection when i see i naked man.
homosexuality has a lot do with what our mind see as sexy and apealing, and most things concidering the human mind are theories.
That can easily be argued as a social stigma


youre right, its unproven. but do you actually belive, logicaly, that homosexuality is a choice, that you can change you desire like you change a t-shirt
Considering the existance of bi-sexuals as well as numerious homosexuals who have "switched sides" and the number of people who experiement with it but decide it isn't for them. Yes until proven otherwise I consider it a choice. Don't get me wrong though I am not saying it is neccessarly a concious choice.


Gays can't get married in ANY form today.
Yes they can, just not to someone of the same gender.

[Anarchist Freedom]

ahh what a great day for humanity in america........





:che:


CGLM! (http://www.cglm.tk)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by A Free [email protected] 14 2004, 12:27 PM
Gay Marriges are wrong!!! Marrige is (in the west) a christian institution and the bible clearly says that homersexuality is wrong so Why should Gays be given the right to enter in to a church and under the sight of god to comit a sin.
Can anyone point out where it says in the bill of rights that people can chose their own sexuality? I can not find it.
CHOOSE? Like I chose to be gay?

[LSD]

That can easily be argued as a social stigma

Oh come one now, since there are those attracted to member of the same sex, clearly it is possible.

Thereby, you can't deny a strong biological element of homosexuality, clearly it is not a matter of "deciding" one's attraction.

Now, whether it is genetic or environmental is unclear. But then whether any trait is genetic or environmental is uncelar. The fundamental point is that it doesn't matter.

Regardless of whether someone is gay because of their genetics or because of experiences at 2 months, since is isn't a concious choice, denying them equal rights is bigotry and prejudice of the highest order.


Considering the existance of bi-sexuals as well as numerious homosexuals who have "switched sides" and the number of people who experiement with it but decide it isn't for them. Yes until proven otherwise I consider it a choice. Don't get me wrong though I am not saying it is neccessarly a concious choice.

Basically, I would propse that homo/heterosexuality is not a black and white issue, but a scale, and that thereby someone can find themseleve closer to one or closer to the other. Thereby, one can "experiment" or "switch sides", but most homosexuals are not "choosing" to be gay.


Yes they can, just not to someone of the same gender.

haha, funny.

You'd get along great with Jefferson Davis...
What do you mean negroes aren't free? They're free to be slaves!