Gay marriage

[Boy_Wonder06]

what is everyones opinion on gay people now being allowed to become legally married, and do you think these people should be allowed to adopt children etc. I would like your views on this matter...

PS : please remember to keep all posts within the foum rules. Offensive posts will be deleted and users reported.

Thanks

[Boy_Wonder06]

i personally think that as long as the people are in love, they should be entitled to holy matromony. I also think that gay couple should be allowed to adopt children, ok i understand that the child may ask a lot of questions and may get a little grief for his parents sexuality, but at the end of the day if the child is loved, looked after and cared for properly i dont see the big problem. I mean come on, we're all human!

[Luke]

They shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. No way.

[Boy_Wonder06]

ok fcuk, why do u say that, give me a reason dude, u gotta bk up what you say.

[_bosnian_]

i think it's ok. as you said, if they are in love they should also have the right to marry like "normal" couples and also be allowed to adopt children.

but, unfortunately we are living in an intolerated society. just imagine what would happen when the children go to school or when they would live in the country, where the traditional and christian values are stronger than in a big city, for example.

[Boy_Wonder06]

i think it's ok. as you said, if they are in love they should also have the right to marry like "normal" couples and also be allowed to adopt children.

but, unfortunately we are living in an intolerated society. just imagine what would happen when the children go to school or when they would live in the country, where the traditional and christian values are stronger than in a big city, for example.

Good point, but i will admit, our society is slowly changing, gay and bi people are bein accepted more and more, its now legal for them to marry under holy matromony, and they have the option to adopt too by law, so surely we are changing. I knew a kid who had lesbian parents, oki he got a little slack but his all good, and he got over it rather well, and his living a good life, and is blatently loved.

[_bosnian_]

you are right, our society is changing. but the majority is still intolerant. most people have prejudices and think that gays or lesbians aren't "normal" and aren't able to educate the children like the heteros. and these prejudices won't change so fast.

[Boy_Wonder06]

thats true again, but atleast are society is moving on a little.

[sam]

against it all u only agree probs cos ur both batty boys

[Boy_Wonder06]

yeh i am a 'batty boi' as u put it SAM, but its still an opinion i had even before i knew i was a batty boi, and i know a few other ppl on this site who are batty's, there's a ryt lil gang of us :D... but it still the truth, and tolerance is slowly improving.

[Asi9ine]

Gay marriage is perfectly fine. Ethically, there is nothing wrong with it, if you look at the big picture and realise that the "Adam and Eve" templates of long ago have been outdated.

However, people don't look at the bigger picture. Many of the people who choose this lifestyle are frowned upon. The majority who believe that it is disgusting, and that the opposite sex was created for a reason. One could also argue that a VERY extreme case of this could lead to population shortages. Take that as you will, but it will never get to that stage.

The people who do marry the same sex are neither deranged, mentally harmed or insane. I remember a quote a wise friend told me on IRC one night:

Me: "I'm completely straight"
Him: "Straight? An iron bar is straight until you add a little heat to it."

I find it a shame that it's frowned upon. I can call myself lucky to be 'conventional' in my sexuality, but many people know that you can't help who you fall in love with. It's a shame that some have to be punished for it.

[Boy_Wonder06]

dude thats a realli cool quote

[Asi9ine]

Yeah, he's always had a way with words.

I want to add something else, too.

Why is it everywhere I read a debate about this, someone asks if the person in question is 'alright'? I have read a few long conversations that turn into arguments with the suggestion, "were you abused as a child?"

Why does being homosexual have to do with being abused? I will get the quote in question a little later.

[-Snake-]

Im all for it, Gay people are often more friendly and cheerful!
They make the world a better place lol

[Lindsay]

love is love. its too bad that people feel the need to stereotype it.

Think about all the people who get quickie marriages and then divorces, while a gay couple who truly love each other and would probably stay commited to each other, can't.

[Artemis]

Totally agree w/ prevus...
Gay people are people and should be allowed the same marriage rights everyone else has. It is not killing anyone is it?! If they're happy LET IT BE. Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

[PrincessAlice]

i agree with it if men and women can get married because their in love then men and men or women and women should be allowed to get married...

i can't understand why people are getting so stressed about gay people it isn't like their gonna see you in the street and try and pull you or try and have sex with you :eek:

[rondo]

i think its moraly wrong, but they can do as they wish

[Artemis]

Why exactly?
Define moral.

[rondo]

well, a square doesent fit in a circle... if u get what i mean

[Artemis]

kinda.
Moral means what is good or "right"
BUT can you or anybody be the judge of that?

[sam]

its adam and eve not adam and steve

[PrincessAlice]

its adam and eve not adam and steve

you stole that from alan partridge :confused:

[Artemis]

And I am sure that Adam & Steve will hide their love and find other women. Think about it. Their rights. No1 has to but in, right?! Their people and if they want it let em have it.

[unknownbeauty]

I agree; if people are in love they should be entitled to marry whom ever they choose. my aunts a lesbian and im proud of her, cause she doesnt care what others think personally if someones gay it doesnt affect me really so why should i care . Like my mom has alwayss told me to each is own and personally if i were gay or lesbian or even bi i wouldnt want people to look at me differently becuase im still the same person on the inside.

[lois]

i think gay marrige is ok if some1 loves some1 whats wrong wv dat? i was jst wonderin doe an1 kno what they do wiv tere surnames?

[Shane]

If 2 gay people feel that it is right for them them leave to go at it.
I don't think that they should be allowed to adopt anyone under a certain age though, the child needs to understand what it's getting into and be able ti give its consent because it's unfair if it gets adopted at the age of 2 with no choice and is the subject of torment and bullying til it leaves home. Because it will happen, kids dont care about feelings or stuff like that, its just "Hey your Dads are gays! ROFL!".

[hollib21]

I think that if you you are gay and
1. can support the child,
2. have a loving marriage
you should be able to get married/ adopt/ have kids.

There are so many broken homes in this world.
So many kids who are born under horrible circumstances.
adpotion says children's lives, bringing them into a homes full of what really matters...love

If a gay couple can support their child, and love them unconditionally
...I dont see why they shouldnt allow it.

There will ALWAYS be people on the outside who say stuff.
There will ALWAYS be people against it.
But if enough gay couples get married and adopt children it will be more accepted as the "norm"

[Innamorata]

Well obviously I'm going to be for gay rights.

[gprime]

I'm opposed to gay marraige. Its something called economics. I realize this may be beyond many of you, so I'll explain my position in a bit more detail:

Many companies extend benifits to the spouses of their employees at great cost to the company. By legalizing gay marraige, such unions would be treated the same as heterosexual marraiges. This would have two possible results. The first is that companies deem the cost too high, and cut benifits accross the board, leaving many more people uninsured than before, and those who retain their insurance with their own money have less to pump back into the economy, likely causing a massive ressession and wide spread economic chaos. The second scenario also leads to economic chaos. Companies already heavily in debt spend the extra cash to provide benifits for homo couples. This greatly increases corperate debts and lowers profit margins. This hurts stock holders financially, which reduced government tax intake. But with the lower profits, employees are laid off accross the board, thus sending unemployment payments through the roof. So the government is spending more money than usual to support those out of work, while taking in less. This would lead to increased taxation for those in work, thus leaving less cash circulating in the economy, ultimately crippling the economy through a depression and destroying the currency, as well as increasing the national debt. So in essence, legalizing gay marraige would destroy the nation and its economy, thus screwing over the entire population.

Do note that this comes from a US perspective, and thus, some of what is mentioned above is not applicable to its legalization in the UK. However, the core concept is nevertheless applicable there too.

[hollib21]

Many companies extend benifits to the spouses of their employees at great cost to the company. By legalizing gay marraige, such unions would be treated the same as heterosexual marraiges. This would have two possible results. The first is that companies deem the cost too high, and cut benifits accross the board, leaving many more people uninsured than before, and those who retain their insurance with their own money have less to pump back into the economy, likely causing a massive ressession and wide spread economic chaos.

The second scenario also leads to economic chaos. Companies already heavily in debt spend the extra cash to provide benifits for homo couples. This greatly increases corperate debts and lowers profit margins. This hurts stock holders financially, which reduced government tax intake. But with the lower profits, employees are laid off accross the board, thus sending unemployment payments through the roof. So the government is spending more money than usual to support those out of work, while taking in less. This would lead to increased taxation for those in work, thus leaving less cash circulating in the economy, ultimately crippling the economy through a depression and destroying the currency, as well as increasing the national debt. So in essence, legalizing gay marraige would destroy the nation and its economy, thus screwing over the entire population.



I found your statement to be a little paranoid...
I mean yes I see what you are saying, gay marriages would cause more "marriage benefits" to be produced, but I dont think to the point it would cause mass chaos, and layoffs accross the board...

It would take A LOT of homo couples to skrew a company...
And the amount of homos at a particular company are not that high
(unless you are talking the fashion industry but thats a different story...)

think about it this way.
What if all the single guys and single women in a company decide to get married?
All in outside relationships...(not to each other)
Now the company would have to dish out benefits to each couple.
Would the company now be able to say "hey no one can get married."
No...thats unethical
Same situation applies here.
The odds of all homo couples getting married at once, ruining the economy...is slim
By allowing gay marriages, you are giving out what they deserve...
the right to chose whether or not they want to get married.

[gprime]

Well, since they claim that 10% of all Americans are gay, the legalization would lead o a rush, so the impact would be a very real one. And its not a matter of ethics, since the notion of gay marraige is one which has arisen in the last 3 or so decades, and embraced by an extremely tiny minorty of the global population.

[Dash]

I'm opposed to gay marraige. Its something called economics. I realize this may be beyond many of you, so I'll explain my position in a bit more detail:

Many companies extend benifits to the spouses of their employees at great cost to the company. By legalizing gay marraige, such unions would be treated the same as heterosexual marraiges. This would have two possible results. The first is that companies deem the cost too high, and cut benifits accross the board, leaving many more people uninsured than before, and those who retain their insurance with their own money have less to pump back into the economy, likely causing a massive ressession and wide spread economic chaos. The second scenario also leads to economic chaos. Companies already heavily in debt spend the extra cash to provide benifits for homo couples. This greatly increases corperate debts and lowers profit margins. This hurts stock holders financially, which reduced government tax intake. But with the lower profits, employees are laid off accross the board, thus sending unemployment payments through the roof. So the government is spending more money than usual to support those out of work, while taking in less. This would lead to increased taxation for those in work, thus leaving less cash circulating in the economy, ultimately crippling the economy through a depression and destroying the currency, as well as increasing the national debt. So in essence, legalizing gay marraige would destroy the nation and its economy, thus screwing over the entire population.

Do note that this comes from a US perspective, and thus, some of what is mentioned above is not applicable to its legalization in the UK. However, the core concept is nevertheless applicable there too.

I've heard this argument before, and I'm struck by how much this reminds me of something Thoreau said in Walden. It was along the lines of: How can persons be pro-slavery [Or in this case, anti-gay marriage] because of the economics of the situation [The south at the time depended on slavery to be succesful] when a peoples' freedom/rights are being violated?

[hollib21]

I've heard this argument before, and I'm struck by how much this reminds me of something Thoreau said in Walden. It was along the lines of: How can persons be pro-slavery [Or in this case, anti-gay marriage] because of the economics of the situation [The south at the time depended on slavery to be succesful] when a peoples' freedom/rights are being violated?

I agree with you 100%
Even if it money was to be a huge factor, we as people have no right to say who someone can and cannot marry.
This same concept can be applied to so many things including religion
Our society has no right to judge.

Im not gay, but some of my friends are.
I cannot imagine that thier rights should be limited because they are gay
it just isnt right...

[Tim]

gay marriage fine. wat ever, there life. gay adoption NO!. the kid cud think thats wat they shud do and look for relations of the same sex. the UK is already 'under populated'. it cud happen if they allow gay couples to adopt.

[xxrachxx]

I fully support gay marriage, as my uncle is gay and very happily married over in america (San Diego)
...
And in October this year hes coming over here cos it will then be seen as civil and doing his vows over here, which i cannot bloody wait to see, iv never seen him soo happy in my life..

If they love each other and want to be together, why cant they?
its selfish when people say its wrong because its not their happiness or life its disturbing, so why should they care one bit?

[gprime]

Well its simple. Its more than economics. Because as we all know, when economics decline by a certain extent, the effects become widespread, and accordingly detrimental to society. So allowing gays to wed at the cost of the good of a nation seems ill-considered. And more to the point, it is in no way repression, since nowhere is there a legal right to marraige for anybody.

[hollib21]

gay marriage fine. wat ever, there life. gay adoption NO!. the kid cud think thats wat they shud do and look for relations of the same sex. the UK is already 'under populated'. it cud happen if they allow gay couples to adopt.

I think gay adoption is ok as long as it is taken into the right steps towards it...
Ive seen specials on TV where a gay couple adopted a child
They all seem to have turned out fine...
But then again thats TV.

I think that would depend on the kid and the circumstances...
It would also depend on the relationship and the environment
a family is a family
if the family can support and raise a child I dont see why not.

All because your parents are gay does not mean you are automatically going to be gay

[hollib21]

Well its simple. Its more than economics. Because as we all know, when economics decline by a certain extent, the effects become widespread, and accordingly detrimental to society. So allowing gays to wed at the cost of the good of a nation seems ill-considered. And more to the point, it is in no way repression, since nowhere is there a legal right to marraige for anybody.

Your problem with economics can be applied to so many US government issues.
social security, federal support groups, educational services...all are financial issues that put the united states in the red...
should we get rid of them because they have the possiblity to ruin the united states economy?

Also, you say you are a libertarian...

http://www.theihs.org/category.php/142.html

According to Libertarian.org (http://www.libertarian.org/)
libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.

According to David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer, Free Press, 1997 (http://www.libertarianism.org/)
Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property-rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force-actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

A libertarian seems like they should be pro-gay-marraige
They believe everyone should be able to do what they choose...
am i wrong?
I wanted to clarify your point of view...
if im way off, please make it clear what your view is

[gprime]

You are wrong for several reasons:

1) Libertarianism is no different than everything. Nobody agrees with every party point.
2) When it destroys the economy, it ruins millions of lives, and thus infringes upon the rights of others.
3) As a Libertarian, I'm okay with gay marraige in one circumstance: when other libertarian laws are implemented. Meaning, Libertarians want all anti-descrimination laws overturned. If that happens, I'm fine with gay marraige, since they don't have to get the same benifits then.

[IceBurn3000]

i personally think that as long as the people are in love, they should be entitled to holy matromony.I disagree to a degree.

As a very open minded Catholic, I don't think that homosexuals should be allowed to be wed under holy doctrine. I can tell you now, they never will be allowed. It just won't happen - the Vatican will not allow it - ever.

I don't know how exactly it works in other countries, but in Australia, the Federal Government makes the laws in regards to marriage. Long story short, to be legally married in Australia, a certified celebrant must perform the marriage. This can be done during a religious ceremony (ie. Holy Matrimony in a Catholic Church), or can be a civil marriage.

Example 1: I get married in the Catholic Church - I get 2 pieces of paper - 1 stating I am married by the Catholic Church, and 1 stating I am married under Australian Law.

Example 2: I get married in a civil ceremony - I get 1 piece of paper stating I am married under Australian Law.

Okay so here is my point:

In Australia and most other countries, Gay Marriage (in the legal sense, not the religious sense) is not allowed, some countries do however permit "Gay Unions", but these are not marriages. I am 100% against this policy. 2 men/women who love eachother and care for eachother should be allowed to be legally married, and enjoy the same legal benefits a married heterosexual couple have.

[*{[ally]}*]

i think it's ok. as you said, if they are in love they should also have the right to marry like "normal" couples and also be allowed to adopt children.

but, unfortunately we are living in an intolerated society. just imagine what would happen when the children go to school or when they would live in the country, where the traditional and christian values are stronger than in a big city, for example.
yes you have a point... and i agree with you the times are very slowly changing and while australia is opening up to "gay" people most children won't be accepted in most cases for instance if they want their child to have a good education at a cathloic school where there teaching the youngsters that homosexuals should burn in hell they just need to think of thier child more then themselves. but if they belive its the best thing then for sure...i have no problem with it! but you can clearly see that people do and all things dont work out!

[Ben]

They should not be allowed to marry or adopt children.

People needs rules, if everyone was allowed to do what they wanted to do, the country would go down the shit hole. Regardless of how much they feel it is what they want, people should be given rules in order to live by, it's not about whether they feel it is right.

Being gay is a disgusting thing, and it being allowed means the children will have to find out what it is. They should not have to discover things like that at a young age, because it's revoulting.

Danster don't report this just 'cause you don't agree with me.

[guesswhogal]

i think it is totally wrong. Your just not meant to do that yuck

[hollib21]

In Australia and most other countries, Gay Marriage (in the legal sense, not the religious sense) is not allowed, some countries do however permit "Gay Unions", but these are not marriages. I am 100% against this policy. 2 men/women who love eachother and care for eachother should be allowed to be legally married, and enjoy the same legal benefits a married heterosexual couple have.

All of my friends who are gay are not Catholic.
they dont really follow any religion at all...but that could be just my friends

Nomatter what Relgion,
in general religions often has rules that cause gays to be shut out
Thay are not memmbers of many congregations

I dont mind if a church wont marry gays because religion is a free-standing belief system in its own
There ARE some sub-categories of Christianity that are open to gay memebers
and there are some that dont.
I have accepted that and do believe that a church has the right to say who they want and dont want in their church.
Because it is privatly owned
and has absolutly nothing to do with the government

But LEGALLY they should have the same benefits as everyone else
It isnt fair that they dont get the same privilages
If they dont want to make a law Nation-Wide that gay marriage should be allowed...
then they should keep it on a state-level, allowing the state legislation to make a decision.
So at least SOME states would allow gay marriages.

[hollib21]

People needs rules, if everyone was allowed to do what they wanted to do, the country would go down the shit hole. Regardless of how much they feel it is what they want, people should be given rules in order to live by, it's not about whether they feel it is right.

Being gay is a disgusting thing, and it being allowed means the children will have to find out what it is. They should not have to discover things like that at a young age, because it's revoulting.


You say that people should be given people should be given rules in order to live by, it's not about whether they feel it is right.

I cant not agree with you more...

take this to the extreme.
Should the government be telling you what to wear, where to work, how to go about your daily routine, where to shop, how to think, how not to think?
Does the government have the right to control your life?

Have you ever read 1984? or the giver?
because you are wanting a society where freedom does not exist.
where everyone is forced to be robotic, believeing one idea,
with absolutly no mind of their own.
It IS about whether they feel its right
We all have our own opinions/ preferences
We all should be able to express these preferences

Being gay is a disgusting thing, and it being allowed means the children will have to find out what it is. They should not have to discover things like that at a young age, because it's revoulting.

That is a matter of your opinion...
I can find a lot of gay people on this site who would say otherwise
Im not gay, but i find that gay marraiges are a statement of accepting who you are and what you want to do with your life
I believe you are "born" gay, and you realise it in your lifetime
you cant change who you are.

its hard enough being gay in this society with all the homophobia in the society
you may not agree with gay interaction,
but i do believe that you have a bit of a nerve to call it revolting.
they dont go around calling heterosexuals "revoulting"
Its a matter preverence

What do you like better chocolate or vanilla icecream?
Now lets say everyone in the majority of the world hated chocolate
and you loved chocolate
do they have the right to stop production of chocolate icecream?
do people who like vanilla have the right to call chocolate "revolting"?

the majority of the population is not gay
If the majority was gay this conversation would not exist.
We need to accept all preverences, ideas, and opinions because if we dont we are
belittling the freedom that mankind has today

[Ben]

they dont go around calling heterosexuals "revoulting"

That's because it's not revoulting. A man shoving his aids-infected cock in some other guy's ass is FUCKING SICK!

Would you want to have to explain this to your son/daughter at an early age?

The ice-cream thing is ridiculous, sexual preference cannot be compared with ice-cream flavouring...
Being gay isn't as simple, or as normal, as prefering chocolate to vanilla.

One is not born gay, I'm certain that under different circumstances of life, Elton John would be as straight as your dad.

Everything would be so much simpler if everyone was straight. Every guy would grow up and marry a girl, they would have kids, their kids would marry when they were older and have kids of their own. Simple. But no...civil rights mean that we can fuck around with the life cycle by giving certain people (who have chosen to be abnormal) the right to cause bollock-ups in the cycle.

If people didn't know of the possibility to be gay, didn't know that they legally had the choice between being normal or not, then they would just do what was normal among society and be straight. By legalising it and giving them equal rights, every person discovers homosexuality, which means more and more people will be turning that way.

Also, imagine you are a straight couple who cannot physically have children, for medical reasons. You are trying to adopt, but there are so many gay couples, who are perfectly able to have kids, but by their own choice, will never have kids.

Why should these perfectly able people be given children to adopt, when they can have kids of their own? just because they chose to take the path that leads to not being able to have kids, when there are straight couples who do everything they can, but are refused by nature. That annoys me.

[KathyN]

In my opinion gay people have the right to marry each other. It is part of the democratic society to accept this kind of marriages because we are a pluralistic society.

I consider people who can't accept gay-marriages like racists.

I also think that if a gay couple can adopt a kid and educate him and give him a full life like any non-gay couple as long as they are really a loving family and good people themselves. Also gay couples who adopt kids help the society, so the society has to support gay-marriages.

[KathyN]

i think it is totally wrong. Your just not meant to do that yuck

So, you say like: "You have less rights because you are different." Don't you?

[KathyN]

Something I found...

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong (IRONIC)
{originally writen by aussievegangirl from veggieboards}

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Australians always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air-conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalising gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were
allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in Australia.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans..

[hollib21]

Something I found...

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong (IRONIC)
{originally writen by aussievegangirl from veggieboards}

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Australians always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air-conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalising gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were
allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in Australia.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans..

omg, awesome points...
thats all i can say =)

[Kaiser]

That's because it's not revoulting. A man shoving his aids-infected cock in some other guy's ass is f*ckING SICK!

Would you want to have to explain this to your son/daughter at an early age?

The ice-cream thing is ridiculous, sexual preference cannot be compared with ice-cream flavouring...
Being gay isn't as simple, or as normal, as prefering chocolate to vanilla.

One is not born gay, I'm certain that under different circumstances of life, Elton John would be as straight as your dad.

Everything would be so much simpler if everyone was straight. Every guy would grow up and marry a girl, they would have kids, their kids would marry when they were older and have kids of their own. Simple. But no...civil rights mean that we can f*ck around with the life cycle by giving certain people (who have chosen to be abnormal) the right to cause bollock-ups in the cycle.

If people didn't know of the possibility to be gay, didn't know that they legally had the choice between being normal or not, then they would just do what was normal among society and be straight. By legalising it and giving them equal rights, every person discovers homosexuality, which means more and more people will be turning that way.

Also, imagine you are a straight couple who cannot physically have children, for medical reasons. You are trying to adopt, but there are so many gay couples, who are perfectly able to have kids, but by their own choice, will never have kids.

Why should these perfectly able people be given children to adopt, when they can have kids of their own? just because they chose to take the path that leads to not being able to have kids, when there are straight couples who do everything they can, but are refused by nature. That annoys me.:puke:

I bet you're a joy to be around.

Listen, buster. Your stereotypes and illogical thinking are not going to get you anywhere. Get this: being gay has been scientifically confirmed over and over to be NATURAL. Homosexuality has been recorded in every species of mammal. Bonobos, the species closest to us, are naturally bisexual. The psychological institutions of advanced countries have all in the past decades confirmed that homosexuality is not abnormal and that people who are homosexual do not have a mental disorder.

YOU DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE REALITY. The reality is that it is a fact that there is nothing abnormal about homosexuality. Your reaction to it as being disgusting is your own prejudice and I'll be damned if I let my rights be dictated by some sicko bigot. Do you understand me? If I say, "blacks are gross, I hate them and they shouldn't get any rights," it would not change the reality that black people are just as deserving of full rights as people of any other race. You do not have a valid argument.

In the past, people have attempted to "cure" homosexuality through therapy. These therapies ranged from run-of-the-mill to disgusting, inhumane treatments, sometimes forced and sometimes submitted to out of self-hate for being gay caused by societal pressure. It did not work at all. The "successes" were people who were in reality bisexual, those who became celibate or lovelessly entered heterosexual partnerships, and people who simply returned to being gay after a few months. And guess what? It caused extreme psychological trauma to those being "treated."

There is more and more evidence every day that sexual preference has solid genetic components. Articles about this are not hard to find. Even if some aspects are environmental (those environmental aspects have been studied and it has been found that there is no link whatsoever to child abuse, childhood trauma, etc.), it is clear that it is strongly affected by your genes.

Your assertion that people wouldn't be gay if they didn't know about homosexuality is asinine beyond comprehension. The vast majority of gay people knew they were attracted to the same sex long before learning that there were other such people. The lack of visible gay people MERELY ALIENATES THEM AND CAUSES PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS. Furthermore, there was no concept of "sexual orientation" until the past few hundred years, and guess what -- people were gay long before that.

If everyone were straight, everyone would be straight. So what? If everyone accepted gay people, it would be just as simple. Is it not horribly obvious? Can you be that dense? YOUR HATE IS WHAT MAKES IT COMPLICATED.

Any rationale you might have left was utterly destroyed by your bringing children into the argument. You mean to suggest that children should stay in an utterly overwhelmed adoption system, without resources or a family, when they could be adopted by perfectly loving people?! It's not like there are two kids left to adopt! There is a SURPLUS, of proportions I doubt you could imagine! Heterosexual couples trying to adopt are not going to be told, "oh, sorry, we gave our last kid to that nice gay couple down the street" because there is not going to be a last kid. The more people who adopt, the better for the kids.

And in case you haven't heard the news yet, kids raised by parents in homosexual partnerships have been found to have no significant differences compared to kids raised by parents in heterosexual partnerships.

Science and the real world are clearly not on your side.


You're welcome to childishly squeal about how gross it is to be gay and hate anyone who is gay and whatever. I'm afraid, though, that it doesn't change anything about reality. All it will do is make you a sad, homophobic loser. :( If that's okay with you, that's okay with you. But don't you dare try to pass any of your prejudices off as fact.

[silver_knight]

I'm not agree with this gay marriage thing... Have U ever read Romans 1:27?? Come on guys, there's a reason why they write it PERVERSION!! If they want to be happy, they will find any other NORMAL things to be happy, I'm sorry...!! What if the children ask who's their MOTHER?? Wouldn't it be complicated to the parents?! And confusing for the children...?! If those thing continues, what will happen to the new generations?? What's their principle to be known?? Have two fathers??

[gprime]

I'm not agree with this gay marriage thing... Have U ever read Romans 1:27?? Come on guys, there's a reason why they write it PERVERSION!! If they want to be happy, they will find any other NORMAL things to be happy, I'm sorry...!! What if the children ask who's their MOTHER?? Wouldn't it be complicated to the parents?! And confusing for the children...?! If those thing continues, what will happen to the new generations?? What's their principle to be known?? Have two fathers??

Now, I too am anti-gay marraige (reasons explained before, and they were economic ones). But your arguement is absurd. In a democracy, you can't set your laws based on the Christian Bible.

[God.]

:puke:

I bet you're a joy to be around.

Listen, buster. Your stereotypes and illogical thinking are not going to get you anywhere. Get this: being gay has been scientifically confirmed over and over to be NATURAL. Homosexuality has been recorded in every species of mammal. Bonobos, the species closest to us, are naturally bisexual. The psychological institutions of advanced countries have all in the past decades confirmed that homosexuality is not abnormal and that people who are homosexual do not have a mental disorder.

YOU DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE REALITY. The reality is that it is a fact that there is nothing abnormal about homosexuality. Your reaction to it as being disgusting is your own prejudice and I'll be damned if I let my rights be dictated by some sicko bigot. Do you understand me? If I say, "blacks are gross, I hate them and they shouldn't get any rights," it would not change the reality that black people are just as deserving of full rights as people of any other race. You do not have a valid argument.

In the past, people have attempted to "cure" homosexuality through therapy. These therapies ranged from run-of-the-mill to disgusting, inhumane treatments, sometimes forced and sometimes submitted to out of self-hate for being gay caused by societal pressure. It did not work at all. The "successes" were people who were in reality bisexual, those who became celibate or lovelessly entered heterosexual partnerships, and people who simply returned to being gay after a few months. And guess what? It caused extreme psychological trauma to those being "treated."

There is more and more evidence every day that sexual preference has solid genetic components. Articles about this are not hard to find. Even if some aspects are environmental (those environmental aspects have been studied and it has been found that there is no link whatsoever to child abuse, childhood trauma, etc.), it is clear that it is strongly affected by your genes.

Your assertion that people wouldn't be gay if they didn't know about homosexuality is asinine beyond comprehension. The vast majority of gay people knew they were attracted to the same sex long before learning that there were other such people. The lack of visible gay people MERELY ALIENATES THEM AND CAUSES PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS. Furthermore, there was no concept of "sexual orientation" until the past few hundred years, and guess what -- people were gay long before that.

If everyone were straight, everyone would be straight. So what? If everyone accepted gay people, it would be just as simple. Is it not horribly obvious? Can you be that dense? YOUR HATE IS WHAT MAKES IT COMPLICATED.

Any rationale you might have left was utterly destroyed by your bringing children into the argument. You mean to suggest that children should stay in an utterly overwhelmed adoption system, without resources or a family, when they could be adopted by perfectly loving people?! It's not like there are two kids left to adopt! There is a SURPLUS, of proportions I doubt you could imagine! Heterosexual couples trying to adopt are not going to be told, "oh, sorry, we gave our last kid to that nice gay couple down the street" because there is not going to be a last kid. The more people who adopt, the better for the kids.

And in case you haven't heard the news yet, kids raised by parents in homosexual partnerships have been found to have no significant differences compared to kids raised by parents in heterosexual partnerships.

Science and the real world are clearly not on your side.


You're welcome to childishly squeal about how gross it is to be gay and hate anyone who is gay and whatever. I'm afraid, though, that it doesn't change anything about reality. All it will do is make you a sad, homophobic loser. :( If that's okay with you, that's okay with you. But don't you dare try to pass any of your prejudices off as fact.

*applauds*

Bloody brilliant.

Ben, you're one of the most homophobic people I've ever heard. Because you don't agree, it doesn't make it wrong.

I've lost some respect for you I'm afraid, but I'm sure you'll still sleep at night.

[IceBurn3000]

That's because it's not revoulting. A man shoving his aids-infected cock in some other guy's ass is f*ckING SICK!

Would you want to have to explain this to your son/daughter at an early age?

The ice-cream thing is ridiculous, sexual preference cannot be compared with ice-cream flavouring...
Being gay isn't as simple, or as normal, as prefering chocolate to vanilla.

One is not born gay, I'm certain that under different circumstances of life, Elton John would be as straight as your dad.

Everything would be so much simpler if everyone was straight. Every guy would grow up and marry a girl, they would have kids, their kids would marry when they were older and have kids of their own. Simple. But no...civil rights mean that we can f*ck around with the life cycle by giving certain people (who have chosen to be abnormal) the right to cause bollock-ups in the cycle.

If people didn't know of the possibility to be gay, didn't know that they legally had the choice between being normal or not, then they would just do what was normal among society and be straight. By legalising it and giving them equal rights, every person discovers homosexuality, which means more and more people will be turning that way.

Also, imagine you are a straight couple who cannot physically have children, for medical reasons. You are trying to adopt, but there are so many gay couples, who are perfectly able to have kids, but by their own choice, will never have kids.

Why should these perfectly able people be given children to adopt, when they can have kids of their own? just because they chose to take the path that leads to not being able to have kids, when there are straight couples who do everything they can, but are refused by nature. That annoys me.

Idiot. Get an education and read a biomedical science journal. Anyone from the last few years should do. Everything is based on DNA and genetics.


:puke:

I bet you're a joy to be around.

Listen, buster. Your stereotypes and illogical thinking are not going to get you anywhere. Get this: being gay has been scientifically confirmed over and over to be NATURAL. Homosexuality has been recorded in every species of mammal. Bonobos, the species closest to us, are naturally bisexual. The psychological institutions of advanced countries have all in the past decades confirmed that homosexuality is not abnormal and that people who are homosexual do not have a mental disorder.

YOU DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE REALITY. The reality is that it is a fact that there is nothing abnormal about homosexuality. Your reaction to it as being disgusting is your own prejudice and I'll be damned if I let my rights be dictated by some sicko bigot. Do you understand me? If I say, "blacks are gross, I hate them and they shouldn't get any rights," it would not change the reality that black people are just as deserving of full rights as people of any other race. You do not have a valid argument.

In the past, people have attempted to "cure" homosexuality through therapy. These therapies ranged from run-of-the-mill to disgusting, inhumane treatments, sometimes forced and sometimes submitted to out of self-hate for being gay caused by societal pressure. It did not work at all. The "successes" were people who were in reality bisexual, those who became celibate or lovelessly entered heterosexual partnerships, and people who simply returned to being gay after a few months. And guess what? It caused extreme psychological trauma to those being "treated."

There is more and more evidence every day that sexual preference has solid genetic components. Articles about this are not hard to find. Even if some aspects are environmental (those environmental aspects have been studied and it has been found that there is no link whatsoever to child abuse, childhood trauma, etc.), it is clear that it is strongly affected by your genes.

Your assertion that people wouldn't be gay if they didn't know about homosexuality is asinine beyond comprehension. The vast majority of gay people knew they were attracted to the same sex long before learning that there were other such people. The lack of visible gay people MERELY ALIENATES THEM AND CAUSES PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS. Furthermore, there was no concept of "sexual orientation" until the past few hundred years, and guess what -- people were gay long before that.

If everyone were straight, everyone would be straight. So what? If everyone accepted gay people, it would be just as simple. Is it not horribly obvious? Can you be that dense? YOUR HATE IS WHAT MAKES IT COMPLICATED.

Any rationale you might have left was utterly destroyed by your bringing children into the argument. You mean to suggest that children should stay in an utterly overwhelmed adoption system, without resources or a family, when they could be adopted by perfectly loving people?! It's not like there are two kids left to adopt! There is a SURPLUS, of proportions I doubt you could imagine! Heterosexual couples trying to adopt are not going to be told, "oh, sorry, we gave our last kid to that nice gay couple down the street" because there is not going to be a last kid. The more people who adopt, the better for the kids.

And in case you haven't heard the news yet, kids raised by parents in homosexual partnerships have been found to have no significant differences compared to kids raised by parents in heterosexual partnerships.

Science and the real world are clearly not on your side.


You're welcome to childishly squeal about how gross it is to be gay and hate anyone who is gay and whatever. I'm afraid, though, that it doesn't change anything about reality. All it will do is make you a sad, homophobic loser. :( If that's okay with you, that's okay with you. But don't you dare try to pass any of your prejudices off as fact.

*STANDING OVATION* You saved me the trouble of typing up a response to his moronic post. You deserve a medal!

[silver_knight]

Now, I too am anti-gay marraige (reasons explained before, and they were economic ones). But your arguement is absurd. In a democracy, you can't set your laws based on the Christian Bible.

Well what about the other things i said?? Can you explain those??

[gprime]

Well what about the other things i said?? Can you explain those??

Here's the thing. As an atheist, the notion of being ruled by religion sickens me to the point of nausea, hence my need to contest said absurd arguement. Now, I don't necissarily agree to the rest of your arguements, but they aren't well grounded either. My objections to it are.

So, for the sake of filling you desire of getting them challenged:


If they want to be happy, they will find any other NORMAL things to be happy, I'm sorry...!! What if the children ask who's their MOTHER?? Wouldn't it be complicated to the parents?! And confusing for the children...?! If those thing continues, what will happen to the new generations?? What's their principle to be known?? Have two fathers??

Who gets to define normal? In the 1980's it wasn't normal to use a computer and now it is. And polygamy was normal in Utah in that 1800s.

Let children ask who their mother (in the case of a gay couple) or their father (in the case of a lesbian couple) are. There is no harm in questioning it. And there is no harm in the true answer being shared either.

Confusing a child is a stupid arguement. It can simply be explained by the fact that some people have different sexual preferences than others. Even if does confuse them, it shouldn't dictate the law. I doubt to many kids are educated on the subject of tort reform, but that's no reason to not implement it.

As to what will happen in a few generations, nothing, especially if you legalized it now, since it would then make it normal, so in generations, it would come to be viewed as a somewhat normal practice.

Same concept with the principles. After all, legalizing something won't change many people's opinion. Those who oppose it will continue to oppose it, and try to get their family to react the same way. And those who support it will continue to do so, and will try to get those around them to feel the same way.

Again, I too am opposed to gay marraige. But my arguements are logical and yours are not.

[Kaiser]

Again, I too am opposed to gay marraige. But my arguements are logical and yours are not. Well, no, yours aren't. I was waiting to get to it, but I guess I will now: your economic argument ignores both example and common sense. What of Massachusetts? They certainly aren't experiencing economic collapse. What of the myriad of companies that already extend benefits to same-sex couples in domestic partnerships or other forms of partnerships?

It simply will not cause a significant increase in the number of benefits given on a company-to-company basis. 10% of the population maybe includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered people, and people with a moderate number of past same-sex sexual relations who don't necessarily identify as bisexual. 5% is a better estimate for the number of people heavily leaning towards same-sex relationships. Of those people, only about 2-3% are living together in some form of partnership, as shown by many demographical surveys. Not all of those people are interested in getting married, or at least not right away. So, at the time of passing a law legalizing gay marriage, I think it would be safe to estimate that only around .5 to 1% of the population would be getting a same-sex marriage within a few years.

Also, if you've studied economy, you ought to know that more people in marriages strengthens the economy. This is a statistical fact.


Here are a few reports I've gathered on positive benefits of same-sex marriage and other same-sex partnerships on economy:



Allowing same-sex couples to marry would save the federal government nearly $1 billion per year

New Congressional Budget Office Report Confirms IGLSS-UCLA Studies
Amherst, MA---The Congressional Budget Office reported yesterday that allowing same-sex couples to marry would have a positive impact on the federal budget. The report confirms recent findings from state-level studies conducted by the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (IGLSS) and the Williams Project at UCLA Law School.
The Congressional Budget Office found that allowing same-sex couples to marry would boost federal income tax revenues by $400 million per year til the end of this decade, mainly because of the so-called “marriage penalty.” Social security payments would rise over time, as would spending on spousal health insurance benefits for federal workers. Other expenditure items would be much lower, however, since spending on Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) would fall. The net impact would be a federal budget savings of nearly $1 billion per year.
These findings parallel the conclusions of recent studies that were conducted by IGLSS and the Williams Project about the impact of granting marriage and domestic partnership rights at the state level. The most recent study showed that California would have a net savings of $22-25 million per year if same-sex couples could marry. A 2003 study of New Jersey’s Domestic Partnership Act, which goes into effect in July, predicts that the state is likely to see a net savings of $61 million per year by giving same-sex couples rights.
“The CBO report adds to the growing weight of studies showing that same-sex marriage makes sense from an economic perspective,” noted economist M. V. Lee Badgett of IGLSS and the University of Massachusetts, who has authored or co-authored five reports on the fiscal impact of same-sex marriage. “Although most attention has focused on the benefits of marriage, this report reminds us that marriage involves responsibilities, too. Strengthening same-sex couples’ legal standing will reduce demands on federal and state budgets.”
“Rather than relying on stereotypes about gay and lesbian couples, the CBO used the best data available on same-sex couples from Census 2000 to calculate their estimates,” stated Brad Sears, the executive director of UCLA’s Williams Project and a co-author of the studies in California and New Jersey. “Applying the Census figures to individual states’ budgets would show many millions more in savings if same-sex couples could marry.”
The CBO study, which was requested by Congressperson Steve Chabot, is available at www.cbo.gov (http://www.cbo.gov). The IGLSS-Williams Project studies are available (http://www.iglss.org/media/files/wppolicystudy.pdf) at www.iglss.org (http://www.iglss.org) and www1.law.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/home.html. (http://www.iglss.org/pubs/highlights/www1.law.ucla.edu/%7Ewilliamsproj/home.html.%20)



New Study Shows Requiring Equal Benefits Results in Equality at Low Cost Employer Costs Increase Only About One-Tenth of One Percent; SF Costs Low
Amherst, MA--The San Francisco Equal Benefits Ordinance advanced the equal treatment of employees with domestic partners with a minimum of red tape and costs to the city, according to “Contracts with Equality,” an evaluation released today by the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (IGLSS). The Equal Benefits Ordinance, a groundbreaking law that went into effect in 1997, requires city contractors to offer equal benefits to employees with domestic partners if the company provides benefits to spouses.
More than 3,000 employers have begun offering domestic partner benefits as a result of the Equal Benefits Ordinance. The report estimates that at least 26,000 additional people have health insurance coverage as a result.
“Many people expected the ordinance to drive up the city’s cost of doing business dramatically, but our analysis suggests that employer costs passed through to the city would rise by no more than 0.02% to 0.12%,” noted Daley Dunham, one of the report’s authors. “Overall, we found no evidence of a large increase in the city’s spending on goods and services.”
The report analyzes several sources of data, including detailed spending data from the San Francisco International Airport before and after implementation of the EBO. Dunham found no evidence of a large increase in costs in the airport data, even in comparison with other airports in the Los Angeles area that did not operate under an EBO requirement. The airport finding suggests that any increase in total city expenditures were not large.
Dr. Marc Rogers, the other author, added, "Increased expenditures are just one side of the equation. The City probably also saved some money due to lower public health expenditures, since more residents got health coverage.”
After the initial passage of the EBO, the City’s Human Rights Commission processed a huge amount of paperwork by streamlining some procedures, and an initial backlog quickly disappeared. Rogers also noted, “San Francisco’s accommodating approach to rules and procedures gave employers and the City the flexibility they needed to comply with the new rules."
“Other cities considering their own equal benefits ordinances can learn from the San Francisco experience,” suggested Lee Badgett, IGLSS research director. “This report shows that San Francisco has already addressed costly legal and logistical challenges, such as winning victories in court and increasing the number of health insurance plans that will cover partners."
Los Angeles, Seattle, Berkeley, Oakland, and the State of California have passed similar contractor requirements. Atlanta and New York City are also considering such a change.



Study Finds AB 205 Boosts CA Budget by $8 - $10 Million; Appropriations Committee Votes Tomorrow
STUDY FINDS CALIFORNIA'S DOMESTIC PARTNER LEGISLATION WILL HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON STATE BUDGET
Los Angeles, CA -- Today two of the nation's top progressive think tanks released a study concluding that AB 205, providing same-sex couples with almost all of the same rights and obligations as spouses in civil marriage, will have a positive impact that could possibly save California millions of tax dollars. AB 205 is scheduled for a vote in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, May 28.
The study was produced jointly by the Williams Project of UCLA School of Law and IGLSS, the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies. It estimates that AB 205 will have a positive savings impact of approximately $8.1 to $10 million a year on California's budget.
Primarily, the savings will be the consequence of decreasing the number of individuals eligible for means-tested state benefit programs, thereby saving the State money. AB 205 will have this impact because it will cause the income of a person's domestic partner to be included when determining eligibility for state benefit programs.
"Even if only a small percentage of individuals living with partners register and become ineligible for public benefits," says economist and study co-author, Dr. M.V. Lee Badgett, "California is likely to reduce its expenditures on these programs by more than $11.5 million each year."
The study, entitled Equal Rights, Fiscal Responsibility, finds that AB 205 would also potentially increase sales tax revenues from tourism and decrease state income tax revenues, but will have only a minor effect on administrative costs, state employee benefits, and the state court system.
" Our analysis makes it clear that providing California families with equal rights is fiscally responsible," says the study's co-author, Brad Sears, Director of the Williams Project. "Making domestic partners accountable to each other not only strengthens families, it has a positive impact on the State budget."
The study reaches similar results as studies done about same-sex civil union legislation for Vermont and Connecticut.
As of May 2003, approximately 20,000 couples have registered as domestic partners with the Secretary of the State of California.


Economist Lee Badgett Testifies Before New Hampshire Same-Sex Civil Marriage Commission: Marriage good for State's Budget and Economy

September 19, 2005

Today, Williams Project Visiting Scholar and Economist Lee Badgett testified before the New Hampshire Same-Sex Civil Marriage Commission that giving same-sex couples the right to marry would be good for the state budget and economy. Badgett estimated an annual net gain of $500,000 to the state budget if same-sex couples were allowed to marry. She testified that allowing same-sex marriage would strengthen the New Hampshire economy by stimulating a boom in tourism and attracting highly skilled workers to the State.

Badgett's testimony reconfirms the findings of at least 10 other studies that have been done in the past decade. In addition to a series of studies done by the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Project and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies (IGLSS) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, similar analyses have been done by the Congressional Budget Office CBO, the Comptroller of New York, the Office of Legislative Research of the Connecticut General Assembly, and the Vermont Civil Union Review Commission. All of these studies have shown that recognizing the rights of same-sex couples will have a positive impact on federal or state budgets.

If it is among the first states to extend marriage to gay and lesbian couples, Badgett testified that New Hampshire would benefit from a boom in tourism. When San Francisco allowed couples to marry for one month last year, over 350 couples flew in from 46 states and 8 countries. Badgett conservatively estimates that allowing same-sex couples to marry would generate almost $63 million in new tourist spending in New Hampshire during the first few years same-sex couples are permitted to marry. Forbes magazine has estimated that if same-sex marriage were legalized across the U.S., gay weddings would generate $16.8 billion in spending during the first several years.

"The windfall from same-sex marriage tourism will only go to the first few states that extend marriage to gay and lesbian couples," said R. Bradley Sears, executive director of the Williams Project at the UCLA School of Law. "Massachusetts has lost out on this opportunity by Governor Romney's refusal to allow marriages from non-resident couples. California could realize this economic gain if Governor Schwarzenegger signs the marriage bill when it is presented to him later this week. If not, states like New Hampshire may end up with a monopoly on this tourism windfall."

And here is PFLAG's statement on this issue:


Wouldn’t recognition of same-sex marriages cost businesses a lot more money?
No. The main benefit many employers provide for their employees which might be affected by permitting same-sex couples to marry would be health care benefits. Currently, many gay people cannot obtain this benefit. The additional cost to employers would be minimal and no one would even ask this question if a company happened to have all heterosexual people working with the expectation they would all be married. Businesses often offer gay couples benefits already as it is in their best interest to attract the best employees and retain them. Studies suggest the impact on business of recognizing same-sex couples would be minimal. Above all, this is a red herring issue, distracting from the real questions at hand. Research on the question in fact shows that marriage equality would be good for the economy and beneficial to taxpayers.

[PrincessAlice]

i agree with gay marriage

why should "straight" people get to be allowed to the person they love and gay/lesbain people not be allowed to marry the people they love

i am completely against homophobic people gay people have as much right to love another person as anybody else just because they love a person of the same sex to them doesn't make it wrong. most people who are against gay/lesbain people are scared of the fact that they are different to them

[saraharms1]

I don't support gay marrige. I'm not going to make fun of them for it. I think its wrong for them to make gay marrige illegal. I mean... its their life. Even if I feel that its wrong. As for adoption if the two men or two women want to adopt and they think they would be great parents then go for it. Gays shouldn't be stopped from adopting because they are gay.

[Angela_Sleeping]

:puke:

I bet you're a joy to be around.

Listen, buster. Your stereotypes and illogical thinking are not going to get you anywhere. Get this: being gay has been scientifically confirmed over and over to be NATURAL. Homosexuality has been recorded in every species of mammal. Bonobos, the species closest to us, are naturally bisexual. The psychological institutions of advanced countries have all in the past decades confirmed that homosexuality is not abnormal and that people who are homosexual do not have a mental disorder.

YOU DO NOT GET TO CHOOSE REALITY. The reality is that it is a fact that there is nothing abnormal about homosexuality. Your reaction to it as being disgusting is your own prejudice and I'll be damned if I let my rights be dictated by some sicko bigot. Do you understand me? If I say, "blacks are gross, I hate them and they shouldn't get any rights," it would not change the reality that black people are just as deserving of full rights as people of any other race. You do not have a valid argument.

In the past, people have attempted to "cure" homosexuality through therapy. These therapies ranged from run-of-the-mill to disgusting, inhumane treatments, sometimes forced and sometimes submitted to out of self-hate for being gay caused by societal pressure. It did not work at all. The "successes" were people who were in reality bisexual, those who became celibate or lovelessly entered heterosexual partnerships, and people who simply returned to being gay after a few months. And guess what? It caused extreme psychological trauma to those being "treated."

There is more and more evidence every day that sexual preference has solid genetic components. Articles about this are not hard to find. Even if some aspects are environmental (those environmental aspects have been studied and it has been found that there is no link whatsoever to child abuse, childhood trauma, etc.), it is clear that it is strongly affected by your genes.

Your assertion that people wouldn't be gay if they didn't know about homosexuality is asinine beyond comprehension. The vast majority of gay people knew they were attracted to the same sex long before learning that there were other such people. The lack of visible gay people MERELY ALIENATES THEM AND CAUSES PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS. Furthermore, there was no concept of "sexual orientation" until the past few hundred years, and guess what -- people were gay long before that.

If everyone were straight, everyone would be straight. So what? If everyone accepted gay people, it would be just as simple. Is it not horribly obvious? Can you be that dense? YOUR HATE IS WHAT MAKES IT COMPLICATED.

Any rationale you might have left was utterly destroyed by your bringing children into the argument. You mean to suggest that children should stay in an utterly overwhelmed adoption system, without resources or a family, when they could be adopted by perfectly loving people?! It's not like there are two kids left to adopt! There is a SURPLUS, of proportions I doubt you could imagine! Heterosexual couples trying to adopt are not going to be told, "oh, sorry, we gave our last kid to that nice gay couple down the street" because there is not going to be a last kid. The more people who adopt, the better for the kids.

And in case you haven't heard the news yet, kids raised by parents in homosexual partnerships have been found to have no significant differences compared to kids raised by parents in heterosexual partnerships.

Science and the real world are clearly not on your side.


You're welcome to childishly squeal about how gross it is to be gay and hate anyone who is gay and whatever. I'm afraid, though, that it doesn't change anything about reality. All it will do is make you a sad, homophobic loser. :( If that's okay with you, that's okay with you. But don't you dare try to pass any of your prejudices off as fact.
Marry me.

[Kaiser]

Marry me. Sorry babe, I may be for equal rights, but marriage is not the life for me. :cool:

[NewAbortion]

I'm not agree with this gay marriage thing... Have U ever read Romans 1:27?? Come on guys, there's a reason why they write it PERVERSION!! If they want to be happy, they will find any other NORMAL things to be happy, I'm sorry...!! What if the children ask who's their MOTHER?? Wouldn't it be complicated to the parents?! And confusing for the children...?! If those thing continues, what will happen to the new generations?? What's their principle to be known?? Have two fathers??Revival!


Terminology


Homosexual
The English word homosexual is a compound word made from the Greek word homo, meaning “the same”, and the Latin term sexualis, meaning sex. The term “homosexual” is of modern origin, and it wasn’t until about a hundred years ago that it was first used. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is equivalent to the English word homosexual. The 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible was the first translation to use the word homosexual.


Sodomite

There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew for “sodomy.” A Sodomite was simply an inhabitant of Sodom, just as a Moabite was an inhabitant of Moab. Any translation of the New Testament making use of the words “sodomy” or “sodomite” are clear interpretations and not faithful translations.

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

Romans 1:24-27
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (RSV)
To understand what Paul is writing about we must look at the event as a whole and not isolate a single portion of it. Each verse in this story gives us a glimpse into the situation.

Verse 24: “Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity.” If we are painting a picture, it begins with the image of LUST.

Verse 25: “…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” Now there is a FALSEHOOD as well as IDOLATRY involved (i.e. worshipping something other than God).

Verse 26: “God gave them up to dishonorable passions…” Now DISHONORABLE PASSIONS are presented. Looking back at this now we see this as a situation of lust, falsehood, idolatry, and dishonorable passions.

Verse 26 and 27 continue: “Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another…”

Looking at the men first will help to clarify the passage: “The men likewise gave up natural relations with women…” Stop. Did you see that? They gave up natural relations with women, which implies that these men were heterosexuals by nature. The phrase translated as “gave up” is the Greek word aphente (afenteV) meaning to leave behind, forsake, neglect, or divorce. These men, therefore, divorced themselves from their own nature, that of heterosexuality, and were consumed with passion for one another. Women did likewise. As we see, Paul is talking about heterosexual individuals engaging in homosexual sex, which is contrary to their nature.

Why would men do that? As any biblical scholar will tell you: “Context is everything.” This is a situation of lust, falsehood, idolatry, and dishonorable passions. In this account there are a number or men and a number of women, both plurals. This would most definitely be an orgy…everyone filled with lust and “dishonorable passions” having sex with whomever however. But why would Paul be talking about orgies? A little research uncovers the pagan practice of “sacred sexual orgies.” Baal was the Canaanite deity that was worshipped with sexual orgies on Mount Peor in Moab, with which Paul would have been familiar. With this contextual understanding let us read this story again:
“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."
Anyone who isolates the phrase “natural relations” to declare homosexual relations unnatural is interjecting their own prejudice and reading entirely outside of context. Even if we were to isolate that phrase it could only be used to condemn heterosexuals who go against their own heterosexual nature and engage in homosexual activity. As Peter J. Gomes, preacher to Harvard University, further clarifies in his book The Good Book, “It is not clear that Saint Paul distinguished, as we must, between homosexual persons and heterosexual persons who behave like homosexuals, but what is clear is that what is ‘unnatural’ is the one behaving after the manner of the other” (page 157).

Source: http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/the_bible_christianity_and_homosexuality_justin_ca nnon.htm (http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/the_bible_christianity_and_homosexuality_justin_ca nnon.htm)


~Maggot

[Kaiser]

NA -- I've been looking for that website for a long time. It was bookmarked on my old computer, but I lost it after I switched to my laptop. Thanks!

[-CrazedOne-]

If they want to be gay they can, i think they should be able to. Althoguh i still think its sick :puke:

[NewAbortion]

If they want to be gay they can, i think they should be able to. Althoguh i still think its sick :puke:That little dude there is ironic; you make me sick.

~Maggot

[Ben]

Your avatar and signature picture make me sick! Read the top post on here: www.ShaneRounce.com

[unloved__x3]

My sister is bisexural and I think if she is with a girl she diserves to be happ like everybody else.

[NewAbortion]

Your avatar and signature picture make me sick! Read the top post on here: www.ShaneRounce.com (http://www.ShaneRounce.com)Well, if it makes you sick, that's not my problem, it's yours; deal with it or whine, I don't care, it's going to stay there.

~Maggot

[unloved__x3]

Your avatar and signature picture make me sick! Read the top post on here: www.ShaneRounce.com (http://www.shanerounce.com/)
if you don't like the look of something....don't look!

[NewAbortion]

My sister is bisexural and I think if she is with a girl she diserves to be happ like everybody else.The word's "bisexual," not "bisexural," just so you know.

~Maggot

[unloved__x3]

^ oopsie! thanks anyway xxxxxxxxxx lol

[God.]

People can be whatever the hell they want.

I don't think any of them care what your opinions are on the matter.

Whether you think it's wrong, or you embrace it with open arms, they'll happily carry on being themselves, and I think thats the best outcome.

[NewAbortion]

People can be whatever the hell they want.

I don't think any of them care what your opinions are on the matter.

Whether you think it's wrong, or you embrace it with open arms, they'll happily carry on being themselves, and I think thats the best outcome.I hope they don't care, as many gay and bi people I know don't. I would just like to point out that I'm here because I enjoy debating, not to change anyone's mind.

~Maggot

[buthy-13]

ew

imagine you have two father's :puke:

[NewAbortion]

ew

imagine you have two father's :puke:I don't see how that's "ew".

~Maggot

[~Wayne~]

2 fathers may be different yeah but I'm sure they could provide a good upbringing

[NewAbortion]

2 fathers may be different yeah but I'm sure they could provide a good upbringingAnyone can provide a good upbringing, as long as they're willing to.

~Maggot

[buthy-13]

I don't see how that's "ew".

~Maggot
wel duh!

ur blind

[buthy-13]

i said imagine MISS MAGGOT

[NewAbortion]

i said imagine MISS MAGGOTYou know, there's a nifty little thing called the "Edit" button next to your posts, and he would like to be your friend.

Okay, I'm imagining. . . .nope, still not getting how it's "ew".

~Maggot

[metal-maniac-13]

if theyre inlove, i dont see why that right should be taken away from them.

[buthy-13]

if theyre inlove, i dont see why that right should be taken away from them.

inta '3aby ya3nee 3ady 3aleek gay ppl yetzawajoo

[buthy-13]

You know, there's a nifty little thing called the "Edit" button next to your posts, and he would like to be your friend.

Okay, I'm imagining. . . .nope, still not getting how it's "ew".

~Maggot

believe the edit botton is sick from loving me

[metal-maniac-13]

inta '3aby ya3nee 3ady 3aleek gay ppl yetzawajoo

they are gay, gays will always be gays.
everyone has the entitlement to marry the one he\she loves.

[Tallie]

that is totally true. i don't think people should have a sexuality why can't they just love who they want marry who the want have children with whom they want. if they want to adopt children it's good for them at least the child would have a good home. all you have to do is be open minded

[tf_arl_90]

well, a square doesent fit in a circle... if u get what i mean
That has nothing to do with morals, so I don't see how that statement backs up your statement that gay marriage is "morally wrong."


its adam and eve not adam and steve
If you're Christian, then maybe. If you're atheist, then it's a bunch of cells.


If 2 gay people feel that it is right for them them leave to go at it.
I don't think that they should be allowed to adopt anyone under a certain age though, the child needs to understand what it's getting into and be able ti give its consent because it's unfair if it gets adopted at the age of 2 with no choice and is the subject of torment and bullying til it leaves home. Because it will happen, kids dont care about feelings or stuff like that, its just "Hey your Dads are gays! ROFL!".
Kids will always tease other kids. Some other kid has a white mother and a black father and he might still get teased for this. If this is your only argument, does that mean people in mixed-race marriages shouldn't be able to adopt children because there's a chance the child will get made fun of? So basically anything that isn't "normal" shouldn't be allowed, huh?


I'm opposed to gay marraige. Its something called economics. I realize this may be beyond many of you, so I'll explain my position in a bit more detail:

Many companies extend benifits to the spouses of their employees at great cost to the company. By legalizing gay marraige, such unions would be treated the same as heterosexual marraiges. This would have two possible results. The first is that companies deem the cost too high, and cut benifits accross the board, leaving many more people uninsured than before, and those who retain their insurance with their own money have less to pump back into the economy, likely causing a massive ressession and wide spread economic chaos. The second scenario also leads to economic chaos. Companies already heavily in debt spend the extra cash to provide benifits for homo couples. This greatly increases corperate debts and lowers profit margins. This hurts stock holders financially, which reduced government tax intake. But with the lower profits, employees are laid off accross the board, thus sending unemployment payments through the roof. So the government is spending more money than usual to support those out of work, while taking in less. This would lead to increased taxation for those in work, thus leaving less cash circulating in the economy, ultimately crippling the economy through a depression and destroying the currency, as well as increasing the national debt. So in essence, legalizing gay marraige would destroy the nation and its economy, thus screwing over the entire population.

Wow, talk about an exaggeration. I find this concept completely ridiculous. It's well known that marriage tends to strengthen the economy. And even putting this aside, you are basically saying it's okay to deny PEOPLE the same rights and benefits other PEOPLE can have just because they have a different sexuality. That's just disgusting.


I think gay adoption is ok as long as it is taken into the right steps towards it...
I think any adoption is wonderful as long as the proper steps are taken. If a heterosexual couple decided to adopt a child, I would certainly hope they considered how life would change for them. I would certainly hope they would take the effects on the child into consideration. That goes for gay AND straight couples. It's not as if an adopted child is going to have an easy life simply because his parents are straight.


They should not be allowed to marry or adopt children.

People needs rules, if everyone was allowed to do what they wanted to do, the country would go down the shit hole. Regardless of how much they feel it is what they want, people should be given rules in order to live by, it's not about whether they feel it is right.

Being gay is a disgusting thing, and it being allowed means the children will have to find out what it is. They should not have to discover things like that at a young age, because it's revoulting.
You find homosexuality disgusting. I find your narrow-minded views disgusting. It's infrigement on people's rights that is going to make the country "go down the shit hole," not social reform.


A man shoving his aids-infected cock in some other guy's ass is FUCKING SICK!
"Aids-infected cock" ? Wow. That's not a stereotype at all. Totally uncalled for dude. No one's making you go watch gay porn.


Everything would be so much simpler if everyone was straight. Every guy would grow up and marry a girl, they would have kids, their kids would marry when they were older and have kids of their own. Simple. But no...civil rights mean that we can fuck around with the life cycle by giving certain people (who have chosen to be abnormal) the right to cause bollock-ups in the cycle.

If people didn't know of the possibility to be gay, didn't know that they legally had the choice between being normal or not, then they would just do what was normal among society and be straight. By legalising it and giving them equal rights, every person discovers homosexuality, which means more and more people will be turning that way.
Everything would be a lot more simpler if everyone was the same, yes. But that's never going to happen with ANYTHING, so get over it and accept it.

And yeah, you know what? I'm sure every homosexual has chosen their sexuality. I'm sure you personally know this, too. Do you know how many homosexuals are bullied and tormented just because they are gay? (You might have some idea, actually, since I wouldn't be surprised if you did the bullying).

I know homosexuals who were made fun of. Who were ostracized simply because they were gay. I know people who tried to change their sexuality just to avoid this, and who can blame them? But I don't know anyone who has been sucessful in doing so. Most who try to change their sexuality either end up "changing" back or failing completely and coming to accept the fact they're going to have to put up with some people's ignorance. It's a real shame it has to be that way.


Also, imagine you are a straight couple who cannot physically have children, for medical reasons. You are trying to adopt, but there are so many gay couples, who are perfectly able to have kids, but by their own choice, will never have kids.

Why should these perfectly able people be given children to adopt, when they can have kids of their own? just because they chose to take the path that leads to not being able to have kids, when there are straight couples who do everything they can, but are refused by nature. That annoys me.
You know, there are plenty of fertile couples who choose to adopt simply because we're in the middle of a population crisis and there are millions upon millions of homeless and orphaned children. I don't really think providing a loving and caring home for an orphaned child is a *bad* thing.


I'm not agree with this gay marriage thing... Have U ever read Romans 1:27?? Come on guys, there's a reason why they write it PERVERSION!! If they want to be happy, they will find any other NORMAL things to be happy, I'm sorry...!! What if the children ask who's their MOTHER?? Wouldn't it be complicated to the parents?! And confusing for the children...?! If those thing continues, what will happen to the new generations?? What's their principle to be known?? Have two fathers??
Thank goodness for separation of church and state.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have two loving fathers than one mother and one father who abuse me and treat me like dirt. There's such a thing as single-parent families and there are plenty of adopted children who don't know who their birth mother is. It's not like the "who's my mommy?" question hasn't been asked before.


---------


I never understood why it was okay for an atheist and a Christian to get married in a Church, but not two people who believe in God and just happen to be homosexual. If you're a Christian, don't you believe God made these people this way for a reason? Don't you think God is the only one who can really judge? If they both believe in God, and they both have good morals and treat other people with respect, so what if something they can't control happens to violate parts of some book that neither God nor Jesus wrote themselves?

I don't know if people are born gay. I would think they are, but I'm not sure. But regardless of this, I really doubt anyone can voluntarily change and/or control who they are attracted to. Can straight people force themselves to be attracted to members of the same sex? "No, but homosexuality isn't natural anyway!" <--I absolutely hate that argument because it's just plain stupid. Homosexuality is absolutely natural. It's been around for thousands and thousands of years. It's not like humans are the only species that demonstrate homosexual tendancies.

But anyway, what it basically comes down to is respect. Respect and tolerance. Everybody is different. Just because you feel something is "disgusting" does not mean you can dictate what that person does with their life. A healthy homosexual relationship is better than an unhealthy heterosexual relationship. (Just like a healthy heterosexual relationship is better than an unhealthy homosexual relationship.)

We're all humans. It's about damn time people wake up and realize this. You can't deny people rights just because you disagree with their sexuality. What the hell makes you think you can?

Years from now we're going to look back at this and wonder why it took so long for homosexuals to achieve the equal rights they deserve, just by being human.