SKIDUBAIGUY
Active member
I say Danny Kass should be the only person alowed to Marry gay guys.
Your Arguments for Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Arabian.
- Start date
KarmaSkiier
Member
all for it........................... if both chicks are hot
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
First of all their is the traditional values/ reilgious aspect. I don't pretend to be deeply involved in religion but I will try to make an attempt at summarizing the religious aspect. Since marriage as we know it in the modern world (not mere monogamy, but as the sacred bond defined in the western world) was first defined in Judaic-christian scripture, it seems only appropriate that we value the religious views of the majority.
The book of genesis clearly states that marriage is a sacred bond between male and females; a sexual and intimate reunion of the two halves of humans (adam, and adam's side- eve) The odd spiritual text, metaphor, whatever you want to call it, aside, marriage in and of itself is undoubtedly defined as the intimate, permanent, and loving union of a man and woman to live as husband and wife.
The seemingly trivial and semantical facets of marriage are in fact significant prerequisites. In order to marry, a couple must consist of a man and a woman to produce a husband and a wife. Same sex unions can provide neither of the two. The simple solution? Call it something else. There is no need to try to bend the multiple of thousands of years definition of marriage just to fit your own, untraditional, life style. If you want to have homosexual relations, fine by me, just don't mess up my definiton of marriage.
Moreover, there is a large debate as to whether or not one can choose to be homosexual or not. I believe one cannot conciously choose to be non heterosexual, however the change does have controllable variables. In a massive study of identical twins in which one twin identifies him or herself as a homosexual, there has been absolutely no correlation between the DNA of a human, genetics, chromosomes, or anything of the like and the sexual orientation of the individual (for those of you who don't know, identical twins are EXACTLY identical in their bodily composition). More over, a recent study shows that nearly 90% of all homosexuals experienced a sexual encounter before the average age of first sex (17.5) where as nearly 85% of heterosexuals experienced their first sexual encounter at or after the average age.
Overall i am undecided on the issue of gay morality but i do support the gay marriage ban from a social standpoint, but i thought i'd just provide some food for thought.
The book of genesis clearly states that marriage is a sacred bond between male and females; a sexual and intimate reunion of the two halves of humans (adam, and adam's side- eve) The odd spiritual text, metaphor, whatever you want to call it, aside, marriage in and of itself is undoubtedly defined as the intimate, permanent, and loving union of a man and woman to live as husband and wife.
The seemingly trivial and semantical facets of marriage are in fact significant prerequisites. In order to marry, a couple must consist of a man and a woman to produce a husband and a wife. Same sex unions can provide neither of the two. The simple solution? Call it something else. There is no need to try to bend the multiple of thousands of years definition of marriage just to fit your own, untraditional, life style. If you want to have homosexual relations, fine by me, just don't mess up my definiton of marriage.
Moreover, there is a large debate as to whether or not one can choose to be homosexual or not. I believe one cannot conciously choose to be non heterosexual, however the change does have controllable variables. In a massive study of identical twins in which one twin identifies him or herself as a homosexual, there has been absolutely no correlation between the DNA of a human, genetics, chromosomes, or anything of the like and the sexual orientation of the individual (for those of you who don't know, identical twins are EXACTLY identical in their bodily composition). More over, a recent study shows that nearly 90% of all homosexuals experienced a sexual encounter before the average age of first sex (17.5) where as nearly 85% of heterosexuals experienced their first sexual encounter at or after the average age.
Overall i am undecided on the issue of gay morality but i do support the gay marriage ban from a social standpoint, but i thought i'd just provide some food for thought.
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
also, if same sex marriages should be allowed, why is polygamy outlawed?
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
so when people say they don't care do they mean they don't care whether or not gay people get married, or do they not care what gets decided?
in other words, would you be just as happy if the gay marriage ban in your state was upheld as you would be if it were abolished?
in other words, would you be just as happy if the gay marriage ban in your state was upheld as you would be if it were abolished?
k-rob
Active member
gays can go ahead and get married for all i care, as long as they aren't shoving it in my face saying "look at us we're more special than you because we're gay and we're happy and proud and shit."
like all the gay kids at my high school, acting like they deserve extra attention just because they're a minority. fuck that, there's more gay kids than black kids at my high school and we don't go around asking for special recognition.
like all the gay kids at my high school, acting like they deserve extra attention just because they're a minority. fuck that, there's more gay kids than black kids at my high school and we don't go around asking for special recognition.
Sno.
Active member
I don't care if gay people get married or not, AND I don't care what gets decided.
I understand the reason that I don't care is because I'm not gay, and the issue doesn't effect me directly, and that may be a selfish viewpoint. If the decision were in my hands alone, I would allow it, because I have no problem with it and no reason to want to ban it. However, it is not an issue that I take into consideration when coosing a candidate, etc.
I think it would be better for everyone if it were just allowed everywhere, that way this argument could die.
I understand the reason that I don't care is because I'm not gay, and the issue doesn't effect me directly, and that may be a selfish viewpoint. If the decision were in my hands alone, I would allow it, because I have no problem with it and no reason to want to ban it. However, it is not an issue that I take into consideration when coosing a candidate, etc.
I think it would be better for everyone if it were just allowed everywhere, that way this argument could die.
If the government is going to recognize a religious rite as binding and give special benefits to each, then I think all citizens should be allowed those rights and benefits, regaurdless if the religion allows it or not. My stance - civil unions are just.
As for polygamy, if the government gave special rights and recognized the status of those in such a contract, then yeah. But they dont, so its a moot point. Maybe when promiscuity becomes more accepted in society...
As for polygamy, if the government gave special rights and recognized the status of those in such a contract, then yeah. But they dont, so its a moot point. Maybe when promiscuity becomes more accepted in society...
vinnyT
Member
1) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"---- there is no fine print that says "unless it is the religion of the majority"
2) shit, wouldnt want to change your definition of marriage; deal with it, we change definitions of stuff all the time------ would you have been pissed in the 60's when as a nation we changed the definition of "equality"?
3) source for this study?
2) shit, wouldnt want to change your definition of marriage; deal with it, we change definitions of stuff all the time------ would you have been pissed in the 60's when as a nation we changed the definition of "equality"?
3) source for this study?
Sno.
Active member
I think this is pretty much how I feel. Why not just call it something else? I don't mean for just gays either, for people who aren't religious at all and don't believe in God, there should be a ceremony that is similar, and is not connected to religion that these people can take part in. like "union", and then they take whatever non religious vows they want, and they're "united"...
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means just that. respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion meaning they cannot form a national church or make laws benefiting one ESTABLISHED religion over another. It does not mean christian moral values cannot influence the secular domain of legislation.
marriage has been around for a long time, i don't think its appropriate to change it all of a sudden.
study was conducted by some swedish firm ill get back to you.
marriage has been around for a long time, i don't think its appropriate to change it all of a sudden.
study was conducted by some swedish firm ill get back to you.
grown-ninja
Active member
the government should have no envolvement there is a seperation of church and state for a reason and there should be no congresional descisions regarding the subject...and sorry to be hipicritical but it should be up to the states to descide if any... also some one said sometihng about it being in genesis that marrage is between a man and a woman, isnt that the old testimate if im correct...in christianity only the new testiment is studied making that a viod argument, however by looking at if form an enconomic standpoint, say my buddy was down on his luck and i received a ton of benifits from work of course i would get a paper signed saying i was married to him so he could get the same benifits i do and i know most of my buddies would do the same im not even close to being gay i love chicks and got a gf but id help someone out if they needed it bad enough its a question of morality and i feel its not the greatest thing whatever flots ur boat though
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
from another thread i replied to:
Ok first of all where in the constitution does it say there is a
seperation of church and state? The first amendment, the only part
anywhere in the constitution that pertains to any form of religion
whatsoever, says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This means that our government cannot pass laws that establish a
national religion or make laws that specifically intend on preferring
one ESTABLISHED religion over another. What congress is allowed to do
is pass laws that uphold moral values held by the majority of the
people. It just so happens that the vast majority of americans are also
christians. Moreover, it doesn't infringe on anyone's established
religion. In fact, all established religions condemn gay marriage to
one degree or another. So to appeal the gay marriage ban actually
infringes on the livelyhood and lifestyle of practicing christians and
jews. Thus that law would infringe on the free exercise of an
ESTABLISHED religion.
The reason gay marriage would affect our fundamental government is a
very sophisticated issue im not sure you could grasp without first
reading the constitution. Article four is the article that pertains to
the powers of the states. In it is the Faith and Credibility clause.
The reason this cannot be left to the states is because marriage is a
law that falls under the Faith and Credibility clause. IE if i get
married in nebraska, im still married even if i move to alaska. I don't
need to remarry in alaska. Thus if one state makes it legal, it pretty
much makes it legal for the rest of the states. Now, Bill Clinton
proposed and congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. it
states: No state (or other political subdivision within the United States)
need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a
marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another
state. The Federal Government
may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even
if concluded or recognized by one of the states. This is a clear
contradiction to article 4 of the constitution. On one hand you have
the vast majority of people who want to define marriage, the term
marriage, as a sacred union between husband and wife and on the other
hand people want lifestyle tolerance. People want marriage to be a
state right yet the act of marriage is not contained within the
sovereign borders of a single state. It is a very large dilemma over
states vs federal rights and how power is balanced. Do we want larger
federal governments or should we simply take marriage away from states?
If you choose to uphold the gay marriage ban than it is simply one act
overriding a single states' law. Seeing as how the constitution and
laws passed by congress are the Supreme Law of the Land, I see no
problem with it.
If you choose to abolish it, then you must also ammend Article 4 of the
constitution and essentially eliminate the Faith and Credibility clause
and states would gain seperation. It would probably never pass seeing
as how ammendments take a really, really long time to pass.
Ok first of all where in the constitution does it say there is a
seperation of church and state? The first amendment, the only part
anywhere in the constitution that pertains to any form of religion
whatsoever, says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
This means that our government cannot pass laws that establish a
national religion or make laws that specifically intend on preferring
one ESTABLISHED religion over another. What congress is allowed to do
is pass laws that uphold moral values held by the majority of the
people. It just so happens that the vast majority of americans are also
christians. Moreover, it doesn't infringe on anyone's established
religion. In fact, all established religions condemn gay marriage to
one degree or another. So to appeal the gay marriage ban actually
infringes on the livelyhood and lifestyle of practicing christians and
jews. Thus that law would infringe on the free exercise of an
ESTABLISHED religion.
The reason gay marriage would affect our fundamental government is a
very sophisticated issue im not sure you could grasp without first
reading the constitution. Article four is the article that pertains to
the powers of the states. In it is the Faith and Credibility clause.
The reason this cannot be left to the states is because marriage is a
law that falls under the Faith and Credibility clause. IE if i get
married in nebraska, im still married even if i move to alaska. I don't
need to remarry in alaska. Thus if one state makes it legal, it pretty
much makes it legal for the rest of the states. Now, Bill Clinton
proposed and congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. it
states: No state (or other political subdivision within the United States)
need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a
marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another
state. The Federal Government
may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even
if concluded or recognized by one of the states. This is a clear
contradiction to article 4 of the constitution. On one hand you have
the vast majority of people who want to define marriage, the term
marriage, as a sacred union between husband and wife and on the other
hand people want lifestyle tolerance. People want marriage to be a
state right yet the act of marriage is not contained within the
sovereign borders of a single state. It is a very large dilemma over
states vs federal rights and how power is balanced. Do we want larger
federal governments or should we simply take marriage away from states?
If you choose to uphold the gay marriage ban than it is simply one act
overriding a single states' law. Seeing as how the constitution and
laws passed by congress are the Supreme Law of the Land, I see no
problem with it.
If you choose to abolish it, then you must also ammend Article 4 of the
constitution and essentially eliminate the Faith and Credibility clause
and states would gain seperation. It would probably never pass seeing
as how ammendments take a really, really long time to pass.
grown-ninja
Active member
totaly understand where u are coming from and u have a valid argument however we have a living and growing constitution now thanks to wodrow wilson which lets congress and other arms of the federal govt and state govet to interpurate what they feel is best for the common good however it isnt all way a positive change and i have ready the constitution all of the atricals and so on i have taken constitution law and laening towards pre law so i have read it and most understand it
Arabian.
Active member
I can copy and paste stuff too, but I won't because I have respect and integrity, so here goes:
And how is making a law based on Christian beliefs STRAIGHT FROMT THE BIBLE NOT passing a law specifically intended to prefer one ESTABLISHED religion over another?
Your logic is faulty, or whoever you stole that from's logic is faulty.
Also:
Seperation of Church and State is also mentioned in the First Amendment, in which Jefferson writes about a "Wall of Seperation between Church and State."
the Full Quote is:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Furthermore, with the help of Madison adds:
.
.. no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Banning Gay Marriage does not hurt Christianity in any way. Passing laws that ban Gay Marriae are in violation of the First Amendment, under both Excersise and Establishment clauses of the Constitution, and THAT is why Conservative arguments are futile. I have the freedom to do whatever I want, so don't push your bullshit on me. yes. thats right. ME.
And how is making a law based on Christian beliefs STRAIGHT FROMT THE BIBLE NOT passing a law specifically intended to prefer one ESTABLISHED religion over another?
Your logic is faulty, or whoever you stole that from's logic is faulty.
Also:
Seperation of Church and State is also mentioned in the First Amendment, in which Jefferson writes about a "Wall of Seperation between Church and State."
the Full Quote is:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Furthermore, with the help of Madison adds:
.
.. no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Banning Gay Marriage does not hurt Christianity in any way. Passing laws that ban Gay Marriae are in violation of the First Amendment, under both Excersise and Establishment clauses of the Constitution, and THAT is why Conservative arguments are futile. I have the freedom to do whatever I want, so don't push your bullshit on me. yes. thats right. ME.
Here in California, we are having a giant proposition put out on the 4th about gay marriage.
here is what I have written about it in my blog. It goes beyond the typical "protection of marriage" vs. "people can marry who they want" debate.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION OCHO!
This November, an initiative is going
to hit the California Ballot that will take same sex marriage away in order to
"protect marriage" and all that crap.
There is a commercial going out
right now from those who support the ban on same sex marriage, and who claim
that 4 judges overruled a proposition in 2000 in order to allow this to take
place, as well as many other ludicrous claims.
here is the counter to that
commercial:
Now, first off before you go all out and
start bashing gays for being "faggy" and all that stuff... think about it from
an economical perspective.
Marriages are a very large contributor to the
economy. People flock to the state of California to be married, because its one
of the most desirable places in the world. Places like Lake Tahoe, Big Bear,
Napa Valley, The entire coastline, and even places like Death Valley have
wedding chapels for people coming to get married and have honeymoons
here.
Marriages contribute large sums of money, in the tens of thousands
to hundreds of thousands of dollars PER MARRIAGE. Estimations
made by USnews.com state that 700 million dollars could be made off of same sex
marriage alone, and 65 million of that would go to the state budget. Adding a
whole new demographic to this makes same sex marriage a prime idea - More people able to get
married = more money spent on marriages and tourism = more money going into the
struggling state budget.
Aside from that, many of these people, no
matter how you look at them, are capable of getting jobs in this state, starting
up businesses, and buying homes. For a state that has lost something like 13% of growth its housing
market in the last fiscal quarter ALONE, allowing for any more growth possible
is CRUCIAL to that sector. There are thousands of now empty houses spanning all
across the state, especially in the outlying suburbs of Los Angeles and the Bay
Area, but also in Sacramento, Redding, and all up and down the Central Valley.
The loss of taxpayers to other, more affordable states via the mortgage market
collapse has only hurt our state more, and if we can attract more people move here,
even if they are gay, and buy houses, and spend money here, it would only help
our now struggling economy.
Aside from all of that, lets end this
intolerance about marriage. Marriage isn't about man and woman, its about the
undying love that two people have for each other. No bible that I have ever
opened, and no constitution I have ever read has ever said directly that all
marriage should be between man and woman, and finalized it at
that.
Beyond that, but much of this whole "man and woman/protection of
marriage" thing is brought on by religious institutions. Religious institutions,
who shouldn't have any say, whatsoever when it comes to state laws. The founding
fathers might not have written anything up that allowed our government to do
much, but they did certainly give it the right to bypass religious institutions
seeking power and control over the people.
So come November,
dont only VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8 because its intolerant, prejudicial, and
unconstitutional...
but also VOTE NO ON PROP 8 because it will do what
small part it can to help our now struggling State and National economies
grow...
(for a good article on how much money gay marriage will
provide to the economy, check this out: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/11/an-economic-boost-from-gay-marriage.html)
As of right now, it looks like it will not pass. The polls are saying 54% of Californians are going to vote no, whereas 38% are voting yes. the rest undecided. WOOT.
here is what I have written about it in my blog. It goes beyond the typical "protection of marriage" vs. "people can marry who they want" debate.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION OCHO!
This November, an initiative is going
to hit the California Ballot that will take same sex marriage away in order to
"protect marriage" and all that crap.
There is a commercial going out
right now from those who support the ban on same sex marriage, and who claim
that 4 judges overruled a proposition in 2000 in order to allow this to take
place, as well as many other ludicrous claims.
here is the counter to that
commercial:
Now, first off before you go all out and
start bashing gays for being "faggy" and all that stuff... think about it from
an economical perspective.
Marriages are a very large contributor to the
economy. People flock to the state of California to be married, because its one
of the most desirable places in the world. Places like Lake Tahoe, Big Bear,
Napa Valley, The entire coastline, and even places like Death Valley have
wedding chapels for people coming to get married and have honeymoons
here.
Marriages contribute large sums of money, in the tens of thousands
to hundreds of thousands of dollars PER MARRIAGE. Estimations
made by USnews.com state that 700 million dollars could be made off of same sex
marriage alone, and 65 million of that would go to the state budget. Adding a
whole new demographic to this makes same sex marriage a prime idea - More people able to get
married = more money spent on marriages and tourism = more money going into the
struggling state budget.
Aside from that, many of these people, no
matter how you look at them, are capable of getting jobs in this state, starting
up businesses, and buying homes. For a state that has lost something like 13% of growth its housing
market in the last fiscal quarter ALONE, allowing for any more growth possible
is CRUCIAL to that sector. There are thousands of now empty houses spanning all
across the state, especially in the outlying suburbs of Los Angeles and the Bay
Area, but also in Sacramento, Redding, and all up and down the Central Valley.
The loss of taxpayers to other, more affordable states via the mortgage market
collapse has only hurt our state more, and if we can attract more people move here,
even if they are gay, and buy houses, and spend money here, it would only help
our now struggling economy.
Aside from all of that, lets end this
intolerance about marriage. Marriage isn't about man and woman, its about the
undying love that two people have for each other. No bible that I have ever
opened, and no constitution I have ever read has ever said directly that all
marriage should be between man and woman, and finalized it at
that.
Beyond that, but much of this whole "man and woman/protection of
marriage" thing is brought on by religious institutions. Religious institutions,
who shouldn't have any say, whatsoever when it comes to state laws. The founding
fathers might not have written anything up that allowed our government to do
much, but they did certainly give it the right to bypass religious institutions
seeking power and control over the people.
So come November,
dont only VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8 because its intolerant, prejudicial, and
unconstitutional...
but also VOTE NO ON PROP 8 because it will do what
small part it can to help our now struggling State and National economies
grow...
(for a good article on how much money gay marriage will
provide to the economy, check this out: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/11/an-economic-boost-from-gay-marriage.html)
As of right now, it looks like it will not pass. The polls are saying 54% of Californians are going to vote no, whereas 38% are voting yes. the rest undecided. WOOT.
4000th post! YUSSS.