Prop 8 overturned

[OFY]

that's awesome

Not really....

 

[Meleeruler]

It's stupid to compare anything other than same-sex versus heterosexual because any slippery slope arguments fail.

Just wanting to stress this.

 

[Pink Reaper]

You know first hand?

Educate me

@Crimson, that was pretty mean But if my children do "turn" out gay because of their choices, I won't support that, I will still love my children however. Will I attend their wedding if gay marriage is legal in my state? No....

Also Crimson, I'm not comparing same-sex marriage with other marriages. I'm just saying that allowing same-sex marriage will give others incentive to bring up arguments for other marriages, which devalues the meaning of marriage even more so than same-sex marriage

Good to know your irrational hate of homosexuality is stronger than the love of your own flesh and blood.

I cant wait for the first interracial gay marriage. Arkansas will spontaneously explode when that happens.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

You know first hand?

Educate me

@Crimson, that was pretty mean But if my children do "turn" out gay because of their choices, I won't support that, I will still love my children however. Will I attend their wedding if gay marriage is legal in my state? No....

You do not turn out gay because of your choices. Let's think for a second: who would want to be looked down upon by millions of people like you for their sexuality? Who would choose that lifestyle as opposed to a regular one?

I find it sad that you will not attend your children's wedding if they are homosexuals. How will that make them feel? That's just insensitive.

 

[GoldShadow]

Let's perform a little experiment find out if the homophobes and homohaters in this thread have a legitimate stance or if they're just intolerant bigots. We'll do this by replacing all references to homosexuality with references to interracial/black and white marriage and see what happens. Replacements have been indicated in bold.

Allowing blacks and whites to marry as a couple would do two things that I disagree with:
1. It would degenerate the concept of marriage
2. It would imply that interracial relations are gaining social acceptance and are becoming a norm.


It causes certain ceremonies and norms that are dear to my heart to be tainted and ruined.

It's acting on the interracial feelings that I have a problem with, by the way. I have nothing against them as people.

Let's talk about historical interracial marriages then. When have they happened?

Also Crimson, I'm not comparing interracial marriage with other marriages. I'm just saying that allowing interracial marriage will give others incentive to bring up arguments for other marriages, which devalues the meaning of marriage even more so than interracial marriage

Whoops! Turns out all your arguments are the same as those used to try and undermine equal rights for black people. The same logic was used to fight interracial marriages. Read this article for more information. Do you see why your position doesn't have a leg to stand on?

 

[SkylerOcon]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1ytCEuuW2_A&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1ytCEuuW2_A&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

This is a good way to finish off GoldShadow's post, I think.

 

[El Nino]

In all seriousness though, I just don't agree with homosexual relations. That's all there is to it.

I know people who don't agree with the consumption of meat. You think you'd want the government to start imposing bans based on their private morals?

I also know people who don't agree with smoking, drinking, or violence in movies and video games.

Btw, I never seen someone walk into a nursery and identifiy their baby as gay -____-

I've never seen anyone walk into a nursery and identify their baby as straight either. Or capable of any sexual feelings whatsoever. Because, you know, they're infants.

there is absouletely no procreation in a gay marriage, unless you count a surrogate.

Why wouldn't we count a surrogate? Infertile straight couples hire surrogates too.

And as we all know, the Homo sapiens species in endangered and on the brink of extinction:
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

If we don't do something about their dwindling numbers, they may very well vanish from existence.

Edit:

But if my children do "turn" out gay because of their choices, I won't support that, I will still love my children however. Will I attend their wedding if gay marriage is legal in my state? No....

Spoken like someone who truly understands the value of family. It takes moral fortitude to do that, to love your children in your mind, in a place where it will never reach them.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Looks like I'm going to have to fund gay marriage and "preferential sexual partner" equality (Hey! I read through this thread and now I know it's the same thing as being born black) in the form of paying a higher tax rate. Might as well get used to the rates right now, so I'm not deluded by the feeble worth of my bi-weekly pay-check.

 

[Firus]

Marriage is usually a community benefit, it benefits the community/world. Sure you can say "I DONT CARE ABOUT THE HEALTH OF THE WORLD OR COMMUNITY" still, gay marriages offer no benefit to the community.

All right, well being single offers no benefit to the community either. Let's outlaw being single past the age of 20. You don't even want to go down the path of "it usually benefits the community", because I can present so many cases of things that don't benefit the community that you can't honestly tell me you want them outlawed.

And remind me why, again, marriage has to benefit the community in the first place? Are you honestly telling me that if/when you get married, you're doing it to benefit the community? No, chances are you're probably getting married because you love the person you're marrying.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Well either they love each other or they made the very unfortunate choice to live together while they were still dating.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

People who don't have jobs are nothing but leeches and don't help the community so babies should work from the day they are born until the day they die.

Your "it doesn't help the community" argument really doesn't work.

 

[victra♥]

I'm very impressed by goldshadow and el nino.

I'm also very disappointed in all the homophobes in this thread. It makes me cringe. Racism has largely become a thing of the past, hopefully someday homophobia will too.

Spoken like someone who truly understands the value of family. It takes moral fortitude to do that, to love your children in your mind, in a place where it will never reach them.

That's a beautiful response. El Nino, you really are something else.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I'm also very impressed by the points GoldShadow has made in this thread. I cannot recall them at the moment, but I definitely know that my evaluation doesn't stem from bias or personal bigotry.

 

[El Nino]

Thanks, victra. You are awesome too. But someone needs to ban me from CE so I can get to sleep at a decent hour.

This is one of those things that don't end.

 

[Crimson King]

At that this point, the world is in need of a population reduction. If nothing else, homosexuals are at least contributing to that. Many reports suggest that in 40 years, we may have a completely barren sea (will post link when I get to a computer).

Ophy, I know it was harsh, but you are enforcing an insideous and evil idea that someone is worthless than another because of something as trival as sexual orientation. You cannot deny this because you are denying them marriage. Furthermore, you will teach your kids these ideas and continue the evil. It's upsetting at the least.

 

[Zolga Owns]

I don't know how you can possibly say that being "gay" is a genetic trait. There's no proof of it being genetic. However, being gay has a higher possibility of being a reflection of choices made in life, as well as the results of those choice. I know countless of men who are now gay because of how badly they were hurt in a past male-female relationship.

Btw, I never seen someone walk into a nursery and identifiy their baby as gay -____-

Have you even bothered to do any research on this subject?
There are countless studies that could be accessed through a simple Google search.

If you want to bring up solid proof to validate something then I'd like for you to produce proof that the Bible is not a fictional manuscript and that the Christian "God" exists. Thank you.

 

[OFY]

im done arguing with all of you, it's pointless

 

[Zolga Owns]

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

This website is run by an organization that provides "therapy" to Homosexuals. There are NUMEROUS organizations and government sections that have come to the conclusion that Homosexuality is NOT a mental disease of any sort and that you cannot "treat" it. A video was posted earlier in the tread listing these. Found it. This is the most biased source you could possibly have linked to. Next.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/325979.stm

Oh cool. Thanks for citing a followup study done in 1999 of a study originally done in 1993.

http://open.salon.com/blog/djohn/2009/05/12/american_psychological_association_no_gay_gene

While this is a more recent piece of news (thank god) again NARTH is mentioned as an influence to this conclusion. Let's look at NARTH's goal; "The main reason that NARTH is so involved with this is because they are advocates of "reparative therapy". A process which seeks to assist those who are unhappy with their homosexual lifestyle to embrace and live a heterosexual one according to their wishes. "
Why do you think they'd be so supportive of a new stance that would let them bypass the previous ban on "psychological care for those unhappy with their homosexual attractions"? Please connect the dots that are glowing bright rainbow colors.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376

Yep, lets cite more biased reporting. How do the Americans for Truth and Liberty Council benefit from this new stance? Let's see...Americans for Truth have this as their mission statement; "a national organization devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda." and Liberty Council has this "Restoring the Culture by Advancing Religious Freedom, the Sanctity of Human Life and the Family." I love your biased, religious based, propaganda inducing, slandering ****holes of organizations that you cite to back up your points.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08080605.html

See above responses. Let me quote myself again. "I love your biased, religious based, propaganda inducing, slandering ****holes of organizations that you site to back up your points."

Of course the APA would revise their opinion if there are studies being done by religion based and funded "scientific" groups that are multiplying everyday to come up with a half baked answer to any theory posed by a legitimate organization. Thanks for trying though. Do some research outside your network of "biased, religious based, propaganda inducing, slandering ****holes of organizations".

So tell me if being gay is not a genetic trait, how does one become gay?

btw there is soooo much more evidence of it not being genetic, this is barely a snippet.

I'm going to have fun destroying this.

Will edit when I'm done responding.

Responses in bold.
Note: I did read every linked article and even did some looking around those "sources". They all contained the a portion of the myths homosexuals have been forced to endure over the years. Good to see that they are keeping themselves updated.

im done arguing with all of you, it's pointless

Cool.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Seriously Ophy, nobody likes having their beliefs challenged, and nobody likes being in the minority. But we have more than disproved your claims, and there's no reason other than irrational hatred for you to be against homosexuality at this point. Try re-reading everything we've said with an open mind, and then tell us what you think.

 

[L/A/W]

im done arguing with all of you, it's pointless

gay tolerance prevails!!!

 

[SuperBowser]

There's extremely good evidence to show homosexuality has a genetic basis. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm. What these genes give is a predisposition to develop homosexuality. It is not a 100% association, but nor is this the case for most diseases. Particularly conditions of the mind.

For example, imagine a pair of identical twins where only one has asthma. How is this possible? The same way it happens in homosexuality.

 

[L/A/W]

also lol at ophy being against homosexuality and then rockin the twilight avatar

 

[OFY]

also lol at ophy being against homosexuality and then rockin the twilight avatar

how is twilight gay or any chick flicks for that matter?

@skyler I don't personally hate gay people at all. I was raised Christian which is probably a reason as to why I see homosexuality wrong in some ways, but iirc none of my arguments were religious based.

 

[SkylerOcon]

@skyler I don't personally hate gay people at all. I was raised Christian which is probably a reason as to why I see homosexuality wrong in some ways, but iirc none of my arguments were religious based.

I didn't say anything about religion in my post. It's irrational because, well, there's no logical reason behind you not wanting gays to get married. I can understand you disagreeing with it because of religion or whatever, but you letting your religious beliefs influence your stance on US law, which is based on separation of church and state, is entirely illogical and could only arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of how US law works.

I apologize, "irrational hatred" was too strong of a word choice. Just irrational would've been better.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

There's extremely good evidence to show homosexuality has a genetic basis. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm. What these genes give is a predisposition to develop homosexuality. It is not a 100% association, but nor is this the case for most diseases. Particularly conditions of the mind. For example, imagine a pair of identical twins where only one has asthma. How is this possible? The same way it happens in homosexuality.

It can't be a 100% association because that would disprove the continuity of the theory.

@ Zolga_Owns: Fair play would dictate that you introduce some source of science articles in order to prove your side of the argument. Simply denying the other argument does not necessarily validate your own points, even though it does question the legitimacy behind the opposing information that has been posted.

The existence of a "gay gene" is extraordinarily hard to experimentally prove in human beings due to the moral implications of human experimentation. Perhaps the most recently posted story on the FucM gene on female mice has been the most significant experimental step in eventually verifying the existence of such a gene, hormonal condition, fetus condition, or series of other bio-chemical-genetics induced logic in order to establish the scientific identity of such a phenomenon.

I didn't say anything about religion in my post. It's irrational because, well, there's no logical reason behind you not wanting gays to get married. I can understand you disagreeing with it because of religion or whatever, but you letting your religious beliefs influence your stance on US law, which is based on separation of church and state, is entirely illogical and could only arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of how US law works.

Fiscal reasons are logical enough in my opinion for an individual to refute passing something that could financially affect them on a personal level.

 

[SuperBowser]

It can't be a 100% association because that would disprove the continuity of the theory.

I know. It was more a response to somebody earlier in the thread - they claimed that because studies cannot show anywhere near a 100% link, such a gene must not exist.

You sound like a scientist

Fiscal reasons are logical enough in my opinion for an individual to refute passing something that could financially affect them on a personal level.

To make this stance fair, though, should you not be opposed to marriage for anybody at all?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

It is ironic that fiscally speaking, joint taxes support a 1950's family household where financial disparity exists between a working father and a domesticated mother. It is interesting that homosexuality which is seen largely as being an issue of "equality" is still forced into a fiscal situation that supports monetary inequality among spouses. The main benefits to Married Filing Joint Tax Rates appear to be higher return on retirement savings when disparity exists. Meanwhile if both partners are working and earn a similar amount of income, then it is fiscally best to remain single even if a serious relationship is pursued. A common tax strategy is to have the lower income partner receive child tax benefits while the higher income partner focuses on income tax strategies. Then again there are plenty of shared benefits that come with marriage such as workplace health coverage, pensions coverage, added social security benefit, better insurance rates, and inheritance rights.

To make this stance fair, though, should you not be opposed to marriage for anybody at all?

I don't understand why marriage has to affect taxes and income proportion. It is a social choice that people make and shouldn't have fiscal repercussions. I'm not opposed to marriage, I'm opposed to the fiscal benefits and deductions that are involved with marriage. The fact is that extending rights to marriage will lead to more bureaucratic paper-pushing that eventually leads to higher tax rates that the public as a whole has to pay.

Socially speaking, it doesn't matter to me if homosexuals or heterosexuals marry. Divorce rates are high among heterosexual marriages, indicating that the status quo isn't that great among married couples in the United States. It's honestly not my business who other people want to marry or want to have romantic relationships with in the future.

Fiscally speaking, I don't want to pay more taxes. I already have to deal with the ramifications for sham heterosexual marriages that result in bust 50% of the time. The only reason why I pay it is because that is the established status quo. If gay marriage is legalized, then that will become the status quo that I have to tolerate. Until it is passed, then I can discuss it because it is still a viable issue that hasn't affected my deducible tax income.

That money goes to various other organizations that I deem more fitting a "moral crusade" than to go towards the concept of supporting a human choice to marry (i.e. Cystic Fibrosis Foundation). I'm still going to try to donate when I have cash left-over. Yet the ramifications of living in a fairly large state, means that the financial repercussions of homosexual marriage may hit my wallet harder than I may like.

When it comes down to it, I don't believe in "marriage" as an absolutely necessary relationship that people must have in order to exist as a couple and I don't understand why I'm forced to financially support the personal decision made between two individuals who do believe the aforementioned statement. I understand the "Rosseau response" for the Social Contract in which taxes are intended to benefit the general public which incorporates me as an individual. But to be honest, I don't understand why I have to pay for your personal choice whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. Relationships are a social decisions that people decide on an individual basis to pursue a romantic partner. Relationships should remain that way and should not have fiscal ramifications.

 

[Zolga Owns]

@ Zolga_Owns: Fair play would dictate that you introduce some source of science articles in order to prove your side of the argument. Simply denying the other argument does not necessarily validate your own points, even though it does question the legitimacy behind the opposing information that has been posted.

Sorry it was 3 AM, I'm on my ipod right now I'll be back at a computer later with links.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

how is twilight gay or any chick flicks for that matter?

@skyler I don't personally hate gay people at all. I was raised Christian which is probably a reason as to why I see homosexuality wrong in some ways, but iirc none of my arguments were religious based.

I was raised Christian too, and I'm perfectly fine with homosexuality.

You're being irrational. You've provided no evidence as to why homosexuals should not be married, aside from your intolerant and discriminatory personal beliefs.

 

[metalmonstar]

Acrostic, you are genius. I have made mention before that I feel that marriage is simply government regulation and tax incentive.

One thing I would like to point out though is that in most situations finally jointly as married is better than filing alone. Also the benefit of having two incomes outweighs the lose due to taxes. There are some inefficiency issues but I think the majority just don't care.

Another issue I'd like to raise is a possible wedding boom and bust situation. If homosexual marriages is to be allowed all at once across the states, we will see in an immediate increase in weddings. This could be threatening to heterosexual couples who already have enough trouble fighting for dates and venues. The wedding market will expand for the first couple of years. Once marriage levels stabilize again the wedding industry will experience a bust.

 

[Strong Badam]

Acrostic pretty much explained my opinion on the whole "Married people are suddenly different than they were before they got married, let's give them financial benefits guys" idea.

Though I don't agree with homosexuality, I generally don't want to limit the options in life of someone who is; only when an option would infringe on a God-set law would I want to dampen the happiness of another.

God doesn't exist.

Next argument?

 

[Luigitoilet]

Acrostic pretty much explained my opinion on the whole "Married people are suddenly different than they were before they got married, let's give them financial benefits guys" idea.

God doesn't exist.

Next argument?

While I'm sure you're patting yourself on the back for this reply, just know that snooty atheist remarks like this are really fruitless and dumb. And if you actually thought that was some kind of real rebuttal to the quote, well honestly, you can't just use "my religious/philosophical belief" as some kind of proof for anything. You're stooping low just to be arrogant and obnoxious, it seems.

 

[Strong Badam]

Pretty much, people can't use any sort of religious belief, ideal, or concept to support themselves in a debate. I, being an Atheist, don't have any religious beliefs, ideals, or concepts to support myself with. Yes, I can.

 

[TigerWoods]

Pretty much, people can't use any sort of religious belief, ideal, or concept to support themselves in a debate. I, being an Atheist, don't have any religious beliefs, ideals, or concepts to support myself with. Yes, I can.

Forgive me if I'm wrong... but it appears that you are saying that you are correct because you are an atheist... Maybe that isn't what you meant but that is how I perceived your post.

I'm an atheist by the way... and agree with you for the most part.

 

[victra♥]

I just want to hear a reason why someone would hate homosexuals so deeply that they would essentially shut out their own child if he/she were to be one themselves.

Something other than being personally being disturbed by it or because of blind religious dictations.

 

[Strong Badam]

@TigerWoods: Sup bro. Gettin' them women? Keep it up bro. You get more holes than any other golfer. Moving on:

That's not why I'm correct. In fact, being that this is a debate, no one is correct... yet. My past two posts illustrate that religious people can't use their religion as an argument or else we get into debates with the main supporting argument being "My God says I'm right, so I'm right." I have no religion, thus I can't use one.

I'd also like people to keep in mind that "traditional marriage" was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children, and the concept of romantic love had nothing to do with Marriage up until modern time.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Strong Badam]

What I want is for marriage to be eradicated or at least for there to be no legal difference between a married couple and a non-married couple. I couldn't give two ****s if I could marry a dude; marriage is a stupid concept and it's irritating how people are rewarded legally and financially for tying the knot.

 

[Luigitoilet]

lol. being an atheist is a religious concept. you are directly regarding religion when you say you are an atheist. as there is no real proof of a creator deity in either direction, you're belief isn't any more correct or logical than theists. get over yourself.

 

[walsh]

Why are people bringing up their religious views? Are some people actually contending that their religious views should impact the laws of America?

Are there any objections from either side to the having something called marriage and calling it something else proposition? Call it garriage (G for Gay, HA I'm so clever). Some non-homophobes will say that this is creating a "separate but equal" thing, but really, when you're being discriminated against, you have to start somewhere. The slaves weren't freed overnight.

Several states already have "civil unions" that are pretty much exactly what you are describing. They get all the rights of married couples.

I'm cool with "separate but equal" if the two things you are comparing are relatively close to equal.