Voters Reject Gay Marriage

Okay! So are you saying then that you would be perfectly capable of changing from heterosexual to homosexual, and be living in a homosexual relationship for the rest of your life?

 

BLD, back to school for you. You would like Gays to have made a choice to be Gay. That way you can condemn it with your selective interpretation of the Bible. The fact is that Gays have no more choice about being Gay than you do about being straight. Gays are not trying to "inflict" their views on you, any more than blacks were trying to "inflict" their skin color on whites in the sixties. Gays are merely trying to attain the same rights, status, and acceptance as everyone else. Rather you are "looking" for a fight. You feel threatened for some reason (ask yourself).

The comparison to the civil rights movement is a valid one. Eventually the bigotry and snobbishness from the anti-Gay crowd will subside (if for no other reason than the bigots will get old and die, and will be replaced by a younger, more progressive generation that has grown up with people of all sexual stripes, and who don't regard it as an abomination.)

You write, "In fact gays can change and have sex with the opposite gender at will. Do you know any folks that can change their skin color?" This is one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time. By your reasoning you could have Gay sex anytime you want. Why don't you? My guess is that it doesn't appeal to you, just as staright sex doesn't appeal to Gays. Do you get the picture now? Are you beginning to realize that your argument is one of ignorance? If not, then keep studying. You'll get it eventually.

 

I wouldn't personally because I don't want to. Not only is there no desire, but even if there were I wouldn't because it is immoral. If someone has a desire for homosexual sex they should choose to remain celibate, just like an unmarried heterosexual.

But it is definitely a free choice that anyone can make if they so desire.

BLD

 

Tom,
You're looking foolish. You make wild statements about genetics with not one iota of proof to back it up. And why is that? Because there isn't any. It's PC nonsense.

BLD

 

Oh, C'mon. Actually I have lots of empirical evidence. I live in the SF Bay Area. I have worked with Gays. I have Gay friends. I have Gay couple friends., and on and on. I see absolutely no difference between how Gays relate to each other and how straights relate to each other. The empirical evidence is convincing, and of course any scientific proof must support the empirical evidence.

What's your "proof" that Gays "choose" to be Gay. Further, did you "choose" to be straight? How did that happen? Where were you when you decided? What made you decide? Did you try both and then make a decision? Tell us about that all important day when you chose to be straight. I'm sure we'd all like to hear about it.

Oh, I see, you mean you always felt attracted to women? Is that it? Hmm, but you're saying the same doesn't apply to Gays. They're just BAD. So BAD. They're sinners. You like to condemn sinnners, don't you? Does it make you feel better? Does it?

You're foolish. And you're a bigot to boot. Worse, you're a Bible-toting bigot, so you get to off-put your irrational fears on God - a very strange God for anyone who has to listen to you.

I'm sorry for the rant, but I am so tired of listening to these ignorant arguments from narrow-minded, frightened people.

 

Tom,
I find it ironic that my arguments are "ignorant" yet you've still not offered any empirical evidence whatsoever. Your ancedotal evidence doesn't cut it. I've seen people who abused children and felt quite happy about it. Does that make it normal? Are people also born pedophiles?

If you want evidence outside of the Bible, the plumbing just doesn't work friend.

And yes, I was born straight, as is everyone else on this planet.

BLD

 

What's interesting legally to me is that we really already HAVE a definition of marriage enshrined in our law.

Marriage is the ONLY legally sanctioned sexual relationship. It is between a man and a woman.

I know that we don't prosecute adultery or sodomy anymore, but we also do not recognize these sexual relationships as having any legal standing. Other sexual relationships, such as prostitution, incest, polygamy and pedophilia, we not only DON'T sanction but we actively prosecute as crimes.

There is no black-and-white constitutional definition because, with the exception of outlawing the Mormon (and ancient) practice of polygamy, we haven't needed to state a definition until now. That doesn't mean that marriage wasn't legally defined; when a term has no specific legal definition, the law gives it its ordinary meaning. It was obvious from thousands of years of human civilization.

Now, my point is that the debate over same-sex marriage is really not a religious one because (surprise!) marriage is not in fact a religious concept, at least not primarily. It is a recognized civil contract, binding on both parties and enforceable (with a vengence) in our civil courts.

So "marriage" is whatever we choose as a society to recognize as "marriage".

I'm not taking a position here; merely pointing out a few things.

 

BDL,

The fact that you compare homosexuals to pedophiles and say that both are just as bad and immoral, and that you think that everyone is born straight proves that you really are an ignorant Bible-toting bigot. You want evidence? Well I was not born straight and neither were any of my gay friends, and I have about 30 of them.

 

So if you call me the above, what does that make you? An anti-Christian BlueBoy-toting bigot?

Again, show me some scientific evidence...until then, you're just trying to justify your own immoral behavior.

BLD

 

Tom,

Name calling is pointless, childish, and makes it look as if your opinions are formed through emotions rather than rational and logic. Please lets all refrain from doing this.

There is absolutely no proof that people are born homosexuals (if I'm wrong cite your sources), it is simply a hope that the homosexual community has.... a belief if you will, but NOT fact.

The only proof I have that they are not is in the Bible. Children are created innocent and then are corrupted. God hates homosexuality, so he would never create them corrupt. If you want to make fun of the Bible then go ahead thats your own choice.

BLD,

I agree 100%. It is almost immpossible to say how offensive it is to hear someone say being gay and being black is the same thing. What a complete and total joke of an argument.

Black people were abused and mistreated, given few if any rights, and were barely even considered human beings.

Homosexuals have every right that any straight person has. Most if not all of these gay marriage arguments are fueled by emotions and little else.

 

BLD,

I wonder if you have the same objections to "civil unions" as you do to gay "marriage?"

I personally know a number of people who vehemently oppose "marriage" but have no problem with "civil unions" that convey all the same rights.

 

Jason,
I'm against gay civil unions. It is just a semantic twist which allows gay marriage without calling it "marriage."

BLD

 

Splas:

Interesting! "Children are innocent at birth then corrupted".

I am spending considerable time in my LL.M. studies dealing with models of "childhood". This one is a sort of "naturalistic" child. It does not go unchallenged, however. The Christian Bible theory is that all humans are born corrupt. Children must be raised in a way that through discipline these little savages become fit members of society. Then there's the "blank sheet" psychiatric approach: Children are unformed and have no attitudes, good or bad, until they experience life. There is the biological idea, children grow into whatever their genes dictate. There are others.

My point is, scholars of childhood do not necessarily accept the "innocent child" model. Remember "The Lord of the Flies"?

 

IMO, I still believe this is the fundamental question that needs to be resolved by the supreme court. If it is found that restricting who you can marry based on your gender is unconstitutional, then all these states could be forced to drop their recent amendments.

 

Let's intensify this discussion

This comes from www.politics1.com

So, what do you think?

I oppose numbers 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Children need a mother and a father.

The others I oppose because they would discriminate against heterosexual couples who live together and because we have enough laws to protect the rights of our citizens. We may need to enforce them more stringently.

 

Yes you are right that being black and gay are not the same. It’s harder being gay then it is being black. Why? Well being black you at least have the support of your family when you are being rejected at school or work. However a lot of homosexuals don’t have that luxury. I know of a lot of gay people whose family’s turned their backs on them when they came out of the closet. Why do you think that gay teens have the highest suicide rate in the country?

At least when you’re black you don’t have some bible nut case telling you that you were not born that way, that it’s just an immoral choice you made, like you just seen in this thread.

 

Re: Let's intensify this discussion

So what would you do to children who lose a parent?

 

And those who work in child protective services for any length of time soon learn that a gay couple can make very good parents, indeed.

 

You used the words "immoral" and "depraved".

How does one determine whether a particular act or state is moral or immoral? How does one determine what is and isn't depraved?

What happens if people disagree about these things? What kind of evidence can one appeal to, to adjudicate questions of morality?

 

Because they are simply perjorative labels.

An argument is a sequence of statements such that some of them (premises) provide reasons to accept the truth of others of them (conclusions).

In order for an argument to succeed in its rhetorical purpose, there has to be agreement that the premises of the argument are true and that they lead logically to the desired conclusion.

In this case, you seem to be using your perjoratives as if they were simultaneously premises and conclusions.