same sex unions, perspective

[cmpcmp]

as we all should know, with out contrast there is no color(difference)

so I am conservative so keep that in mind.
let me try to sum up the argument for, (liberal)
-all people are = (the declaration of Indipendence called it a self evident truth)
-gays are people
-gays being married hurts no one
-only leting straits be married is therefore wrong

In contrast it could be argued
-Gay people can't have children and therefore dont need the protection of the law
-marrige is the basic social fabric of our society, to "tear" that would hurt america
-The state saying that marrige between gays is "right" will pervert children into thinking that it is the normal thing to be.

Me personaly I think that if you want to be for Gay marrige you need to think about how you fall on a related issue that is not discussed or contravercial whatsoever, that is if a person is a person and getting married to a person doesn't hurt any one than to be tyruely equal one would also have to say that it is possible for 3 people to all love eachother. so you would have to let anybody who wanted to get married to multiple people be able to do so.

any comments (respectfull) are apreciated

and one last request dont say gay amrrige is "illegal" because you are misusing the term. It is not recognized by the law. If you claim to be married to some one of your smae sex that doesn't make you an out law.

[redcar]

sorry it is prob cause its 3am, i have shitty cold, i want to sleep but i cant sleep, where do you actually stand on gay marriage?

me personally, i believe a gay relationship is just as strong and as valid as a str8 relationship and therefore should be afforded the same rights. being gay isnt right or wrong, it isnt good or bad, it just is. just like being str8.

now you talk about three people? a marriage is about two people, no more no less, so you cant compare three people.

[cmpcmp]

My opinion clarified.
I belive that

--Having sex with children, gay sex, sex with animals, and sex with more than two people is all moraly wrong.
--but only sex with children can be easily made illegal and should be becase children aren't qualified to make that desision. + it is wrong
--gay sex and 3+ ppl sex shouldn't be illegal but i do think that it is wrong.
==something is only wrong if you actively do it
--being atracted to the same sex isn't wrong in any way
--being attracted to the color blue isn't wrong in anyway.
==Your actions can be wrong. but feelings can't be, you cant be held acountable for your feelings
--wanting to kill some one isn't wrong
--killing some one is wrong
--gay sex is wrong (but is and should be llegal)

In my personal opinion if any one wants to sign a contract with another person they should be able to do so. whether they be str8, gay, or polygamist. I CANT TELL U WHAT IS WRONG BUT I CAN THINK AND SAY, PROTEST, WHAT YOU DO. it is my right as an american as it is your right to do what you are doing.

TO close any one can sign a contract, and you should be alowed to, but it shouldn't be marrige, You can create what ever ceremony you want but at the end of that day all i have to call it is a contract. I shouldn't have to say that what you do is right and you can do it as long as it isn't hurting anybody.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In respose to your 3 ppl married comment if marrige isn't what it has been for the last o.... many thousands of years than who gave you the authority to change things selectivly. here is a diagram
"stereotipical "old" marrige"
-between man a woman
-involves 2 ppl
=======magicaly transform this into "all purpose marrige"======
-between man and a man or a woman and a woman. or man and woman
-involves 2 ppl <----(that part didn't change)
IF you reject the idea of what marrige was you can't simply change one part and expect that every one will agree on the rest. If three ppl love each other who are you to tell them that they cant get married???? can three ppl not love eachother???? If i went wrong here plz tell me exactly where.
--three ppl can love eachother
--three ppl married together wont hurt anybody
--ppl=ppl and if ppl can get married why cant ppl(s) get married????
and dont you go saying that polygamy is wrong and that gay marrige is right who gave you the authority to decide for every one else????

[Ravenous]

-The state saying that marrige between gays is "right" will pervert children into thinking that it is the normal thing to be.

Pervert the children into thinking it? I think the word is teach. Being gay is perfectly normal, so I don't see why children should be discouraged from homosexuality.
Gay marriage should be legal everywhere, marriage is about Love, not Gender, Age, Religion or any of that other crap (someone had a very good sig on this a while back).

[redcar]

gay sex there is nothing wrong with it. in my opinion sex is the expression of love between two people. now since gays are people too and when they love each other, there is nothing wrong with them expressing their love. now please dont counter argue with that bullshit of its not natural, we evolve, we change, and we have to live with it.
so do tell me, what is so wrong about two people expressing their love for each other?

TO close any one can sign a contract
actually thats just a bit wrong, legally a person under the age of 18 can not sign a contract, incapacitated persons, diplomats and companies acting ultra vires can not sign a legal contract either.

marriage is about Love, not Gender, Age, Religion or any of that other crap
couldn't have put it better.

[cmpcmp]

Your point is valid, so anyone over 18.

but as you said

The question i ask is, would you support marriges of more than two people?
"now since gays are people too and when they love each other, there is nothing wrong with them expressing their love."
from YOUR quote I could say gays are people since love isn't something that can only exist between two ppl i quote
"there is nothing wrong with them expressing there love"

Also if you looked at my position I was for is being created, like other things, but still think that it is wrong

IF you would please awnser my question of wether you support marriges of more than two people.

I would like someone to make an argument against polygamy, but as Ravenous said
gay marriage should be legal everywhere, marriage is about Love, not Gender, Age, Religion or any of that other crap

is "any of that other crap", does it include more than 2 people?"

[redcar]

to marry three or more people would make a mockery of the institution of marraige, marraige is about loving so much you want to spend your life with them and them alone. please dont compare gay marraige with the marraige of three people, because its completly different.

[cmpcmp]

The reson that I bring this up is after lots of thinking i couldn't find any paralell issues to this one, the closest thing is definitly polygamy. Interestingly enough most ppl i talk to about it will justify gay marrige with something like
"now since gays are people too and when they love each other, there is nothing wrong with them expressing their love."
gay marriage should be legal everywhere, marriage is about Love, not Gender, Age, Religion or any of that other crap
but when i ask them about polygamy all they can say is that its not "right" or that its gross, no arguments that really work according to their previous arguments.

I would apreciate it if some one could tell me why polygamy shouldn't be able to be married, but gays should.

BTW, I have my own theory of why ppl want one and not the other

to marry three or more people would make a mockery of the institution of marraige, marraige is about loving so much you want to spend your life with them and them alone.

IF "old marrige" is no longer an institution set in stone why do you get to change just one part of it?

From your quote it looks like you dont support 2+ ppl being married, but i could be wrong
SO GIVE ME a good awnser, if u could vote, and there was a vote on it, would you make polygamy a possibility in marrige?

AND DONT YOU go telling me that it makes a mockery of the "INSTITUTION" thats redicules, In my opinion having ppl that can't have babbies (together) is a mockery more so than more than two ppl.

Make an argument that isn't saying
-its not "right" just because you say so
-it is grosss
-it isn't practiced or its a "mockery"
-or that you just dont want it.

make me a good argument that isn't based on just that it kills our tradition, cuz i hate to hava to break it to you but gay marrige isn't exactly an american tradition.

also please tell me where you stand on the issue if you post here

[redcar]

please dont set down parameters of which i must confine my arguement thank you very much. and i will also ask you not to double post, edit your post to add more information.

now i see marraige as a union between two people, and when i say two people, it means two people of any race, gender, religion et cetra. to me a marraige consisting of three or more people is not a marraige.

now you argue that having people who cant have babies in a marraige is a mockery? what happens in the case of three people, say two men and a woman, well the woman would be the mother and one of the men would be the father. so what happens the other man? is he just a spare?

lets devolop this a little further based on your previous point...

In my opinion having ppl that can't have babbies (together) is a mockery more so than more than two ppl.
so what about couples who are sterile? they cant have babies, so are they a mockery? some men or women are just unable to have babies through and that is just how it is, just like homosexuality, its just how it is.

cuz i hate to hava to break it to you but gay marrige isn't exactly an american tradition.
and you assume i am American? you must because you talk about American tradition. i'm Irish and very proud.

[cmpcmp]

sorry about the double post,

my point was that according to your argument for gay "marrige" how can you you say that three ppl can't be "married"? what i think is gay marrige wouldn't infact be marrige, as polygamy wouldn't be either, if you want to sign a contract i shouldn't be able to stop you as long as it doesn't hurt any one.

My argument is that "marrige" is a historical concept, to change any part of it makes it no longer marrige. it just isn't marrige. It can afford the same protections and what not but it just isn't marrige.
If I were to take lets say base ball. and instead of a bat you must use your hand, would it still be base ball? no. same thing with marrige, if its no longer man and woman its no longer marrige. BUT as with the base ball thing, what you made is still a game, as "gay marrige" as you say is still a union between people. but polymay would aslo still be union between ppl.

My point is that if the concept isn't unchangeable, if you can change it and not hurt anybody it has to be made so, (as long as some one wants it that way). to say other wise is hypocritical.

To your sterile couple comment I say this.
IF you know that your sterlile and are married then you can't fufill the point of "old marrige" which was to have children so then you really are making a mockery of "old marrige" just as civilunions, polygamy, and all the like do. BUT if you want to sign a contract with a sterile person go ahead, i can't stop you.

As far as parameters you can argue what ever you want. but my pint was this
-If we have thrown "traditional marrige" out the window, you can't go back to it and use it as reasoning. To go back to my base ball thing, if I were to say ok, and the out fielders must also use their hands, you can't say no that's not how baseball works, because you aren't playing baseball anymore. so to be married and gay and say that three people can't do the same becase thats not how "traditional marrige" works isn't a valid point to me, because you aren't "married traditionaly" any more. SO you can't use it as reasoning of what is ok and what isn't.
-Also I was trying to avoid the comments that are like "o polygamy is just gross" because the exact same thig can be said for Gay unions. Being "gross" i think isn't a very good point to debate on.

SO would you vote to make gay unions a possibility but polygamyh not a possibility? (asumming you could vote on it)
(ps there are polygamists in fundamental islam, mormanism, and ther religions)

[redcar]

i am not going to respond to the whole baseball analogy because i do not believe it is comparable to marraige.

but this interests me...
My point is that if the concept isn't unchangeable, if you can change it and not hurt anybody it has to be made so
how does gay marraige hurt anyone? and not bleieve being able to conceive something that hurts anyone.

IF you know that your sterlile and are married then you can't fufill the point of "old marrige" which was to have children so then you really are making a mockery of "old marrige" just as civilunions, polygamy, and all the like do.
what about say a couple who get married when they are 60. they have a very very low chance of being able to conceive (its practically nil) so do they make a mockery? so do you think that not only marraige be kept only for men and women, and people who are able to have children, should we also confine it to age while we are at it? how about interracial? and how about keeping marraige only for those of the same religion?

SO would you vote to make gay unions a possibility but polygamyh not a possibility?
in a word, yes.

[cmpcmp]

please try and keep in mind what my belif is.
IF some one wants a union between any one, with the same protections of marrige, then they CAN do it, wether it be gay, more than 2 or w/e.

In this i don't oppose gay marrige or polygamy either (leagally) but as a moral issue I do (but thats not waht is being discussed), but since it doesn't hurt me I can't tell you what to do because (US and ireland) are free countries.

to respond to your old married couple thing i say, yes it is a mockery of "traditional marrige" where the point is to make a family with children. BUt they can form a "union" of sorts.

-So you do oppose the creation of a "union" between more than 3 ppl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmpcmp
SO would you vote to make gay unions a possibility but polygamyh not a possibility?
in a word, yes.


My question is how is it that the "rules" so to speak can be changed for homosexuals but not for any body else, why is it that they get their own special eception? I still hold this.
Polygamist union
-it is possible for ppl to love more than one person. (ie i dont have to chose wether I "love"(not sexual) my mom or dad, because i can love them both at the same time. As is true sexualy, ppl can love more than one other person at the same time. SO not being able to love 2 ppl at the same time isn't a problem.
-Having a "Union" of more than 2 people doesn't hurt any one
so then y do u oppose it? i read your posts and you dont give any reasons other than that it is a mockery to the institution of "marrige" but they dont have to have it BE marrige just somethign that affords limilar rules and stuff.

As far as the old ppl again. I dont think the the state should get to decide what is "traditional marrige" and what isn't. the idea of marrige sanctioned by the state as anythign other than a contract between ppl(s) i think is wrong. If you want to put "tradition" around it thats your call, other than holidays I dont think that the government needs to be involved in sanctioning tradition.

SO please give me some good argument against polygamy, that can't be used against "gay unions" in th esame way.
Such as: Its not tradition, its gross, un natural,

I Dont think that the law should dictate tradition, DO you?

[redcar]

from your stance i am going to say you are str8?

My question is how is it that the "rules" so to speak can be changed for homosexuals but not for any body else, why is it that they get their own special eception?
the "rules" as you put is are only being made fair. i am a person, and i am no different to anybody else on this planet with the one exception that along with 1 in 10 i am sexually attracted to people of my own sex, i.e. i'm gay.

now the whole point of this wanting of gay marraige is a lot to do with just being equal. being gay is not a pleasant thing. like if you are gay in Saudi Arabia you can face the death penalty. its all about being recognised as being equal. i personally have absolutly no intention of getting married, but i want to able to marry if i so choose. i want to be equal. women fought to get the vote, now they are seen as equal to men, as it should be. black people fought to be treated the same as white people, now they are equal, as it should be. now gay people are fighting to be treated equally as str8 people, and we will win, so if you dont like it you better prepare yourself, because it is inevitable.

i am not going to get into a debate over polygamy, because this debate is about same sex unions. and quiet frankly i am not a polygamist, i'm homosexual and i am going to fight for my own rights.

[cmpcmp]

women fought to get the vote, now they are seen as equal to men, as it should be. black people fought to be treated the same as white people, now they are equal, as it should be.
You do make a good point, but there are some differneces between women, balcks, and gay unions.
One can't chose to be black, female, of gay, BUT one can chose to be in a homosexual relation ship, as one could be a polygamist. One can only be judged on their actions.

--To make a point out of my polygamy argument.
YOU oppose polygamy, but ont gay unions
DO you think that polygamists dont deserve to be treated equaly? lets say that some one was born and loved 2 ppl, which is beyond their controll, is that their fault?

my real point is that, if you oppose polygamists being "eaqual" in your eyes by not being able to be part of a union, what makes it wrong for some one to oppose gay unions?

I havent heard a really good reason why polygamists don't deserve unions but
gays do. If you yourself oppose polygamist unions for what ever reason you have, why can't some one oppose gay unions like you oppose polygamist unions?

So the question is why do you oppose polygamist equality? how can u expect support for YOUR equality if you can't support other in a similar struggle??

PS check your facts, 10% is more of a saying, but dont take my word for it according to WIKIPEDIA.
Kinsey's methods have been criticized as flawed, particularly with regard to the randomness of his sample population, which included a large number of prison inmates.... However, the relative percentage of the population that reports a homosexual orientation varies with differing methodologies and selection criteria. Most of these statistical findings are in the range of 2.8 to 9% of males, and 1 to 5% of females for the United States


or http://www.newdirection.ca/a_10per.htm
Nonetheless, the serious problems with Kinsey's work combined with these new studies give us clear reason to stop using the 10% figure.

In practical terms, whether the group to which someone belongs numbers 1%, 10%, or 100% of the total population, should not influence our treatment of that person. All persons deserve to be treated with respect and kindness, regardless of sexual orientation or anything else. At the same time, it is important to use data from current studies rather than from outdated and poorly constructed ones.

I hold true though, that even if 100% of ppl are doing something wrong it CAN still be wrong. BUT if there is something i hate its bad data, and i hate it more when it is shoved in my face on a daily basis to justify a point.

TO conclude plz tell me why polygamists aren't equal but gays are.

[MoveAlong]

I've noticed this thread on the list and it being constantly debated and the persons posting change between redcar and cmpcmp. Now, this debate is obviously a hot debate, and I know I really shouldn't butt-in, but I feel like I have to in order to learn.

So, I'm going to start off with introducing myself. Hello, cmpcmp, I am Donnie. I am a proud gay human, and came out at age 12 to my mom. I am now 13 and have participated in my state's gay pride parade. How are you? :-)

Now, I would get out my Mediator face, (such as your "new" face and redcar's "Global Moderator" face), but I do not have it, since it was lost in a transfer. I would put this face in my signature to replace the "FBI" face, showing that I am of neutral beliefs and will try to balance out my opinions, so I will not take or look like I am taking a specific side. I must remind you that I try to make all my posts, including ones in the Debate/Daily Chronical forums of a nicer nature. I do not want to make any enimies.


Now, may I first start off, cmpcmp, are you a polygmist (pardon my spelling)? I belive you are arguing for it to be legal, correct? Please feel free to correct me :)

My belief on polygamy is this:
I belive that people should and might be able to have a 3-way marrige. It might help bring in money. Of course, all applicants must be legal age; or in my opinion 18 or so. Now, say that there were two men and one woman. This might cut down on stress, such as a man would go to work, and the other man and woman would clean up around the house. Then the man would come home and have sexual relations with the woman. So on and so forth.

This can be made into a veriety of ways. However, if you are behind polygamy, may I ask why you belive in the 2 men and 1 woman marrige and not just the 2 men marrige?

Now, if this said couple would deside to have a three-som, I wouldn't mind. Simply because they would probably not tell me about it and sex is a private relation that shouldn't be worried about because it is really none of your concern.


Same-sex marrige:
Again, as the question and statements above, why would you be against 2 men but not 2 men and one woman marrige, and why would you be worried about private sexual relations?

I have to tell you and redcar, heck everyone who is actually reading this something: I do not want to get married.

Now, this does not mean that I am against gay marrige; I really do want rights for it so other gay citizens can marry. I have also heard alot on the bible about marrige, and know that it is under the sanctity of the bible and YOUR god. (This is also why I do not capitalize the word god).

I belive that a gay couple or lesbian couple should be able to marry. I may not want to, because I have no religion and am a sort of agnostic. I personally do not really want to think about a divine power. But for those gay people who do, I want them to DEFINATLY have a right.

NOTE: I just relised you posted again while writing this. Unfortunatly, I cannot address those issues as I'll probably have to re-write this again.

Gay people should-- have the right to marry, in that it is not your decision to tell them they cannot. It's-- a very touchy issue at best. I am not sure how to word this. The bible states that marrige should be between a man and a woman, and that thou shalt not sodomise. However, the sodomy issue could go for straight couples as well. From what I have heard, many straight men like to preform anal sex. And, for lesbians, there really is no anal sex.

So, I keep thinking to myself, is it gay marrige that is not trusted or gay/lesbian marrige? I also belive that straight men like lesbian porn, and always joke around about how they like lesbians but hate gay men. (I belive the reason for this is simply that, straight men are not attracted to gay sex but are lesbian sex. This puts a mark for womans rights. Are straight men using women (including lesbian women) as more of some toy, or video to watch rather than actual people?

Gay men should be respected more. Have you noticed that still today, men (or at the very least) straight men are up on the high chair, and it is always a man as president of the United States? Men overall seem to be respected, although gay men arn't respected by straight men. This puts them on the bottom of the womans list, too.


Now, I remember reading something in this thread about baseball. I know redcar (or Alex) let go of that topic for obvious reasons, or as he stated that it does not relate to marrige at all. I agree with this. We are not taking away anything if we have two men instead of a man and a woman, unlike taking away a baseball bat. Without this, you cannot hit the ball. Can you please emphisize on how this relates to gay marrige rights?


In this post, I stated that I do not want to marry. I don't know what I want, but I really want a good relationship with fair rights, such as being respected, not marrige rights. Also, the thought of insurance policies as well.


I feel that the Christian society is pushing it's religion on me, or other gay people. I belive that this is one of the first things that should stop. No one likes to be pressured, or at least most. I belive that someone I know would relate this to something else.
Yeah don't press your beliefs of religion on me. Pressing your beliefs on me and telling me that I should convert is just like asking me to try a new ice cream flavor.

:confused: Now, how does a entire religion relate to chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream? A religion is huge and has a set of orthodox views, or a set of rules and beliefs. A ice cream flavor is just a flavor, something you might want to try and that people don't go to Church for "Rocky Road" and pray to the Blue Bunny =\

I think that religion is too pressed on people, and that prevents them of some of the rights that everybody should have. Remember, not everybody is a Chrisitian/Catholic/Muslim ect.

An argument to this might be democracy; in that the majority rules. This is a very hard thing to accomplish with beliefs.


Having sex with children, gay sex, sex with animals, and sex with more than two people is all moraly wrong.

The thing is, as states previously, I belive that it is personal and shouldn't be worried about (the gay sex and threesoms). Having sex with children is wrong in my opinion, as they can be easily overpowered and forced against their will. An adult can hurt them. Bestiality is not-- good in my opinion for the same reason, and both are to young or overall do not understand what is going on.



I think that covers it, so please do not attack me, as I want to make friends here, and overall in the world do not want to make many enimies.
Reguards,
*~Donnie\))
P.S.: I can't reply again tonight since it is 12:33 AM on my end :mrgreen:

[cmpcmp]

I understand that this post is pretty long and has a lot of words. To take all in to acount would be very hard.

when i say gay i mean homosexual, so gay and lesbian (gay is a shorter word and im lazy)

(as previously stated)
While I do MORALY oppose gay (men and woman) and polygamist marrige I have tried to go out of my way to NOT use this as reasoning of anysort, I have never said in this post that I oppose gay unions SOULY becasue i belive it is wrong, I try not to legislate religion in this thread.

MY question i would like a straight (no pun intended) awnser on is why
-polygamists shouldn't get unions (under that law)
-but why homosexuals should (under the law)

Why under your deinition (redcar) of equality for gays
-being able to have unions
WHy don't polygamist get equality, you really can't expect others to support you if you wont support other people. please tell me exactly where im wrong.

as previously stated by redcar
SO would you vote to make gay unions a possibility but polygamyh not a possibility?
in a word, yes.

[MoveAlong]

I understand that this post is pretty long and has a lot of words. To take all in to acount would be very hard.

when i say gay i mean homosexual, so gay and lesbian (gay is a shorter word and im lazy)

(as previously stated)
While I do MORALY oppose gay (men and woman) and polygamist marrige I have tried to go out of my way to NOT use this as reasoning of anysort, I have never said in this post that I oppose gay unions SOULY becasue i belive it is wrong, I try not to legislate religion in this thread.

MY question i would like a straight (no pun intended) awnser on is why
-polygamists shouldn't get unions (under that law)
-but why homosexuals should (under the law)

Why under your deinition (redcar) of equality for gays
-being able to have unions
WHy don't polygamist get equality, you really can't expect others to support you if you wont support other people. please tell me exactly where im wrong.
Ok, I get it now :) I belive in both same sex unions and polygamist unions, as if they love each other, can make it work on their terms and are adults that can make their own decisions. In my opinion, both should be able to do so. Or, gay people can have a union under the government, and/or fair insurance policies. I belive that all people should carry out their beliefs, as long as it does not hurt anybody.

[cmpcmp]

as i have said, the vast majority of ppl that i run in to (I live in seattle) support gay unions, but like redcar not polygamist. (legally)

Am I wrong in thinking that with redcar (and most ppl i run into's) opinions that i run into
-gay union YES
-polygamy NO
Is hypocritical?
Redcar if you could please make an argument or tell why you feel this way

[redcar]

ok i feel the way about polygamy becasue at the heart of it i am a catholic. and i have been brought up and thought that a marraige is between two people and two people only, like i believe most other people have. i believe it is a thing to be used when two people love each other so much they want to share their whole life together. now call me hypocritical all you want, but that is my view on marraige, because i was raised that way.

PS check your facts, 10% is more of a saying
i always do. 10% is the figure that has been used by the Irish News Service, RTÉ, in quoting the Central Statistics Office. of course it only refers to Ireland.

but there are some differneces between women, balcks, and gay unions.
One can't chose to be black, female, of gay, BUT one can chose to be in a homosexual relation ship
i can not help but laugh at how much you sound like the Catholic Church. so if someone is gay they should just stay away from having a relatioship with anyone? why because its "unnatural? but whats unnatural about falling in love with someone and wanting to be with them. but i hope that you are not insinuating by that arguement that being homosexual is a choice? because trust me on this no one would choose to be gay, just like you didnt wake up one morning and say "dam i think i am going to be str8"

[Bobby]

The point: If you are living in a free country, why not be able to marry as many people of whatever gender you want?? How will it hurt you?? think about that before you say your against it.

[redcar]

it wont hurt me, but as i say i have just been brought up believing that marraige is a sacred thing between two people, its just what i have been thought and its what i believe.

[Bobby]

Marrige can be a sacred thing between people. If it's so sacred then who created divorces?? Again if it doesn't hurt you, and doesn't affect you you should be against it. Most people believe that marriage is for two. That makes them think that marriage has to be for two. One of the definations of marriage is to join a union.....

[Dante]

How dare you compare Gay marriage to Polygamy. You act like being gay is wrong, it isnt...If you ever talked to someone who is gay, you would clearly know that it isnt a choice for them, but with polygamy it is.

This country talks about seperation of church and state, but banning gay marriage is aa clear violation of that.

People wake up, the sanctity of marriage is almost destroyed. We have people in relationships cheating on one another, stealing from one another....there is hardly anymore trust. THAT IS WHY THE DIVORCE RATE IS 57%.....57%........From that percentage are heterosexuals preserving marriage, with a percentage like that, straight people shouldnt have the right to say who can or cannot get married.

Now people do get married for love, but things change.

and that whole argument about gays cant have children....gays might not be able to procreate with one another, but there are other ways of getting children....a little thing called adoption...So what happens if they adopt a child together?? Does the child not have the right to be protected by its parents???

We talk about America the lad of oppurtunity and the free...but we are so discrimatory against people who are different from the social norm......it happened with race and now it is happening with Sexuality.

[Bobby]

Did I compare those polygamy and gay marriage??

[cmpcmp]

Ok, if you people would take a look at my actual position from previous posts,
-I think that any kind of "union" that doesn't hurt any body should be a possibility, just as writing up any kind of contract is. (all provided participants are of leagl age, not mental incapable of understanding the contract and w/e)

ok i feel the way about polygamy becasue at the heart of it i am a catholic. and i have been brought up and thought that a marraige is between two people and two people only, like i believe most other people have. i believe it is a thing to be used when two people love each other so much they want to share their whole life together. now call me hypocritical all you want, but that is my view on marraige, because i was raised that way.

ahhh, the point I was trying to make out of the whole thread.
-Your eqact same reasoning can easily be used against you.
-AND you even brought up religion, christianity. There are numerous lines in the bible that condem homosexual relation ships, So how is this ONLY reasoning against polygamy for you?
-If you truthfully just used the "how i was rasied argument" then so can EVERYONE else, Il give you a idea of what im talking about, il just doctor your quote.

DOCTORED VERSION

ok i feel the way about gay unions becasue at the heart of it i am a catholic. and i have been brought up and thought that a marraige is between a man and a woman only, like i believe most other people have. i believe it is a thing to be used when two people love each other so much they want to share their whole life together. now call me hypocritical all you want, but that is my view on marraige, because i was raised that way.

Personaly i don't really like the "how i was raised argument" because I do believe ppl can change there views in light of new facts.

ALso any body can use that argument something like
"I was rasied with the bible and it says homosexualrelationships=bad, so they are" or
"I was raised and marrige was between man and woman, so thats what i believe"

At the end of the day that argument will get you no where, becasue i was told so isn't a good argument. ANY joe blow can use that for anything

Why does se7en (good movie btw)
say.. How dare you compare Gay marriage to Polygamy. You act like being gay is wrong, it isnt...If you ever talked to someone who is gay, you would clearly know that it isnt a choice for them, but with polygamy it is.

ok some reasons
-same sex unions are under debate
-the closest thing there is is a polygamist union
-if the best reasoning you can come up with against polygamy is "becasue i was raised that way" why must I support gay unions? i can't have been raised differently?

If you would have read almost ANY of my posts you would have found that I have said--Having feeling isn't wrong because you can't control feelings.
-being attracted to the same gender isn't wrong
-being attracted to the color blue isn't wrong
-wanting to kill some one isn't wrong
=killing some one is wrong (when it's murder)
=I have problems with homosexuality (moraly, but please im trying to keep this board moral free, trying to discuss the creation of "unions" that ppl can sign, wether they be homosexual or polygamist.

(being gay) isnt a choice for them, but with polygamy it is.
Ok lets put ourselves in this position.
-a man grows up to be 22
-he meets two woman both of whom he likes, the woman are both bi
-they all love eachother very much and want to start a family

Where did the man (or the woman) make a choice that they would be attracted to 2 ppl and not one? THATS RIGHT feelings can't be controled.
there was no choice, only the one of entering a relationship.

say gay man is atracted to another man, and they also fall in love and w/e he didn't make a choice to be attracted to the guy, only to be in the relationship.
-What makes loving any different if there are more than 2 ppl?
-Lets say some one was born and loved 2 ppl is that his/her fault? if a gay is born gay is that their fault?

ppl can only be judged on their actions. if entering a relationship that doesn't hurt anybody is an action that both redcar and se7en (im assuming form your post that you are against polygamist unions) think shouldn't be a opsibility (legally) then what makes it anydiffernt than homoseual relationships?

I hope every body that hasn't done so will state their position clearly.
and please find a # for the percent of ppl that are homosexual that is earlier than the one past 1950 that is outdated, flawed, and biased (large prison sample). no recent one as said by wikipedia has been out of the range of abount 2-9 percent.

And no ur wrong the one you quote as 10% is
form wikipedia
Probably the most widely cited findings of the Kinsey Reports regard the prevalence of different sexual orientations — especially to support a claim that 10% of the population are gay.
The Kinsey Reports are two books on human sexual behavior, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (ninteen fourty eight) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), by Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and others. Kinsey was a zoologist at the Indiana University at Bloomington and the founder of the Institute for Sex Research.

The Kinsey reports are the most widley pointed at fact in and around homosexual debate, even thought he used much larger than realistic prison samples of ppl for his study and found that I quote

11.6% of white males (ages 20-35) were given a rating of 3 (about equal heterosexual and homosexual experience/response) throughout their adult lives.

Kinsey himself avoided and disapproved of using terms like homosexual or heterosexual to describe individuals, noting that sexuality is prone to change over time,
WOW he said it changes over time (which most gay advocates will adamently deny)

I have looked and not found any other credible study (I say credible because some have found up to 40% gay because they were in certian districts in sanfrancisco and obviously biased, as are polls that are only in whyoming)
finding numbers near 10% more like 2-8% for an average of 5%. (as said by wikipedia.

Even if 100% of peoplpe are doing somethign wrong it can still be wrong.

[Dante]

Did I compare those polygamy and gay marriage??

I wasn't talking about you, i was talking about the creator of the thread.

-and NO you cant control who you fall for, but polygany is wrong, i mean you cant be married to more than one person, I still do not see how you say polygamy is the closest thing to gay marriage...i mean one clearly involves more than 2 people and the other has to do with TWO people of the same sex getting married

[Bobby]

Yes to compare the two is really not right.

[redcar]

And no ur wrong the one you quote as 10%
i will ask you not to say i am wrong when i know i am right. this figure is quoted from the Central Statistics Office of Ireland and to be honest i couldnt give a fiddlers fuck what wikipedia says, i am using the figure that the independant Irish state body is using, thank you very much.

Personaly i don't really like the "how i was raised argument" because I do believe ppl can change there views in light of new facts.
oh yes people can change, i had to. i had realise and come to terms with my own sexuality and realise there is nothing wrong with it at all. my views on the church to change so i know very well that peoples views can change.

-the closest thing there is is a polygamist union
bullshit. by you saying that you are implying that hetrosexual relationships are the best and that homosexual relationships are therefore are of a lesser standing.

please stop comparing and making arguements for polygamy because it has absolutly nothing to do with same sex marraiges, of which this thread is about. if you want to discuss polygamy be my guest and make a new thread. but i agree with Dante
How dare you compare Gay marriage to Polygamy.
you just should not do it.


honestly i dont know why i argue this all the time, because when it comes to sexuality i people are either for it or against, and with this there is very rarely changing minds. i just find it sad that there are still people who wont accept people for who they are.

Even if 100% of peoplpe are doing somethign wrong it can still be wrong.
now from that i am reading that you find homosexuality wrong, and if that is the case i have to say i pity you. i pity the fact that you are so narrowminded.

[cmpcmp]

When I started this thread I had intended in not to turn into swearing and curisng. If you read the title of the thread it's about PERSPECTIVE so as i thought the closest "issue" to "samesex unions" that i could think of was "poygamist unions" please note that i dont believe "Hetersexual unions" are on trial here so don't try and say that samesex should be compared to herosexual unions. Thay can but that wasn't the point of this thread.

-ok thats great that you don't give a &^(*% ^*%*^% about the #'s of it all, but you brought the numbers in to this argumnet earlier, not me.

-I tried to find that # from the Central Statistics Office of Ireland but that web site its, while confusing to say the least. I would like to exclude percent of people from this argument as i dont thik it has impact on the issue at hand. IF you want to talk #'s don't start swearing when I try to Put ur #'s in perspective compared to other #'s. Also Im sorry i searched and only found 10% according to the kinsey research, maybe I didn't see the #'s from Ireland If I miss qouted you I am sorry. Can you give me a link to specificly where that # is, i would apreciate it.

-The "how I was raised" had nothing to do with being born attracted to anything, I was trying to refer to your position on Polygamy.

-The question I want awnsered is, why can you justify not wanting polygamist unions by saying it is how you were raised, You don't think that is a legitament argument against samesex unions.

-All that I want is a clear awnser form pro samesex union but anti polygamist union ppl of why they oppose polygamist unions

-samaesex unions should be a possibility
but
- polygamist unions shouldn't be

This doesn't make sence to me, plz write a clear reasoning why this should be this way.

Diego The point: If you are living in a free country, why not be able to marry as many people of whatever gender you want?? How will it hurt you?? think about that before you say your against it.

Diego I think understands my point

[redcar]

i dont usually swear in arguements but i have had a very shitty day in relation to a family member and my sexuality. so i wasn't in the best of moods when i wrote that.

IF you want to talk #'s don't start swearing when I try to Put ur #'s in perspective compared to other #'s.
now the reason i got a bit touchy here is because you began to undermine my sources. now the CSO website mite have it there i dont know, but that is beside the point. i think in hindsight prob a bad idea trying to bring numbers into this debate considering that looking at the whole arguement they really are irrelavent.

-samaesex unions should be a possibility
but
- polygamist unions shouldn't be

This doesn't make sence to me, plz write a clear reasoning why this should be this way.
with same sex marraiges it is confined to two people. now if we allow polygamy where does it end, where are the boundries? like i could decide i want to marry everyone on my road. or maybe my county, or maybe my country. it become mad. maybe we could have one big world marraige. then the whole fundamental ideas of marraige are lost, sure if we were to allow polygamy why should we stop the man who wants to marry his horse?

my point is with polygamy, i.e. the more people we have involved in it the meaning of marraige becomes dilluted.

may i ask your name i like to be able to refer to people by name, rather than username.

[cmpcmp]

My name is christopher

with same sex marraiges it is confined to two people. now if we allow polygamy where does it end, where are the boundries? like i could decide i want to marry everyone on my road. or maybe my county, or maybe my country. it become mad. maybe we could have one big world marraige. then the whole fundamental ideas of marraige are lost,

I completely agree, and thats why i would probly shunn any one who would become a polygamist, But just be case you and me both don't like what some one is doing doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to do it.

(in my next statment Im assuming that you aren't a nazi)
since we (I hope) both appose nazis, there beliefs and what not. We both know that mostly only bad will come out of an organized group of neonazis.
-So the question is, can we make it so that Nazis aren't alowed to run for office? aren't allowed to get tax exemptions from the government as a non profit organization?

If you decide that you must stop one then whats to stop some one from stoping all of the others?

the beauty of living in a free country USA or Ireland is that I can be a nazi you can be a comunist and we should get all of the same protections under that law as long as we don't do anything that hurts some one or breaks a law.

If Every body decided that it would be a good idea to outlaw islam becuase in its radical form it supports killing innocents, that would be a travesty. Just because you don't like something or think that it is moraly wrong doesn't give you that right to shut it down, unless they hurt some on or broke a law of some kind.

While you and i both oppose the idea and beliefs or what ever i s associated with polygamy, as long as they keep to them selves, dont hurt/kill/rob and one or anythign like that I think it is against the way of a democratic government to deny someone something souly becasue they dont agree with it.

(Il use the US as an example since i am more firmiliar with my countries legal system) Imagine if The entire house of representatives and congress and supreme court and the president was Republican, if they all thought that being liberal was Imoral and wrong
-because its that way that they were raised
-thats what they believe
-and thats what they learned from reading the bible

Would you be opposed to them banning liberals from ever running for office if you were hard core concervative? TO do anythign that limits some ones actions souly because you don;t like it is wrong. They have to hurt some one ir break a law first.

The beauty of this system is also that Me, you, your mom, my grandma, they can all believe what ever they want and tell who ever they want about it. BUT I can oppose any one I want and i can tell them that to, I can peacably assemble agaist them, as can they. To deny them that I think is wrong.

[redcar]

nice to meet you Christopher, i'm Alex.

now have we slightly moved off the topic at hand here?:P

i see where you are coming from though. but can i ask you to make a good arguement for opposing same sex unions? and without comparing or using polygamy because i believe we have covered that enough and have established that it is something we both agree is not right.

[cmpcmp]

First off i don't legally oppose samesex, or polygamist unions

Sorry if im confusing but my intention of this thread was more to discuss the prospect of making samesex unions a possiblilty leagally, in the perspective of other things. To me at least, it seems that polygamist unions are very similar (legally) to the issue of wether samesex unions should be a possibility (leaglly) I have found that this actualy has great barring on the issue of opposing same sex unions.

If it can be reasoned, which you have (examples below from redcar.)
Against polygamy...

SO would you vote to make gay unions a possibility but polygamyh not a possibility?
in a word, yes.

i'm homosexual and i am going to fight for my own rights.
ok i feel the way about polygamy becasue at the heart of it i am a catholic. and i have been brought up and thought that a marraige is between two people and two people only, like i believe most other people have. i believe it is a thing to be used when two people love each other so much they want to share their whole life together. now call me hypocritical all you want, but that is my view on marraige, because i was raised that way.
it wont hurt me, but as i say i have just been brought up believing that marraige is a sacred thing between two people, its just what i have been thought and its what i believe.
honestly i dont know why i argue this all the time, because when it comes to sexuality i people are either for it or against, and with this there is very rarely changing minds. i just find it sad that there are still people who wont accept people for who they are.
my point is with polygamy, i.e. the more people we have involved in it the meaning of marraige becomes dilluted.

Why do you think that every body should support samesex unions when you yourself use reasons like.....
"at the heart of it i am a catholic"
"but that is my view on marraige, because i was raised that way."
"its just what i have been thought (assume u actualy meant taught) and its what i believe."
"the meaning of marraige becomes dilluted."

When every one of thoes reasons I myself could use to say that I dont support same sex unions.
-At the heart of it, im a catholic and the bible says homosexual relation ships are bad so i think that they are bad
-I have my views against samesex unions, because i was raised that way
-Same sex unions are wrong, its just what i have been taught, and it;s what i believe.
-When marrige is no longer just between a man and a woman, the meaning of marrige becomes deluted.

This is the point of my polygamy argument, it has alot to do with how ppl see the issue of same sex unions when they put it "in perspective" especialy when the person says things like (which i quote)
SO would you vote to make gay unions a possibility but polygamyh not a possibility?
in a word, yes.
i'm homosexual and i am going to fight for my own rights.
Why should i as a heterosexual fight for anything but my own rights? (according to your logic)
(polygamy is implied) it wont hurt me
Then why do you oppose it being a posibility of being a legal union?
i just find it sad that there are still people who wont accept people for who they are.
Do you find it sad that you don't accept polygamist for who they are? and if you not them then why do i have to accept same sex unions?

[redcar]

Do you find it sad that you don't accept polygamist for who they are?
well i am sorry if thats the immpression you get from me. one thing you learn to do i think when you are gay is to accept people for who they are, because you suffer enough and know what it feels like to be a minority. and you know what it is like for people to not accept you and let me tell you it not a nice feeling at all, to be honest i wouldnt put let my worst enemy feel the pain it is to not be accepted for who you are.

i just dont accept polygamy because, i am going to get logical here, with marraige you give all your love to another person, would you agree? or that is how it is supposed to be i think. now when you have say three people in a relationship you can not give your whole love to both people you have to spilt it. now i feel in marriage you should give your whole unconditional love to the other person and that is just not possible with plolygamy.

Why should i as a heterosexual fight for anything but my own rights?
i wouldnt expect you to, but it would be nice seeing as you enjoy full rights as a hetrosexual and maybe would be nice to help people who do not have the privileage of the same rights of you even though if you passed me on the street i would be no different to you and you wouldnt look at me twice, simply because i am the same as anyone else you pass, but yet i do not have the same rights purely because of sexuality, of which i have no control.

"the meaning of marraige becomes dilluted."
and how does that happen with same sex unions. its the same as hetrosexual unions love is shared and all that jazz, unless you believe that homosexuals are second class citizens and shouldn't enjoy the privileage of being able to marry? is it too good for us?

[Hyper]

Now.. Heres what I would like to say

1 I have nothing against gays but I do think it is wrong.

2 If gays would be given the right to marry and adopt what would logicly stop us from giving rights for 3 ppl to marry or pedofiles to marry little children?

3 As I am religious I do have to bring out the religious aspect as man and women were created to love each other not man and man or woman and woman, and marriage is a thing between a man and a woman ( In my opinion of course )

[redcar]

1 I have nothing against gays but I do think it is wrong.
other than a religious argumement do you have any other basis on why you think its wrong?

2 If gays would be given the right to marry and adopt what would logicly stop us from giving rights for 3 ppl to marry or pedofiles to marry little children?
ok there are two things i dislike about that statement. the first is that you think it is your right as a str8 person to give out rights to people, and secondly the fact that you dare use the word peadofile with gay. are you saying that i am like peadofile?

3 As I am religious I do have to bring out the religious aspect
i am religious myself, and i am of the belief that God created all of us. now God created us in His own image and without fault. now why would God make gay people just to be damned? it doesnt make sense, does it?

[Hyper]

Did god originaly intend marriages to be between man and man, woman and woman, man and woman?

[redcar]

personally i haven't asked Him, have you asked Him? all we are going on is what people a couple of thousand years ago have written.

[Hyper]

No Him Her or It just simply God.. Nope I havent asked God you havent asked God either I suppose

And it depends how you read it..

[redcar]

i refer to God as Him.

now from my Catholic teaching i have been taught that God loves us all. so why would he create gay people, who are evil and are destined to hell. a bit of a contradiction wouldn't you think?

[Hyper]

1 I dont think gay people are evil or that they will go to hell

2 I have nothing against gays themselves

3 I do not support gay marriage or the possibility of gays adopting.. And there is nothing that would realy change my opinions

[redcar]

1 I have nothing against gays but I do think it is wrong.
2 I have nothing against gays themselves

so your problem is against something of which people have absolutly no control. so would you have something against people who say have tourettes? people with tourettes can't change the fact they have it.

2 If gays would be given the right to marry and adopt what would logicly stop us from giving rights for 3 ppl to marry or pedofiles to marry little children?
you say you dont find it evil but you very easily mentioned gay marriage and gays adopting in the same sentence as a paedophile, a bit hyprocritical i would think.

And there is nothing that would realy change my opinions
of course theres not, i wouldnt expect there to be. some people unfortunatly cant accept some things.

[Hyper]

redcar please dont turn my words around..

See the reason because I dont approve with gays being given the rights to marry or adopt is because its simply wrong to me.. And it would still be wrong to me even if I wasnt religious..


See and about the adoption.. The gay couple could be great parents but you dont see the overall effect on the childs life.. I am not saying that he would grow up to be gay but I mean hes life

1 Hed must surtenly be horribly teased at in school

2 Hed have a very low self esteem possibly because of the teasing

3 Hed problably close up

4 Hed problably have very few friends


If non of that would happen id maybe change my mind about adoption.. But in reality those 4 things will surtenly happen

[redcar]

redcar please dont turn my words around..
i am just saying what you yourself said.

See and about the adoption..
well one thing we do argee on. i dont agree with gay adoption simply because there are too many narrow minded people in this world who would make the poor childs life a hell just because they themsleves are afraid of something that is different.

but this isnt about gay adoption, its about same sex unions.

[Hyper]

Well the point is I find it just wrong I have nothing against the gay people themselves but marriage was and is meant to be a thing between man and woman

And we are pretty much now repeating ourselves so I shall stop posting here lol

[cmpcmp]

By redcar
i just dont accept polygamy because, i am going to get logical here, with marraige you give all your love to another person, would you agree? or that is how it is supposed to be i think. now when you have say three people in a relationship you can not give your whole love to both people you have to spilt it. now i feel in marriage you should give your whole unconditional love to the other person and that is just not possible with plolygamy.

redcar, it being not possible for Some one to give "all of their love", as you said, to their partners in a polygamist relationship is hardly a good reason for it not to be a possibility under the law. I know that there are marriges going on right now that have no love, and possibly "negative love" (hate), if you will.

Under your unreachable goal of "all your love" is laughable. If i got married and told the state that there was "no love at all, but alot of hate, in my marrige" would they have to end my marrige on the spot?
There is NO SUCH THING as "all of your love" I can love one thing as much as I possibly can and still somehow have love left over for other things. Love isn't a measureable thing that can be used up. Just because polygamy can't reach you unreachable ideals, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed to happen.

and how can you say

(the question posed by diego
The point: If you are living in a free country, why not be able to marry as many people of whatever gender you want?? How will it hurt you?? think about that before you say your against it.
(the awnser form redcar, which was the next post after diego)
it wont hurt me, but as i say i have just been brought up believing that marraige is a sacred thing between two people, its just what i have been thought and its what i believe.

as you say "it wont hurt me" so why wouldn't you let it be legall? some how religion, which you for some reason don't use against semesex unions (even though it is clearly in the bible, if you want il get the verses) is part of your argument along with your belifs on the limit of ppls love.

SO far all of your agruments agains polygamy (excluding your "not enough love" thing) are the EXACT arguments that I personaly have seen other ppl use to say same sex unions shouldn't be a possiblity leagally.

i find is rather funny that some how "love" is to you a mesureable thing that can be "split", as you put it.

I would have writen this post with love and care but, unfortunatly for this board Im already using up ALL of my love on this delishiously, delectable, crisp, refreshing classic coke, o its just that good.

"All of your love", thats a good joke. why didn't i think of that?

seeing as how i live in america and we measure love in cupids,
Whats the measurement of love in Metric? maybe Eroses? (greek god of love) is it based on a 100 point scale? I hope so becasue the one we use here is so bloody confusing that I can hardly understand it. Have you taken that test online that tells you what your total capacity to love is? unfortunatley im only a 37 on the love scale so i can't marry any one, just don't got enough love i guess. Maybe you can awnser the age old question posed by the band the "black eye peas" i would apreciate it if you could tell me "where is the love?"
My math is a little rusty seeing as its summer and all.
How do you calculate the amound of total love in a family?
its something like the love of the mother and father squared times the average amount of shared love between the children and the parents (if no children count the love as "1". all of that divided by the # of total baby sitters used by the parents minus the number of times either of the spuses have cheated on each other. Thats sounds about right do you think?

LOVE ISN'T MEASURABLE, IT CAN'T BE SPLIT ADDED, SUBTRACTED. SQUARED, OR MULTIPLIED. AND THER SURE ANIN'T NO LIMIT ON IT EITHER.

[Dante]

So if a child was in need of loving parents, gays shouldnt be given the right o care for the child....and doubt hyper that you would be saying the samething if you werent religious

[redcar]

Christopher don't take the piss with me again.

LOVE ISN'T MEASURABLE, IT CAN'T BE SPLIT ADDED, SUBTRACTED. SQUARED, OR MULTIPLIED. AND THER SURE ANIN'T NO LIMIT ON IT EITHER.
rite so therefore love is never fixed? its variable? fine i will go with you and say it cant be split. but there is different levels of love. like i love my tea here but not as much as i love my mother. and i love the sugar in the tea, but not as much as the tea itself, so we have another level. now love as you see it's clearly being measured.

as you say "it wont hurt me" so why wouldn't you let it be legall?
dont use the "it wont hurt me" arguement. if a man in Ireland goes and kills his own family it wont hurt me. 9/11 didnt hurt me, but i wouldnt make them legal, now would i?

i just want to say one thing on the whole gay adoption issue.
So if a child was in need of loving parents, gays shouldnt be given the right o care for the child....
i dont think our society fully accepts gay couples yet. like if i had a bf and i walked down the road holding his hand i would defo get people giving a second look. i think its unfair to raise a child in that environment. like dont get me wrong i think adoption is one of the best things, i wouldnt be here otherwise, and when society change their opinion of gays, thats the time to allow gay adoption, but i dont think we can have it before hand. i just dont think it would be fair to the child.

[cmpcmp]

1. I didn't say anything about gay adoption.
2. the "It won't hurt me" was meant to be applied to it more as a possibility. So if you were in the twin towers at 9/11, you would have been hurt, If your family member was killed by a murderer you would have been hurt. If it has a chance to hurt someone, and you are someone then, it CAN hurt you.

[Maddi]

I honestly support gay marriage BECAUSE

--We are supposed to be a FREE country to do whatever we please
--Everyone deserves the right to experience love to the fullest (even if it is same sex marriage)
--This point has been made MANY times. LOVE is LOVE. No matter what.
--If you're gay, you're gay. People shouldn't judge other people like that. It's their decision. DEAL WITH IT.
--No matter what religion, gender, or sexuality, people should have equal rights, including the right to marry.

What do they think they're solving by not letting gays marry?
It's just getting more people upset!
Notice that the only kind of people that are AGAINST gay marriage
ARE STRAIGHT.

It's an outrage.

[cmpcmp]

IF you were refering to me, if you read a few of my posts you would know im for samesex unions being created.

Notice that the only kind of people that are AGAINST gay marriage
ARE STRAIGHT.

Well that point isn't really fair.
The only ppl that are against Pedifiles aren't pedifiles
THe only ppl against polygamy are ppl that aren't polygamsits

That holds true for basicly everything some ppl don't like.
-only ppl who don't watch CNN are against them

That point is very wide and aplies to most things,

PS there are gay ppl who think that homosexual relation ships are immoral.
Being gay is being attracted to some thing, no one is "sinning" by something they didn't do. But if you act on your desires it may be wrong.

[Whisper]

Notice that the only kind of people that are AGAINST gay marriage
ARE STRAIGHT.

It's an outrage.

I don't like it when people say stupid shit like that
I'm straight
Girls are hott
My two best friends for close to 2yrs now are gay
I have NO PROBLEM with gay marriage
and I'm proud to say that its legal in Canada

Its called equal rights