Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: What do you think of homosexuality and gay marriage(choose all that apply to you) ?

Voters
131. You may not vote on this poll
  • Homosexuality is unnatural and a sin and should be criminalized (not just marriage)

    7 5.34%
  • Homosexuality is unnatural and a sin and gay marriage or civil unions shouldn't be allowed

    10 7.63%
  • Gay marriages shouldn't be allowed, but civil unions are ok

    8 6.11%
  • I don't mind gays but gay marriage should not be allowed as it'd change the meaning of marriage

    16 12.21%
  • Homosexuality cannot be seen as immoral as it is inborn and not a matter of personal choice

    29 22.14%
  • I strongly dislike gays, but think they should have the same rights as anybody else

    0 0%
  • I'm a bit uneasy about gays, but gay rights should be protected in a free society

    14 10.69%
  • I feel comfortable with gays and think gays should have the exact same rights as anybody

    79 60.31%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 218

Thread: What do you think of homosexuality (and gay marriage) ?

  1. #101
    cArpe diEm Achievements:
    1 year registered
    alBiNo_effEct's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-12-05
    Age
    30
    Posts
    3


    Country: United States





    I'm not really clear on this matter...I'm not gay but I'm also not perfectly straight either...I don't know where I stand on this issue. One thing is for certain though, I don't think people should allow gay marriages. No offense to anyone. Why do you want to complicate things by marrying? Marriage should be strictly restricted to male and female. Sorry if people disagree with me, that's just how I feel on this matter.
    Laughter is remedy for the soul.

  2. #102
    DON'T PANIC! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tsuyoiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-05
    Posts
    979


    Country: United Kingdom



    This became a topical issue for us in the UK yesterday when gay marriage became legal. About time too.

  3. #103
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    03-11-02
    Posts
    4


    Country: Japan



    I saw on the news here in Japan that Elton John was just married at "the 17th century Town Hall where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles got married in April... The ceremony, which took less than an hour, was conducted by Registrar Clair Williams, who also presided over the union between Charles and Camilla":

    Read the whole artilcle written by BY DANICA KIRKA, of the Chicago Sun Times at: http://www.suntimes.com/output/enter...r-elton22.html

    In Gassho,
    Rev. Hoyu

  4. #104
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    hitsugi_kitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-11-05
    Location
    England
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1


    Country: United Kingdom



    I personally cannot see any viable reason for gay people not to be allowed to marry, and its about time it was legalised in the Uk. Purely because history and the church have defined for so long that only a man and a woman may marry, it should not mean that it can never be so in todays society. Why should marriage be restricted to only a man and a woman, if undertaken for the right reasons, as the relationships are effectively no different, apart from biology.

  5. #105
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Just to point out that it isn't strictly marriage. It is called a civil partnership. Okay it is marriage in all but name only. It also isn't just open to gay partnerships. Hetro couples can do this as well, who don't want the hassle of marriage. How long until the US allows this?

  6. #106
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    31-10-05
    Location
    Tilburg
    Posts
    65


    Ethnic group
    Dutch from Indonesia
    Country: Netherlands



    In the Netherlands, a country where almost everything is possible, two gays can get married and adopt children.
    Maybe I am very oldfashioned, but how do those kids feel about having two father's? What must they answer when their little friends ask them; "Don't you have a mother?"
    To me, only a man and a woman can have children, nature made us that way.

  7. #107
    DON'T PANIC! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tsuyoiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-05
    Posts
    979


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Elizabeth van Kampen
    In the Netherlands, a country where almost everything is possible, two gays can get married and adopt children.
    Maybe I am very oldfashioned, but how do those kids feel about having two father's? What must they answer when their little friends ask them; "Don't you have a mother?"
    To me, only a man and a woman can have children, nature made us that way.
    Children have unusual family backgrounds for all kinds of reasons - mothers can die or walk out, leaving a child with just a father and vice versa. I'd rather see a child with two men who love and care for her than with a mother and father who neglect her.

  8. #108
    Queen of the chatroom Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered
    Haru-san`sTeiraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-01-06
    Location
    Mannford,OK
    Age
    27
    Posts
    2


    Ethnic group
    NativeAmerican,Irish,and German
    Country: United States



    I don`t mind gay and lesbian(or bisexual)people as long as they don`t hit on
    me...^_^
    bite me.... <3 Haru

  9. #109
    Supersize Me Achievements:
    1 year registered
    大きいアメリカ人's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-02-06
    Location
    Illinois
    Age
    34
    Posts
    14


    Ethnic group
    Wigga
    Country: United States



    It should be illegal and banished from existance.

  10. #110
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by 傫AJl
    It should be illegal and banished from existance.
    Great to see that such an open minded person has joined the forum.

  11. #111
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by 傫AJl
    It should be illegal and banished from existance.
    Why? Are you threatened by it (i.e. homosexuality)?


    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    --Albert Einstein

  12. #112
    Romance Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Hyde_is_my_anti-drug's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-10-05
    Age
    30
    Posts
    79


    Ethnic group
    I have mixed roots but I am mostly Korean, Japanese, German, Italian, Scottish
    Country: United States



    First point: The problem arises when Christians (or anyone really) bring back the old way of thinking into it, saying that marriage is for producing babies which (obviously) two members of the same gender cannot do. As much as we would like to romanticize marriage and say that it is about love in reality it isn't and hasn't ever been. How else do you think arranged marriages came into being? If love had had anything do to with it people would have been horrifide at the thought. But nope. Get married, make babies. That's how it works. But in that case, how can you justify an infertile man/woman getting married? Going by the classic difinition of marriage, EVERYONE and ANYONE incapable of producing children with their loved one should not be allow to marry. Not so cut and dry now, is it?

    Second point: Marriage has become a legal thing. Married couples have different rights then un-married ones. We have already taken the "religion" out of marriage by making it mere legal contract. Why should it not apply to everyone regardless of gender or fertility then? It's a piece of paper, it should apply to all.
    Sub point: What if someone not of the Christian faith wishes to marry? Should they not be allowed? If you're going to bring religion into the mix you have to realize how BIG of an issue that is. Going by what Christians say then (that marriage is a Holy Union Under God aka a religious matter) anyone not of the Christian faith should not be allowed to marry. Hopefully you can see how wrong and unfair THAT is and I think the same applies to gay marriage, it's unfair to say they cannot marry just because they have not embraced your exact ideals, "values", or lifestyle.

    Third point: And if you wish to bring love into the issue, gay couples love each other just as much as straight couples. So there is no valid reason there as to why they should not be allowed to marry in the romanticized sense of the word.

    To make it simple: I believe that if two men, two women, or a man and a woman wish to marry, regardless of the possiblity or impossiblity of fertility and regardless of faith, that they should be allowed to under the law.

    Sakurai Atsushi owns my soul

  13. #113
    Horizon Rider Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Kinsao's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-05-05
    Location
    England
    Age
    40
    Posts
    592


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
    Second point: Marriage has become a legal thing. Married couples have different rights then un-married ones. We have already taken the "religion" out of marriage by making it mere legal contract. Why should it not apply to everyone regardless of gender or fertility then? It's a piece of paper, it should apply to all.
    I agree with that.
    I think, that it's perfectly acceptable, indeed expected, for any religions that disapprove of homosexual behaviour, to say that homosexual couples aren't permitted to have a marriage within that religion. Because it should be free for people to believe what they want, so if they dissaprove of a particular behaviour, they can't be made to condone it, for example, if a particular religion was to say as one of its tenets that eating meat is wrong, I wouldn't expect to call myself a believer in that religion and still continue to eat meat, nor for them to permit me to do that.

    But in the legal terms, marriage, it's a contract, isn't it? Why should same-sex couples not have that right? Because in the 'civil marriage', it's nothing to do with God or something. Let religious people practice what they believe to be right, but as a civil marriage is not valid in the religious sense anyway, the piece of paper makes no difference.

  14. #114
    Romance Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Hyde_is_my_anti-drug's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-10-05
    Age
    30
    Posts
    79


    Ethnic group
    I have mixed roots but I am mostly Korean, Japanese, German, Italian, Scottish
    Country: United States



    Exactly.
    Also, to pass laws in a country based on religion is wrong. Church and Sate are supposed to be separate. If all of America, and I mean every last living breathing human being, was Christian I would see no problem with the current laws regarding marriage however all of America is NOT Christian therefore you cannot make a law based on a faith not shared by the whole population of the country.

  15. #115
    Mike Cash
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
    Exactly.
    Also, to pass laws in a country based on religion is wrong.
    Not necessarily. If the laws happen to reflect the morals/values of the majority of the populace it matters not if they happen to coincide with the precepts of a religion. This is democracy.


    Church and Sate are supposed to be separate.
    Church and state, yes, perhaps.

    But Values and Policy or even more directly stated, Religion and Policy.....nope. It doesn't say anywhere that a populace may not take into account it's values, religiously derived or not, when formulating laws and policies.

    If all of America, and I mean every last living breathing human being, was Christian I would see no problem with the current laws regarding marriage however all of America is NOT Christian therefore you cannot make a law based on a faith not shared by the whole population of the country.
    Certainly you can. This is known as "democracy". Sometimes referred to as "majority rules" or "will of the people". Your idea would be an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment right to both the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech.

  16. #116
    Romance Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Hyde_is_my_anti-drug's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-10-05
    Age
    30
    Posts
    79


    Ethnic group
    I have mixed roots but I am mostly Korean, Japanese, German, Italian, Scottish
    Country: United States



    The United State of America is not meant to be a Democracy. "And for the Republic for which it stands" See? Right there, in the Pledge of Allegiance it is stated plainly that the United States of America is a Republic.

    Not necessarily. If the laws happen to reflect the morals/values of the majority of the populace it matters not if they happen to coincide with the precepts of a religion. This is democracy.
    They don't just "happen to coincide", these laws were based solely on religion and everybody knows it. And as I said, the United Sates is not supposed to be a Democracy. Also, you cannot, CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT, force a religion on or a set of moral values from said religion on an entire nation, which is what they're doing.
    Gay Marriage does not infringed on the rights of either person wishing to marry, Gay Marriage does not violate the rights of any third party. In order to make a law based on moral values said law must be preventing behavior that violates other humans rights, such as murder etc. Homosexuality is not in violation of any one's rights. Therefore you cannot say that this law is based on anything other then faith-only based "morals."

    Church and state, yes, perhaps.
    But Values and Policy or even more directly stated, Religion and Policy.....nope. It doesn't say anywhere that a populace may not take into account it's values, religiously derived or not, when formulating laws and policies.
    I am sorry, but that is bulls**t. These laws are based on only one point of view, only one set of moral values NOT the populace as a whole. And these laws are not protecting rights they are violating them. If a view point protects the interests of the people's rights, even if it can also be found in the church, then that is fine because said view point is found BOTH in and out of the church. However, the view point in question comes only from the church therefore one cannot force this view point upon the masses. Homosexuality and Gay Marriage DOES NOT violate any one's rights meaning these laws are based solely on the church's standing on the matter. That is wrong.

    Certainly you can. This is known as "democracy". Sometimes referred to as "majority rules" or "will of the people". Your idea would be an unconstitutional infringement of the First Amendment right to both the free exercise of religion and the freedom of speech.
    It's a conundrum. What you're saying is the majority can infringed their beliefs on the minority but the reverse is against the law. However, the minorities are just as free to believe what they wish, speak what they wish, do as they wish as the majority. Freedom of speech works both ways, like it or not. So by passing laws based on "majority rules" is not freedom anymore then the reverse. However, homosexuals are not insisting that only gays can marry and that marriage is ONLY for people of the same gender but the reverse is what the majority wishes of them. Can you see my point?

    Amendment I:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    You see, America is a country of contradiction. You can use the above Amendment to prove your point as easily as I can and yet our points contradict one another because they are opposites. How can this be? Easy, America is built on contradiction.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" that right there proves my point. We are passing laws based on religion and religion ALONE. According to your precious First Amendment this is not allowed. Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because Christians have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.
    Last edited by Hyde_is_my_anti-drug; 10-02-06 at 04:03.

  17. #117
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Not to disagree, just to note: But we have had laws limiting private sexual behavior among consenting adults in the past. We also have laws regulating marriage as far as outlawing plural marriages, bigamy, fraudulent marriages and in respect to age, relationship, and mental capacity. I don't think it is purely based on religion. I would also note that no major religion currently recognizes gay marriages- that there are prohibitions (right or wrong) in every major faith on the planet.

  18. #118
    It's Clipper Time! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    MeAndroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-07-04
    Age
    37
    Posts
    116


    Ethnic group
    Chinese/Japanese American
    Country: United States



    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" that right there proves my point. We are passing laws based on religion and religion ALONE. According to your precious First Amendment this is not allowed. Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because Christians have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.
    You make it seem like Christians constitute some minority with disproportionate power. The Christians ARE the masses. There are estimates that relatively recently put the figure around 75% on these sites

    Religious Tolerance
    Adherents.com
    Wikipedia
    Harper's

    The problem I see is that just because the majority feels one way doesn't mean it's necessarily right. In a voting system based not upon individual citizens, but on representatives of those citizens, the possibility of slightly skewed representation exists. This is why district lines and possible gerrymandering are often hotly debated. It's also one of the issues I have with the electoral college system. That said, I'd like to see gay marriage be more of a state issue, and less interference from the federal government.
    Go Trojans

  19. #119
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    09-07-03
    Location
    great lakes region, north america
    Posts
    33


    Ethnic group
    Czech, Polish, German
    Country: United States



    (copy & paste of my words from another string)

    As for marriage, I do NOT believe it is ONLY a religious thing. There are plenty of people who get married outside of any religious setting. And that is nothing new in human history.

    If you want to go way back one can watch Mel Brooks movie "History of the World pt 1" in which the first marriage was a blonking of a mate over the head and dragging them home. This was followed by the first gay marriage done the same way. A light-hearted take on the history that includes arranged marriages, selling of children as brides, voluntarily marrying
    only in one's social class or out of it, etc...

    sanctity...?

    I'm not so sure about that.

    It's different things for different people.
    Why can't someone born with both sex orgins, none, or somewhere in between, decide for themselves who they want to marry?



    +2 more things,
    SOME Christians are just becoming upset because they are losing
    their status as de facto official religion. Instead of privalege,
    they will have to be like everybody else.

    I forget the other

  20. #120
    Romance Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Hyde_is_my_anti-drug's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-10-05
    Age
    30
    Posts
    79


    Ethnic group
    I have mixed roots but I am mostly Korean, Japanese, German, Italian, Scottish
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by MeAndroo
    You make it seem like Christians constitute some minority with disproportionate power. The Christians ARE the masses. There are estimates that relatively recently put the figure around 75% on these sites
    I guess you just missed the whole section of my post about gays being the minority, huh? Just because Christians are a majority that does not make them 'the masses' that I meant. 'The masses' is referring to ALL not just the majority or minority. So no matter which the people in question belong too they are still impossing their view point on "the sheep-like masses" to quote Bette from The L Word. See, here's the thing, gays aren't trying to make everyone gay or join their "lifestyle" as Christians so tastelessly put it. Whereas Christians ARE trying to impose what they believe on EVERYONE. Gays just want equal rights is all, they aren't trying to make everyone Gay Lifestyle Converts.

  21. #121
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    20-01-06
    Posts
    16


    Country: United States



    It's funny how people disagree with homosexuality when it's between to men, but when lesbians have hot sex, they are perfectly fine with it.

    If man on man anal sex is wrong, how come man on women anal sex isn't?

  22. #122
    Mike Cash
    Guest


    Quote Originally Posted by Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
    The United State of America is not meant to be a Democracy. "And for the Republic for which it stands" See? Right there, in the Pledge of Allegiance it is stated plainly that the United States of America is a Republic.
    Unfortunately, a moot distinction in this case. In fact, it just puts you one degree of separation farther away from getting what you want.

    They don't just "happen to coincide", these laws were based solely on religion and everybody knows it. And as I said, the United Sates is not supposed to be a Democracy. Also, you cannot, CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT, force a religion on or a set of moral values from said religion on an entire nation, which is what they're doing.
    I take it that you support legalizing murder since Exodus 20:13 forbids it?
    And larceny since Exodus 20:15 forbids it?
    And perjury since Exodus 20:16 forbids it?
    And adultery should not be allowed as grounds for divorce since Exodus 20:14 forbids it?

    Would you believe there are Atheists who are against gay marriage and/or abortion? What religion are they forcing down anyone's throats?

    Gay Marriage does not infringed on the rights of either person wishing to marry, Gay Marriage does not violate the rights of any third party.
    That alone is insufficient reason to declare a right to gay marriage.

    In order to make a law based on moral values said law must be preventing behavior that violates other humans rights, such as murder etc.
    Come now! If we are going to in other places offer blanket statements that laws can not and must not be based on religious precepts then it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose. Let us apply our principles in a consistent manner. (Or let us restrain our passions when writing and not make blanket statements willy-nilly).


    Homosexuality is not in violation of any one's rights. Therefore you cannot say that this law is based on anything other then faith-only based "morals."
    Dear heart, I never said anything of the kind. I believe I quite clearly indicated that the First Amendment protects people's right to engage in the free exercise of their religion (i.e. formulate opinions based on their own values, however derived) and to engage in free speech (i.e. to vote in accordance with their own opinions/values, be it directly by referendum or indirectly through their elected representatives).

    Saying they can not and must not not only denies human nature, it flies in the face of the two portions of the First Amendment which you either ignore or misunderstand. Do they no longer teach Civics in American schools?

    I am sorry, but that is bulls**t. These laws are based on only one point of view, only one set of moral values NOT the populace as a whole.
    Name the last thing 350 million Americans all agreed on.

    And these laws are not protecting rights they are violating them.
    I must review my copy of the Constitution. I'll probably find the "right" to gay marriage located next to the "right" to abortion.

    If a view point protects the interests of the people's rights, even if it can also be found in the church, then that is fine because said view point is found BOTH in and out of the church. However, the view point in question comes only from the church therefore one cannot force this view point upon the masses.
    Why do you assume that only religious people are against gay marriage? Or that religious strictures could be the only source for opposition even among those who are religious.


    It's a conundrum. What you're saying is the majority can infringed their beliefs on the minority but the reverse is against the law.

    I think you mean "impose", not "infringe". Assuming that is what you meant...yes, that is precisely what I am saying. The majority gets to make the laws. What part of that comes as news to you?

    I am sick of the modern trend for parties/groups out of power (in the minority, in other words) yelling about how the majority should give them their way in order to avoid appearing mean.

    However, the minorities are just as free to believe what they wish, speak what they wish, do as they wish as the majority.
    You were doing so well, all the way up to that last comma. Then you blew it.

    Freedom of speech works both ways, like it or not. So by passing laws based on "majority rules" is not freedom anymore then the reverse.
    You're conflating two different issues. Also engaging in the "we're the minority and we demand to be treated like we're 51% and be given our way" sort of thing I mentioned above.



    However, homosexuals are not insisting that only gays can marry and that marriage is ONLY for people of the same gender but the reverse is what the majority wishes of them. Can you see my point?
    Certainly. I can even empathize with it. For all you know, I may even agree with you. (Though I would bet money that you think I'm some rabid gay basher). You're arguing Gay Rights. I'm talking basic Civics.

    Amendment I:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    You see, America is a country of contradiction. You can use the above Amendment to prove your point as easily as I can and yet our points contradict one another because they are opposites. How can this be? Easy, America is built on contradiction.
    Not at all. You merely have an imperfect understanding of the First Amendment.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

    that right there proves my point. We are passing laws based on religion and religion ALONE. According to your precious First Amendment this is not allowed.
    Thank you for proving my point. You have an imperfect understanding of the First Amendment. You obviously haven't the slightest idea what the Establishment clause refers to.

    America may not have an Established Church. That addresses not at all, even indirectly, whether laws may have at their heart religious precepts.

    Interestingly, you have to take the First Amendment out of context and totally ignore the following portions regarding free exercise and freedom of speech in order to get the First Amendment to support your viewpoint.

    And, yes, I do hold my First Amendment to be precious. What a pity that you have to twist, mangle, and amputate it.


    Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because Christians have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.
    If they are able to impose those laws, it is because they ARE the masses.

    You should work on changing people's hearts and minds rather than just railing against them. That way, when you're finally actually old enough to vote maybe your view will be the majority view and we can have the novelty of hearing the bellyaching running in the other direction.

  23. #123
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Akakubisan's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-09-04
    Location
    Indiana
    Age
    45
    Posts
    3


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
    Homosexuality is not violating anyone's rights, the only reason that these laws stand is because Christians have issues with homosexuality that they are imposing on the masses. That is, no matter how you look at it, wrong.

    Out of curiousity, what religions are supportive of homosexuality? I don't think you will find many.

  24. #124
    Romance Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Hyde_is_my_anti-drug's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-10-05
    Age
    30
    Posts
    79


    Ethnic group
    I have mixed roots but I am mostly Korean, Japanese, German, Italian, Scottish
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Cash
    Unfortunately, a moot distinction in this case. In fact, it just puts you one degree of separation farther away from getting what you want.
    I am making that point not because it gets me closer to my goal, I point it out because it is a contradiction.

    I take it that you support legalizing murder since Exodus 20:13 forbids it?
    And larceny since Exodus 20:15 forbids it?
    And perjury since Exodus 20:16 forbids it?
    And adultery should not be allowed as grounds for divorce since Exodus 20:14 forbids it?
    Obviously you aren't paying the slightest bit of attention to anything I'm saying. If you were you would know that is not what I am saying.

    Would you believe there are Atheists who are against gay marriage and/or abortion? What religion are they forcing down anyone's throats?
    This is true, but how many atheists do you see marching around downtown with anti-gay and pro-Christians picket signs?

    Come now! If we are going to in other places offer blanket statements that laws can not and must not be based on religious precepts then it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose. Let us apply our principles in a consistent manner. (Or let us restrain our passions when writing and not make blanket statements willy-nilly).
    If something is found to be wide spread but OUTSIDE of religion I see no problem with it. But when it stems solely from the church, I do. I don't see this as conflict of interest.

    Saying they can not and must not not only denies human nature, it flies in the face of the two portions of the First Amendment which you either ignore or misunderstand. Do they no longer teach Civics in American schools?
    Ah, but here's the rub. The First Amendment is a piece of paper and it's meaning is up to interpretation. Anyone can twist what it says to their point and it's still just as valid as the next person's idea of what the First Amendment is about.

    I must review my copy of the Constitution. I'll probably find the "right" to gay marriage located next to the "right" to abortion.
    I almost can't think of anything to say because that statement is so horrible. But if you want me to shoot back so badly, which I'm sure you do, I will say this: yep, you'll find it right there next to women's rights to be first class citizens, black's rights to be equal, and it'll be right below the section stating that the Native Americans should be free. Just because something is not in the precious Constitution does not mean it is not a right.

    Why do you assume that only religious people are against gay marriage? Or that religious strictures could be the only source for opposition even among those who are religious.
    Do you want me to pull up the numbers? 'Cause I will if I have to.

    I think you mean "impose", not "infringe". Assuming that is what you meant...yes, that is precisely what I am saying. The majority gets to make the laws. What part of that comes as news to you?
    It's not news to me. I've lived in this screwed up system all my life. Believe me, it is not news to me. But that doesn't mean I think it's right.

    I am sick of the modern trend for parties/groups out of power (in the minority, in other words) yelling about how the majority should give them their way in order to avoid appearing mean.
    Let me paint a picture for you. Imagine going to school one day and between classes some of your classmates make a ring around you, they begin to yell horrible things at you calling you a "faggot" a "dirty homo" and many, many more and much worse things. Then they turn violent. The teachers finally break it up but you're still beaten inside and out. Imagine having people say that you are no better then the dirt in their back yard just because you're in love with someone they think you shouldn't be. Imagine people telling you that you are going to burn in hell because you loved the "wrong person." Imagine people tracking down where you live and putting signs in your yard that say you're a morally bankrupt homosexual sinner who is on a fast track to hell. Imagine you go to a bar, everything's fine, until some punk comes in with a gun and shoots and kills you all just 'cause it's a Gay Bar. Imagine that you've met the person of your dreams and you want to marry this person but you can't 'cause some Christians decided to bar you that right just because a pile of paper written thousands of years ago says it's "wrong."
    I don't think you have ever stopped to think about what we go through on a day-to-day basis. Because if you had you would not say things like that.

    You were doing so well, all the way up to that last comma. Then you blew it.
    My grammar has nothing to do with this discussion.

    America may not have an Established Church. That addresses not at all, even indirectly, whether laws may have at their heart religious precepts.
    Interestingly, you have to take the First Amendment out of context and totally ignore the following portions regarding free exercise and freedom of speech in order to get the First Amendment to support your viewpoint.
    If America cannot have an Established Church then how can it pass laws based on a church? Isn't that like Establishing said church to be the Church of America if America is bassing laws off of it? We are ruled by the church currently. Which by your own definition is against the First Amendment.

    And, yes, I do hold my First Amendment to be precious. What a pity that you have to twist, mangle, and amputate it.
    As I said before how one sees pieces of paper is up to their interpretation of it. There is no One Way to view the First Amendment, it can be viewed in many ways because it is not a clearly stated document.

    If they are able to impose those laws, it is because they ARE the masses.
    You should work on changing people's hearts and minds rather than just railing against them. That way, when you're finally actually old enough to vote maybe your view will be the majority view and we can have the novelty of hearing the bellyaching running in the other direction.
    I've tried to be passive about this issue but I got my head bitten off by bitter Christians who made sure that I knew that I was going to hell for this. I've tried being nice, all it ever got me was a ripped open and bleeding heart. So I learned to be mean and drive my point home into the other's chest because this is the only way that I can be heard. If I had sweet-talked a.k.a BSed my way through this thread no one would have paid attention to what I said enough to respond to it. And if that means that I have to be the ***** in this situation to be heard then so be it. But I will not stand to the side, smile sweetly, and pretend that this doesn't get to me, or pretend that I don't care. There is only so much punishment someone can take before they stop being nice and I am WAY passed my threshold on said punishment. And I know I will probably not live to see the day America changes, I will probably go to my grave long before what I'm fighting for becomes a reality. But even knowing that I will be damned if I don't go down fighting even if it's a hopeless cause.
    And of course, you're going to come up with a smart response to what I just said to try and make it sound like a pity-party or something like that to try and belittle me. But I don't care.

    Quote Originally Posted by afailedaffair
    It's funny how people disagree with homosexuality when it's between to men, but when lesbians have hot sex, they are perfectly fine with it.
    That's because straight men get off on the idea of two women f**king each other. It's sickening.

    If man on man anal sex is wrong, how come man on women anal sex isn't?
    Very good point. I personally fail to see the big difference bewteen the two.

  25. #125
    Mike Cash
    Guest


    http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a2.html#Q38

    See also: 10th Amendment

    (And the comment about the comma wasn't a grammar dig. It meant that I agreed with that particular statement up to that particular point.)

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is homosexuality a reflection of society ?
    By Maciamo in forum Psychology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 20-08-14, 14:05
  2. Homosexuality VS Autism
    By Maciamo in forum Psychology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-02-14, 19:23
  3. Marriage
    By smoke in forum Other Serious Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-02-14, 16:42
  4. Bestiality vs Child Sex vs Homosexuality vs Incest
    By Silverbackman in forum Opinions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 02-06-13, 04:44
  5. Same sex marriage in the EU
    By Michael Folkesson in forum EU politics & government
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23-02-10, 19:20

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •