Poll: Controversial Protests

[SUPERtwinky]

SHIT i voted yes yes instead of yes no, you need to be more specific with you polls,

Look in a gay relation ship, each one of the gay parents takes up a role, one father, one mother, Por enjemplo, you know those feminine gays and then theres those masculine gays. I cant say thats exactly how it works, im probably wrong though, Though I am sure there is still a mother and father, there just one gender

Sorry, but i was trying to ask two questions at once.

 

[tsb247]

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

Oh my God. I'm at a loss for words. How very much I wish to tear your argument apart at the seams, but I won't (unless you request it (I understand the biology in your argument just not your ethical/social view)).

Though I must ask. How can you believe it to be 'morally' wrong? I just don't follow. I understand (in my way) ethics, but I don't see where you are coming from. Unless you feel that one of your objectives (If you ask i shall explain why i include the objectives thing) is to prevent Homosexual relationships. If so, Why, when if they didn't they would probably not get with a chick anyway so it wouldn't really make a difference except to make them sad. Seriously though, I would love to have an open discussion with you about this as I really don't follow the intent behind your words.

I suppose the moral part of my argument is based on my own personal morals. I am not gay, so obviously it is not something I practice or believe in; not my lifestyle. Fortunately, I do not hold the rest of the world to my own moral standards. Just because I do not support something does not mean it cannot or should not be. All I am saying is that I am not in favor of gay marriage. It's an opinion based on my beliefs on life and the human condition.

However, I thank you for inviting discussion. I don't appreciate attacks on my character or beliefs just because I do not neccessarily agree with someone.

 

[Shaoken]

It can't work. Kids need a mother and father. There are certain things a mother can do, like re-assure, tender hand etc that a gay man simply cannot give.

And what are you basing this on exactly? Because there are, you know, dozens of recorded instances of children of gay parents growing up completely fine. In fact there's a group (I think it's "Coming out straight") that consists entirely of the children of Gay parents who are living proof that you're wrong.

Besides, following your arguement single-parents don't work, and God knows how many single parents there are out there in the world. There are plenty of kids raised in that situation that come out great. Meanwhile there are plenty of people who had a mother and father who came out simply screwed up.

Simply put, you have no evidence to support

Marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman. Raising a child with two mothers or two fathers could cause psychological damage, etc.

Again, the existence of "Coming out straight" disproves this whole notion. Hell the guys who started spreading it never even did any research into the matter, just like all those people who say that "Gays are trying to indoctronate children into their ranks" or "Gay marriage will destroy small business" or "Gay sex causes Swine Flu."

And yet again, there are plenty of children who had "normal" parents who suffered from psychological problems.

 

[Kirix]

The Westboro Baptist Church is the worst kind of people of the world end of story

I disagree, but I actually think the WBC is a shining example of American freedom. We allow them to speak and all they do is blather on with their delusional crazy bullshit.

Horrible? Yes. Worst? No.

The worst are the ones who strap bombs on their chest because someone drew a picture of their sky friend.

Shining example? no never freedom is speech should be always there but to use it to bully people no not acceptable. Do you think they should have the freedom to protest in the way they do. No i don't. Remember how they protested at dead soldiers funerals. I think they should be shot them selves. In this world we have to live together all cultures and types of people. Granted you may disagree with someones religion or choice of life. You even may feel they are going to hell because of it but never should they go to funerals and cheer for the dead, in front of their friends and families. America shouldn't tolerate it. I don't mean america the government i mean the people. Im not american I'm irish and in ireland if people came to a funeral to protest they would have been lynched as did happen to some English police who interrupted IRA members funerals.

The above points may not tie into what the Westboro Baptist Church did this time but we have to look at the whole picture to get what we're dealing with. A relativity small group of people spreading hate. Their signs don't say come to gods light or god will save you. NO it says god hates fags and burn in hell fags. Even if your are against "fags" do you honestly think they are a shining example. Honestly bad choice of words. you clearly have a lot to learn about life.

 

[Cliff_m85]

The Westboro Baptist Church is the worst kind of people of the world end of story

I disagree, but I actually think the WBC is a shining example of American freedom. We allow them to speak and all they do is blather on with their delusional crazy bullshit.

Horrible? Yes. Worst? No.

The worst are the ones who strap bombs on their chest because someone drew a picture of their sky friend.

Shining example? no never freedom is speech should be always there but to use it to bully people no not acceptable. Do you think they should have the freedom to protest in the way they do. No i don't. Remember how they protested at dead soldiers funerals. I think they should be shot them selves. In this world we have to live together all cultures and types of people. Granted you may disagree with someones religion or choice of life. You even may feel they are going to hell because of it but never should they go to funerals and cheer for the dead, in front of their friends and families. America shouldn't tolerate it. I don't mean america the government i mean the people. Im not american I'm irish and in ireland if people came to a funeral to protest they would have been lynched as did happen to some English police who interrupted IRA members funerals.

The above points may not tie into what the Westboro Baptist Church did this time but we have to look at the whole picture to get what we're dealing with. A relativity small group of people spreading hate. Their signs don't say come to gods light or god will save you. NO it says god hates fags and burn in hell fags. Even if your are against "fags" do you honestly think they are a shining example. Honestly bad choice of words. you clearly have a lot to learn about life.

Yes, they should be able to protest in such a way. Technically they stand outside of funerals, so the law is with them. However you see the beauty when you realize tons of veterans go to the protest, surround them, and drown them out with positivity. That, my friend, is a brilliant example of freedom of speech.

The small group isn't the only group spreading hate, otherwise we wouldn't have antihomosexual legislation in many states. I don't see the difference between "god hates fags" and "come to god", they are both equally offensive in that context.

You obviously have alot to learn about the Bill of Rights.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

Oh my God. I'm at a loss for words. How very much I wish to tear your argument apart at the seams, but I won't (unless you request it (I understand the biology in your argument just not your ethical/social view)).

Though I must ask. How can you believe it to be 'morally' wrong? I just don't follow. I understand (in my way) ethics, but I don't see where you are coming from. Unless you feel that one of your objectives (If you ask i shall explain why i include the objectives thing) is to prevent Homosexual relationships. If so, Why, when if they didn't they would probably not get with a chick anyway so it wouldn't really make a difference except to make them sad. Seriously though, I would love to have an open discussion with you about this as I really don't follow the intent behind your words.

I suppose the moral part of my argument is based on my own personal morals. I am not gay, so obviously it is not something I practice or believe in; not my lifestyle. Fortunately, I do not hold the rest of the world to my own moral standards. Just because I do not support something does not mean it cannot or should not be. All I am saying is that I am not in favor of gay marriage. It's an opinion based on my beliefs on life and the human condition.

However, I thank you for inviting discussion. I don't appreciate attacks on my character or beliefs just because I do not neccessarily agree with someone.

I don't see why people can't attack stupid beliefs. Why are they off limits? Obviously your argument against homosexuality doesn't stand up to biological facts, so you're absolutely wrong. You talk about homosexuality as if it's a religion in itself ("not something I practice or believe in"), why?

So factually you're dead in the water. So you take the easy way out, that it's your belief. Though the comparison isn't friendly, what if you talked to a racist and had presented a brilliant case showing that every race is equal and explained thoroughly why stereotypes are wrong.....and he said "Well, that makes alot of sense but it's my belief". It's idiocy and snobbery, to state after all the actual facts are presented that what you believe somehow trumps that.

 

[Cliff_m85]

That's blather, pure and simple. What you do is a part of who you are. Homosexuality being the sin but the homosexual not being hated is just idiotic since the homosexual can only express physical love through homosexual contact. This contact is a part of who they are, thus the 'sin' is part of who the sinner is. Christ was a scapegoat in all technical words. He died for sins that we didn't commit (we all have sins from Adam, right?) that we didn't ask for. Not to mention the completely immoral claim that you can use someone else as your scapegoat. If I do something wrong, no one can take the punishment for me since it is my duty to make up for my errors. The Westboro Baptist Church are more wise in the Biblical study than your church, simply because they don't agree with apologetics as you obviously do. The Biblical account of history is wrong for the most part, the science is mainly wrong, and the morals are outdated by far. It hurts society, as seen by these discussions. Maybe one day our species will be more logical and dismiss the nonsense, but it's mired with superstition and fear so it'll take quite awhile.

I'm actually quite shocked at your sense of jaded ignorance of Christianity. Your assumption that a belief of certain denominations that sin is inherently passed down from Adam (which was mainly popularized by John Calvin in the early sixteenth century) is not accepted by all. In fact, if one actually reads the scriptures, you find this to be false. Hebrews 4:14-16, "14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need." If the idea that sin were passed down from Adam were true, then Jesus, being born human yet divine, would have been born with sin. You have brought up a misinterpretation of scripture stemming from Romans 3:23, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,".

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa, I'm gonna stop you right there. In Genesis, God cursed the seed of Adam (which, Adam, in Hebrew, means humanity in general, not just one particular person) so that this curse would be spread to all generations of man there after. This is why it was necessary for Yeshua to be born of a virgin, so that the curse would not spread to him and he'd be free of sin.

The ideology that Yeshua must be without sin and sin was passed down through Adam was developed by the Jews in the 13th century, BC. The reason I know this is because I practice Jewish traditions that are millennium old, and throughout them all, it talks about, because of the failure of Adam in the garden, we are fallen. Because Christianity is a Jewish religion, it only makes sense that it would follow the original traditions of Judaism. After all, Christianity IS the fulfillment of Judaism, is it not?

Gen 3:19 sweating in the fields from dawn to dusk, Until you return to that ground yourself, dead and buried; you started out as dirt, you'll end up dirt

The concept of Adam's seed being the basis of sin's continuation is elaborated upon in later Scripture. But, even if it wasn't, the Jewish traditions hold that, when a person is curse, the curse extends throughout his entire family line forever. Since this tradition is as old as the Jewish people, the concept of Adam being the cause of all mankinds sin is as old as the Jews themselves, which means that it's far older than even Christianity. Perhaps John Calvin was the first to reitterate this idea within mainstream Christian sects, but it is much older than that.

Plus, my idea that sin is passed down by Adam's seed does not contradict the scriptures you have elected to use for your argument.

Punishing someone for the sins of their forefathers is absolutely immoral. It's the same mentality that demands reparations be met for slavery in America (though it has) by the great-great-grandson of a slave holder.

 

[Julianking93]

Ugh, Fred Phelps and his bullshit again.

Okay, I think its fine to protest as long as it doesn't harm anyone in anyway, so I don't approve of this (Like they give a shit what I "approve" of) and I'm perfectly fine when it comes to gays. They're fun to hang around

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Come one people against gay marriage, have the guts to say why.

I'd personally like to put a bullet through the skulls of every one of those protesters.

I'd like to offer them a better solution: giving them an early taste of the hell they so covet. Shoot them, with incendiaries.

I love the smell of burning zealots in the morning. Smells like.....freedom.

 

[tsb247]

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

Oh my God. I'm at a loss for words. How very much I wish to tear your argument apart at the seams, but I won't (unless you request it (I understand the biology in your argument just not your ethical/social view)).

Though I must ask. How can you believe it to be 'morally' wrong? I just don't follow. I understand (in my way) ethics, but I don't see where you are coming from. Unless you feel that one of your objectives (If you ask i shall explain why i include the objectives thing) is to prevent Homosexual relationships. If so, Why, when if they didn't they would probably not get with a chick anyway so it wouldn't really make a difference except to make them sad. Seriously though, I would love to have an open discussion with you about this as I really don't follow the intent behind your words.

I suppose the moral part of my argument is based on my own personal morals. I am not gay, so obviously it is not something I practice or believe in; not my lifestyle. Fortunately, I do not hold the rest of the world to my own moral standards. Just because I do not support something does not mean it cannot or should not be. All I am saying is that I am not in favor of gay marriage. It's an opinion based on my beliefs on life and the human condition.

However, I thank you for inviting discussion. I don't appreciate attacks on my character or beliefs just because I do not neccessarily agree with someone.

I don't see why people can't attack stupid beliefs. Why are they off limits? Obviously your argument against homosexuality doesn't stand up to biological facts, so you're absolutely wrong. You talk about homosexuality as if it's a religion in itself ("not something I practice or believe in"), why?

So factually you're dead in the water. So you take the easy way out, that it's your belief. Though the comparison isn't friendly, what if you talked to a racist and had presented a brilliant case showing that every race is equal and explained thoroughly why stereotypes are wrong.....and he said "Well, that makes alot of sense but it's my belief". It's idiocy and snobbery, to state after all the actual facts are presented that what you believe somehow trumps that.

I see you have not learned the art of discussion and debate:

Seriously, are you reading what you post? You sound like an angry teenager. I don't care that you don't agree with my beliefs. That does not bother me in the least. I invite mutual, respectful discussion. Being insulting just because you can... Well, that does not make you sound intelligent, and it certainly does not give credibility to your argument.

It is obvious that you think differently than me, and I am perfectly ok with that. However, the fact that you seem to think you need to prove something to me is quite odd. I simply gave my opinion, and you chose to jump on me like a rabbid dog on a rotten steak. I don't know what kind of crusade you think you are on.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

Oh my God. I'm at a loss for words. How very much I wish to tear your argument apart at the seams, but I won't (unless you request it (I understand the biology in your argument just not your ethical/social view)).

Though I must ask. How can you believe it to be 'morally' wrong? I just don't follow. I understand (in my way) ethics, but I don't see where you are coming from. Unless you feel that one of your objectives (If you ask i shall explain why i include the objectives thing) is to prevent Homosexual relationships. If so, Why, when if they didn't they would probably not get with a chick anyway so it wouldn't really make a difference except to make them sad. Seriously though, I would love to have an open discussion with you about this as I really don't follow the intent behind your words.

I suppose the moral part of my argument is based on my own personal morals. I am not gay, so obviously it is not something I practice or believe in; not my lifestyle. Fortunately, I do not hold the rest of the world to my own moral standards. Just because I do not support something does not mean it cannot or should not be. All I am saying is that I am not in favor of gay marriage. It's an opinion based on my beliefs on life and the human condition.

However, I thank you for inviting discussion. I don't appreciate attacks on my character or beliefs just because I do not neccessarily agree with someone.

I don't see why people can't attack stupid beliefs. Why are they off limits? Obviously your argument against homosexuality doesn't stand up to biological facts, so you're absolutely wrong. You talk about homosexuality as if it's a religion in itself ("not something I practice or believe in"), why?

So factually you're dead in the water. So you take the easy way out, that it's your belief. Though the comparison isn't friendly, what if you talked to a racist and had presented a brilliant case showing that every race is equal and explained thoroughly why stereotypes are wrong.....and he said "Well, that makes alot of sense but it's my belief". It's idiocy and snobbery, to state after all the actual facts are presented that what you believe somehow trumps that.

I see you have not learned the art of discussion and debate:

Seriously, are you reading what you post? You sound like an angry teenager. I don't care that you don't agree with my beliefs. That does not bother me in the least. I invite mutual, respectful discussion. Being insulting just because you can... Well, that does not make you sound intelligent, and it certainly does not give credibility to your argument.

It is obvious that you think differently than me, and I am perfectly ok with that. However, the fact that you seem to think you need to prove something to me is quite odd. I simply gave my opinion, and you chose to jump on me like a rabbid dog on a rotten steak. I don't know what kind of crusade you think you are on.

When I spot nonsense I tend to point it out. Everything I wrote I stand by. You are presented with facts that show homosexuality as natural, that shows sex isn't merely for creating offspring, and that children would be brought up safely in a household missing one of the sexes. Yet your rebuttle after all the information was brought us was "Yeah, but it's my belief". That's reprehensible.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

I aprove of same-sex marriage, and of protesting in general but they shouldn't be allowed to use offensive words in protests. Or at schools. Or attacking other religions.

 

[tsb247]

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

Oh my God. I'm at a loss for words. How very much I wish to tear your argument apart at the seams, but I won't (unless you request it (I understand the biology in your argument just not your ethical/social view)).

Though I must ask. How can you believe it to be 'morally' wrong? I just don't follow. I understand (in my way) ethics, but I don't see where you are coming from. Unless you feel that one of your objectives (If you ask i shall explain why i include the objectives thing) is to prevent Homosexual relationships. If so, Why, when if they didn't they would probably not get with a chick anyway so it wouldn't really make a difference except to make them sad. Seriously though, I would love to have an open discussion with you about this as I really don't follow the intent behind your words.

I suppose the moral part of my argument is based on my own personal morals. I am not gay, so obviously it is not something I practice or believe in; not my lifestyle. Fortunately, I do not hold the rest of the world to my own moral standards. Just because I do not support something does not mean it cannot or should not be. All I am saying is that I am not in favor of gay marriage. It's an opinion based on my beliefs on life and the human condition.

However, I thank you for inviting discussion. I don't appreciate attacks on my character or beliefs just because I do not neccessarily agree with someone.

I don't see why people can't attack stupid beliefs. Why are they off limits? Obviously your argument against homosexuality doesn't stand up to biological facts, so you're absolutely wrong. You talk about homosexuality as if it's a religion in itself ("not something I practice or believe in"), why?

So factually you're dead in the water. So you take the easy way out, that it's your belief. Though the comparison isn't friendly, what if you talked to a racist and had presented a brilliant case showing that every race is equal and explained thoroughly why stereotypes are wrong.....and he said "Well, that makes alot of sense but it's my belief". It's idiocy and snobbery, to state after all the actual facts are presented that what you believe somehow trumps that.

I see you have not learned the art of discussion and debate:

Seriously, are you reading what you post? You sound like an angry teenager. I don't care that you don't agree with my beliefs. That does not bother me in the least. I invite mutual, respectful discussion. Being insulting just because you can... Well, that does not make you sound intelligent, and it certainly does not give credibility to your argument.

It is obvious that you think differently than me, and I am perfectly ok with that. However, the fact that you seem to think you need to prove something to me is quite odd. I simply gave my opinion, and you chose to jump on me like a rabbid dog on a rotten steak. I don't know what kind of crusade you think you are on.

When I spot nonsense I tend to point it out. Everything I wrote I stand by. You are presented with facts that show homosexuality as natural, that shows sex isn't merely for creating offspring, and that children would be brought up safely in a household missing one of the sexes. Yet your rebuttle after all the information was brought us was "Yeah, but it's my belief". That's reprehensible.

The evidence presented about homosexuality in nature refers to penguins, monkeys, and some other creatures that I won't bother looking up at the moment. Unless you can claim to be a monkey or a penguin, then it is not the same. So what if animals do it? Do we as humans not seperate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom? We are more evolved than any monkey, penguin, or other creature you will encounter out in the wild. Sure we are primates, but our societies are FAR more complex in structure as well as in size. We share information in different ways, communicate a FAR more levels (let's see a penguin use the internet), and we are the only creatures on earth that are known to manipulate our environments on such profound levels to suit our own needs (You don't see prairie dogs building high-rise apartments out of steel and wood do you?). Humans have grown to dominate the planet over the past 195,000 years or so. We are about as far removed from the 'natural' world as we can get; sitting in an air-sonditioned building that is just brimming with plumbing, wiring, insulation, and other electronic devices.

I also find the logic of, "If penguins, monkeys, and other animals in nature do it, then maybe we should do it too!" quite funny.

I was never presented with any facts in the first place. I will accept 'facts' as facts when accompanied with sources to back them up (like in a discussion[/i[).

Never once did I imply that a child raised by parents of the same sex would not be safe, but then again, what do you mean by safe? I'm sure they can be loving parents just like heterosexual couples. That does not necessarily mean they should be allowed to marry and have children. The problem here, again, is that you seem to think that just because it is possible to do something, that makes it a good idea, and that it is worth fighting for.

I should ask you this: Why should homosexual couples be allowed to marry and raise children? Present your case in a reasonable manner, and I will listen. That's how it works.

 

[wewontdie11]

Couldn't be bothered to read all that, I'm for free speech and against discrimination (bit of an oxymoron I know}.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

Oh my God. I'm at a loss for words. How very much I wish to tear your argument apart at the seams, but I won't (unless you request it (I understand the biology in your argument just not your ethical/social view)).

Though I must ask. How can you believe it to be 'morally' wrong? I just don't follow. I understand (in my way) ethics, but I don't see where you are coming from. Unless you feel that one of your objectives (If you ask i shall explain why i include the objectives thing) is to prevent Homosexual relationships. If so, Why, when if they didn't they would probably not get with a chick anyway so it wouldn't really make a difference except to make them sad. Seriously though, I would love to have an open discussion with you about this as I really don't follow the intent behind your words.

I suppose the moral part of my argument is based on my own personal morals. I am not gay, so obviously it is not something I practice or believe in; not my lifestyle. Fortunately, I do not hold the rest of the world to my own moral standards. Just because I do not support something does not mean it cannot or should not be. All I am saying is that I am not in favor of gay marriage. It's an opinion based on my beliefs on life and the human condition.

However, I thank you for inviting discussion. I don't appreciate attacks on my character or beliefs just because I do not neccessarily agree with someone.

I don't see why people can't attack stupid beliefs. Why are they off limits? Obviously your argument against homosexuality doesn't stand up to biological facts, so you're absolutely wrong. You talk about homosexuality as if it's a religion in itself ("not something I practice or believe in"), why?

So factually you're dead in the water. So you take the easy way out, that it's your belief. Though the comparison isn't friendly, what if you talked to a racist and had presented a brilliant case showing that every race is equal and explained thoroughly why stereotypes are wrong.....and he said "Well, that makes alot of sense but it's my belief". It's idiocy and snobbery, to state after all the actual facts are presented that what you believe somehow trumps that.

I see you have not learned the art of discussion and debate:

Seriously, are you reading what you post? You sound like an angry teenager. I don't care that you don't agree with my beliefs. That does not bother me in the least. I invite mutual, respectful discussion. Being insulting just because you can... Well, that does not make you sound intelligent, and it certainly does not give credibility to your argument.

It is obvious that you think differently than me, and I am perfectly ok with that. However, the fact that you seem to think you need to prove something to me is quite odd. I simply gave my opinion, and you chose to jump on me like a rabbid dog on a rotten steak. I don't know what kind of crusade you think you are on.

When I spot nonsense I tend to point it out. Everything I wrote I stand by. You are presented with facts that show homosexuality as natural, that shows sex isn't merely for creating offspring, and that children would be brought up safely in a household missing one of the sexes. Yet your rebuttle after all the information was brought us was "Yeah, but it's my belief". That's reprehensible.

The evidence presented about homosexuality in nature refers to penguins, monkeys, and some other creatures that I won't bother looking up at the moment. Unless you can claim to be a monkey or a penguin, then it is not the same. So what if animals do it? Do we as humans not seperate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom? We are more evolved than any monkey, penguin, or other creature you will encounter out in the wild. Sure we are primates, but our societies are FAR more complex in structure as well as in size. We share information in different ways, communicate a FAR more levels (let's see a penguin use the internet), and we are the only creatures on earth that are known to manipulate our environments on such profound levels to suit our own needs (You don't see prairie dogs building high-rise apartments out of steel and wood do you?). Humans have grown to dominate the planet over the past 195,000 years or so. We are about as far removed from the 'natural' world as we can get; sitting in an air-sonditioned building that is just brimming with plumbing, wiring, insulation, and other electronic devices.

I also find the logic of, "If penguins, monkeys, and other animals in nature do it, then maybe we should do it too!" quite funny.

I was never presented with any facts in the first place. I will accept 'facts' as facts when accompanied with sources to back them up (like in a discussion[/i[).

Never once did I imply that a child raised by parents of the same sex would not be safe, but then again, what do you mean by safe? I'm sure they can be loving parents just like heterosexual couples. That does not necessarily mean they should be allowed to marry and have children. The problem here, again, is that you seem to think that just because it is possible to do something, that makes it a good idea, and that it is worth fighting for.

I should ask you this: Why should homosexual couples be allowed to marry and raise children? Present your case in a reasonable manner, and I will listen. That's how it works.

No, we are animals. Homo Erectus. We share quite a bit of genetic information with apes, pigs, and various other animals. The only difference is our ability to understand our own demise, which brings about more social contracting deemed 'morality'. Animals don't understand death, a dog will hide from predators when it is dying simply to avoid pain...not understanding the pain is coming from the death-pangs.

No, I think that if it is possible to do something that effects no one but yourself or a consentual party then you should be allowed to do it.

Homosexual couples have had children and have married in other countries, all evidence points to the children growing up normally. Social scientists have found, unsurprisingly, that men can take on feminine roles just as women can take on male roles for children. The only real problem would be from the outside community that mocks what it does not understand, but even in a heterosexual household the child will most likely be mocked for something during his/her lifetime. Marriage is a religious institution, so at first one would have to admit that the religious should make the choice of who to marry......until we realize that the United States government gives benefits for being married. Some states do not recognize civil unions in the same way they recognize marriage, so they don't receive the same benefits. Furthermore, there is a movement going on in the south to prevent single parents from adopting (obviously targetting homosexuals). Those in civil unions are counted as 'single' in Arkansas at the moment. The oddity being that the main argument is the child must have two parents to mature properly......whereas the bill in effect prevents the child from even having one.

 

[tsb247]

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

Oh my God. I'm at a loss for words. How very much I wish to tear your argument apart at the seams, but I won't (unless you request it (I understand the biology in your argument just not your ethical/social view)).

Though I must ask. How can you believe it to be 'morally' wrong? I just don't follow. I understand (in my way) ethics, but I don't see where you are coming from. Unless you feel that one of your objectives (If you ask i shall explain why i include the objectives thing) is to prevent Homosexual relationships. If so, Why, when if they didn't they would probably not get with a chick anyway so it wouldn't really make a difference except to make them sad. Seriously though, I would love to have an open discussion with you about this as I really don't follow the intent behind your words.

I suppose the moral part of my argument is based on my own personal morals. I am not gay, so obviously it is not something I practice or believe in; not my lifestyle. Fortunately, I do not hold the rest of the world to my own moral standards. Just because I do not support something does not mean it cannot or should not be. All I am saying is that I am not in favor of gay marriage. It's an opinion based on my beliefs on life and the human condition.

However, I thank you for inviting discussion. I don't appreciate attacks on my character or beliefs just because I do not neccessarily agree with someone.

I don't see why people can't attack stupid beliefs. Why are they off limits? Obviously your argument against homosexuality doesn't stand up to biological facts, so you're absolutely wrong. You talk about homosexuality as if it's a religion in itself ("not something I practice or believe in"), why?

So factually you're dead in the water. So you take the easy way out, that it's your belief. Though the comparison isn't friendly, what if you talked to a racist and had presented a brilliant case showing that every race is equal and explained thoroughly why stereotypes are wrong.....and he said "Well, that makes alot of sense but it's my belief". It's idiocy and snobbery, to state after all the actual facts are presented that what you believe somehow trumps that.

I see you have not learned the art of discussion and debate:

Seriously, are you reading what you post? You sound like an angry teenager. I don't care that you don't agree with my beliefs. That does not bother me in the least. I invite mutual, respectful discussion. Being insulting just because you can... Well, that does not make you sound intelligent, and it certainly does not give credibility to your argument.

It is obvious that you think differently than me, and I am perfectly ok with that. However, the fact that you seem to think you need to prove something to me is quite odd. I simply gave my opinion, and you chose to jump on me like a rabbid dog on a rotten steak. I don't know what kind of crusade you think you are on.

When I spot nonsense I tend to point it out. Everything I wrote I stand by. You are presented with facts that show homosexuality as natural, that shows sex isn't merely for creating offspring, and that children would be brought up safely in a household missing one of the sexes. Yet your rebuttle after all the information was brought us was "Yeah, but it's my belief". That's reprehensible.

The evidence presented about homosexuality in nature refers to penguins, monkeys, and some other creatures that I won't bother looking up at the moment. Unless you can claim to be a monkey or a penguin, then it is not the same. So what if animals do it? Do we as humans not seperate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom? We are more evolved than any monkey, penguin, or other creature you will encounter out in the wild. Sure we are primates, but our societies are FAR more complex in structure as well as in size. We share information in different ways, communicate a FAR more levels (let's see a penguin use the internet), and we are the only creatures on earth that are known to manipulate our environments on such profound levels to suit our own needs (You don't see prairie dogs building high-rise apartments out of steel and wood do you?). Humans have grown to dominate the planet over the past 195,000 years or so. We are about as far removed from the 'natural' world as we can get; sitting in an air-sonditioned building that is just brimming with plumbing, wiring, insulation, and other electronic devices.

I also find the logic of, "If penguins, monkeys, and other animals in nature do it, then maybe we should do it too!" quite funny.

I was never presented with any facts in the first place. I will accept 'facts' as facts when accompanied with sources to back them up (like in a discussion[/i[).

Never once did I imply that a child raised by parents of the same sex would not be safe, but then again, what do you mean by safe? I'm sure they can be loving parents just like heterosexual couples. That does not necessarily mean they should be allowed to marry and have children. The problem here, again, is that you seem to think that just because it is possible to do something, that makes it a good idea, and that it is worth fighting for.

I should ask you this: Why should homosexual couples be allowed to marry and raise children? Present your case in a reasonable manner, and I will listen. That's how it works.

No, we are animals. Homo Erectus. We share quite a bit of genetic information with apes, pigs, and various other animals. The only difference is our ability to understand our own demise, which brings about more social contracting deemed 'morality'. Animals don't understand death, a dog will hide from predators when it is dying simply to avoid pain...not understanding the pain is coming from the death-pangs.

No, I think that if it is possible to do something that effects no one but yourself or a consentual party then you should be allowed to do it.

Homosexual couples have had children and have married in other countries, all evidence points to the children growing up normally. Social scientists have found, unsurprisingly, that men can take on feminine roles just as women can take on male roles for children. The only real problem would be from the outside community that mocks what it does not understand, but even in a heterosexual household the child will most likely be mocked for something during his/her lifetime. Marriage is a religious institution, so at first one would have to admit that the religious should make the choice of who to marry......until we realize that the United States government gives benefits for being married. Some states do not recognize civil unions in the same way they recognize marriage, so they don't receive the same benefits. Furthermore, there is a movement going on in the south to prevent single parents from adopting (obviously targetting homosexuals). Those in civil unions are counted as 'single' in Arkansas at the moment. The oddity being that the main argument is the child must have two parents to mature properly......whereas the bill in effect prevents the child from even having one.

So you are arguing for the recognition of civil unions from state to state? From the portion of text you wrote that seems dedicated to that subject, I am getting the idea that is what you are most irked about. I don't have a problem with recognizing civil unions. However, I see no reason to simply assume that the law to prevent single parents from adopting children only exists to prevent homosexuals from adopting. It could also be because of the research showing that children raised in single-parent households tend to be more troubled and fare worse than children with a single parent that has been divorced or live in a typical nuclear family.

http://social.jrank.org/pages/580/Single-Parent-Families-Well-Being-Children-Raised-in-Single-Parent-Homes.html

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701.pdf

Keep in mind there are no gurantees, but it could also be said that these are the reasons behind the law. It could be argued either way, and I consider it nothing more than a conspiracy theory unless I see some proof.

I also find it funny that those claiming that religious institutions preach hate by not supporting gay rights are often just as hateful toward said religious institutions... As if it is ok to be hateful toward one thing, but not another.

 

[Cliff_m85]

I am against gay marriage because I simply do not believe it is right (morally or biologically). There are always differences. Sometimes they just need to be overlooked. Nobody is perfect.

Oh my God. I'm at a loss for words. How very much I wish to tear your argument apart at the seams, but I won't (unless you request it (I understand the biology in your argument just not your ethical/social view)).

Though I must ask. How can you believe it to be 'morally' wrong? I just don't follow. I understand (in my way) ethics, but I don't see where you are coming from. Unless you feel that one of your objectives (If you ask i shall explain why i include the objectives thing) is to prevent Homosexual relationships. If so, Why, when if they didn't they would probably not get with a chick anyway so it wouldn't really make a difference except to make them sad. Seriously though, I would love to have an open discussion with you about this as I really don't follow the intent behind your words.

I suppose the moral part of my argument is based on my own personal morals. I am not gay, so obviously it is not something I practice or believe in; not my lifestyle. Fortunately, I do not hold the rest of the world to my own moral standards. Just because I do not support something does not mean it cannot or should not be. All I am saying is that I am not in favor of gay marriage. It's an opinion based on my beliefs on life and the human condition.

However, I thank you for inviting discussion. I don't appreciate attacks on my character or beliefs just because I do not neccessarily agree with someone.

I don't see why people can't attack stupid beliefs. Why are they off limits? Obviously your argument against homosexuality doesn't stand up to biological facts, so you're absolutely wrong. You talk about homosexuality as if it's a religion in itself ("not something I practice or believe in"), why?

So factually you're dead in the water. So you take the easy way out, that it's your belief. Though the comparison isn't friendly, what if you talked to a racist and had presented a brilliant case showing that every race is equal and explained thoroughly why stereotypes are wrong.....and he said "Well, that makes alot of sense but it's my belief". It's idiocy and snobbery, to state after all the actual facts are presented that what you believe somehow trumps that.

I see you have not learned the art of discussion and debate:

Seriously, are you reading what you post? You sound like an angry teenager. I don't care that you don't agree with my beliefs. That does not bother me in the least. I invite mutual, respectful discussion. Being insulting just because you can... Well, that does not make you sound intelligent, and it certainly does not give credibility to your argument.

It is obvious that you think differently than me, and I am perfectly ok with that. However, the fact that you seem to think you need to prove something to me is quite odd. I simply gave my opinion, and you chose to jump on me like a rabbid dog on a rotten steak. I don't know what kind of crusade you think you are on.

When I spot nonsense I tend to point it out. Everything I wrote I stand by. You are presented with facts that show homosexuality as natural, that shows sex isn't merely for creating offspring, and that children would be brought up safely in a household missing one of the sexes. Yet your rebuttle after all the information was brought us was "Yeah, but it's my belief". That's reprehensible.

The evidence presented about homosexuality in nature refers to penguins, monkeys, and some other creatures that I won't bother looking up at the moment. Unless you can claim to be a monkey or a penguin, then it is not the same. So what if animals do it? Do we as humans not seperate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom? We are more evolved than any monkey, penguin, or other creature you will encounter out in the wild. Sure we are primates, but our societies are FAR more complex in structure as well as in size. We share information in different ways, communicate a FAR more levels (let's see a penguin use the internet), and we are the only creatures on earth that are known to manipulate our environments on such profound levels to suit our own needs (You don't see prairie dogs building high-rise apartments out of steel and wood do you?). Humans have grown to dominate the planet over the past 195,000 years or so. We are about as far removed from the 'natural' world as we can get; sitting in an air-sonditioned building that is just brimming with plumbing, wiring, insulation, and other electronic devices.

I also find the logic of, "If penguins, monkeys, and other animals in nature do it, then maybe we should do it too!" quite funny.

I was never presented with any facts in the first place. I will accept 'facts' as facts when accompanied with sources to back them up (like in a discussion[/i[).

Never once did I imply that a child raised by parents of the same sex would not be safe, but then again, what do you mean by safe? I'm sure they can be loving parents just like heterosexual couples. That does not necessarily mean they should be allowed to marry and have children. The problem here, again, is that you seem to think that just because it is possible to do something, that makes it a good idea, and that it is worth fighting for.

I should ask you this: Why should homosexual couples be allowed to marry and raise children? Present your case in a reasonable manner, and I will listen. That's how it works.

No, we are animals. Homo Erectus. We share quite a bit of genetic information with apes, pigs, and various other animals. The only difference is our ability to understand our own demise, which brings about more social contracting deemed 'morality'. Animals don't understand death, a dog will hide from predators when it is dying simply to avoid pain...not understanding the pain is coming from the death-pangs.

No, I think that if it is possible to do something that effects no one but yourself or a consentual party then you should be allowed to do it.

Homosexual couples have had children and have married in other countries, all evidence points to the children growing up normally. Social scientists have found, unsurprisingly, that men can take on feminine roles just as women can take on male roles for children. The only real problem would be from the outside community that mocks what it does not understand, but even in a heterosexual household the child will most likely be mocked for something during his/her lifetime. Marriage is a religious institution, so at first one would have to admit that the religious should make the choice of who to marry......until we realize that the United States government gives benefits for being married. Some states do not recognize civil unions in the same way they recognize marriage, so they don't receive the same benefits. Furthermore, there is a movement going on in the south to prevent single parents from adopting (obviously targetting homosexuals). Those in civil unions are counted as 'single' in Arkansas at the moment. The oddity being that the main argument is the child must have two parents to mature properly......whereas the bill in effect prevents the child from even having one.

So you are arguing for the recognition of civil unions from state to state? From the portion of text you wrote that seems dedicated to that subject, I am getting the idea that is what you are most irked about. I don't have a problem with recognizing civil unions. However, I see no reason to simply assume that the law to prevent single parents from adopting children only exists to prevent homosexuals from adopting. It could also be because of the research showing that children raised in single-parent households tend to be more troubled and fare worse than children with a single parent that has been divorced or live in a typical nuclear family.

http://social.jrank.org/pages/580/Single-Parent-Families-Well-Being-Children-Raised-in-Single-Parent-Homes.html

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701.pdf

Keep in mind there are no gurantees, but it could also be said that these are the reasons behind the law. It could be argued either way, and I consider it nothing more than a conspiracy theory unless I see some proof.

I also find it funny that those claiming that religious institutions preach hate by not supporting gay rights are often just as hateful toward said religious institutions... As if it is ok to be hateful toward one thing, but not another.

Absolutely, I'm more in favor of civil unions being recognized and obtain the same benefits of those who choose marriage. As for the 'who knows if it was to prevent homosexuals', I do. My state has a leader who is very religious, so much so as to throw a 'true' marriage party at Alltel Arena (now called Horizon if I'm correct) to pledge an oath to god to show people what 'true marriage' is. During this event he prayed for a cure to homosexuality so that they could come to god. Added are his supporters who asked about gay adoption, and his only answer was a cryptic "we want what's best for the children". When the signatures were gathered, the actual sheet had a warning about homosexuals being able to adopt. There is plenty of evidence to suggest this was a veiled homophobic bill. After recent fights by homosexuals, there have been an admission to the bill. I shall quote it in it's hilarious homophobia....

"This law will not prevent single homosexuals or single heterosexuals from adopting children as long as they refrain from cohabiting."

google "Arkansas Measure 1" for more information, that way you can choose what source you prefer, thus allowing you to get a totally unbiased view of the bill.