Poll: Gay marriage- your thoughts?

[hippo24]

They "paint a very different picture" because the study was done by "Catholic Apologetics International" which is a controversial American apostolate(which is a group of people that exists to obsessively spread religious doctrine), in some measure of conflict with the Catholic hierarchy, who start out their mission statement with the following: "We love souls because of Jesus". You'll have to forgive me but I carry the HIGHEST doubts this study with done with any sort of scientific integrity.

Im not saying it was reliable in the slightest, It was more to prove the point that statistics on such a controversial and relative matter, are rather unreliable at best. So throwing statistics at me was about as pointless as me throwing them at you.

 

[AndyVale]

They should have a right for civil unions, but churches that disagree with homosexual relations should be allowed to refuse gay marriage in their institutions.

 

[Stormshadow243]

I look at the marriage rate now and see that half if not more of all straight marriages end in divorce. Maybe gay marriage will show everybody how it should be done.

 

[Orekoya]

Personally I have no steak in this matter as I am not homosexual, nor do I feel the need to persecute them. What I do care about however, is the fact that they get enormous amounts of publicity while only representing an incredibly small fraction of people, they also get an elevated status when other sexual minorities are all but overlooked.

Really? Care to name some of these "sexual minorities that are all but overlooked"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

Pretty much everything on that list.

Those aren't actual sexual minorities; those are kinks or attractions or whatever. They are sub-traits of any sexuality and would still fall behind of the following: gay/straight/bi/trans. IE: If a woman is a pedophile and wants to be mounted by a pre-teen - she's still, more than likely, straight.

 

[hippo24]

Hippo24, Theres a difference between Sexualities and Paraphilias. Homosexuality, Heterosexuality and Bisexuality determine WHO you do it with, as in what sex.Paraphilia determines HOW you do it with them. So your argument doesn't really stand up. No one in the mainstream media wants to know HOW people are having their sex, that's why they get no publicity. The reason why Homosexuality is getting publicity is because its not an entirely sexual issue.

Those aren't actual sexual minorities; those are kinks or attractions or whatever. They are sub-traits of any sexuality and would still fall behind of the following: gay/straight/bi/trans. IE: If a woman is a pedophile and wants to be mounted by a pre-teen - she's still, more than likely, straight.

No, phila is Greek for relationship, it does not encompass how you have sex,.
And if we were to dissect the vernacular: In modern English it refers to WHAT your attracted to not HOW.

homosexuality would encompass:
Hominophilia
Homophilia
Gynophilia
Heterophilia

 

[ForrestDixon]

It should be allowed and if you want to throw your spiritual mumbo jumbo at me go ahead.

If two people love eachother whats the problem. I would say if homosexual marraige was allowed there would be alot lower devorce rate (at least within the gay marraige area). You can say that its against moral values BUT, on who's morals? If my moral says its perfecly fine to punch people in the face then I am probably going to do it. But if your moral's says its wrong then you are most likly going to say somthing about it. Some people say its against their religious values and that god dousn't like gays. If you look closly then you will see that America isnt bound by any one religion (I live in America I am just using this for the sake of an argument). That means that there are ALL DIFFERENT kinds of religions inside of America, some welcoming gays while others are not. Also if a pasture dousn't want to give the service of marrying two men or women, he isnt forced to! So the couple whom ever it may be can get married at the courthouse if need be.

 

[Speedster4Life]

Indifferent.
If they love each other go ahead.

 

[vamp rocks]

ok first of all, im gay so i am definitely pro gay marriage. seccond of all i dont really see why people are afraid or anti-gay in the first place, its not like every homosexual you meet is going to try to jump you and have sex with you...

its not like homosexual people are going to stop existing because you dont give us rights. we are supposed to be living in a free country... but not really.. its only free speach and actions if everyone agrees with you. the ones who stand out and speak their mind get left in the cold. also damnit i want to know how the hell does me getting married to another guy have any impact on your heterosexual relationship?

and come on, lets face it, the economy is crap right now. But with this new administration if gay marriage was legalized, than we would see a boost in the economy. Do you know how much it costs on average to have a wedding. I did a little research, and a nice wedding costs around $25,000-$30,000. Now imagine all those gay couples who want to get married buying cakes, tuxedos, invitations, renting locations, hiring catering services, booking bands and DJs, buying flowers, and buying gifts for the ones who are getting married. We could see a huge boost in the economy with this simple act. Plus more orphan children would be getting adopted and put into loving homes. To quote Jon Stewart "A child put in the home of two gay men, who are responsible, financially secure, and loving parents, beat the hell out of Brittany and K-Fed any day."

 

[atomic-pigeon]

People who oppose gay marriage often site the whole marriage being for the procreation of children as a justification for those views, but lets remember that as little as fifty years ago that same justification could be used to bar paraplegics or even women past the menopause from marrying- no-one would ever suggest barring these people from heterosexual marriages for those reasons today.

The role of marriage in our society has changed. It is now less of a functional institution and more a deeply personal choice- to stand up before everyone who matters to you, and god if you believe in him, and say 'I love you and I want to spend my life with you' and have that promise fully recognised under the law and by society.

By denying gay people the right to marriage society says that their commitment to a relationship doesn't count. In Britain we now have civil partnerships- these are secular ceremonies which recognise a gay couple as a couple under the law- they then have the same rights and status as a married couple. In fact its very similar to a registry office marriage for a straight couple, a secular ceremony often accompanied by a blessing.

If two grown adults in a stable loving relationship want to formally dedicate their lives to one another does it really matter what their genders are?

 

[hippo24]

Looking at that list, none of the ones that involve one person loving another are prevented from being married. And really, you are comparing homosexuality with zoosadism?

No, but many of them are considered openly repulsive and are frowned upon, such as the ones dealing with rape, age differential, and multiple partners.

The very act that you find homosexuality above these is further proving my point. They are no different, and they are no different from the heterosexual.

Either we go for equality or none at all.

 

[ryai458]

its there choice let them make it

 

[uncle-ellis]

just don't raise children

Why?

Because, like it or not, those children will get bullied relentlessly.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Looking at that list, none of the ones that involve one person loving another are prevented from being married. And really, you are comparing homosexuality with zoosadism?

No, but many of them are considered openly repulsive and are frowned upon, such as the ones dealing with rape, age differential, and multiple partners.

The very act that you find homosexuality above these is further proving my point. They are no different, and they are no different from the heterosexual.

Either we go for equality or none at all.

I don't find homosexuality above all of them. Rape, yes, rape is against the law for a reason. Age difference? Not a big deal to me, there is a 10 year difference between my mom's age and my dad's. Multiple partners? As long as all parties are agreeable to it, I don't see the problems. Mannequins? Not my thing, but I won't interfere with anything else. And really, you say you have no problem with homosexuality, but want it to be equal to rape and animal cruelty. Bit of a mixed message there.

 

[hippo24]

I don't find homosexuality above all of them. Rape, yes, rape is against the law for a reason. Age difference? Not a big deal to me, there is a 10 year difference between my mom's age and my dad's. Multiple partners? As long as all parties are agreeable to it, I don't see the problems. Mannequins? Not my thing, but I won't interfere with anything else. And really, you say you have no problem with homosexuality, but want it to be equal to rape and animal cruelty. Bit of a mixed message there.

What Im saying is that people who find these sexual acts attractive (they don't necessarily have to partake in them) are being equally persecuted, but the only message we seem to associate with sexuality inequality is homosexuality.
Im not going to try and justify rape and murder, because those divulge into other aspects of morality. What I am saying is that even a harmless recreation of those is considered wrong, and why should they be? Its the same argument that happens with homosexuality, Its wrong its bad, its not natural, ect, ect, but those people cant change who we are, so why should we discriminate against them.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I don't find homosexuality above all of them. Rape, yes, rape is against the law for a reason. Age difference? Not a big deal to me, there is a 10 year difference between my mom's age and my dad's. Multiple partners? As long as all parties are agreeable to it, I don't see the problems. Mannequins? Not my thing, but I won't interfere with anything else. And really, you say you have no problem with homosexuality, but want it to be equal to rape and animal cruelty. Bit of a mixed message there.

What Im saying is that people who find these sexual acts attractive (they don't necessarily have to partake in them) are being equally persecuted, but the only message we seem to associate with sexuality inequality is homosexuality.
Im not going to try and justify rape and murder, because those divulge into other aspects of morality. What I am saying is that even a harmless recreation of those are considered wrong, and why should they be. Its the same argument that happens with homosexuality, Its wrong its bad, its not natural, ect, ect, but those people cant change who we are, so why should we discriminate against them.

Hey, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that not all of them are equal to homosexuality. There is a difference between a man having sex with another man, a man having sex with a mannequin, and a man having sex with a dog.

 

[Orekoya]

just don't raise children

Why?

Because, like it or not, those children will get bullied relentlessly.

'Yea, those kids would be so much better if they were just homeless or dead, amirite guys! '

 

[CRAVE CASE 55]

I dont care let them do what they want as long as they truly love each other who are the government to say they cant.

 

[runtheplacered]

Statistics such as this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
paint a very different picture.

You're going to send a link from a website that admits to having a conservative bias, on the topic of homosexuality? Give me a break. I wasn't going to jump in and say anything, just read, but that's too much!

 

[hippo24]

Statistics such as this
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts
paint a very different picture.

You're going to send a link from a website that admits to having a conservative bias, on the topic of homosexuality? Give me a break. I wasn't going to jump in and say anything, just read, but that's too much!

If you read this post

They "paint a very different picture" because the study was done by "Catholic Apologetics International" which is a controversial American apostolate(which is a group of people that exists to obsessively spread religious doctrine), in some measure of conflict with the Catholic hierarchy, who start out their mission statement with the following: "We love souls because of Jesus". You'll have to forgive me but I carry the HIGHEST doubts this study with done with any sort of scientific integrity.

Im not saying it was reliable in the slightest, It was more to prove the point that statistics on such a controversial and relative matter, are rather unreliable at best. So throwing statistics at me was about as pointless as me throwing them at you.

You would see my angle.