Do you approve of bans on same-sex marriages?

[CJW]

"I don't think anyone would willingly put themselves through it."

Sure they would. People do many very odd things. For instance, Matthew Shepard wants his pseudo-religious identity validated and it is based on victimization. So he goes from bar to bar looking for bigots who also believe in the gay identity with the Victim status. Then, they victimize him.

So he becomes some sort of martyr for the gay religion. I.e., religious hedonism where you self define by your own desires and that sort of thing. Where you "come out" to proselytize this pseudo-religious identity and say things about "living a lie" vs. living a life of truth and love.

It seems that to a religous hedonist their own sexual desires define what is true and define whether their life is true or a lie.

All feelings, all the time....it is fairly irrational.

 

[huajiro]

" I'd think a little poplulation decrease would be a good thing. "

Same ol', same ol'....

"Utilizing their prominent social positions and the support of the local medical community, Nixon and her fellow committee women met with lawmakers and arranged talks on birth-control and sterilization to civic groups throughout the state. The talks sometimes featured such national birth-control pioneers as Edna Rankin McKinnon, the sister of America’s first female member of congress."
("In The Finest, Most Womanly Way:" Women
in The Southern Eugenics Movement
By Edward J. Larson
The American Journal of Legal History,
Vol. 39, No. 2. (Apr., 1995), pp. 139)
http://mynym.blogspot.com/

It is the pattern of Nazism. It's never quite stated but behind this "save mommy Earth" nonsense lurks the occult notion that effeminacy is good, so good.

:bonk:
I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say, please understand that I am not as intelligent as you

 

[Ardhanariswar]

being gay is more than sexual. sexuality goes deep into the persons core. it doesnt entirely define me, but its still an important part of me.

once more. i tell you. i did not chose to be gay. whether it be that i posess a genetic mutation or was just *abused* as a kid (but let me tell you, i was never abused), i did NOT choose to be this way.

people fall in love. we are humans. and i sexually fall in love with men, though im capable and i do love people of both sexes. it doesnt matter. its not a big deal. it doesnt affect YOU one bit, so why the hell do you care if two spouses want to get married out of LOVE (not out of sex..sigh) and want to spend the rest of thier lives together, why are you so concerned if they both have penises or breasts? why do you care so much about genitals than love?????? and i thought my mind was in the gutter.

 

[huajiro]

"I don't think anyone would willingly put themselves through it."

Sure they would. People do many very odd things. For instance, Matthew Shepard wants his pseudo-religious identity validated and it is based on victimization. So he goes from bar to bar looking for bigots who also believe in the gay identity with the Victim status. Then, they victimize him.

So he becomes some sort of martyr for the gay religion. I.e., religious hedonism where you self define by your own desires and that sort of thing. Where you "come out" to proselytize this pseudo-religious identity and say things about "living a lie" vs. living a life of truth and love.

It seems that to a religous hedonist their own sexual desires define what is true and define whether their life is true or a lie.

All feelings, all the time....it is fairly irrational.

Again, I am not very intelligent. All your words come out to me as over-intellectual gay bashing.:bonk:

 

[Colin_Admin]

i still think they should let people do what they want. we did set up this country for independence and the ability to make our own decisions.

 

[Doodlebug02]

No, definitely not! Homosexuals deserve to have all of the same rights as heterosexuals and this includes the right to marry another someone of the same sex.

 

[Simon the Cat]

I guess my question is, if most the people here posting are fairly willing to allow homosexual legal unions (as in marriage) then how did we end up with a president who thinks them immoral and wants to develop a constitutional ban on them (which seems like a big waste or time as well as a violation of the constitution and declaration on independence to me)?

 

[linwood]

:bonk:
I don't understand exactly what you are trying to say, please understand that I am not as intelligent as you

Oh huajiro, you have never been more wrong.

 

[Sunstone]

Oh, Holly, you're just saying that because homosexuals are first and foremost human too. But if you could only see beyond your sentimental fondness for humanity on this issue, you would realize that homophobia is a minor industry in our country and other countries. Think of all the people who would be put out of work at places like Focus on the Family if we were to establish the dangerous precedent that humanity and the needs of humanity come first before the economic needs of the homosexual bashing lobby. Would you want to be among the people unemployed by such a radical step? Of course not! Come to your senses, dear woman!

 

[Doodlebug02]

I guess my question is, if most the people here posting are fairly willing to allow homosexual legal unions (as in marriage) then how did we end up with a president who thinks them immoral and wants to develop a constitutional ban on them (which seems like a big waste or time as well as a violation of the constitution and declaration on independence to me)?

This forum is composed primarily of people of the Liberal persuasion? I honestly have no idea!

 

[painted wolf]

I'm against any 'ammendment' that would enshrine a form of bigotry or discrimination in the Constitution... the very foundation of our freedoms. :banghead3

wa:do

 

[Fluffy]

I would probably approve bans on same-sex marriage and I would desire increased privilages for male and female marriages but I'm in favor of totally revamping the institution of marriage and adding lesser civil contracts among citizens. For instance two consenting people could enter "friendship contracts", "lover contracts", etc.. with benefits. I fail to see how honoring a male and female marriage violates homosexuals. The bond between a male and female has brought about many generations. A homosexual bond has never produced another lifeform and will never have the same honor and glory as the male and female bond. Put 10,000 homosexuals together and how will they provide a new generation?

2 men and 2 women can now produce offspring (or will very soon) through different techniques of egg fusion and a method involving flushing the DNA out of an egg and inputing the DNA from one of the men into the egg which is then fertilised by the others sperm. Neither is yet legal for humans, I believe, but your statement that a homosexual bond has never produced a lifeform is wrong anyway: An adopted child raised by a homosexual couple is more the work of this couple than the genetic parents.

 

[GodofCats]

I agree that we do not know everything that is going to happen in the future but we must make projections. It is very rational to make a statement that legalizing homosexual marriages will in turn increase the numbers of the homosexual population down the road. In turn this will lower the number of heterosexuals. Homosexuality is not genetic, that's a farse. If it were so we would see increases in specific areas in this country but in reality it fluctuates. If it was genetic it would literally grow and spread. It's a choice. But anyways the more heterosexuals who opt for homosexuality does project lower birth rates.

It is very rational to make a statement that legalizing homosexual marriages will in turn increase the numbers of the homosexual population down the road. In turn this will lower the number of heterosexuals.

I don't think that's rational at all. First of all, legalizing homosexual marriages will not increase the homosexual population. It will just allow them to have more liberty. Maybe more people will be unashamed, and therefore more people will be open about homosexuality, but that will not change their "choice". Secondly: Hypothetically speaking, even if, down the road, it did increase the number of homosexuals, that does not mean it will decrease the number of heterosexuals. Heterosexuals will still reproduce faster than they will be killed off.

 

[No*s]

I just saw this thread.

I voted "no" because I don't approve of it. I share Scott's religious views on the matter, but I also concur that it shouldn't be done. Frankly, I would go so far as to say that it was time the state stopped issuing or regulating marriage at all. It can only lead to headaches in the future. Complete freedom would help a lot here...

 

[Godless Dave]

I voted no because I love liberty. I think gay people should be able to marry each other, and they should be able to do so while smoking pot and carrying concealed handguns.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I voted no because I love liberty. I think gay people should be able to marry each other, and they should be able to do so while smoking pot and carrying concealed handguns.

I got a chuckle out of this one, Godless Dave. I thought you covered quite a bit of ground with that last sentence. :biglaugh:

TVOR

 

[michel]

What's the point in banning, or trying to ban, something that you can have no control over, whatever your beliefs?
In fact, by banning marriages by same-sex couples, you are 'barring them' from Religion, much as divorce was unnaceptable by the Roman Catholic Church until it changed it's ways; I should know, my Father divorced in 1947, and was excommunicated. What sort of faith gets rid of people when they are at a point in their lives when they probably need the comfort and support of their religion?

 

[HelpMe]

i don't approve of some different sex marriages.

 

[huajiro]

Frubals for Godless Dave

 

[linwood]

I voted no because I love liberty. I think gay people should be able to marry each other, and they should be able to do so while smoking pot and carrying concealed handguns.

It won`t let me frubal you now for some reason.

But I owe you some.