-- Posted by cyanotype at 10:51 am on July 10, 2009 For those for, why do you support it? It's untraditional and some even go as far as saying it's a gateway to bestiality. For those against, why are you against it? It's love and nobody can place a value on someone else's love, it doesn't cause disturbance to you as a person if you steer clear. Mhm. -- Posted by MushroomSatsujin at 10:52 am on July 10, 2009 Its natural. People should be with those who make them happy. -- Posted by Dexter Ward at 10:53 am on July 10, 2009 I say give them identical rights as straight couples, if you don't like it being called marriage call it civil unions but give them identical rights as a couple. I'm for that because as long as they are 2 consenting human adults they should be allowed to be with whomever they want. -- Posted by Karyssia at 10:54 am on July 10, 2009 I'm all for it. -- Posted by cyanotype at 10:55 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Karyssia at 1:54 pm on July 10, 2009 I'm all for it. Why? -- Posted by Micus at 10:58 am on July 10, 2009 Abolish the title of marriage in the legal sense. Create the institution of civil unions and make them available to couples of consenting age (or with parents' permission). Award rights and benefits to all members of the institution. Allow "marriage" to exist solely as a religious title, and allow respective religions to award the title to whomever they deem fit. Equal rights for all is not equal and not allowed to all if a minority group wants access to these rights and benefits but are denied by religious powers in congress. We are not a Christian state; we are not affiliated with any religion as much as some people would like to believe and as such should not be held to any one legal or moral standard according to specific religions... especially if those standards are inherently bigoted. -- Posted by Stormblazer at 10:58 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Midnight Lights at 11:51 am on July 10, 2009 For those for, why do you support it? It's untraditional and some even go as far as saying it's a gateway to bestiality. Non-traditional is a terrible, terrible reason to be against something. I shouldn't even need to list examples, but slavery is the first to come to mind. For the latter, slippery slope arguments are weak at best, and that one in particular is bordering on a non-sequitr. It would be like trying to make the claim that any and all medication is a gateway to being a drug lord.   For those against, why are you against it? It's love and nobody can place a value on someone else's love, it doesn't cause disturbance to you as a person if you steer clear. There's really no reason to be for it if there are no good reasons against - IMO, liberty should be the default, not restriction. You need good reasons for restrictions, not liberty. -- Posted by A Bittersweet Life at 10:58 am on July 10, 2009 I'm for equal rights for homosexuals in general because, even if our sexual orientations differ, we are all still humans with the same basic needs. -- Posted by Stormblazer at 11:00 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Micus at 11:58 am on July 10, 2009 Abolish the title of marriage in the legal sense. Create the institution of civil unions and make them available to couples of consenting age (or with parents' permission). Award rights and benefits to all members of the institution. Allow "marriage" to exist solely as a religious title, and allow respective religions to award the title to whomever they deem fit. I agree with this. I would take it a step further and simply define civil unions as a special case of LLC's. It's pretty much that way already anyways. -- Posted by Dexter Ward at 11:36 am on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Micus at 1:58 pm on July 10, 2009 Abolish the title of marriage in the legal sense. Create the institution of civil unions and make them available to couples of consenting age (or with parents' permission). Award rights and benefits to all members of the institution. Allow "marriage" to exist solely as a religious title, and allow respective religions to award the title to whomever they deem fit. Equal rights for all is not equal and not allowed to all if a minority group wants access to these rights and benefits but are denied by religious powers in congress. We are not a Christian state; we are not affiliated with any religion as much as some people would like to believe and as such should not be held to any one legal or moral standard according to specific religions... especially if those standards are inherently bigoted. But this nation was founded by Christians and things like national ideologies or traditions can't change with time. -- Posted by Moridin at 12:01 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Midnight Lights at 8:51 pm on July 10, 2009 For those for, why do you support it? It's untraditional and some even go as far as saying it's a gateway to bestiality.   The fact that something is unnatural does not mean it is morally evil, monogamy is quite unnatural, yet you would hardly argue that monogamy is morally evil. Furthermore, homosexuality isn't even unnatural. Thousands of species have elements of homosexual behavior. Why is consensual sex with another adult of the same species a gateway to non consensual rape with a member of another species? -- Posted by Moridin at 12:03 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from HarrySunderland at 9:36 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Micus at 1:58 pm on July 10, 2009 Abolish the title of marriage in the legal sense. Create the institution of civil unions and make them available to couples of consenting age (or with parents' permission). Award rights and benefits to all members of the institution. Allow "marriage" to exist solely as a religious title, and allow respective religions to award the title to whomever they deem fit.    Equal rights for all is not equal and not allowed to all if a minority group wants access to these rights and benefits but are denied by religious powers in congress.    We are not a Christian state; we are not affiliated with any religion as much as some people would like to believe and as such should not be held to any one legal or moral standard according to specific religions... especially if those standards are inherently bigoted. But this nation was founded by Christians and things like national ideologies or traditions can't change with time. Religious lies. Most of the founding fathers where atheists and deists. the United States was founded to get away from Christians. Traditions certainly can and should change with time. Slavery is an example of such a tradition, but maybe you think slavery is morally good? After all, both the old and new testament supports slavery. -- Posted by Dexter Ward at 12:09 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 3:03 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from HarrySunderland at 9:36 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Micus at 1:58 pm on July 10, 2009 Abolish the title of marriage in the legal sense. Create the institution of civil unions and make them available to couples of consenting age (or with parents' permission). Award rights and benefits to all members of the institution. Allow "marriage" to exist solely as a religious title, and allow respective religions to award the title to whomever they deem fit.   Equal rights for all is not equal and not allowed to all if a minority group wants access to these rights and benefits but are denied by religious powers in congress.   We are not a Christian state; we are not affiliated with any religion as much as some people would like to believe and as such should not be held to any one legal or moral standard according to specific religions... especially if those standards are inherently bigoted.    But this nation was founded by Christians and things like national ideologies or traditions can't change with time. Religious lies. Most of the founding fathers where atheists and deists. the United States was founded to get away from Christians. Traditions certainly can and should change with time. Slavery is an example of such a tradition, but maybe you think slavery is morally good? After all, both the old and new testament supports slavery. You realize that was exactly the point I was trying to make with my sarcasm right? -- Posted by Shaknbake at 12:12 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Midnight Lights at 10:51 am on July 10, 2009 For those for, why do you support it? It's untraditional and some even go as far as saying it's a gateway to bestiality. I support it because there's no reasonable justification for prohibiting it. Legal marriage bestows certain privileges and legal bonds upon a couple. Since there are those that form same-sex pair-bonds, there seems to be no reason why the scope of legal marriage shouldn't be expanded. The idea that allowing any two consenting adults to wed would lead to bestiality is absurd. That anyone should even conceive of that connection is absurd. "Man and woman, sure. Man and Man or Woman and Woman!? Obviously you'll want to marry your cows next!11!" -- Posted by Moridin at 12:18 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from HarrySunderland at 10:09 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 3:03 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from HarrySunderland at 9:36 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Micus at 1:58 pm on July 10, 2009 Abolish the title of marriage in the legal sense. Create the institution of civil unions and make them available to couples of consenting age (or with parents' permission). Award rights and benefits to all members of the institution. Allow "marriage" to exist solely as a religious title, and allow respective religions to award the title to whomever they deem fit.       Equal rights for all is not equal and not allowed to all if a minority group wants access to these rights and benefits but are denied by religious powers in congress.       We are not a Christian state; we are not affiliated with any religion as much as some people would like to believe and as such should not be held to any one legal or moral standard according to specific religions... especially if those standards are inherently bigoted.   But this nation was founded by Christians and things like national ideologies or traditions can't change with time.    Religious lies. Most of the founding fathers where atheists and deists. the United States was founded to get away from Christians.    Traditions certainly can and should change with time. Slavery is an example of such a tradition, but maybe you think slavery is morally good? After all, both the old and new testament supports slavery. You realize that was exactly the point I was trying to make with my sarcasm right? I plead Poe's Law. -- Posted by Dexter Ward at 12:25 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 3:18 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from HarrySunderland at 10:09 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 3:03 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from HarrySunderland at 9:36 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Micus at 1:58 pm on July 10, 2009 Abolish the title of marriage in the legal sense. Create the institution of civil unions and make them available to couples of consenting age (or with parents' permission). Award rights and benefits to all members of the institution. Allow "marriage" to exist solely as a religious title, and allow respective religions to award the title to whomever they deem fit.    Equal rights for all is not equal and not allowed to all if a minority group wants access to these rights and benefits but are denied by religious powers in congress.    We are not a Christian state; we are not affiliated with any religion as much as some people would like to believe and as such should not be held to any one legal or moral standard according to specific religions... especially if those standards are inherently bigoted.       But this nation was founded by Christians and things like national ideologies or traditions can't change with time.   Religious lies. Most of the founding fathers where atheists and deists. the United States was founded to get away from Christians.   Traditions certainly can and should change with time. Slavery is an example of such a tradition, but maybe you think slavery is morally good? After all, both the old and new testament supports slavery.    You realize that was exactly the point I was trying to make with my sarcasm right? I plead Poe's Law. You got me there, I've seen people say much worse things believing it 100%. -- Posted by Wilder at 2:43 pm on July 10, 2009 Legally speaking, I agree with Micus. Marriage is defined very differently by different groups (religious and otherwise), and the government has no place in defining it. From a more general perspective, I support freedom of religion, including the rights of individual religions to place their individual requirements upon what does/ doesn't constitute marriage. If the RCC only wants one man and one woman, both in good standing with the church and neither with a previous marriage, to get married, fine. If a UU congregation accepts any two consenting adults, fine. If someone wants to throw in multiple spouses I won't bat an eye. When it doesn't affect me and everyone involved gives informed consent, I don't see what place I have to interfere. -- Posted by Aristocrat at 4:23 pm on July 10, 2009 I am strongly against it.  It is trying to redefine the natural and normal original civilazation laws to those of the morally tainted (like those of the hollywood scandalous).  If they are interested doing abnormal things they should behind close doors nothing evil as that should be brought into the public hemishpere.  The U.S is becoming more gay as the days going, by promoting and tolerating such corrupt laws and accepting such behavior. -- Posted by Stormblazer at 9:16 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Aristocrat at 5:23 pm on July 10, 2009 I am strongly against it. It is trying to redefine the natural and normal original civilazation laws to those of the morally tainted (like those of the hollywood scandalous). If they are interested doing abnormal things they should behind close doors nothing evil as that should be brought into the public hemishpere. The U.S is becoming more gay as the days going, by promoting and tolerating such corrupt laws and accepting such behavior. We've been over this Aristocrat. Unnatural =/= wrong. If it did, then we shouldn't even be living in buildings. Argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. -- Posted by Aristocrat at 10:04 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Stormblazer at 9:16 pm on July 10, 2009 We've been over this Aristocrat.   Unnatural =/= wrong. If it did, then we shouldn't even be living in buildings. Argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. I am tired and sick of these gays keep pushing their agenda on us to accept them and the people in these boards with their pseudo logical argument to sugar coate this issue. We are being tainted by these immoral appologist group to accept such behavior. Minds well we just accept everything even the pedophiles too. I can say the same about the gay supporters argument as the pseudo fallacy as well in order to win the hearts and mind of the people with their words of "tolerance" crap. -- Posted by Moridin at 6:50 am on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Aristocrat at 8:04 am on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Stormblazer at 9:16 pm on July 10, 2009 We've been over this Aristocrat. Unnatural =/= wrong. If it did, then we shouldn't even be living in buildings. Argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. I am tired and sick of these gays keep pushing their agenda on us to accept them and the people in these boards with their pseudo logical argument to sugar coate this issue.  We are being tainted by these immoral appologist group to accept such behavior.  Minds well we just accept everything even the pedophiles too.  I can say the same about the gay supporters argument as the pseudo fallacy as well in order to win the hearts and mind of the people with their words of "tolerance" crap. Yes, tolerance for people and ideas is crap, but Muslims are guilty of using the tolerance charade to get their views across as well. Monogamy is technically unnatural. Do you believe that monogamy is immoral? -- Posted by Shogun villimax at 11:18 am on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Midnight Lights at 10:51 am on July 10, 2009 For those for, why do you support it? It's untraditional and some even go as far as saying it's a gateway to bestiality.   For those against, why are you against it? It's love and nobody can place a value on someone else's love, it doesn't cause disturbance to you as a person if you steer clear. Mhm. Marrige WAS desined to seperate people from other people. -- Posted by Aristocrat at 9:26 pm on July 11, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 6:50 am on July 11, 2009 Yes, tolerance for people and ideas is crap, but Muslims are guilty of using the tolerance charade to get their views across as well. No, no, no, tolerance of ideas and tolerance of the evil doer and immoral life style is two different things.  We never claim that we tolerate anything that is abnormal to begin with, and we never hide or beat around the bushes when it come to such issue. Monogamy is technically unnatural. Do you believe that monogamy is immoral? Monogamy meaning one wife and one husband?  If yes then it is morally right normal and natural without a doubt. PS:  You need some religious education to be enlighten a little bit. -- Posted by airemaye at 11:13 pm on July 11, 2009 I'm for it, because I don't see any good reason to be against it. Gay people have been persecuted for centuries, it's time that they get some rights. I see it as one more logical step on the ladder to social equality. -- Posted by Stormblazer at 2:25 am on July 12, 2009 Quote: from Aristocrat at 11:04 pm on July 10, 2009 Quote: from Stormblazer at 9:16 pm on July 10, 2009 We've been over this Aristocrat. Unnatural =/= wrong. If it did, then we shouldn't even be living in buildings. Argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. I am tired and sick of these gays keep pushing their agenda on us to accept them and the people in these boards with their pseudo logical argument to sugar coate this issue.  We are being tainted by these immoral appologist group to accept such behavior.  Minds well we just accept everything even the pedophiles too.  I can say the same about the gay supporters argument as the pseudo fallacy as well in order to win the hearts and mind of the people with their words of "tolerance" crap. What does any of that have to do with what I said? You claimed by implication that homosexual behavior was wrong because it was unnatural. I made the point (as I have before, and as others have) that something being unnatural has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. Even the Amish would be in trouble if it did. The pedophilia comment is just another lame slippery slope argument and you know it. Pedophilia has good reasons for being problematic on its own, not least that children cannot provide informed consent. -- Posted by Baron Samedi at 3:49 am on July 12, 2009 If you honestly believe two men tying the knot will lead to bestiality, do me a favor...The day you encounter an animal that is capable of forming consent, capable of intelligently expressing that consent, and can sign a marriage license, tell the caterpillar I said hi.  And please don't try to come back. -- Posted by Micus at 8:52 am on July 12, 2009 Quote: from Baron Samedi at 6:49 am on July 12, 2009 If you honestly believe two men tying the knot will lead to bestiality, do me a favor...The day you encounter an animal that is capable of forming consent, capable of intelligently expressing that consent, and can sign a marriage license, tell the caterpillar I said hi. And please don't try to come back. You can train a parrot to say, "I do"   -- Posted by draakprinses at 7:30 pm on July 12, 2009 There is absolutely no logical, irrefutable reason not to allow gay marriage. People to bleat slippery slope arguments are just ignorant.