Yuku free message boards

Elijah, as I've already said, the word marriage DOES apply to male and female partnership. I also said that it is not the ONLY definition of the word. I'm willing to bet that it wasn't the only definition present in your search either, but why bother confuse the issue with facts.

The United States is predominately (between 50% and 85%) Protestant? I'm sorry, but the statistics for religion in the United States do not have an error margin of 35%. And I am certain that more than 15% of the United States consists of the Jewish faith, Catholocism, Hinduism, Budhism, and a great many other non-mainstream faiths (total combined, not individually), as I would bet Catholocism accounts for at least 20% by itself.

This country may have been founded on the principles of religion, but believe me, they were not the straightjacket principles that modern governmental figures are trying to push down our throats. And no, the freedoms of the United States did not come from the desire to worship God freely in and of itself. There were a great many issues that led to the war for our independance. Yes, free worship was among them, but in the freedoms granted to us in such came the right not worship a god at all. Like it or not.

Ah yes, gays have the right to be married. As long as it's to a woman. Nice narrow definition there. So to you, love may only exist between a man and a woman of the strength and bond that defines such love as to be granted marriage. You think the line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't. Why should a couple in love be denied the same rights as a straight couple simply because they're gay? Because you say so? No. Your examples of pornography, childhood, driving a car drunk, et cetera are all very nice, but then, we're not talking about something that can hurt someone else when we're discussing two people in love. If a child views pornography at the age of eight, they might grow up with a warped view of sexuality (perhaps). If you go driving around at the age of 10, it is far likely, not having the maturity enough much less the wherewithall or height or a great many things, that you could get into an accident and cause severe property damage and/or kill yourself or someone else. If you go out driving drunk, same thing. If a man loves a man, oooh... the straight people must be hurt because they don't approve of it, right? Whatever.

Marriage was defined by a man and woman as defined by God in the Garden of Eden, eh? Funny how the Bible itself wasn't prevelant until long after the concept of marriage itself. Why didn't Noah gather up two homosexual elephants? Honestly? If we are to believe the tales of Noah and the ark (sorry, taking the Bible literally is something that should never be done, otherwise you're going to have a hard time explaining to me just exactly who it was that Cain married being the son of Adam and Eve, and since he'd killed Adam and Eve's only other child at the time, it leads me to wonder just who he started begating with) as a literal tale of repopulation of the decimated Earth, then obviously you would need those who can reproduce in order to do so. However, if homosexuality is evil and sinful, why do all other animals exhibit this trait? Let me guess... they're sinners and going to hell too, right? However, those are your beliefs and you're welcome to them. Your beliefs should NOT deprive a loving, nurturing couple the legal rights to protect each other that have already been granted to others whom people have decided are the "norm."

If we were, as a society, to define everything by the "norm," then maybe we should go back to the days of slavery, the days of women not being allowed to vote (after all, woman was punished for her behavior, and shall always be servant to man, right?), and hell, why not go back to burning witches?

What gives ANYONE the right to determine what values define a nuturing family based solely on the sex of the parents? I agree, abusive parents certainly do not nuture their children, but that's a whole different story. Again, how would having two parents of the same sex be worse than having one parent at all? There are statistics to prove you're right? Are these written by the same people that provided a 35% margin of error for you on the religious makeup of the United States? I defy you to provide these statistics. And I'd prefer if you don't make them up.

Did I read your link? You mean the one that couldn't even provide reasons why homosexual marriage is harmful?

Okay, let's discuss:

Homosexual relationships are not marriage... I refer you to the definition I provided above: "to join as spouses... to take in marriage... to join closely or intimately... unite." Again, marriage is not a single scope word. Okay, that aside, homosexual marriages are harmful. Why? "Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages..." You've got to be kidding me, right? Let's think about this for a moment... a married gay couple adopts a child and provides a loving and nuturing environment. Nah... let's leave them as wards of the state, because, you know, they're probably far better off that way, right? Aside from that, what other detractions and/or differences (God angle aside) are there between straight and gay relationships, except for marriage? That's right. None. "...but their consequences are far more negative than positive." Nice how they fail to mention how, right? But either argument alone is sufficient to bar same-sex marriages? How is EITHER statement an arguement? Neither statement even resembles reality or truth, much less arguement.

Isn't marriage what the law says it is? Sure is, when it comes to civil unions. If it wasn't, you could not have a justice of the court perform marriages. You wouldn't need a marriage license to do so. It would all be under the scope of religion. And it isn't.

Isn't marriage a way of recognizing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together? Funny how they veer off into incest, because, you know, homosexuality and incest are the same thing. And while we're at it, let's lump in pedophilia. Hell, it was probably all of the gays of the world who were hiding with the second gunman behind the grassy knoll. If, as your article suggests, marriage is simply the act of having sex and rearing children, one has to wonder where the word "family" comes into play. It's funny how they say also in your article that people have had to promote marriage to unions of women and men because of reproduction and survival. Because, you know, without that kind of protection to the word marriage all the straight people in the world will stop getting married, will stop having sex, will stop reproducing, and the entire world will become gay overnight. GIVE ME A FRICKING BREAK! That is the most idiotic arguement I've read against gay marriage. NOTHING would change for straight people by allowing gay marriage. NOTHING. It does not lessen the strength of the bond between two people taking part in marriage. If your marriage relies on whether or not gay people can get married, then your marriage wasn't based on much of anything to begin with.

Reminds me of the Daily Show that I saw. "Well why did you get married then?" "Jon, my wife and I got married because homosexuals couldn't do it. Our entire marriage was one big taunt to the homosexual community." It was sarcasm. But it's just about the arguement that a lot of people are using.

"Allowing two men or two women to marry would change that fundamental definition. Banning the "marriage" of same-sex couples is therefore essential to preserve the nature and purpose of marriage itself." As I said before, if that's true, then straight marriages are based on some rather weak precepts.

But let me take my favorite part:

Hasn't the nature of marriage already changed dramatically in the last few generations? In defending "traditional marriage," aren't you defending something that no longer exists?

It's true that American society's concept of marriage has changed, especially over the last fifty years. But not all change is positive, and our experiences in that regard may be instructive. Consider some of the recent changes to the institution of marriage--and their consequences:

The divorce revolution has undermined the concept that marriage is a life-long commitment. As a result, there's been an epidemic of broken homes and broken families, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

The sexual revolution has undermined the concept that sexual relations should be confined to marriage. As a result, there's been an epidemic of cohabitation, sexually transmitted diseases, abortions, and broken hearts, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

The concept that childbearing should be confined to marriage has been undermined. As a result, there's been an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births, single parenthood, and fatherless children, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

The pornography revolution, particularly with the advent of the Internet, has undermined the concept that a man's sexual desires should be directed toward his wife. As a result, there's been an epidemic of broken relationships, abused wives, and sex crimes, and the consequences have been overwhelmingly negative.

And now there is social and political pressure to redefine what constitutes marriage itself. What grounds does anyone have for thinking that the consequences of that radical social revolution, unprecedented in human history, would be any more positive than the consequences of the much less sweeping changes already described?

Divorce undermines a life-long commitment. Broken homes, broken families, and negative consequences. Agreed. But then, wouldn't the same apply to gay couples? Suppose that more gay people actually took their marriage vows more seriously than straight people. That would be horrible if the gay divorce rate was less than the straight one. God, what would we do?

Sexual relations... ah yes, cohabitation, disease, abortions, broken hearts. That's called life. If you practice safe sex, you don't get disease. Abortions... now that would be interesting to see a gay couple need to have. Broken hearts? That happens just in dating. But I suppose we should live by arranged marriages again, that way marriage was nothing more than a societal requirement set up by your parents for money. What should LOVE have to do with being married?

Childbearing outside of wedlock... yes, it's an issue. One that has zip to do with the gay marriage issue, but hey, let's flash a spotlight on it for a moment. Suppose a gay couple could provide a nurishing home to a child. That would be horrible. Of course, you've got stats that say it isn't possible -- and I say those stats are made up, because of evidence otherwise. I'll present you some reading now:

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2003/11/25/267432.html
http://www.cga.state.ct.us/olr/2002Backgrounders/Gay_Parenting_0879.htm

But let's move along. I'm not going to bother to respond to pornography, because pornography, while arguable as demeaning to those who perform in it (and a lot who perform in it do not see it as such), certainly does not have the effect of breaking relationships or sex crimes. In fact, those who turn to pornography for sexual gratification are generally not likely to commit sex crimes. Now, if you want to argue that people who go to places such as public baths, or "glory holes" are more likely to commit sex crimes, I would agree, but that's not pornography.

What grounds does anyone have for thinking that the consequences of the radical revolution of same sex marriage would be any more positive than the things above described? Well, first off, this is like comparing an apple to an orange to a pear to a watermelon to a grapefruit. Sure, they're all fruit, but they do not all function the same. Anyone want to contemplate grapefruit or watermelon pie? Above and beyond all of that, a same sex marriage would, hopefully, as a straight one, be based on love, nuturing, caring, and so forth. Thus, there would be no negative affect. Now, yes, it's possible that divorce and children suffering through divorced homes could happen in gay marriages too... but then, that's no different than a straight marriage.

Ah yes... how does a homosexual marriage harm a straight marriage? Because, well, you know, the gay man might have been married to a woman and is now leaving to be with a man, and that's bad. Oh yes, it's bad, but not for the reasons you're thinking. It's bad because the man probably decided to marry the woman out of obligation to society, his parents, or whatnot... because he probably felt like less of a person because he was gay. Because, you know, he's going to hell and all.

The rest of the article is based on mumbo-jumbo. For instance, yes, a gay person may grant power of attorney to his partner. What the article does not state is that in most courts it is unlikely to hold up if a blood relative challenges it, because that partnership is not a marriage. Life insurance benefits (except where provided for same-sex benefits) may be challenged due to the lack of marriage. Oh, and the Social Security bull... because, you know, most homos are both working people, should not have the right to Social Security, even though a majority of straight couples (in excess of 50%) now have both the husband and wife working (at least part time) in order to support their family, and THEY get Social Security benefits... but hey, let's just keep this a straight-rights-only club.

And hey, you know, the only reason for these benefits given to married couples is because they have a benefit to society in the form of reproduction.

Skipping along... Homosexuals have higher rates of alcoholol abuse, drug abuse, nicotine dependance, depression, and suicide. Wow. Talk about skewing facts. Why would it be that there's more gay suicide and depression. Couldn't have anything to do with the negative light being cast upon their lifestyle, could it? Ah yes, but that arguement comes from pro-homosexual activists (you know, I'm a card carrying gay pride fag, don't ya), and not from fact. Ah, but they say that where homosexuality is widely accepted the problems are greater. Bullocks.

I love how this article makes broad statements with absolutely no outside link to fact, nothing to support the statements, no reference material. Just wide, broad strokes. Ah, yes, but child sexual abuse is higher by homosexuals... and homosexuality makes it a risk factor. Because, you know, 86% of the offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. I'm sorry... what's the percentage that were bisexual? That's right... it doesn't say. Does that mean that 14% were straight? How many prisoners were interviewed? What's the proof? That's right. None. But hey, they actually provided a source on this one, so I'm at least whelmed.

In short, the article is a bunch of anti-gay marriage mumbo jumbo with little to no substance at all. But it IS what I would expect from the Family Research Council, "Defending Family, FAITH, and Freedom."

Actually, they're defending faith. Family and freedom do not enter into their equation.

I can't possibly believe that gay sex is normal?

I can't possibly believe that gay sex is normal?

Yes, I think gay sex is normal. It may not be the way YOU enjoy sex, but there is nothing ABnormal about it. And I'm sorry, at the age of eight, were you already well versed in sex? If you were, good for you. But I doubt it. And if an eight year old IS well versed in sex, and they are old enough to understand, then, by all means, they're old enough to understand the concept of love.

See, here's something you might not grasp, Elijah. I've never known sex to be any other way. Yes, a woman taught me how to kiss. That's as far as it ever went. I remember at the age of five or six trying to figure out how my Bo and Luke Duke action figures "fit together." So yes, I think it's quite normal. It's not the defining attribute of my life, but I've never looked at it abnormally.

This may, of course, be why I don't need a parade. Because I don't need to be proud of my sexuality. Because it is just part of who I am.

And what, prey tell, makes you think someone who views pornography is far more likely to commit a sex crime? Please, tell me, just what it is about pornography that makes someone go out and say, "Hey, I'll rape that woman." Because most people I know who view porn jerk off and they're done.

Oh, and about adherents.com -- Yes, YOU made the figures up. If you read carefully, it specifies that people may belong to "one or more" of the below criteria. How can Catholocism make up 24% if Protestants make up 50-80%? Answer: They can't. Protestants make up 50%, and then they go into some sub-classes.