Amendment # 28 to ban Gay marriage!

Quote: "So, to be consistent, you have two options - get rid of all marriage benefits- removing government support for that lifestyle choice - or allow gay marriage. Anything else is simply discrimination - you only want the government to support the choices you agree with, and that's just unfair."You have to draw the line somewhere. By you reasoning the logical extension of this is everything you wrote up to choice continue with:
or allow father daughter marriage
"Anything else is simply discrimination - you only want the government to support the choices you agree with, and that's just unfair."or allow group marriages
"Anything else is simply discrimination - you only want the government to support the choices you agree with, and that's just unfair."or allow preteen marriages
Anything else is simply discrimination - you only want the government to support the choices you agree with, and that's just unfair."So I will repeat back to you: "you only want the government to support the choices you agree with, and that's just unfair."

Oh, I agree. How about we draw the line at things that cause harm to minors and society instead of your arbitrary preferences about what kind of sex is right and wrong?So, who does it hurt, and exactly how does it hurt them, to allow gay people to marry?Your irrelevant slippery-slope analogy is ignored.

What would it take to make you choose to find those acts appealing to you?The gay act is of course a choice, just like it's a choice when you have sex with your wife. It's the wanting that's confirmed biology. Like alcoholism. No gene can put a bottle in your hand. It's the gene that makes you want it.

quote:

---

It is apparent that you see homosexuality as a result of biology rather than a choice. I see it as a choice.

---

Prove it. Go suck a wang, and enjoy it.

quote:

---

If it is not a choice then how do you explain those who were gay but go straight.

---

They're called bisexuals. You might have heard of them.

quote:

---

Interestingly enough when individuals do give up the gay lifestyle, most of them describe their experience as a sort of addiction. Furthermore, more times than not the gay man will have had some broken relationship with their father while gay women with their mother.

---

14% of all Welshmen rape sheep.See, I can pull statistics out of my ass without backing them up too!

quote:

---

By the way I am straight and married and if I so choose I could do homosexual acts but I don't because it is very unappealing to me, but I could choose to.

---

The issue is not whether you could choose to let a man ejaculate in you. The issue is whether you would enjoy it. In other words, whether or not it is biologically appealing to you.Thanks for backing me up on that one.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

I don't seem to Remember EVER getting an Erection from looking at another Guy.....Now here is something you can try..... it may get you sick... I know it does me... so here Goes
try your Hardest to think about having sex with a Member of your own sex..... If it gets you sick like it does me I have made my point
Now if you and I can't think gay what makes you think they can think they can think straight or get aroused by the opposite sex? Sexual preference is somthing that can't be helped...
I give you that many gay People have had sex with the opposite sex... But that doesn't mean they truly liked it...
As for your sister in law In.... maybe she is bisexual?[This message has been edited by DC85, 03-02-2004]

I suspect most women are, to some degree. There's a great deal of evidence to suggest that women have a significantly more fluid sexuality than men.

A bit hostile aren't we? What makes you think enjoyment is a requirement of sex or even a result of sex? Prostitutes, porn stars, rape victims are having sex and probably not enjoying it the way two people with emotional attachments would. How many people out their are having sex for money or drugs? Is it the enjoyment of the act or is it a way to fullfill a need; a need like I postulated in my last post.
Bisexuality is not what people become when they go straight. My sister-in-law is not bisexual now. When she was with women, she truely believed herself gay, however when she met my brother she realized that he was a man and she was atracted to him (this had never happened to her before because the gay subculture in which she interacted kept feeding her addiction with man hating propoganda). She also told me that after getting away from the "gay cult" her words, she realized that her girlfriends did not really care about her at all; they wanted someone like them to make them feel better about themselves and that the reason she bought into the whole scene was because she had never experianced compassion or love from her own mother (if you met her mother you would see this instantly; she is a miserable excuse for a human being.)so, when someone came along showing her that love and compassion she joined up. But just like the alchoholic that eventually gives up the bottle she too gave up that lifestyle. I am more willing to listen to her, an ex gay than you who has no practical experiance with it.

quote:

---

The miscegnation laws were laws banning different race marriages based on prejudices (prejudices brought on by Darwinian thought wherein the white race is seen as superior.)

---

Chuckle... going for the two'fer huh?Certainly racists who had NO knowledge of what evolutionary theory actually means have claimed their racism has some scientific basis, but such people did not need nor did they use evolution in MAKING miscegenation laws.Next you'll be saying Darwin caused slavery? Come on Ex, you have to admit the concept of miscegenation (and laws against it) existed before Darwin, and are based on moral concepts rather than scientific ones.They are also based on lifestyle rather than blatant punishments of one race. The concept was of harm through mixing and so weakening race AND culture. Blacks didn't even have to be considered lesser physically, rather different socially. It's about separation, even when not about superiority.For example you can sometimes hear modern racists give the analogy of going to a restaurant... when they go to a French restaurant they don't expect to see Chinese waiters, hyuk yuk. It's important not to have European cultures which are white, mixed with black cultures which are african.Of course the idea that race and culture are one and the same is also ridiculous.But then so is sexual orientation and culture...

quote:

---

The laws concerning gay marriage are not designed to ban these marriages it merely will not RECOGNIZE it as a marriage as marriage is defined between a man and a woman regardless of race.

---

Because of what? Tradition. Just like with laundry, you don't mix the whites with the coloreds, and same goes for the normals with the delicates.It's about continuation of traditional culture, it's about believing that a society which allows gays to get married is a different one than the culture which does not. And the one that does is weaker, just like people in the past believed the culture which allows blacks and whites to intermarry would be weaker.Miscegenation laws punished interracial relationships and not a particular race. If marriage laws were designed to punish blacks then they wouldn't have allowed blacks to marry at all.To think miscegenation laws only punished blacks is to kind of assume they did not punish whites just the same. Rather odd in my opinion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wow. It's totally brilliant of you to reduce the spectrum of human sexuality to the example of one single person who had a rocky relationship with their mother.Most gay people come from totally normal families, like all my gay friends did.Also, $10 says your sister-in-law has sex with a woman within the next ten years.

I am so amused by some of the opinions of these posters. I will take you up Crash give me ten on the ex-gay.

Come to think of it, isn't this why people draw the distinction between college lesbians and real lesbians?If she's just a college lesbian, then she wasn't really gay. I mean, how could she be? Obviously she prefers to have sex with men. That makes her straight.It's hard to argue that she's an "ex-gay" if she wasn't gay in the first place.

quote:

---

A bit hostile aren't we?

---

Yeah, I have this bug up my ass about people trying to deny others basic civil rights. Just a little quirk of mine, I guess.

quote:

---

What makes you think enjoyment is a requirement of sex or even a result of sex?

---

So, when taken alongside your little diatribe about porn stars and rape victims, are you suggesting that homosexuals do not in fact enjoy homosexual sex, and would enjoy heterosexual sex?I get the feeling that's what you're saying, but it's so freakin' ludicrous that I think I need to hear you actually say it.At this point you talk a lot about your sister-in-law, to which I will simply respond with your own logic:One time I knew a guy who masturbated to pictures of farm animals. Therefore, all guys masturbate to pictures of farm animals.

quote:

---

I am more willing to listen to her, an ex gay than you who has no practical experiance with it.

---

Somehow, I get the distinct feeling I've known way more gay people in my life than you have in yours. (And by known, I mean "actually spoken to as friends", not "heard about from my sister-in-law.") Heck, there's one in my living room right now, watching episodes of Deep Space 9. His friends are almost all straight men and women, so suffice to say, there's nobody feeding him hateful propoganda against women. He's got a delightful relationship with both his parents.He is sexually aroused by the male body, and is not aroused in the slightest by the female body. In every way other than sexuality, he and I are a lot alike. (Except that I'm way better looking.) Get him drunk, and he'll tell you exactly how much he enjoys sex with men. (Which is quite a bit.)So out of curiosity, how does this person fit into your worldview where every gay person is the sexual equivalent of a rape victim, enmeshed in some horrible gay cult which fuels their unenjoyable sexual addiction?

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

You know what? I'd like an answer to this.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

Well.. I'm the obvious noob, but I wanted to dangle the line a bit more for you all.I've had this debate in another forum... but I was the only one against the banning of Gay Marriages... I was out numbered about 8 to one.Anyway... This is the problem I have with banning Gay Marriages (forgive me if the questions have been asked and answered in this thread, but it's 11PM and I can't read it all! ):Where do we, the people of the USA, have the right to prevent someone from entering into a legal contract of marriage based on sexual preference?Where do we, the American people, have the right to tell someone what they can and can not do based on their sexual preference?Isn't banning of Gay Marriage revoking a US Citizens rights simply because he or she is homosexual?I see the "Where do we draw the line" come up quite a bit. Isn't it easier to allow anyone to enter the legal contract of marriage... but only allow them to be married to ONE person at ONE time?Just some food for thought. I'm smart enough to keep my opinion out of this... for now.

I agree that gay marriage ought to be allowed, or at the very least civil unions (a rose by any other name?), but the way marriage laws CURRENTLY stand is not necessarily a deprivation of rights.You have to remember that marriage was a legal contract designed for people of opposite sexes. There was no serious history anywhere of same sex couples desiring or trying to get married until recently. So the marriage laws weren't made to exclude or punish gays, but to give benefits to and legal recognition of partners in an institution that had been exclusively hetero for... well... essentially forever.Now that samesex couples want recognition of their partners in the same way, I think there is a compelling state interest to reflect this.

quote:

---

I see the "Where do we draw the line" come up quite a bit. Isn't it easier to allow anyone to enter the legal contract of marriage... but only allow them to be married to ONE person at ONE time?

---

Yeah, this is the argument I keep seeing that makes me want to vote against gay marriage altogether. It appears gay rights activitists are so stuck on their own rights they have no compassion for anyone else's.Why exactly should we NOT change the current numerical definition of marriage, yet MUST change the hetero specific definition?Marriage has included polygamy throughout cultures and time, setting an infinitely greater precedent that marriage includes more than one partner, rather than including same sex couples. In fact, right now on this planet a MAJORITY of nations include polygamy, and the US refuses to recognize the rights of polygamous families when they travel or immigrate.Why should recent requests for recognition of marriage rights be given, when such longstanding requests (recognized across the majority of nations) are not?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)