jump to last post 1-50 of 150 discussions (1332 posts)

Is same sex marriage a positive ideology?

  1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
    Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago

    What do you think about the promotion of same sex marriage?
    The adoption of this pattern of marriage is also a source of concerns to various stake holders in the religious and political circles.

    What is you say in all this?

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's not my place to judge. I'll let God do His job (too many Americans seem to want to do His job for Him).

      In the mean time, let's treat everyone nicely and equally. If some dudes want to be happy and married, let 'em! Ain't bothering me!

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm for that

      2. ar.colton profile image90
        ar.coltonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Live and let live. I was beginning to think no one thought this way any more. smile

        1. Marquis profile image60
          Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Gays do live. However, gays live to ruin things and make a mockery of other things.

      3. Marquis profile image60
        Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, but if we know that it is wrong and we do nothing - what then?

        We also know that murder is wrong. So should we do nothing to capture or punish the one who murdered? I also believe that is...God's job.

        1. kerryg profile image88
          kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Committing murder is a clear violation of someone else's rights.

          You wanna explain to me how allowing two consenting adults to get hitched affects anyone else's rights in the slightest way?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sick logic isn't it

          2. Marquis profile image60
            Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Gay and lesbian lifestyle is filthy, disgusting and wrong.

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, but if we know that it [same sex marriage] is wrong and we do nothing - what then? Then nothing. You don't 'know' that same sex marriage is wrong. You believe it to be wrong. There's a difference, and it's pretty big.

          We also know that murder is wrong.
          Yes, we actually know that murder is wrong. We know that it's wrong because the one who is murdered hasn't given his informed, competent, adult consent; the victim's rights have been violated. We didn't need God to tell us this, by the way.

          But two dudes getting married will never be --and has never been-- wrong in the same way that murder is wrong.

          To paraphrase Tom Jefferson, What business is it of mine whether my neighbor marries a woman or a man? His marriage neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.

          1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
            Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            but it is an affront into my mentality when it is publicize OK?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That sucks for you.  Grown ups usually get over such things eventually.

              1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
                Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It has nothing to do with growing up, what is growing up when you don't want me to differentiate between what is good and what is bad?

                For the fact that any one has a right to do just anything doesn't mean everything is right...
                All i am saying is...gay or same sex people should make less noise about their lifestyle.....after all we are all humans, and we do have our shortcomings just like every other person.

                But......there has to be a clarification between the normal and abnormal you will agree with me.

                1. junkseller profile image90
                  junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  We want you to differentiate between good and bad. FOR YOURSELF. Not for anyone else.

                  Gay people would have no reason to make noise if they had been left alone in the first place. Leaving them alone, reduces any reason for them to make noise.

                  Nobody here that I have seen is against normal/abnormal classifications, but you have to accept that people draw those boundaries around different things.

                  Having your mentality affronted isn't a reason for discrimination and never has been.

                  1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
                    Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    yes it is.....your right should not infringe on mine.

                2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  LMAO...  See to me YOU are the one who is abnormal.  You are also the one who is wrong.  I think it's horrible that you profess your religion so loudly.  I wish you would just keep it behind closed doors so you wouldn't be an affront to my mentality.

                  See how that works? 

                  But of course it is your opinion that is the superior one because... well I guess there is absolutely no reason for that. 

                  So I guess you get to keep on being a bigot and I get to keep on being perverse...  I bet you I'm having more fun being perverse than you are being a bigot.

                  1. calpol25 profile image74
                    calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I love being a Perverse too, just think we would soon be bored Melissa if we had to bash a tambourine, and sit in a circle chanting and quoting bible passages.
                    Well  I think thats what they do, any ways  it was on the discovery channel lol smile  So i prefer being a perverse as its much more fun not being told how to live smile

                  2. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah isn't it funny how openly declaring their religion which commands the killing of people who are not virgins on their wedding night, the stoning to death of people who work on the Sabbath and the murder of homosexuals is totally fine but gay people wanting the right to formalize their relationship with the people they love is offensive to even speak about, totally reasonable.

                    (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)
                    (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
                    (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

                    But didn't they just say earlier that murder was wrong... not a very solid moral base these people.

                  3. Felixedet2000 profile image61
                    Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You judge yourself by yourself and i have no hand in that....see how it goes, evil keeps on producing evil and all you want to do is justify evil?

              2. Marsei profile image87
                Marseiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Love this reply.  Grownups do.  What a lost of wasted effort spent trying to stop people from loving each other.  So many more vastly important things to spend the energy on.

                1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
                  Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  We can't run or shy away from everything too....some things and habit have to give way if there is the need.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Suck it up!

            3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              but it is an affront into my mentality when it is publicize OK?

              Nobody is expecting you to attend, or approve of, the marriage of any couple you don't think should marry each other, for whatever reason.

              Tell me, should I have to check with you before I decide to make any major life decisions, just to be sure you won't be traumatized if you should happen to find out about what I've decided to do? Should you have to check with me?

              A few of my vegetarian friends find the existence of slaughterhouses to be an affront on their mentality. Should we then abolish slaughterhouses?

              what is growing up when you don't want me to differentiate between what is good and what is bad?
              I don't think anyone suggested that you shouldn't differentiate between what is good and what is bad.
              Where we disagree is in whether it is good, bad, or indifferent for two consenting adults to marry. We'll have to agree to disagree on that, I guess,  unless you can come up with a reason to conclude that it's bad that's better than "It's against my religion for you to do it."

              the fact that any one has a right to do just anything doesn't mean everything is right.
              Nobody is suggesting this. What I am suggesting is that if you want to forbid someone from doing something that you consider wrong, you have better come up with a better case for it being wrong than the fact that you don't like it.

              there has to be a clarification between the normal and abnormal you will agree with me.
              Sure, but 'normal' just means 'most folks do it,' and 'abnormal' just means 'most folks don't do it.' I mean, it's not 'normal' to dye one's hair purple, is it? But would you forbid someone from doing so simply because it's not 'normal?'
              It's also not normal to win a gold medal in fencing at the Olympics, but when someone engages in this abnormal behavior, we celebrate them for it. Normalcy is not by definition good; abnormalcy is not by definition bad. So you'll have to come up with a better argument than "It's abnormal" if you want to convince me that something should be forbidden.

              All i am saying is...gay or same sex people should make less noise about their lifestyle.
              Well, straight people don't have to make any noise about their lifestyle because their lifestyle is the default setting. If a straight person wants to do pretty much anything with their life, no matter how normal or abnormal, nobody bats an eye. Most people do not adopt a child, therefore, adopting a child has to be considered abnormal behavior. If a straight couple engages in this abnormal behavior, they are lauded rather than censured. But in contrast, if a gay couple wanted to engage in this abnormal behavior, many people try to stop them, for no other reason than the couple are gay.

              Until gay people are treated the same as straight people in questions of marriage, adoption, cohabitation, inheritance, visitation, etc, they will have to either make noise about the double-standard, or else be content with second-class status.

              1. Bob Zermop profile image92
                Bob Zermopposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Beautifully responsed.

                1. gmwilliams profile image85
                  gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Let us put an end to this thread.  As long as two people are consenting adults who love, cherish, and respect each other, love and respect are just that.  It is totally insignificant whether they are of the same or opposite sex.  Marriage should be for those who desire it regardless! Enough said!

                  1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
                    Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    in your own eyes it is OK. In the eyes of others it is not OK. Don't you think that a consensus is needed? At least you ought to realize that .

          2. Marquis profile image60
            Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How many same sexed marriages happened back during the times of Jefferson?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              None. So what? Homosexuality was not uncommon among Greeks, Romans and (early Christians and Jews if you believe the Bible).

              1. Marquis profile image60
                Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That has nothing to do with anything. Marriage between men and women was valued in society. It was not mocked and perverted as it is today. I dislike when Jefferson's words are taken out of cotext as well.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It bothers me, too. That's why I don't do it.

                  Maybe you should broaden your reading list.

                  1. Marquis profile image60
                    Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Maybe I should read an author who is for gay marriage? Is that more like it?
                    No thanks. I much rather read authors in the norm. Not outside the fringes of normalcy with sick radical ideas.

                2. Marquis profile image60
                  Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Reading trash only fills my head to the point where it wants to explode.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It's best to only be offended by things you haven't read. That ensures that your mind won't be affected by ideas that might change it.

                  2. jonnycomelately profile image86
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It's already exploding with trash.  Self-generated.  Put up your umbrellas, fellas.

              2. Diane Woodson profile image59
                Diane Woodsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Does that make it right? Because of others in History should we do the horrible barbaric things they did?

                1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  What on earth are you talking about, Diane?  Are you equating two guys in love with each other as "horrible barbaric things?"

        3. ackman1465 profile image59
          ackman1465posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Marquis:  I believe there is an issue with "wrongness".   When a MURDER takes place, can't we believe that ONE of the participants really DIDN'T want to take part in it?   Conversely, if/when two consenting adults wish to formalize their loving relationship, they BOTH agree to take part...

          As to you, me and "others"..... isn't that loving relationship really none of our business?   ... and not subject to our judging it as right or wrong?

          1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
            Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            no--way...you too judge others ability and capacity to decide what is right or wrong for them......what do you mean by two consenting adult?....I will appreciate it when all those who are supporting same sex to do so for those who are advocating marrying to their parent and making the same publicity about it the way same sex does....then i will be certain that the whole world and humanity is really working in the right direction......what a perverse mentality.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I will appreciate it when all those who are supporting same sex to do so for those who are advocating marrying to their parent and making the same publicity about it the way same sex does

              Show me those who are advocating incest.

              1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
                Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                wow...i am awed that you have no knowledge if those who arr supporting incest yet you are advocating same sex for gays...what a double standard...i now know better...this is all hypocrisy and a ploy of the serpent, that ancient murderer...i know you guys would have nothing to do with spirituality in this topic as if man is not a spiritual being....i will show you those who are advocating incest...OK.

                http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/second … a-borning/


                http://www.allreaders.com/board.asp?BoardID=57
                read that to know those who are supporting incest...and i want all of you guys in this forum supporting gays and homosexual marriages to give the same support and explanation as you did for gay...for these ones who are pro.incest...OK,
                I think this is the kind of world you guys want us to have...i say very soon it will be groups and people of prominent advocating marriages between man and animals and you think i am saying something that is out of point....anyway..i don;t expect you to see the future the way i do...because God has said that the world will come to this point and his word is yes and Amen.
                A point where humanity will no longer be able to differentiate between Good and evil......The eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil simply means...sex is what exposes man or enable man to be aware of what is good and bad......so it is OK to have sex with whatever you choose, beast or people anything goes.....kudos..son.
                May God help you.
                What a perverse and reprobate mentality......Please for the sake of mankind....call a spade a spade...same sex marriage is simply evil.

                1. junkseller profile image90
                  junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Spirituality doesn't mean hatred and fear. I don't know why you are so terrified of the world, but you seem to need the help of God far more than anyone else here.

                  You spew insults as easily as you breath then dare to talk about civility. No friend, your arguments are small and mean and there is nothing good in them. Jesus' second great commandment was to love your neighbor, yet, you have nothing for your neighbor but condemnation. You are the one who has lost their way. Judgement isn't given unto you to dole out. Only love was.

                2. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you aware felixedet that the same arguments you are using (soon we will be marrying dogs and incestual partners) were used to oppose interracial marriage in America?

                3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Re the link to firstthings.com. all that's there is some guy's claim that someone somewhere bedded her brother. The link to the story in the Sunday Times doesn't link to a story in the Sunday Times.

                  As for the other one, you do know that Robert Heinlein was a writer of fiction, right? See, fiction is a fancified edjumacated-type word for "made-up stories what never happened in th' real world."

                  Of course, most of your arguments are supported by nothing more than made-up garbage from your own imagination anyway, so it's not surprising that you'll use something from someone else's imagination to support your fanciful arguments too.

                  "Please for the sake of mankind....call a spade a spade...same sex marriage is simply evil."
                  Jesus, save me from your followers.

                  1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
                    Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I am scare of your argument too...not scare in the real sense of being scare anyway...u are using logic to explain simple things...well that's a pity, because logic works well with anger and depression.....not in explaining the perversity of same sex.

                    No ones else argument will make sense to you though and i don't expect it to be either.

                    Why did you have kids from your own groin if you care so much for the same sex guys?

            2. ackman1465 profile image59
              ackman1465posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Felix:  Being silly doesn't advance the discussion....

              1. ackman1465 profile image59
                ackman1465posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Jeff Berndt:   My "silliness" comment applies to you, too...

              2. Felixedet2000 profile image61
                Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Saying the truth the way it is is not being silly....you call me silly for correcting your perverse mentality...Is having or developing a reprobate mentality not silly enough?

                1. ar.colton profile image90
                  ar.coltonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Felix, I feel sorry for you man. You hate this huge group of people because they want the same freedoms you enjoy. It must be terrible to live that way.

                  I'm out. I can't get past my pity. I hope you wake up and that you don't have to live your whole life with this astronomical level of ignorance.

                  1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
                    Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Who is talking about hate here...if one disapprove of a lifestyle does not necessarily mean hating them?

                    Wow, what a mind...i care not personally about whom they are for sure....What we do is for posterity and there is no way i will fold my arms and allow the word of God to be mess around the way people do here.

                    And moreover..it is a pity you can't stand adult argument anyway.

                  2. Marquis profile image60
                    Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Felix, I also think homosexuality is perverted. I am on your side of the argument. Marriage is the celebration between the differences of men and women. Gays had their civil union. They have no right to take something valuable as marriage and pervert it.

          2. Felixedet2000 profile image61
            Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You can't do whatever you wish while assuming that no one will raise an eye brow OK.

      4. A Thousand Words profile image80
        A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        While I agree with your last statement, the first about the judgement bothers me so. Why people see life as being scrutinized and picked apart by some Cosmic judge who we all must face at the "end" slightly annoys me. This is not  a personal attack against you. Just this mindset, because it's part of the problem. You seem to use it in a somewhat positive way, but many use the same words to spread hate.

      5. WD Curry 111 profile image61
        WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I must concur.

    2. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If your ideology involved all people being treated equally--yes, it's a positive one.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +++That's the key. Equality before the law.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If you'll note, everyone WAS equal until the law separated them into groups.

      2. Felixedet2000 profile image61
        Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        All people should be treated the same way..it has nothing to do with what is right and wrong..period.

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's not an ideology.

      As long as the participants are informed, competent, consenting adults, let them get married, says I.

      1. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
        Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you Jeff! As soon as I saw the title of this I came to this page looking for someone to say that- it is not an ideology!! I like the meme I've seen circulating "If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like cigarettes, don't smoke one," and there's many others I can't recall off the top of my head, "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one." The thing that baffles me is that it is such a goto topic for the same people who scream for small government. You want them out of you bank account and out of your land and your guns... but you say they belong in every woman's uterus and the love lives of everyone but you? I know I'm muddying it up, but I see it as a symptom of a greater hypocrisy.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It is totally a symptom of hypocrisy. But we should never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance.

        2. tammybarnette profile image60
          tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Amen, that always baffles me when they scream for small government and then try to dictate what our freedoms are! I guess that would be smaller government, a dictatorship! I am a christian but I do not believe in judging others, as stated earlier, that's God's job:)

          1. Marquis profile image60
            Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Smaller government is not a dictatorship - a larger government is. You lose freedoms with a larger government. It baffles me when Liberals fail to understand that.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Smaller government is not a dictatorship - a larger government is. You lose freedoms with a larger government. It baffles me when Liberals fail to understand that.

              What a curiously inconsistent argument coming from a person who wants to use the power of government to control who may and may not marry.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                +1 He obviously does not understand this. Marquis I'ts liberals trying to give people their freedoms, in this case the freedom to marry who they wish and it is you and your fellow conservatives trying to take away and deny people their rights by exersizing the power of the government.

              2. Marquis profile image60
                Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Lol, Jeff, smaller government is not as wasteful as a larger one. That is what I am talking about

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Do you or don't you want to forbid gay people from marrying (by law)?

                  1. Marquis profile image60
                    Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Gays and gay marriage is an abomination. Laws should strickly prohibit gays trying to pervert marriage for their own ends.

        3. EstellaGrace profile image61
          EstellaGraceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I scream for small government, and SMALL government means, get out of people's lives.  Who cares if you're gay, who cares if you have an abortion.  I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but neither should be legislated.  Legislating morality in any situation creates a black market for the supposed "immoral" act because it is such a gray area, with too many definitions.  People get drunk if they want to get drunk (prohibition), people have abortions if they want to have abortions (roe vs. wade) and people can get married if they want to get married.  Just don't spend my tax money doing it!

    4. 0
      kimberlyslyricsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It will continue in common law anyways, how bad is it to legalize rights to people, meaning all people.  Thinking otherwise is prejudice and mean. mad

    5. nightwork4 profile image61
      nightwork4posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      anything that makes people happy without hurting anyone is not only a good thing but a step towards real freedom. people against same-sex marriages are hurting our freedom of choice and are ignorant to true happiness.

    6. Dave Mathews profile image59
      Dave Mathewsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No way! How would they procreate.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The same way infertile heterosexual couples procreate.

    7. calpol25 profile image74
      calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I thought I would pop in here and have a look at what has been said, and there are a few good points raised here.

      Some one has asked how would us gay people procreate? Marriage is not always about procreation, as procreation has lead to the over population of our planet.

      Love is gender blind, and when you truly love some one and want to spend the rest of your life with them, then you should be allowed to marry because marriage is a commitment between two people.

      Regardless of gender  gay and lesbian partnerships have been proven to last longer than heterosexuals so I don't see why people are making a fuss about it. all we are asking is for a piece of paper to say that we can marry its not like were asking you all to turn gay is it? smile

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        To calpol25:  To those who asked such an inane question- let me not say anything unkind as to ban me from this forum.  I shall just say that gay couples have children through adoption.   To those people who have atavistic minds-alert, this is the 21st century, not medieval times where those who thought and believed differently from the status quo were exiled, excommunicated, and burned at the stake.  Wake up, people, gay people have the right to get married.   Calpol25, pay these unevolved souls no attention- keep on with your march and proclaim your rights proudly!

        1. calpol25 profile image74
          calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you gmwilliams smile

          1. calpol25 profile image74
            calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/429759_367969269893536_153964677960664_1300621_1508236815_n.jpg

            http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/428683_232388600183684_100002376388287_498838_1483884323_n.jpg

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              +1 million

              1. calpol25 profile image74
                calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks Josak smile

                1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You used Uncle Sam, wow the military will be shocked and in awe

                  1. calpol25 profile image74
                    calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Lol smile its a good one though x smile

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ...Says someone who supports ObamaCare!

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
              Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I hope you're a Ron Paul supporter, otherwise you're just blowin' smoke.

      2. Felixedet2000 profile image61
        Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Is it advisable for everyone to become gay? at least for argument purpose....may be that's the better line to toe...i doubt so much, what is bad is bad, there is no justification for sexual perversion under the pretext of freedom of choice and association.
        That's not freedom, it is self inflicted bondage. The solution is strictly personal.

        1. livelonger profile image91
          livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Marcus Bachmann, is that you?

      3. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Show me proof

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Timetraveler appears to be traveling backward in time.

    8. Ramsa1 profile image70
      Ramsa1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's politically correct to support same sex marriage. I believe in the traditional marriage of one man one woman. However, if others want to do things differently, that's up to them.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "I believe in the traditional marriage of one man one woman. However, if others want to do things differently, that's up to them."

        See, this is what it all boils down to. If others want to do things differently, it really is up to them, innit? I mean, assuming that everyone involved is an informed, competent, consenting adult, why is it anyone else's business?

    9. Atheist Anthony profile image60
      Atheist Anthonyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well in my belief we are coming out of what i call religious mania where we as a species are beginning to look more into science and technology then religion with this I believe we can leave the notion that Same sex marriage is "Wrong" or "Bad" simply because your religion says it is. A religious mindset is a bad mind set. we live in the 21st century where people should be able to make the choices they want whether its same sex marriage or putting a certain amount of jelly on their PB&J. religion has put a stranglehold on our evolution socially and intelligence wise.

      1. Marquis profile image60
        Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        An atheist mind is a bad mindset. People like you ruin nations with your anything goes mentality and no restraint.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You think atheists have no rules? Heh, that's pretty funny.
          I think an atheist who is kind to others because it's the right thing to do is a better person than a person of faith who behaves kindly to others because he fears being punished in the afterlife.

          1. Marquis profile image60
            Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You must be an atheist. I think they are as "fruity" as homosexuals and lesbians. Let us not forget the other scum of the camp. Ask me Jeff and I wil tell you.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You must be an atheist.
              I'm curious to know the thought process behind that [incorrect] conclusion?

              Let us not forget the other scum of the camp.
              Who might those be?

              1. Marquis profile image60
                Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Jeff, you are very welcome to take some guesses.

                I have already figured you for a leftist. USUALLY people who favor gay/lesbian lifestyles and atheism are indeed.

    10. GingerBell profile image60
      GingerBellposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I don't care who gets married. So long as I'm invited and I get to eat C-A-K-E!! tongue

    11. 60
      frugaldayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Same sex marriage does not work, everyone would be extinct if that was the way we were "all" suppose to be.

      A man and a woman was created and are suppose to be together, that is how we reproduce and do not become extinct, therefore, that is the way things are supose to  be.

      1. kerryg profile image88
        kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's not the way we're all supposed to be. It's the way some of us are supposed to be.

    12. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Is heteroxsexual marriage a positive ideology? Fewer and fewer are bothering with the formality.

      1. Marquis profile image60
        Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks in part to liberalism, feminism, and the unholy alternative lifestyles.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Are you deliberately trolling?

          1. Marquis profile image60
            Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, maybe you are.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol It's like i'm back in grade-school. "I know you are but what am I?" lol

              Oh, and for some reason, I just thought of this:
              Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.
              I can't imagine why....

              1. Marquis profile image60
                Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Are you speaking on yourself?

    13. 0
      Phoebe Pikeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Often I hear anti-gay activists that it takes away from straight marriages. But it is my opinion that giving someone equal rights does not take your rights away. It doesn't hurt you to allow others the same rights you experience.

      Currently there are more states that allow incest and marriage between minors than same-sex couples. I don't hear many people rallying for those.

    14. The Marker profile image61
      The Markerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      As individuals, yes we do have our rights for ourselves. But the same sex marriage ideology has negative impacts to the entire society.

      I have observed this issue and I found out,
      > Most people who agree with same sex marriage cares for individual rights, and
      > Most of those who oppose cares for the morality of the entire society.
      > And some have no comment

      Personally, I don't have my decision yet. I cared for the society yet it needs individuals.

    15. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6296208_f248.jpg

    16. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Is marriage a positive ideology?

      Neither marriage nor same sex marriage is an ideology, at least not the way I understand the word, "ideology."

    17. SparklingJewel profile image66
      SparklingJewelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It does not work to try and confuse the two different issues of definition of marriage and benefits for legal spouses.

      Traditional Marriage has been defined for centuries and that should not be an issue.

      civil unions are legal and that is where same-sex unions needs to be aligned with.

      once same-sex unions are legally assigned in the civil union category, there should be no problem with legal benefits

      It's people trying to usurp the traditional definition of marriage is where the problem is...the homosexuals need to get over not being accepted as traditional, period.  How do they think taking away an ideal from someone else is going to give them any validity?

      1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
        TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sparkling Jewel:  You hit it right on the head, and it's the way I've felt ever since this issue has become such a big deal.  Gays can have a legal, binding commitment without calling it "marriage", so why are they pushing so hard to undo a tradition that 98% of America's population has believed in and supported for many years.  They want to call people who feel this way bigots, or right wing conservatives, but there is no denying the truth.  Gays are not straight.  Marriage is for straight people.  All Gays are doing is irritating the majority of people by trying to undo their traditions, which by the way, don't necessarily have anything to do with religion.  I'm glad you posted this one.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Just curious... where do you get the 98% number from... or even the "irritating the majority of people"?

          Or do you just assume that most people obviously feel the way you do?

          *Smiles* Show me proof.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Some participants in this forum have a habit of just making stuff up.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              *Grins* Don't you mean 98% of participants in this forum or a majority of participants in this forum?

          2. Marquis profile image60
            Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Most people do feel that way. It is the leftist agenda to keep perverting everything that is held sacred in society.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I would call it a humanist agenda, neither left nor right. Have you heard of the Log Cabin Republicans? Another thought from a comment I heard on the radio this morning--Now that some states have gay marriage, what about gay divorce. I don't remember the state, but there is a live case wending its way through the courts. The issues in divorce are pretty identical for gay and straight couples.

              1. Marquis profile image60
                Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, it is a humanist agenda. Also it is a leftist agenda. I know a few socialis, communists and atheists who are also for gay marriages. I also know conservatives who are not for gay marriage. We have these debates all the time. Sometimes it can get loud at lunch time.

                I, of course am on the conservative side of the spectrum.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You mean the wrong side, at least of this issue. smile

                  1. Marquis profile image60
                    Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope, the RIGHT side of the issue. Legalizing sodomy, destroying marriage, the left will stop at nothing to destroy America and the whole world.

        2. junkseller profile image90
          junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          More people now support marriage for same-sex couples than do not. Your 98% is a figment of your imagination only. Same-sex couples are fighting for their fundamental rights. If someone is "irritated" by that than that is their issue to deal with. This isn't about undoing or changing traditions. It is about having equal access to, which they want for all of the same reasons anyone wants it.

          "Marriage is for straight people" is by definition bigotry. Akin to saying "Voting is for white people" or "land ownership is for men".

          1. Marquis profile image60
            Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Most people support gay marriage where? I think you are dreaming. Most people are being forced to accept something that is morally wrong.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's not so much that 98% support gay marriage.

              It's just that they've come to the realization that there's no good reason (other than the desire to control others' lives) to prohibit gay marriage.

              1. Marquis profile image60
                Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That is not what it is about. And there is no reason for marriage to be perverted. Gays had their civil union. There is no reason to change marriage.

                1. psycheskinner profile image80
                  psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  There is no reason for you to have a gay marriage, others apparently disagree.  Welcome to secular democracy.

                  1. Marquis profile image60
                    Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Secularism knows no morality.

                2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, that's just dandy, because nobody is perverting marriage, or changing it.

                  Your marriage (if you have one) or your future marriage (if you don't) is safe. Gay people don't want to marry you, mate.

                  1. Marquis profile image60
                    Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I beg to differ. There are many who believe otherwise.

            2. junkseller profile image90
              junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              America, according to every poll out there. No one is being forced to accept. They are being asked to allow. Big difference. You calling homosexuality sick and perverted is the one who is now outside the norm. Thankfully.

              1. Marquis profile image60
                Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It is sick and perverted. I am not in favor of it because I see some Hollywood star or some advocate saying something otherwise.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, you just don't like it. There's a difference, and it's pretty big.

                  I don't like the idea of doing it with another dude; I'm straight. But I'm not egocentric enough to imagine that the fact that I don't like it makes it bad.

                  1. Marquis profile image60
                    Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol

                    Sure you are. I have heard that before.

        3. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Polling trends in 2010 and 2011 show support for same-sex marriage gaining a majority, although the difference is within the error limit of the analysis.[85] On May 20, 2011, Gallup reported majority support for gay marriage by a margin that exceeded the poll's margin of error.[11] In June 2011, two prominent polling organizations released an analysis of the changing trend in public opinion about same-sex marriage in the United States, concluding that "public support for the freedom to marry has increased, at an accelerating rate, with most polls showing that a majority of Americans now support full marriage rights for all Americans."[86]
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m … ted_States

          Hardly 98% now is it tongue Start off by remembering that statistically 8 to 10 percent of the population is gay or bi.

          Also there are already six states which grant full rights to Gay marriage and three more which grant partial right (marriages can be performed but are still subject to annulment pending decisions.) One would note that none of those states have been consumed in flames nor do I hear of horses eating each other in Iowa.

        4. steveso profile image74
          stevesoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I love the way you simply pull statistics our of the air just to suit your needs. You are right saying "gays are not straight", sexually speaking, but otherwise they are the same as your straight people. You also say "marriage is for straight people". What about the thousands of people, past and present, who married out of fear that society would condemn them? You probably would say that these were not "real" marriages, like those of Kim Kardashian and the many wonderful marriages of Larry King, Zsa Zsa Gabo rand Liz Taylor. I am sure that type of straight behavior doesn't "irritate" you.

      2. 0
        Phoebe Pikeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A man and a woman can have civil unions. They are not viewed on the same legal level as a marriage. Unless someone came up with another term, solely for gays, and gave it the same legal rights as a 'marriage', then of course they would fight for the right to be married. Just because someone doesn't share your beliefs or ideals, does not mean that they are wrong in wanting to alter a definition of a word. Just because something is 'tradition' does not mean it is meant to stay that way.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Very true. Slavery and not allowing women to vote were longstanding traditions in this country.

          1. Marquis profile image60
            Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Slavery and women not voting is not the same as sodomy.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Correct: slavery and women not being allowed to vote are inherently wrong, as they violate the rights of the enslaved people and the women.

              Sodomy is merely distasteful to some people (who, by the way, aren't being asked to participate in sodomy) so opposing it is silly.

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sodomy (legally defined as anal or oral sex) is legal between a man and a women or a same sex couple so saying this is the issue is ridiculous.

              2. Marquis profile image60
                Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I beg to differ.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You're welcome to believe that sodomy is a horrible horrible thing that will curdle the milk in the cow, strip the paint off your car, and make the TV play nothing but re-runs of The Waltons if you want to, but unless and until you can produce some actual evidence that these things are true, you don't get to stop informed, competent, consenting adults who aren't you from doing it.

                  1. Marquis profile image60
                    Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sodomy IS a horrible thing. You still do not get it? The health effects, it goes on. Why some people wish to accept perverted things, I will not truly understand...unless these people are into being perverts themselves.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Can you define "the problem?" How does gay marriage affect you?

      4. junkseller profile image90
        junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        This coming from someone who talks about the proper use of Kundalini Energy. You of all people ought to know that the world is full of man-made rules that inhibit the free flow of righteous energy. At any rate, telling people to "get over it" seems like bad mojo to me. Love is the tradition we should honor, not the rigid hierarchical institutions of dogma.

    18. A Thousand Words profile image80
      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How is same sex marriage an ideology? A guy and another guy happen to fall in love. They have the right to get married. Laws prevent them from doing so. Because of the injustice, people are fighting for people to be able to practice those rights. Who are people to stand in their way just because their religion is against it? Will keeping homosexuals from getting married "save their souls?" If you believe they are damned... ok. You believe a lot of different types of people are damned.... and yet you don't deny them the right to marry... hmm

      And the people who associate homosexuality and pedophilia work my last nerve. Two VERY different ballgames here. One involves a grown well developed individual pursuing a sexual desire for younger, more innocent individuals who still have a lot to learn about themselves and the world around them, even their own sexuality, and are taken advantage of. There is a lot of manipulation when you deal with a well-developed man/woman vs a young, underdeveloped(physically and mentally) child.

      The first consists of many different situations, and is way, way more complicated. There are those who believe themselves gay from the beginning. This is hard to argue due to multiple factors. Some choose later on in life that they find the same sex to be more attractive than the opposite for various reasons, though they were perfectly straight in the beginning. But there are no clear cut lines anywhere, and ultimately as consenting adults, they have the right to make those decisions with other consenting adults.

      The non-religious people who are against gay marriage baffle me, though I usually understand the nature of their arguments/beliefs on the issue, I suppose... but still...

    19. SparklingJewel profile image66
      SparklingJewelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "...On the one side of this debate is the view that marriage as one man and one woman is a form of institutionalized bigotry no better than racism. In this view, it is unjust for the state not to bless same-sex unions with both the benefits and label of “marriage.” Private institutions and individuals who object to facilitating or expressing moral support for same-sex marriage could face potential civil liability and discrimination in access to government benefits. Too often, those who disagree with redefining marriage are also subject to public derision and even threats, brainwashing coercion techniques, intimidation, and other harms.

      On the other side of this debate is the view that marriage is a natural institution that the state does not create but that the state should protect because of society’s civilizational interest in promoting childbearing and the faithfulness of spouses to each other and their dependent children. Proponents of marriage as one man and one woman focus on the public purposes of marriage, not the private reasons individuals might choose to marry, and have defied intense stereotyping by articulating a wide range of nonreligious reasons for supporting a traditional marriage policy, including that redefining marriage will contribute to an expanded and more intrusive government role in private life. In this view, support for marriage as one man and one woman does not equal animosity against friends, family, and co-workers who experience same-sex attraction. Rather, support for marriage reflects a morally just and constitutionally valid social judgment that the unique union of a husband and wife should be accorded a unique status in culture and law and that doing so provides significant benefits to children and all society.

      As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized long ago, “the public is deeply interested” in maintaining the institution of marriage, because “it is the foundation of the family and of society” and without it “there would be neither civilization nor progress.” Marriage remains just as important to society today. Efforts to defend the core meaning of marriage as having something to do with mothers, fathers, and children should be coupled with efforts to strengthen marriage in general."

      From "The Heritage Network" article

      http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/19/ins … he-nation/

      I whole-heartedly agree with the points in this article excerpt. In my mind and heart it is not an intended personal afront toward homosexual persons.

      It is my belief that a union between same sex people is not marriage, it is something different and deserves its own position, label and legal benefits.

      It seems like going that direction with it would make much more sense, and of course ruffle many less feathers.

      1. junkseller profile image90
        junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Our "Civilizational interest" is not an exclusive interest to pop out as many children as possible. In fact, it is often deemed irresponsible to pop out kids when they can not be provided for. Our interest then regarding kids tends to be much more of the "it takes a village" model. We tend to encourage a high level of qualitative contact between children and others beyond parents (grandparents, aunts and uncles, babysitters, teachers, etc.)

        Even if same-sex couples didn't have and raise their own children, which they frequently do, there is still tremendous "civilizational interest" in having stable and loving couples and households. Even if they aren't parents, they are still friends and family and neighbors who contribute to the over all fabric of the communities in which we raise our kids. That is a good thing.

        Furthermore, even if you were to believe that there is no public value to same-sex marriages, allowing them doesn't in anyway do anything to opposite-sex marriage. Heterosexual people will still fall in love, still get married, still have babies, etc.

        The recent court cases have all said the same basic thing. If you want to prevent same-sex couples from marrying you have to show that it will cause harm, and so far not a single person has been able to step forward with legitimate evidence that it would cause any harm at all. Nor has anyone provided evidence that preventing same-sex marriage does anything to improve or strengthen opposite-sex marriage. Offending people's sensibilities doesn't count. If it did, nothing would be allowed.

        And the point about being concerned about government intrusion is ridiculous. Same-sex marriage opponents have no problem using government to prevent same-sex marriage they can't then complain when it goes against them, and since they started this fight, they should have thought about that in the first place.

        99.9% of a same-sex couple's life is identical to an opposite-sex couple's. There is a minor mechanical difference in the bedroom. That tiny difference isn't significant enough to call it a different thing. When you change the wheels on your car, you don't all of a sudden call it an alternative wheeled transportation device. It's a car. call it what it is. Like a marriage is a marriage.

        1. SparklingJewel profile image66
          SparklingJewelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          you said  "...The recent court cases have all said the same basic thing. If you want to prevent same-sex couples from marrying you have to show that it will cause harm, and so far not a single person has been able to step forward with legitimate evidence that it would cause any harm at all. Nor has anyone provided evidence that preventing same-sex marriage does anything to improve or strengthen opposite-sex marriage. Offending people's sensibilities doesn't count. If it did, nothing would be allowed."

          you continue to miss my point, I am sorry I am not clear...I see no purpose in preventing same-sex marriage...didn't I say so in my post? I suggested calling it something different than marriage, because it is not traditional marriage, it deserves it's own understanding and definition.

          What homosexuals want is acceptance for who they are...you can't get acceptance by trouncing on another's understanding and trying to take something from them to make you(homosexuals) feel accepted. Homosexuals have put themselves in a difficult position by not understanding their own consciousness and conscience, but just trying to take another's to feel accepted. What homosexuals are doing in taking this stance of demanding to re-define marriage IS hurting others as well as themselves by not accepting what others think, believe and feel.

          We are talking about the foundations of civilization, not the civilization itself. Traditional marriage is defined as such as the foundation of civilization...other unions of people that love one another are what is built within civilization, not the foundation upon which all civilization stands. If there was no pro-creation, there would be no people, hence no civilization.

          we are talking basics, not what has been done with the basics

          this is what I am interpreting this article excerpt I posted, to say.

          Also, any God theology is based in the natural world as originally created, where pro-creation was the only means to produce more people, and the mystery of how we are to discover our connection with the world of nature. That the consciousness of humanity was something different than the world of nature, and has a higher consciousness than nature, but is still suppose to be in balance with it. This is the conversation that needs to be happening to get to the core understanding of who/what humanity is and it's purpose.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Homosexuals have put themselves in a difficult position by not understanding their own consciousness and conscience,
            So, are you claiming to understand gay people better than gay people understand gay people?

            What homosexuals want is acceptance for who they are...you can't get acceptance by trouncing on another's understanding and trying to take something from them to make you(homosexuals) feel accepted.
            Wait--how are gay people "taking" marriage away from anybody? Are you trying to claim that if gay people can get married, straight people won't be able to anymore?

            That's like saying Japan "took" the auto industry away from the USA: a laughable claim.
            Cars are being built in Japan, yes, but they are also still being built in the USA.
            If gay people start getting married (as they have been), there will be nothing to stop straight people from continuing to get married, stay parried, and so on.

            What homosexuals are doing in taking this stance of demanding to re-define marriage IS hurting others as well as themselves by not accepting what others think, believe and feel.
            No, that's backwards. It's not that gay folks do not accept what others think believe and feel; rather, gay people want to take part in marriage, just as straight people do: they totally accept what others believe in--they want to take part in it too! But others are rejecting gay people, saying that they can't fully participate in society because they aren't good enough. Bleh.

            We are talking about the foundations of civilization, not the civilization itself. Traditional marriage is defined as such as the foundation of civilization...other unions of people that love one another are what is built within civilization, not the foundation upon which all civilization stands.
            This is just a pretty way of saying "Gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married because I'm not comfortable with gay people being married."

          2. junkseller profile image90
            junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If anyone was actually fighting for marriage by some other name then that might be fine, but as far as I know, nobody is. The fight is specifically to get married and call it being married. I don't see people wanting or accepting any less.Well, I am not gay, so I always feel a little funny speaking for them, but my impression is that they don't really care about getting some sort of universal acceptance. I think most understand that to be essentially impossible or at least something that will take a long time. In the mean time, they DO want equality. I also want equality, and, to be honest, don't really care if that bruises people's feelings. That is part of social life that they will just have to get over. Same-sex marriage doesn't take any ACTUAL thing away from anyone.

            If the two options are to have equality now and have acceptance take longer or to get acceptance sooner but wait for equality, I suspect most will take equality now and just avoid those who won't give acceptance I don't know, maybe I am entirely wrong about that.I just don't believe this. I am not an anthropologist so can't really offer any evidence, but I think the foundation of our civilization is our social fabric. Without complex social interactions and cooperation, we would still be monkeys (many of whom display homosexual behavior by the way). We are defined by our social group, not by our procreative capabilities. There are lots of ways to contribute to social groups. Homosexuals can and do contribute in valuable ways and always have. So yes, we are talking about the foundation of civilization, but that foundation is CIVILITY, not humping.A fine example of why we aren't supposed to pass laws based upon God theologies.

      2. WD Curry 111 profile image61
        WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Dang! You can write!

      3. Marquis profile image60
        Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Jewel is brilliant. That is the truth. Gays do nothing but make a mockery of marriage.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Gays who marry and divorce on the same day, or who marry, divorce, and marry another person, ask their second spouse if it would be okay to sleep around while that spouse was ill, and then cheat anyway, eventually divorcing the second spouse for a third, those gays would be making a mockery of marriage--oh, wait---it's straight people who did those things!

          1. Marquis profile image60
            Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Read what Jewel posted. That was the greatest example as to why marriage is between a man and a woman.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I did read what Jewel posted, and it's a great explanation of her beliefs on the subject. Well-written, and to the point.

              What it is not, however, is a great argument for why same-sex marriage should be forbidden.

              Basically, what you're saying is this: "It's against my religion for you to do that, therefore, you should be legally prohibited from doing what my religion forbids."

              What you don't get is that my religion is a stupid reason to forbid or require you to do anything. Followers of my religion aren't going to do the things it forbids anyway. And since, in this case, the thing my religion forbids affects nobody other than those who engage in that activity, I have no right to prohibit  others (who may or may not share my faith) from doing it.

              I could try and convince people that doing it is a bad idea, and can even try to get people to join my faith (voluntarily, that is) but I can't (or shouldn't) try to force others to obey the edicts of my faith.

              It's called freedom of religion. Tom Jefferson was a big fan of it, along with most of the other founders. Look it up.

              1. Marquis profile image60
                Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                That was well stated Jeff.

                I do not believe that most of the Founding Fathers were for religious freedom. Some were such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Paine, but many also believed in the Hebrew God.  Were you refering to the Establishment Clause?

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Practically all of the founders were Christians of one kind or another.

                  And they all recognized the dangers (to both church and state) of letting a church dictate the law of the land.

    20. A Thousand Words profile image80
      A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I just realized how this would sound if I used a different idea instead of "same sex marriage."

      What if it read as follows:

      "Is equal opportunity a positive ideology?

      What do you think about the promotion of equal opportunity?
      The adoption of this pattern of civil liberties is also a source of concerns to various stake holders in the religious and political circles.

      What is your say in all this?"

      If it was phrased like this, half the people in here would be singing a different tune. And yet people don't get that voting to keep people from having the same rights as every other tax-paying citizen is a practice of inequality.

  2. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago

    to be honest...i don't really think about it ...the topic pops up here on HP however and it catches my attention....one day, hopefully, it won't be a topic...folks get married and will continue to

    1. steveso profile image74
      stevesoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Same sex marriage is no big deal. It has been legal in Massachusetts for quite some time now and I don't see straight marriages being effected one bit. Opposition is basically on religious grounds, where some religions are trying to force their beliefs on others. The same arguments were used to oppose inter-racial marriages, years ago. There are many other more important issues to debate, such as war, poverty, jobs, healthcare etc.

      1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
        Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Same sex has an effect on the mentality of the populace, what about that?

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Meaning, other people getting to have nice things upsets people who want to keep them for themselves?

          That mentality shouldn't be encouraged.

          You can't stop people from being gay, all you can do is discriminate against them for it.  IMHO, not a good choice.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ++

        2. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          **********

          What effect?
          You can't make someone gay.

          If people would live and let live everything would be much better.

    2. Matthew Kirk profile image89
      Matthew Kirkposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It would be an advanced civilization where these questions aren't even discussed as possibly right or wrong or agree or don't agree and is just an accepted every day norm...

      Never will happen though!

  3. Felixedet2000 profile image61
    Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago

    So what is the best thing to do in such instance?

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      An instance of what?

      1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
        Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        instance of not allowing your lifestyle to have a negative effect on others. that's real love. When you live a life for the benefit of others.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Tend to your own knitting??

      1. livelonger profile image91
        livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol

    3. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The best thing is not to give legal voice to nonsensical activism.  Our courts are overrun with legitimate issues.  The homosexual agenda was created from distraction and rebellion.  It's a disservice to both the average American and to those who actually face their issues and legitmately struggle with the temptation of homosexuality.  It isn't even backed by many homosexuals; those people simply want understanding and help instead of legalization of their problems.  Yet the Left (both straight and homosexual-claiming) has voluntarily taken up the fight under the guise of helping them, when in fact they're only using them as pawns in a political game.  They compare it to civil rights issues, thereby undermining legitimate race issues.  Mostly they infiltrate the environment and minds of young people whose focus should be on getting an education instead of being turned into followers of an activist like Obama.
      No, there's nothing positive about that.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "The best thing is not to give legal voice to nonsensical activism.  Our courts are overrun with legitimate issues."

        That's true. We should stop paying attention to the paranoid rantings of the folks who like to pretend that Christians are being discriminated against.

        1. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
          Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There should be a like button on here lol I just like the things you have to say, Jeff. Great minds think alike lol

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So do mediocre ones, Matthew. smile It's important to remember that broad agreement with an idea doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea. Lots of people once wore polyester bell bottoms, for example. smile

          2. sen.sush23 profile image60
            sen.sush23posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I second this proposal and yes, Jeff is the reason. smile

      2. steveso profile image74
        stevesoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The only thing positive here is that  Brenda is  positively full of hate towards anyone who may different from her. Yes there is a comparison to civil rights issues. The problem with bigots like you is that you want to pick and choose what civil rights are given to those you choose to give them too.

      3. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
        Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        OMFG Wow. I am... speechless. Brenda, you are clueless. I am gay. I want the right to marry. I believe I am an equal human being and equal citizen and deserve the same rights. I do not want your "help". There is nothing deficient, rebellious, or shameful about me or my life. I am a normal, average, healthy American. I don't know where you get all of these crazy ideas. Every LGBT individual I know wants to be treated equally under the law. This is a very strong and legitimate issue. For example, I live in Ohio and it is still currently legal for me to be told by my employer, "You're fired because you're gay," or, "We don't hire gay people." And it happens all the time. It has happened to me personally, many times. It truly is as bad as being told, "We can't hire you because you're black," or, "You can't get married because you're interracial." You clearly do not understand the issue at all Brenda and I will kindly ask you to NEVER speak for me EVER AGAIN!!!!!!!!!! What would you do if you were told that you couldn't get married because you're straight? Or that, not only because of this highly competitive job market, but because you're straight you won't be hired. And what would you do if you the only man you trusted to care for you when you're sick wasn't allowed to make medical decisions for you but some stranger with your genes who disowned you 20 years ago for being straight gets to decide if you live or die now? You have no understanding of this issue. You've never lived through what we live through every day and you have no place asserting your ignorance, hatred and lies into this discussion.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          +++

          1. 0
            kimberlyslyricsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ++++

        2. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
          Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LOL apparently I wasn't speechless after all X-P

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Welcome to the hub pages Matthew

            If that dose not wake someone up, I don't know what will.

          2. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, indeed you were very dramatic and spouted a whole lot of carp.
            And very personally attacking.
            Are all liberal activists such drama queens or drama kings?   From what I've seen, they certainly are.   But still that's no excuse for your hateful rant.  It's you who's behaving in a hateful manner, not me.  And I'll kindly tell you to keep those personal insults like you posted previously to yourself.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image22
              Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Brenda Durham
              Who is attacking who, Matthew is protecting who he loves, what dose that have to do with hate? 

              Liberal activists such drama queens or drama kings,

              I wonder if two gay people were holding hands in your Shopping Mall, would you walk up to them and tell them to .............STOP IT!!!

              1. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It was and is obvious that he was attacking me.  My post stated my opinions about this issue in general, notably without personally insulting anyone at all.
                I had and have every right to speak about this issue, and I did so.  Don't talk to me about who loves who and who is protecting who, because if we went there I could debunk your statements in a heartbeat.  Just because that poster has a personal problem with this issue doesn't mean he had the right to attack me or anyone who speaks about it with a view he doesn't agree with.
                So what are you doing, trying to create even more drama?   Let's leave it as it is, shall we?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You do indeed have the right to state you opinion... and others -in turn- have the right to tell you what they think.  If you don't want "drama" then don't state your opinion. 

                  I never understood the idea of purposely saying something that will piss someone off then standing around looking all confused when someone gets pissed off.

                  Free speech doesn't mean no one ever disagrees with you.  It doesn't mean that no one is ever going to hurt your feelings for giving your opinion.  If you want to discuss topics that are very emotional to some, don't be surprised when someone gets emotional.

                  *Shrugs* No one sees you as a victim except yourself.  You generally get what you ask for.

                  1. 0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You should direct that post to the other party.  It fits him, not me.  As you well know.  So don't even try the subtle ploy with me, 'cause it doesn't wash.
                    "double shrug"

                  2. Repairguy47 profile image60
                    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Gee, where did she say she was a victim? Oh, you made that part up, my bad.

                2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  OK, I grant you that  I would not tell anyone on any topic, like this Matthew quoted
                  :no place asserting your ignorance, hatred and lies into this discussion:
                  Yet the rest of the post seem to be alright.

                  Sometimes I do get Christians telling me to go to hell for not giving it all up for Yahweh, when I having even join one group out of the 10,000 other Religions,  making gays illegal in predominant 80 religious countries,makes you wonder.

                  Brenda do you read, what you write, dose it not seem you have a great dislike for same sex marriage, or Liberal, activists, or for people who have a passion for drama.  Don't worry I won't marry my same sex or some other Religion, yet I can go there in a heartbeat and at anytime, because I Love everyone  in  degrees. Just as you have the freedom to come to this thread and talk about Loving Gay Marriages.

                  1. 0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Eh, the last time I looked, I (and anyone else) has the right to dislike whatever we dislike, or even anyone we dislike.  I don't hate anyone, but I hate a lot of things that people do.  I speak against actions, and I try to never speak against anyone personally. Because I know that all humans are fallible and all humans need to be loved for who they are.  The liberal activists, however, continue to "make things personal", and they attack whoever they wish, with the idea apparently that they have the right to do so.  Well, they're wrong.  They say that others must accept everything they do if they accept them.  That, again, isn't true. The two concepts are different and separate.  I know lots of people whose actions are wrong, yet I love those people.
                    You love everyone ..."in degrees".....?  I don't understand that concept, no.  Because I just Love everyone.  Doesn't mean I love what they do.  God commands me to Love everyone!  With the Love that He shows everyone.  Yes, He Loves everyone; He sent His Son to die for everyone!  If that isn't Love, then there is no such thing as Love!  But indeed He doesn't Love everything that everyone does.  That's an easy concept for me to understand.  Don't you understand it?  What do you mean by "in degrees"?

                3. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
                  Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh yes, Brenda, you are the victim. *sarcasm* Not worth my time, I've stated my case. You have the right to choose ignorance and to make up a fantasy world to live in. Have fun with that.

                  1. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
                    Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And thank you to those of you who stood by me! There are just some people that you cannot get through to. Hatred is so ingrained in who they are that they will never see the world in any other way. It is sad... and too exhausting to try with someone like this. Brenda, if you were being oppressed, I would defend your rights... no matter what I personally believe about you or how I feel about you. Because that is right.

                4. 0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ************************

                  If you attack gay people, you are personally attacking anyone gay who reads your posts.

                  You can try fooling yourself with generalities, but not God.

                  Nowhere does Yahshua say not be be gay, Yahshua did say don't divorce and remarry. Judge yourself.

              2. Repairguy47 profile image60
                Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I too thought he was attacking Brenda. And please don't take this the wrong way but its does not dose.

                1. 0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Thanks Repairguy.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                    Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No need to thank me, I'm privy to the liberal attack style. Gang up and make the rest up as they go.

                2. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
                  Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Every single syllable of her first post was an attack on me and she had the audacity to speak for me... and lie. Show me where "It isn't even backed by many homosexuals" and don't call me "those people" and say that I "simply want understanding and help"... first of all... help!? I don't have any problem. And then you go on to saying "homesexual-claiming" as if it's all make believe. And how is it not the same as other human rights? The original justification of slavery and that black people were less than human was an argument based in the Bible.... and with women's right to own property and leave the home and speak for themselves... each of these fights has been a fight against the bastardization of a beautiful message of peace and love that is lost between the Bible and many extremist Christians. I should not have any less rights than you for any reason whatsoever... no matter what misunderstandings you may have about me. "Treat others as you would like to be treated"... not "treat others, that you approve of, as you would like to be treated, and to hell with the rest of the sinners."

                3. Woman Of Courage profile image59
                  Woman Of Courageposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Once again, Brenda has been personally attacked. Stones have been thrown at her with false accusations. It doesn't matter who get angry. She is stating the truth in a civilized manner. Some are you are quick to falsely label people as hateful. I don't mean any harm.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I will agree that she is speaking her truth.  She is not speaking mine.

                    And if you are going to speak your truth, then be prepared to defend it.  If you are too thin-skinned to defend what you hold dear then you really don't feel that strongly about it to begin with.

            2. 0
              Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              ************************

              Wow, he could make money spouting Carp? Does he spout Bass? or Cat Fish?

        3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Dude, you have the right to marry (as long as you can find a willing partner). Your right to marry is currently being infringed upon. But some of us are trying to fix that.

          1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
            Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Gays can get married all the want, but they shouldn't make it to be a big deal, asking for right to marry is turning yourself into public super stars.

            After all you guys have sex, live together as husband and wife.....isn't that marriage enough?

            What else is there to marriage than that?

            1. junkseller profile image90
              junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Is living together and having sex enough for opposite-sex couples? They want the right to marry for the same reasons as anyone.

              Incidentally, the first same-sex couples who tried to get married, quietly walked into a court to get a license and where denied. They didn't want to be superstars, they just wanted to exercise their basic human rights.

              This only became a "big deal" when huge groups organized (largely religious) and started to draft laws and revise amendments to define marriage in a way that would violate the rights of same-sex couples.

              If you don't want it to be a big deal than let people live how they see fit.

              What else is there to same-sex marriage? How about love, a sacred vow in the eyes of God, commitment, raising families, stable households, a big fat ring you can proudly show your friends--you know, all the stuff that opposite-sex couples do and want.

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              LOL, that's funny, saying that gays can get married all they want. They really can't, except for in a few more enlightened US states (and several more enlightened foreign countries).

              It's even funnier to say that gay people shouldn't 'make it to be a big deal' when straight people make getting married a great big huge deal.

              As for what else there is to marriage besides living together as spouses, there are too many "what elses" to list here, but they include automatic joint ownership of property, visitation rights in hospitals, listing your partner as a beneficiary on your insurance, etc etc etc.

        4. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "What would you do if you were told that you couldn't get married because you're straight?"
          Or, more to the point, divorced.
          Some churches won't marry divorcees. That's okay, and nobody cares, because it's well within the rights of the church in question not to bless the marriage of a divorcee.
          But if the church tried to stop divorcees from getting married anywhere else, then we'd have a big damn problem.
          And that's why we should shut up and just let gay people get married if they want to: it's nobody's business but theirs.

          1. livelonger profile image91
            livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            This is absolutely true and makes too much sense for those anti-equality Christians who are themselves divorced and remarried (there are tens of millions of them).

        5. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I love the argument that is used in these discussions, Brenda doesn't have any other right that you don't have to marry. You can marry, she can marry whats the problem?

        6. Healthy Pursuits profile image89
          Healthy Pursuitsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Perfect, Matthew!

      4. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The best thing is not to give legal voice to nonsensical activism

        So, basically Brenda, you want to sensor any activist who does not share your views?

      5. nightwork4 profile image61
        nightwork4posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, there's nothing positive about that. let me be the first to say , B.S. happiness is about the most positive thing we can ever experience, ignorance of others happiness is the worst, get my drift?

      6. 0
        Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        ***********

        People are born gay and they don't do it to rebell. Most gays know which sex they prefer as early as two years old.

        They should do something to discourage the breaking of God's words, like divorcing someone because you are tired of them, and remarrying.

        They should also keep those committing remarriage Adultery out of church leadership.

        There is so much of this that our children accept it.

        Remarriage (unless there is fornication involved) is continuing adultery.


        Some people say "oh my husband cheated on me so I'm OK to be remarried"

        Yet they turn around and marry a divorced person.

      7. junkseller profile image90
        junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The courts consider marriage to be a fundamental human right protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution. The first instances of same-sex marriage involved couples attempting to get licenses from states, but were denied. They then sued the states for having their rights violated. In response to these lawsuits groups of people (largely comprised of religious organizations) banded together to start passing laws and amending constitutions to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. If these groups had minded their own business and allowed others to live their lives as they see fit, there would be no need now to fight for those rights. Fighting for basic human rights is not nonsensical and if you really are worried about the workload of the courts, why don't you spend your efforts trying to convince people to stop denying same-sex couples equal rights--problem solved.

        1. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
          Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, to be fair, fighting for our rights is nonsense... no law should be considered constitutional which guarantees greater freedoms to any group than to any other group. I do think that the way that human rights as a whole has been handled one issue at a time, though necessary because there are people who take great offense to their privileges being diluted, is burdensome on the courts and legislatures and taking WAY too long (generations when it ought to be, in my opinion, within the term of a single president). I don't think that people should stand up to racism, sexism, classism, or discrimination against disabilities, sexual orientation, or religious belief, separately. We are all fighting for one thing- Liberty and Justice for All! We should be fighting for a constitutional amendment that does not identify who cannot be discriminated against, but that explicitly disallows any law which uses identifying language, thus guaranteeing that we never have to have these long, painful fights again in America (or at least that they be extinguished more swiftly). It is sad, but no human rights movement has ever gotten any where until each minority group violently demanded their rights. I would like to know where the violent uprising is. Not saying that I advocate it, or that I would now or ever participate in it, but has anyone here heard of the Pink Pistols? Apparently the overall larger organization does not condone it and rather sticks to advocating gun-rights in the LGBT community, but there are smaller independent chapters and individuals within them that have been speculating at this for some time. Maybe "going about it the right way" doesn't actually yield results when you look at the record of history. I take no position on that, but I'm surprised that the gay community hasn't fought back with, at minimum, the amount of force that has been used against us.

          1. junkseller profile image90
            junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not really qualified to say, but the disallowing any law which uses "identifying language" sounds problematic. For instance, DOMA, doesn't actually call-out same-sex couples it simply defines marriage as between a man and a woman and so the identifying language prohibition wouldn't change that, unless you wouldn't even allow "man" or "woman" which seems unfeasible.

            Also, some identifying language can arguably be helpful; keeping convicted sex offenders away from schools, or the DREAM Act, for example. I think, legally, the government would say that it is essentially impossible not to sometimes create classes of people.

            It is an interesting idea, though. I would encourage you to explore it further.

            I suspect it is natural for a human rights battle to have one group on the side of  morality and the law and the other not. The group on the wrong side will then, unfortunately, sometimes employ violence as a tool for lack of a better option. Morality and law are useful and powerful weapons, though, and in the end I suspect they are the ones that win the fight. The recent CA ruling that has found DOMA to be unconstitutional is an enormous victory and lays the foundation for all these unconstitutional laws and amendments to be swept away.

            Hadn't heard of Pink Pistols. Have you heard of Bash Back! They take a more direct approach to their opponents that you might find interesting.

      8. ginosblog profile image32
        ginosblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You all have the <hate speech removed>. Go for and add to the numbers,  but don't involve innocent children if you don't have the guts or commitment to join in a real marriage with a man or a woman of the opposite sex as marriage was meant to be to create life and go forth and raise that child not abuse his thinking or the tradition of Marriage.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Reported as hate speech.

          I would like to thank you for being part of the opposing viewpoint.  You make it so much easier for the rest of us to prove our point.

          See, he agrees with you Brenda!  Meet your brother-in-arms.  You must be damn proud now.

        2. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ginosblog

          Per capita. gay people do not contract HIV easier than straight people. Lesbian rate is lower than straights, gay men is higher than straight people. It's not accurate to say "AIDS is  a  gay disease . German researchers who used a bone marrow transplant to treat a cancer patient with the AIDS virus, have declared him cured of the virus - Nearly four years after the transplant, the patient is free of the virus

          The Greatest danger to Mankind is over population The Good new is gays are becoming more illegal which  serves the world best by lowering the over human population of the Earth, including Christian.

          Confucius; "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. ....

           Or the Christian way big_smileo unto others as they do unto you"  or would that contradicted by the "eye for an eye" quote. Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." I dont know where a gay person poked a Christian’s eye out with a sharp stick or where an Iraqi killed an American on their soil.

          God forbid if Christian or Muslim fruitfulness was illegal in 80 countries around the world. That kind of attack from the rear would get someone nuked for sure.

  4. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago

    Apparently Brenda doesn't knit... shame really because she seems to need a hobby... or a life.

  5. marshacanada profile image82
    marshacanadaposted 4 years ago

    There have been legal gay, lesbian, trans marriages in Canada, Europe,and in various US states for a while now. Gay marriage makes gay people happy, provides more security for their children, the sky has not fallen down. So why do some fundamentalists get so excited wanting to deny gays this basic human right?

  6. ar.colton profile image90
    ar.coltonposted 4 years ago

    It's not an ideology at all. As a child of same-sex parents it's nothing more than another kind of family. I grew up pretty well, just as screwed up and happy as anyone with "traditional" or single parent homes. Honestly people need to stop making such a big deal out of it. It is what it is, just as good or bad as anyone else's marriage.

  7. aguasilver profile image87
    aguasilverposted 4 years ago

    If a civil partnership allows equal inheritance and tax rights in society, it's a positive thing for the world, because it would be unreasonable to deprive a long term partner, from inheriting a 'spouses' assets upon death on unequal terms.

    Marriage has defined boundaries in religious terms, and mostly they relate to one man with one woman, and they should be protected, but marriage in Gods eyes is promise (of lifelong conjoining) + consummation (of sexual union) = marriage.

    If God disapproves of homosexuality, He will deal with it in His own time, and judge the homosexual by the exact same measure that He will judge any other of His children, as believers we should not shun anyone, nor judge, nor attack.

    God is big enough to deal with these issues, our responsibility is to show Gods love and assist those who seek to be in relationship with God.

    Those who chose not to be are really not our concern, and as Gods requirements for recognition of marriage is different from the worlds, let the world do as it wishes concerning legal status of marriage by secular definition.

    Scripture tells us that in these times, good will be called bad and that iniquity and apostasy will increase alongside knowledge, whilst understanding and relationship with God will diminish.

    Believers are observers here, and as we enter the end days, our role is to help where required or requested, but let the world do as it wishes, for in doing so we speed the return of Christ.

    So allow these laws where they are demanded, if there is a substantial homosexual populace, they are required, if there is not, they are irrelevant.

    John

    1. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
      Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      John. First of all, I respect the way that you set this out as an intelligent argument, and I share some of your views, though I differ on several as well.

      I absolutely believe that judgment is for God and not for any human being. You touched on a curiosity I've always had- if it is assumed that God is all powerful, all knowing, and the ultimate force of pure goodness... why would any human being have to do his work for him? Aren't we here to do human work? To be decent human beings, lead righteous lives, give generously and love unconditionally? Isn't that our place? Shouldn't we let "management" do His job? That has always bothered me about people who use religion as a vehicle of hate.

      I definitely believe that the separation of church and state is a two-way relationship as well... while no religion should influence law, no law should influence religion. I want the right to marry, but I do not want any law to force any institution to preside. Getting a religious wedding, which is a sacrament, is not a legal right. I just want the legal right for the marriage license.

      The one issue I take with what you've laid out here is, "allow these laws where they are demanded, if there is a substantial homosexual populace, they are required, if there is not, they are irrelevant." Is that to say that protecting any minority is irrelevant? You seem like a good, compassionate person. I think perhaps you haven't thought that statement through. Isn't it more godly to believe that all people are equally worthy? Even if it was only one person, shouldn't we care for them unconditionally? Who are we to place value on human beings by how popular they are?

  8. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago

    Today Washington State became the 7th state to legalize same sex marriage. Now if ony the remainf staes get with the times and ditch the dogma and so called "Christian values" crap (to some people "Christian values" is defined as treat other the way you want to be treated unless they are Jewish, Muslim, gay, or non-Christian).

  9. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    I can't think of any case where a church was "forced" to marry a gay couple.  I think that is a straw man argument.

  10. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Gay Marriage Debate is About Money, Too

    "...At the federal level, however, the fight is not just about words; it is also about money. Federal law bestows a long list of rights — more than 1,000 — on legally married couples. Spouses may give each other unlimited bequests tax free, and they are permitted to file joint tax returns. If one spouse is a citizen, the other can become a citizen, too, and spouses get special treatment from Social Security. For some couples, a lot of money is on the line. That’s why you are reading this column in the business section.

    People in domestic partnerships, as well as gay couples who were legally married in a state, cannot get these federal benefits. That’s because of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which says, “The word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” So, although the headlines are being made by legislation and court decisions at the state level, the financial aspects of same-sex marriage are, for the most part, controlled at the federal level." More---

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/busin … f=business

  11. Astra Nomik profile image74
    Astra Nomikposted 4 years ago

    Your Question:

    "What do you think about the promotion of same sex marriage?
    The adoption of this pattern of marriage is also a source of concerns to various stake holders in the religious and political circles.

    What is you say in all this?"

    My reply - are you a stake holder?

  12. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    It is positive yes, but it is not an ideology. It means we are progressing as a society in the area of equality.

  13. ib radmasters profile image61
    ib radmastersposted 4 years ago

    How are apples and oranges to be judged for equality.
    Spending time on same sex marriages is a waste of time and a distraction to more important issues of the country.

    Same sex marriage is as useful as trying to connect two electrical cables with the same gender plug.

    government and politics cannot solve social issues, but they need to focus and solve issues of the economy, and national defense, jobs, saving homes etc.

    Same sex marriage is a fabricated right, like that of Smoker's Rights.
    It is a waste of time.

  14. Jeff Berndt profile image92
    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago

    "I don't say mean things about people I don't like, and as proof, look what that other guy said over there! By the way, it also proves that you're unreasonable and unfair."

    lol
    Breanda's posts sure are entertaining.

    1. livelonger profile image91
      livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They've given me, personally, plenty of insight into psychology (esp around guilt, shame, and projection). Or they've proven I've been duped by Poe's Law.  Not sure which!

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don't forget megalomania and persecution complex. 

        And talking about Poe's Law...

        Have you seen the Betty Bowers "Baptists Are Saving Homosexuals" page?  Loving it smile

        http://bettybowers.com/bash.html

        1. livelonger profile image91
          livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I totally forgot about the persecution complex... being for equality for gay people means you hate heterosexuals (you're a 'heterophobe'). lol

          I am a BIG fan of Betty Bowers. Christwire is hilarious, too. I'm always amazed reading the comments there that people don't realize it's satire. The articles are over-the-top ridiculous. But, then again, Poe's Law exists for that very reason.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You have it easy LL.  As a gay man you only hate heterosexuals.  I'm bi... the only people I like come with batteries.  It's a very lonely life... and my teeth are always chattering.

            1. livelonger profile image91
              livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol You've reminded me of this bit by comedienne Sommore. She said that she had gotten so addicted to her "toy" that she dreamt she gave birth to copper-topped children, and walking down the street passing neighbors' houses, garage doors would open and close.

              Don't forget your Christophobia. Yes, you can apparently be a Christian and a Christophobe (just like the vast majority of heterophobes are heterosexual themselves).

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ah no, the religious right solves that sticky little problem by declaring that those who disagree with them are not Christians.  See... problem solved...

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Not only are they not Christians, they are hate filled and attack people. They have to substantiate their argument somehow.

      2. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
        Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ya know... I wasn't going to point it out but every time I read Brenda's post, the other thing that sticks out to me is that she states that "It is a disservice to... those who actually face their issues and legitmately struggle with the temptation of homosexuality" So this is how she faces her issue and "homosexual temptation"... by taking it out on others. There was actually a study done once... someone should google this and post a link citing this if I don't remember to do so later... that every single homophobe is scientifically proven to be homosexual. Straight men that were comfortable with themselves and were comfortable with gay men, gay men, and homophobic straight men were all observed while they were shown erotic pictures of women and of men... the straight men that were comfortable with gay men were the only ones that were not physically aroused by images of naked men, and the gay men were the only ones not physically aroused by images of naked women. So... it is physical, not behavioral, i.e., not a "choice" and the more that you're against it- the gayer you are.

        1. livelonger profile image91
          livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There was a study that showed that homophobic men were more likely to be aroused by gay sex than non-homophobic men:
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014
          Not all homophobes are gay, though. I don't think it's necessary to exaggerate and claim so.

          I've found that arguing from a scientific point of view doesn't work with fundies, though; they happily dismiss scientific evidence as liberal propaganda. It's best to remind them that they're in more clear violation of what Jesus taught, because scripture is the only thing they respect. If anyone's going to hell according to the Christian Bible, it's them.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image22
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That explain why conservative love Cirque du Soleil so much

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, I'm not with you on this one.

          I think that something other than religious fervor is driving the hard-core homophobes but I don't think it's repressed homosexuality.  I.E. if the bible would have said very specifically that God loved gay sex then the homophobes would have a parting of the way with their holy book. 

          I have very specific opinions on what exactly is driving them, but I'll not go into it.  I do know that I have a fairly well-developed gaydar and Brenda isn't showing a blip.  To be honest-and this is my personal hunch- I don't think she is comfortable enough with her own girl parts to want to explore another woman's.  Even in fantasy land.

        3. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this
          1. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
            Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thank you. And ya, it had been so long since I had read the actual study, I was just retelling it the way I remembered. That's why I asked for help citing it. Didn't think I was exaggerating it... but I guess that's how I remembered it.

  15. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

    Really, does it matter?  The most important thing in a marriage is that TWO people respect, honor, and love each other.   This goes beyond the parameters of whether a couple is heterosexual or homosexual.  This is the 21st century and such an atavistic notion that marriage should occur between a man and a woman is totally out of place! Now I have spoken my piece!

  16. ib radmasters profile image61
    ib radmastersposted 4 years ago

    How are apples and oranges to be judged for equality.
    Spending time on same sex marriages is a waste of time and a distraction to more important issues of the country.

    Same sex marriage is as useful as trying to connect two electrical cables with the same gender plug.

    government and politics cannot solve social issues, but they need to focus and solve issues of the economy, and national defense, jobs, saving homes etc.

    Same sex marriage is a fabricated right, like that of Smoker's Rights.
    It is a waste of time.

    1. junkseller profile image90
      junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What is your deal with electrical plugs? At least the rest of us are talking about sex between humans. I tend to think I am opened minded, but sex with electrical cables is a little weird even for me. They are called penises and vaginas. Say it with me. You can do it. P-E-N-I-S, V-A-G-I-N-A. see that wasn't so hard. And if you can't figure out how to put two of the same kind together it is because you haven't tried very hard or you are terribly uncreative and that isn't anybody else's fault. If figuring this out keeps you up at night, let me know, I would be happy to draw you some diagrams.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        *splutter* that comment allmost killed me tongue no good to read funny stuff while drnking coffee.

      2. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
        Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hmm... diagrams, you  say? lol

    2. livelonger profile image91
      livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Most people have jobs.
      Our economy is still functioning.
      Our country is not under attack from any other country.
      Most people are living in their homes, and there's nothing to be saved from.

      All of those things are just distractions.

      (Just pointing out how ludicrous your arguments are; you seem to not care about issues that only apply to a minority of citizens. The fact that some people don't have equal rights doesn't matter as long as you have them all.)

      1. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
        Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly. What value does freedom have if all are not free to have it.

        1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
          Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You mean, getting married is freedom?....

          Now here this truth.....gays have the highest degree of freedom anyone in the world can think of, why make noise about discrimination when in actual fact what you cry foul about is what has become your idiosyncrasy.

          1. ar.colton profile image90
            ar.coltonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Gays have the highest degree of freedom? Yep, that's why a lesbian was seeking refugee status in Canada becuase her life had been threatened in the military. That's why for years my mother had to say "partner" instead of  "wife" to protect her job, and why I lost one when I mentioned my mothers. That's why men and women are attacked and killed for looking gay and why teens are killing themselves because being in US highschools as a gay teen is worse than death.

            Your arguement is invalid.

            1. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              To ar colton:  I am so sorry to hear what happened to you.  This society has an underlying prejudice against LGBT people which is so atavistic.   There are many people who mistakenly believe that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are "threatening" to their status quo ideas of marriage and the family.   This prejudice is even more prevalent among fundamentalist people who believe that anyone who is not heterosexual is doomed to eternal perdition. 

              LGBT people are not the freest people.   LGBT people are discriminated against more overtly than any other minority.  LGBT children are bullied by their families and in school.  A high number of LGBT children and teens commit more suicide than in the general population due to bullying and osctracization by both families and classmates.   

              Even though there are laws which protect against unlawful discrimination because of sexual orientation, companies and corporations often find covert and pretextual ways to discriminate against LGBT people and get away with it!  Prejudice against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people is the last acceptable prejudice.  This has got to stop.   It does not matter whether you are homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, and/or transgendered, one has the right to marry if one wish.  I have now said my piece.

              1. ar.colton profile image90
                ar.coltonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I have definitely seen companies using covert methods to discrimminate against LGBT employess. I know a number of people who have been let go, had their hours reduced or basic requests denied for very nebulous reasons. Both my mothers have experienced this one.

          2. ar.colton profile image90
            ar.coltonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Got nothing for us here Felix? I suppose that's our point proven. High five gmwilliams. wink

    3. ar.colton profile image90
      ar.coltonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Government and politics shouldn't be involved in whether to people who love eachother can get married Ib, but they got themselves involved. So now they need to fix it.

  17. mio cid profile image65
    mio cidposted 4 years ago

    It harms no one and is very positive to many, so it is inevitable that will eventually become the law of the land.

    1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
      Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      From creation till now, it has never been recognize officially because it is a negative influence and i don't see that position changing anyway, the practice hurt the feelings of the larger society, only in Sodom and Gomorrah was it a law for same sex people to get married openly.

      The practice of sodomy is anti human in nature.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "From creation till now, it has never been recognize officially because it is a negative influence"

        Don't know much about ancient Greece, do you?

      2. livelonger profile image91
        livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You just made that up.

        Along with the rest of your post. Pure opinion, grounded in your own bigotries, nothing else.

      3. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So lesbianism is fine?  Sodomy isn't real big in that world... Not saying it doesn't happen but not any more often than in heterosexual relationships. Was there a biblical city somewhere that was destroyed because of oral sex?  How about heavy petting? And what happens to Christian couples that engage in oral and/or anal sex or who feel each other up?  Are they going to hell too?  In that case hell really is going to be asses and elbows.  Jeez, you would think that with so many ways to burn eternally for being intimate with a partner that Jesus would have at least dedicated a testament or two to it.

        And YOUR position my not change, but society's position in general IS. It's legal in 7 states now...

  18. Felixedet2000 profile image61
    Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago

    sodomy is the practice of same sex, the same way the people of Sodom and Gomorrah did, that's where the name sodomy comes from.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Entertaining posts, if nothing else....

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow... I wish I could just make up my own meaning for words.

      Then I wish I could rewrite the bible to say what I wanted it to say.

      Then I wish I could use both to make people listen to my own personal opinions because they are what God said.

      but I wouldn't try... because that would be wrong.

    3. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      ********************

      Sodom means a wicked or depraved place, regardless of what was named after it.

      Look it up

      1. livelonger profile image91
        livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's interesting how so many Christians read the Genesis story as a condemnation of homosexuality, as if Sodom & Gomorrah would not have been labeled wicked had they simply raped women instead. Their read is really illuminating about their values.

        The traditional Jewish understanding has always been that Sodom & Gomorrah's sin was one of cruelty, and there were plenty of midrash talking about their cruelty to strangers (and none about homosexuality).

      2. Felixedet2000 profile image61
        Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sodom is simply a name of a place that was once a brawling city, only that the inhabitant of that ancient city were perverse in their sexual orientation.

        Children of Cain, the child of the evil one, and rightly the seed of the serpent.

    4. ar.colton profile image90
      ar.coltonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Felix, you may notice that a lot of words are no longer directly connected to their root words in meaning. Plenty of straight people practise sodomy.

      1. Greek One profile image79
        Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        HERE HERE!

        http://www.worldwidegreeks.biz/product_images/v/143/kissmeimgreek__22898_zoom.jpg

  19. glendoncaba profile image80
    glendoncabaposted 4 years ago

    Brenda and other Biblical Creation Christians:
    Why bother to discuss an issue such as gay marriage on HubPages?  I cant quite figure out why but the site is dominated by liberals and gays.  This is as amoral and postmodern as it gets once it touches family types and reproductive rights.  So to Brenda and others like her I admire your courage.  But are you able to testify of any success for the kingdom of heaven?  Would you go to Mecca to condemn Mohammed?  Would you attend Old Trafford to boo Manchester United?  Would you attend a White House party to campaign against the sitting president?  So why come to the capital of same sex approval to contradict them so brazenly? 

    Let's learn from Paul at Athens and see if we can look around for their unknown god as an object lesson. 

    To any unbiased observer it is clear that same sex spousal relationships are negative in every sense.  But you will not be able to have that discussion here because in this forum it is called hate.  I learned this a long time ago.  But like viruses and bacteria you pray that your immune system will resist the disease upon the land.  Talking about an incurable disease is almost an exercise in futility unless of course you are addressing a friendly crowd on how to build up your immune system.

    I suppose the role of the Christian Church vis a vis this issue is to continue to declare the justice and mercy of God whilst being unapologetic about the morality/immorality of homosexuality.   

    Sometimes I wonder if something is deteriorating in human genes or is it a cyclical fad eg Rome and Greece, and Sodom.  Extreme wealth and luxury turned inwardly on indulgence; plus disrespect for law of God.  I mean why would God destroy Sodom and permit modern Sodom?  My only answer from the Bible is that we are at the end of days so they are waiting for the 7 last plagues followed by the return of our Lord Jesus Christ in glory to put a permanent end to all of this.  Then after the millennium a new earth cleansed by fire.  No more homosexuals, no more crime.  Peace at last.  Read Revelation 20, 21, 22.

    1. junkseller profile image90
      junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There ARE gay and lesbian Christians and there are also churches that are FAR more forgiving on the issue than you are, so even from a biblical perspective it seems like a worthwhile debate, considering not all Christians agree with you either. A person sinning does not remove the Lord's commandment to love them as you do yourself.

      My interest really is more to do with the law, and if you look at the legal cases that have taken place recently you will find that opponents of same-sex marriage whether unbiased or not COULD NOT FIND ANY negative consequence resulting from same-sex marriage.

      Hopefully you at least realize that you are not unbiased. Holding a position based upon mythology is pure bias.

      1. glendoncaba profile image80
        glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No doubt the Germans thought nazis would have no negative consequences before the holocaust of course.

        By what standard do you measure negative consequence?

        Love is higher than seeking the pleasure and favour of human flesh.  Love is divine.  And God created organs and hormones for gender opposites.  Love must seek the high road to the kingdom of God.  We may not trust evolving values.  We trust the ethics of Creation.

        Of course I am biased, that is, I have a stated perspective.  Read my hubs and forum posts.  Whats your mytholology?  The triumph of secularism and the homosexual agenda?  You guys must be so happy to get Buju Banton behind bars where he can't wage his cultural war against the gay agenda.

        The liberal pro gay lobby has permeated every country, every law court, every political party.  And you practically own the internet.  HubPages is like your living room.

        Why are you guys taking over western civilization with something that is against the word of God and against nature?

        1. junkseller profile image90
          junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          In the most recent case, the opponents implied that same-sex marriage would harm chldren raised by same-sex couples, would harm traditional opposite-sex marriage, would harm traditional notions of morality, and put fiscal stress on the state. They didn't prove any of these.

          I agree and so would many same-sex couples. That is the point. So why do you want to deny them access to the loving commitment of marriage simply because of the less important way in which they favor human flesh?

          If there is a liberal pro gay lobby taking over western civilization I don't know anything about it, nor do I have any idea who Buju Banton is. I don't speak for anyone else. My only concern is defending basic human rights--marriage is one of them.

          I'm perfectly happy living next door to you, until you tell me how I should or shouldn't live. Christians increasingly seem to be the ones unwilling to live next door to anyone different than them. Religions started the fight against homosexuals, not the other way around. This is America, not the Vatican. Homosexuality being a sin isn't written in the Constitution. Equal protection under the law, however, is.

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Amen to you, junkseller.

          2. glendoncaba profile image80
            glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Rights must be measured against the divine standard.

            Do you have the right to marry your pet poodle? Even if it became legal would you? Why?

            Do you have the right to marry your grandmother?  But is it ethical?

            See?  Ethics must enter the argument at some point.

            The inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be circumscribed by the ethics of the Bible which seeks to make all men disciples of Christ.

            1. calpol25 profile image74
              calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              One other thing, the bible also seeks to destroy freedom of choice, freedom of thought and freedom. period!!!!

              Well your bible does anyways glendoncaba from what I have read in your posts.

              1. glendoncaba profile image80
                glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Freedom must have standards.  You are free to drive on the freeway so long as you drive on the right, in UK on the left.

                Freedom needs rules in order to be free.

                Who gets to set the rules?

                Not the human heart.  We are too inherently evil.  We need to trust the universal divine Creator.

                But look at the evidence of the results of the religion of Christ.  The best of western civilization has been influenced by the Judeo Christian ethics of love.  Unfortunately the bible has been used to justify some of its worst, too.

                1. calpol25 profile image74
                  calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I do not  trust anyone I cant see, touch, smell and feel so sorry but no fictional spirit is gonna tell me how I should live thank you very much.
                  I never do wrong to anyone, yet my gender makes me some kind of subhuman  criminal to you and your extremist sect and is some how open for debate by you, but we are not allowed to debate your life, Yes very fair that one.
                  Christian ethics dont exist anymore because too many people have twisted and changed things to aid their own ends.

                  1. glendoncaba profile image80
                    glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Then lets have an intelligent discussion about ethical theories instead of throwing tantrums about hate. 

                    Believe it or not it all boils down to whose ethical standards we will follow.  Not to finger pointing but being intellectually honest enough to admit that we have a worldview which is biased by our choice of standards.  And then defend those standards with reasonable arguments from logic and history.

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Rights must be measured against the divine standard.

              According to whom? Do you get to tell us what the "Divine standard" is? Or does everyone have to listen to the Pope? Or perhaps the Ayatollah? Or the Dali Lama? Some folks are going to say we need to listen to somebody else entirely. So, which "divine standard" do we pay attention to?

              Of course, in the US, our laws are made by the people, in whom rests the final authority. Our Constitution states that government derives its authority from the people not from some divine source that nobody can agree upon. So while you're welcome to try and convince everyone to agree with your divine standard, so can everyone else. And some folks are just going use a more secular yardstick: Does it hurt anyone? No? Then why is it illegal?

              Do you have the right to marry your pet poodle?Since my hypothetical pet poodle cannot give consent (since as far as we know it is incapable of understanding the concept of marriage), no, I do not have the right to marry my pet poodle.

              Even if it became legal would you?

              No.

              Why?
              I imagine for many of the same reasons you wouldn't want to marry your pet poodle--or for that matter, wouldn't want to marry someone of the same sex: I don't find poodles--or other men--sexually attractive.

              incidentally, this is also why letting gay people get married won't result in the end of human civilization: most people aren't gay, and therefore won't want to marry someone of their own sex.


              Do you have the right to marry your grandmother?
              If both of us wanted to get married to each other, I suppose we'd have that right--if she weren't still married to my grandfather. But probably neither of us would want to exercise that right.   

              But is it ethical?
              Ethical? Well, it's certainly unwise. We probably shouldn't have children, as close genetic relatives tend to pass on disadvantageous recessive genes (like hemophilia, for example). The age difference would be problematical. But it's really a nonissue: most people don't want to marry their grandparents/grandchildren. It's not a problem.

              See?  Ethics must enter the argument at some point.
              Well, people have to want to do something before they even need to weigh the ethics of it. I don't need to weigh the ethics of, say, crossbreeding buffalo and wildebeasts, because I really don't want to do that in the first place.

              The inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be circumscribed by the ethics of the Bible which seeks to make all men disciples of Christ.
              Well, you're perfectly free to circumscribe your pursuit of happiness with the ethics of the Bible if you want to; farbeit from me to stop you. But, see, you really don't get to tell Assad Schmoe that he can't do something because it doesn't square with your idea of Biblical ethics, just like Assad doesn't get to stop you from doing something that doesn't square with his idea of Koranic ethics, and Rabbi Schwartz can't stop you from eating ham because it isn't kosher.

              1. calpol25 profile image74
                calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I agree Jeff smile +1

              2. glendoncaba profile image80
                glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Just an aside:  the rabbi and I share the same diet because I believe in the diet of the bible (no unclean foods).

                We are still answering one ethical question:  Which standard should we use to discuss marriage?

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Just an aside:  the rabbi and I share the same diet because I believe in the diet of the bible (no unclean foods)."
                  Okay, fair enough. smile Substitute Brahmin and beef then. Same deal.

                  "Which standard should we use to discuss marriage?"
                  Easy: Are the participants informed, competent, consenting adults? If so, then it's allowed. If not, then it isn't.

            3. junkseller profile image90
              junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No they don't. As I said this is America, not the Vatican. The Courts have stated that marriage is a fundamental right and any time you would like to challenge that I will be happy to meet you in court and watch you lose.

              Ethically, I support honest, consensual love, regardless of number of legs, amount of hair, age, gender, sexual proclivities, or ANY other tiny superficial characteristic that pales in comparison and importance to the sacred and wonderful thing that we call love. Hump the hell out of your Grandma for all I care, just do so lovingly.

            4. calpol25 profile image74
              calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              This sums up pretty nicely

              http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/422409_335998949771327_167821829922374_888257_1499530317_n.jpg

              1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Not into hate, yet for people who are into it , that works +

                1. calpol25 profile image74
                  calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  lol +1

              2. glendoncaba profile image80
                glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                As I said in my first post if you take on the gay lobby with bible you will be accused of hate.  Hate is what white people did to blacks in the south.  Lynching etc.

                Love is to engage a discussion with the authority of word of God who in love sent Jesus to save us all from our sins, not in our sins.  Jesus in His words invites you to obey a God of love.

                By accusing Christians of hate you hope to scare us into a corner.  Seen that argument before.  Christians are raising up charities to minister to HIVAids people etc. without regard to sexual orientation.

                1. calpol25 profile image74
                  calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Im sorry but please do not try to justify yourself with the Christians are setting up charities business it dont work with me I am afraid to say. Where were they when we needed them 20/30 yrs ago?

                  No if you take on the gay lobby with the bible you will accused of being fair, but if like some you twist the bible to attack the gay lobby then you will accused of hate.  Jesus can obey god if he wants, but I am not afraid to say that I wont and will take on the christian lobby any day smile

                2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                  Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  glendoncaba

                  Just like the blacks, the time to set gays free is today

                  Who again is holding this 10% gay group back???

                  1. calpol25 profile image74
                    calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Thank goodness you have got here Castlepaloma smile x

              3. Felixedet2000 profile image61
                Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hate is a relative term...

          3. glendoncaba profile image80
            glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            We operate in the same physical world but in two ethical worlds.  Mine assumes that there is a standard of right and wrong.  Given by a God of love whom we can trust.

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

            Pop culture reggae icon with anti gay lyrics.

            1. calpol25 profile image74
              calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No you assume there a standard of right and wrong, but presume to say it gods will, when infact its your words of bigotry that are promoting it, just take a look at your posts on here. That is fact enough!

              What god hates? What god can allow persecution to be committed in his/her name, what god allows weak, malicious bigots to promote their teachings, seemingly your god!

            2. junkseller profile image90
              junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I completely agree, except the part about the source of right and wrong.

              With that being said, the physical world we live in, thankfully, is a place in which laws exist to prevent one ethical worldview from forcing its beliefs onto others. I'm not the one intruding on your beliefs, and the reality is that due to the physical world we live in (America) this is a battle you can not win. What you do with that reality is your own business.

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And thinking People other than fundamentalist Christians don't have a sense of right and wrong is... well... pure nonsense.

  20. RachaelLefler profile image92
    RachaelLeflerposted 4 years ago

    It is, because I don't think Jesus wants to shame, disgrace, or exclude anyone. I think he embraces humanity in all of its diversity, and our diversity is what makes us so beautiful.

    1. glendoncaba profile image80
      glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jesus does not.  You are correct.  Our sins separate us from God.  Sin destroys relationships. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

      Jesus invites you to flee your iniquities and come to Him for pardon.  Flee homosexuality and all sinful living and seek His way of truth and life. 

      Jesus invented marriage and family and gave us the pattern at Eden.  He blessed marriage when he came as the Messiah.  Please dont impute impure motives to our Lord.

      1. calpol25 profile image74
        calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How dare you! Sinful living indeed, I am sorry but heterosexuality is not above sin look at  adam and eve!!! How you can judge I dont know! sad

        One more thing! Heterosexuals murder gay people, and say they are doing christs work, are you saying that is not sinful !!!! sad

        1. calpol25 profile image74
          calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Here is my thoughts on your bible glendoncaba smile

          http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/424495_10150692828165560_207637710559_11551785_1493686078_n.jpg

        2. glendoncaba profile image80
          glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Note I said all sinful living including my sins.  He loves you and invites you into His blessed peace.

          No hate here just love, but love with a standard.  We must have a divine law of love that seeks to preserve life and universal harmony.

          1. calpol25 profile image74
            calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            you said all sinful living after homosexuality, but what gives you the right to judge? and as far as sin is concerned your religion boasts a class system of sin and one seems to be worse than the other.

            Furthermore all you lot have to do is say a few words of repentance and that makes it all okay! Sorry not in my book and furthermore what gives you the right to say homosexuality is a sin, God did not write the bible! Man write the bible and the bible has been rewritten and changed more times than enough so its merely a work of fiction by several authors smile

        3. Felixedet2000 profile image61
          Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are only saying what you are saying because you are a gay, listen brother....
          i don't have to live my life for you nor you for me, all that is important in this forum is constructive adult criticism that is beneficial to us as humans first and foremost, every other thing is secondary
          If you feel the society is victimizing your kind, all i am saying is, no one is going to arrest you for being a gay,i am not sure that has happen, no one is canvassing you to change your orientation

          but, don't sell this dogma that you are being denied your rights because you have exercise quite enough for being whom you are...OK?

        4. Felixedet2000 profile image61
          Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No one has been kill for being gay...we live and let all live.
          Diversity is part of human existence..
          Can you state the fact for all to understand?

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I was going to reply with links... then I realized that no one could possibly be that out of touch with the world... therefore you must be a troll.

            1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
              Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nice one..you've been so kind..exactly what you wanted to say all this while.

            2. Felixedet2000 profile image61
              Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              People get kill on a daily bases all over the world...this is life and life is all about survival of the fittest..no justification for any crime whatsoever.
              No need for links...i know what i am talking about.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Translation: evidence is useless against the power of willful ignorance!

          2. jonnycomelately profile image86
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            In numerous countries it is an "offense" punishable by death, often by very vicious means!

            Even if you don't directly cause a person's death, you can be the catalyst which pushes a man or woman to commit suicide.  Why?  Because you create such an atmosphere of guilt and ostracism that a guy has no where to turn for honest, supportive counsel.

            And please, anyone, don't come back to us with the glib statement "Jesus Cares."  I am talking about human help.  Non-judgmental help, which is loving, patient, kind, and with all the attributes which Paul spoke of.

            1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
              Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Is it that you have any problem with the name Jesus?

              1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                None at all.  Only the people who spout it out, use it for their own crutch as though it's a magical word, the panacea for all problems.  It is, after all, just a name which we English-speaking people have given to that person who, apparently, lived 2000+ years ago.  Other languages use a variation of the word, but it's probable that he would never have responded to this "Jesus."

          3. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            People are killed every day around the world by Christians who believe they are doing gods word, and why wouldn't they does it not say in the bible that they should? But you are nowhere you neither want to kill them in accordance with your outdated, sick faith nor grant them fair rights and equality so you manage to do wrong by both. The whole thing is a joke, you cite your reasons for your disapproval of homosexuals as stemming from the bible then ignore it's very commands on the matter.

            "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."  (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

            It's pretty unambiguous.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Apparently you haven't heard of Matthew Shepard, the U of Wyoming student who was killed and hung up on a fence for being gay. Suggest you quit making stuff up and stating it as fact.

              Murder
              Shepard's murderers, Russell Arthur Henderson and Aaron James McKinney, awaiting testimony in court (1998)

              Shortly after midnight on October 6, 1998, Shepard met Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson for the first time at the Fireside Lounge in Laramie, Wyoming.[7] It was decided that McKinney and Henderson would give Shepard a ride home.[8] McKinney and Henderson subsequently drove the car to a remote, rural area and proceeded to rob, pistol-whip, and torture Shepard, tying him to a fence and leaving him to die. According to their court testimony, McKinney and Henderson also discovered his address and intended to steal from his home. Still tied to the fence, Shepard, who was still alive but in a coma, was discovered 18 hours later by Aaron Kreifels, a cyclist who initially mistook Shepard for a scarecrow.[9]

              Shepard had suffered fractures to the back of his head and in front of his right ear. He experienced severe brain-stem damage, which affected his body's ability to regulate heart rate, body temperature, and other vital functions. There also were about a dozen small lacerations around his head, face, and neck. His injuries were deemed too severe for doctors to operate. Shepard never regained consciousness and remained on full life support. While he lay in intensive care, candlelight vigils were held by the people of Laramie.[10]

              Shepard was pronounced dead at 12:53 a.m. on October 12, 1998, at Poudre Valley Hospital, in Fort Collins, Colorado.

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

    2. Kebennett1 profile image60
      Kebennett1posted 4 years ago

      It is my belief that One man and One woman were created to be joined together and to procreate. Since two men or two women can not procreate as was intended then I do not believe that marriage between two like sexes should be promoted. I do not dislike homosexuals as I judge whether I like or dislike a person on their actions and personality towards me and others. But, I don't condone their choice of lifestyle.

      1. calpol25 profile image74
        calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well I dont condone the heterosexual choice of lifestyle as our planet is over run  because of your procreating smile

        1. Castlepaloma profile image22
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually gays are performing a service, by not over polluting the earth with human population in which is killing off much of animal and plant species;

          Sorry for the sad new breeders.

        2. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image93
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Calpo125:  And you are one of the results of that procreation.

      2. livelonger profile image91
        livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Should people who don't or can't have children, or post-menopausal women, be forbidden from marrying, too?

        1. calpol25 profile image74
          calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No they should not be forbidden, no one should be forbidden from marriage but Racists, bigots and extremists should be forbidden from breeding, and spewing their intolerance and hatred smile

        2. Kebennett1 profile image60
          Kebennett1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          livelonger, your point is well taken. No they should not.
          calpol25, If racists, bigots and extremists are going to pass on hatred to their children then I would rather they not have children either. It is unfortunate, sad and wrong that homosexuals are hated and treated badly because of their lifestyle, I certainly do not condone that either. Just because I don't condone homosexuality does not mean that I spew hatred and are intolerant. I simply have a different opinion. But I do pick up a lot of hatred in and intolerance in your words towards people who do not share your opinion. It is a shame that you have obviously been hurt by someones stupidity and cruelty bad enough to have a negative opinion of anyone who doesn't agree with yours! I have gay friends and family members and none of them think I am racist, a bigot or an extremist. I simply have a different opinion. But, I still wish them love and happiness in their lives.

          1. Atheist Anthony profile image60
            Atheist Anthonyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Why don't you condone homosexuality?

            1. Kebennett1 profile image60
              Kebennett1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't believe it is the natural progression of the life cycle as God created us.

            2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It doesn't matter why she has her opinion.  It is her right to believe that way.

              1. Atheist Anthony profile image60
                Atheist Anthonyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I understand that, just figured I'd ask.

          2. livelonger profile image91
            livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Why the double standard? They can't or won't have children and that was your stated reason for marriage.

            1. Kebennett1 profile image60
              Kebennett1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It was not my intention to have a double standard. God did create Adam and Eve (One man and One woman) and instruct them to go forth and multiply. There are exceptions to every rule. Not everyone is able to have children due to physical, emotional, financial or other reasons. Clearly my main point is that I believe that One man and One woman were made to be a couple, sexually active and joined in marriage. Just as you, I am entitled to my opinion. The question was asked, I answered! I do NOT hate, dislike, disown or "spew" racism towards homosexuals.

              1. Greek One profile image79
                Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                would you believe that one of the emotional reasons you mention is the inability to be attracted towards anyone other than the those of the same sex?

              2. livelonger profile image91
                livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, it is a double standard. Why are infertile couples not able to have children? Maybe it wasn't part of God's design for them to go forth and multiply. In that case, they shouldn't be married, right?


                It looks like you're confusing me with someone else.

              3. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                My question is why you don't support gay marriage?  I understand that you object to gay sex and you don't like others condemning you for having a different opinion.  I'm cool with both of those points.

                I'm just not sure where the jump comes from "I don't condone it" to "no one should condone it".  Which is actually what objecting to gay marriage is.  You value your opinion... and I actually value it too, even if I don't agree with it... so why wouldn't you value other's viewpoints as well?  By arguing against gay marriage you are eliminating everyone's standpoint but your own... which is going to cause anger and resentment.

          3. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I can actually appreciate that viewpoint.

            But...you aren't really hearing hatred.  You are hearing anger and frustration.  For those who oppose gay marriage, homosexuality is an idea.  They might have many reasons (primarily religious) why it wrong but it is still just an idea/opinion. 

            For gay folks it is their actual lives that are being debated.  The issue is very concrete.  Legalization of marriage would make a HUGE difference in the quality of life. Personally... not theoretically.

            I don't hate those who have a different opinion than me... but if those opinions are standing in the way of me having a happy life then it will make me resentful as hell. 

            If the religious right believes that gays are going to hell, I guess that is on them.. but the bible doesn't say that anyone is going to hell for what someone else is doing.  I'm not sure how they can read Leviticus so well but ignore every verse about God being the final judge.

      3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is my belief that One man and One woman were created to be joined together and to procreate.
        There's nothing wrong with believing that; lots of people do.

        Since two men or two women can not procreate as was intended then I do not believe that marriage between two like sexes should be promoted.
        There's nothing wrong with that, either. No, really: nobody should be expected to promote something they disagree with. Should they?I don't think so.

        But let me ask you this, Kebennett1: Given that you don't think same-sex marriage should be promoted, how do you feel about whether it should be permitted?

        Before you answer, remember that many people do not approve of divorce, however, it is still permitted. Many people do not approve of smoking or drinking, but they are still permitted. Many people do not approve of eating meat, but it is still permitted. Many people do not approve of eating pork products or shellfish, but it is still permitted. Many people do not approve of women wearing trousers, but it is still permitted. etc....

        1. calpol25 profile image74
          calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Good One Jeff +1

        2. Kebennett1 profile image60
          Kebennett1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          MelissaBarrett, Jeffberndt and calpol25 This was the Q, "What do you think about the promotion of same sex marriage?
          The adoption of this pattern of marriage is also a source of concerns to various stake holders in the religious and political circles.

          I do not, in my opinion, which is what was asked, think that same sex marriage should be promoted. I have a different opinion than you. If no one wanted my opinion then no one should have asked it. This type of question is obviously a hot question and is going to offer more than one answer.  I am not looking for an argument, but maybe the author of the question was! It really does not matter in the end what my opinion or your opinion is, this issue will always be battled back and forth in the courts and that is the real tragedy. Millions of dollars spent to continue to overturn one ruling after another.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think it's possible to "promote" same sex marriage.  That is a fallacy.  You are either gay or you aren't. In my case, I'm bi.  I didn't choose to be bi.  Nothing horrible happened to me in my past to make me bi.  And if I wasn't bi, there would have been no force strong enough in the world to talk me into being bi.

            Is there something that could talk you into being a lesbian?

            Therefore, I would definitively be against "promoting" homosexuality... because it is unnatural and unethical to try to turn someone from their sexual orientation.

            The question was biased to begin with... which immediately started an argument.

            Now, what I will promote is the right for two people in love to be married.

            I'm sorry that you think that right isn't worth fighting for.  That's probably because it isn't being denied to you.  To me though, millions of dollars is worth it. Apparently it is worth it to those trying to fight it as well.

            I have no personal animosity for those who are on the other side of the argument.  I have no problem with Christianity in general either... my own faith is based on the bible and beliefs in Christ.  Those beliefs are part of what drives me.  However I will argue/debate with vigor because my beliefs are strong and the matter is so vitally important for so many that I refuse to let the matter just fade away.  There will come a day that the issue is settled so completely that there will be no more court battles.  Just as the questions over a woman's right to vote or racial segregation can no longer be argued.  I'm fairly certain in which direction the matter will be settled.

            1. livelonger profile image91
              livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              My sentiments exactly.

              I suspect that it's dawning on the anti-equality crowd that the tide is shifting against them, that a more common complaint you hear these days from them is that all of that time, energy and money is 'wasted' to change the laws. They sure didn't think so when DOMA and those countless state constitution amendments were passed.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                DOMA was a great act... it managed to screw gays and the constitution at the same time.  It floated because religion and public pressure caused elected officials to ignore their jobs...

                However, in those 15 or so years the generation X'ers have become active voters and the children we raised are coming into voting age as well.  The 60-something elected officials of the time are slipping into dotage or outright  dying... (as are the dreaded baby-boomers)

                15 years from now... at max... they will be completely replaced by our generation... with our kids nipping on our heels.  The 80 percent of people our age or younger that see gay marriage as perfectly acceptable will be the clear majority.

                And so it goes... Time marches on... etc...

                1. livelonger profile image91
                  livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree. My folks say that all the time (they're boomers, but very progressive on social issues), and it really is remarkable how quickly society went from actively loathing gay people to a majority believing we should have equal rights. Maybe history does teach us a lesson or two.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "I do not, in my opinion, which is what was asked, think that same sex marriage should be promoted. I have a different opinion than you. If no one wanted my opinion then no one should have asked it."

            Right, and that's cool. I get that you don't think same-sex marriage should be promoted. That's cool too. I wouldn't want you to promote anything that's  against your beliefs.

            What I'm curious about is this: regardless of whether you think same-sex marriage should be promoted or not, do you think same-sex marriage should be permitted?

            Why or why not?

    3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
      Wesman Todd Shawposted 4 years ago

      What difference does it make if it's positive or not?

      Something doesn't have to be "positive," we've got enough negatives in this world, don't you think?

      As for myself, this is NEUTRAL, and neither positive or negative - it literally pisses me off that it's a talking point when it shouldn't be....so maybe allowing homosexual marriage would literally be a positive thing for me?

      But life isn't all about me - so my personal thought that it's neither positive nor negative, which I can't really justify or rationalize, btw - is utterly irrelevant.

      So let me try to be more objective here:

      If you're gay - homosexual marriage is a DEFINITE positive.

      If you aren't gay, and you are one of those that sits around foaming at the mouth thinking about the nerve of those gosh darn gay folks wanting to get married - then you have serious issues that are NOT RELATED to homosexual marriage, and so it's not a negative for you, you are literally a negative already.

      1. calpol25 profile image74
        calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well said Westman Todd Shaw smile

    4. thirdmillenium profile image71
      thirdmilleniumposted 4 years ago

      One of the basic principles behind marriage is procreation which is not possible in same-sex marraige.
      Do all you want with whoever you want- that is your privilege -  but marriage between you and the thing of your affection is meaningless.

      1. livelonger profile image91
        livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Gay couples can have children - adoption, IVF, surrogates - the same way infertile straight couples have children. Or are you arguing that infertile straight couples should not be allowed to get married, either?

        There isn't a single argument against gay marriage that stands up to the slightest amount of scrutiny.

        1. ib radmasters profile image61
          ib radmastersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ll

          That is not a compelling argument.
          A single person can have children in that way. So can a single person marry themselves.

          Multiple spouses could also be married but we don't allow that.
          A commune can also have children but that isn't allowed either.
          Why should we rewrite marriage to include something that it wasn't intended to include. Gays can't consummate the marriage, as it was a requirement to prevent annulment.

          Men aren't allowed in public rest rooms designate for women. Do you want to rewrite that tradition.

          Most importantly Marriage doesn't satisfy the needs of Gays or Heterosexual couples that don't want marriage but want some of the benefits of marriage.

          A better plan would be to exert the gay militant political power into making Civil Unions with all the rights and liabilities of marriage.

          You can dress a dog in a suit, but it is still a dog.

          1. Greekgeek profile image99
            Greekgeekposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There we go again with comparing gays to dogs.

            It's a frequent argument, and a little terrifying how often I see it. If you can convince yourself that other people are subhuman, it allows you to pass all kinds of laws against them. We were seeing the same kind of language against blacks less than a century ago.

            Why, why, why do people want to pass laws making sure other people can't support their children and loved ones? Those laws HURT PEOPLE. And they don't do a danged thing to protect marriage!

            If all the billions of dollars being poured into anti-gay legislation had instead been spent on charity -- marriage hotlines and counselors, relief for distressed homeowners and laid-off workers whose marriages often suffer from the stress, abuse prevention, help for children in troubled homes, just THINK how many families and marriages would've been helped.

            4 million dollars spent by the Church of LDS to get Prop 8 passed -- and that was just one of many groups spending millions to blanket the airwaves with misleading ads to push through the initial referendum. More millions have been spent since trying to defend a referendum that's grown more and more unpopular, as more people have gotten fed up with laws against people they don't know and were never harmed by. And the same pattern repeats in state after state.

            Again, I think of all the good that money could have done for married couples and families, all the positive work that might have helped people. Instead, billions are being spent to negate the rights of others.

            It will be a positive if and when we stop arguing and find ways to support families undergoing hardships instead of attacking one kind of family.

            1. calpol25 profile image74
              calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I agree Greekgeek, most of these religious extremists on this thread have to always liven up their arguments by comparing gays to animals or murderers or paedophiles or even quoting leviticus from the bible. Because they can not live and let live, or love their fellow man as Christ taught.

              Plus I also agree that all those millions spent on spreading hate could have been used to do good, so really they only have themselves to blame and have wasted so much money and aided the financial crisis to get worse!

              Way to go bigots!!! smile

          2. junkseller profile image90
            junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Consummation may be required by the church it isn't required by the US government. What you or your church think marriage ought to be isn't what everyone thinks marriage ought to be. Neither you or your church get to decide that for other people. That is the beauty of America.

            Some things aren't allowed because they cause harm (e.g. men in women's bathroom), not simply due to tradition.

            What you want or what some couples may want are irrelevant to whether the state can discriminate. If the State allows anyone to marry it must allow everyone to marry, unless there is a legitimate State interest to prevent it. Same-sex marriage harms no one, hence, can not be discriminated against.

            1. ib radmasters profile image61
              ib radmastersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              js

              Again you don't make any compelling arguments.
              That is not a compelling argument.
              A single person can have children in that way. So can a single person marry themselves.

              Marriage is important to religion so why don't you focus on civil unions.
              In my opinion, LGBT if it is not solely a preference by the party, it must surely be a Genetic Defect.



              Multiple spouses could also be married but we don't allow that.
              A commune can also have children but that isn't allowed either.
              Why should we rewrite marriage to include something that it wasn't intended to include.

              Gays can't consummate the marriage, as it was a requirement to prevent annulment.

              Men aren't allowed in public rest rooms designate for women. Do you want to rewrite that tradition.
              *** your answer to this question doesn't make sense because it is the sexual attraction between men and women that makes the separation, and homosexuals are already in the restroom where their sexual gender is of their choice. Don't say that nothing will happen in the restroom as we all know that sexual encounters between gays occurs in these restrooms.
              ****.

              Most importantly Marriage doesn't satisfy the needs of Gays or Heterosexual couples that don't want marriage but want some of the benefits of marriage.
              ***** This is a legitimate alternative to messing up marriage, it is also a solution to a wider class of people covered. ****

              A better plan would be to exert the gay militant political power into making Civil Unions with all the rights and liabilities of marriage.

              You can dress a dog in a suit, but it is still a dog.
              Pizza started out a pizza, then people came along and put stuff on it that it was never intended to have like pineapple. That is not pizza, it is food dish but it is not pizza. Gays can get married but no one but them and the liberals will consider them married.

              It is a sad world when the tail wags the dog.
              I can hardly wait until the gay divorces become plentiful.

              1. calpol25 profile image74
                calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Excuse me but can you kindly stop comparing us to animals and food it is quite offensive.

                Gay divorces will be far less than heterosexuals as gay people are far more faithful. smile

              2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "A single person can have children in that way. So can a single person marry themselves."

                That's a silly, silly argument. A single person doesn't need to marry himself--he already is himself. He will always be able to visit himself in the hospital: he's there! He will always have access to his own property: it's his! And when he dies, of course he can't inherit his property, 'cos he's dead.

                "Don't say that nothing will happen in the restroom as we all know that sexual encounters between gays occurs in these restrooms."
                Heterosexual encounters also occur in restrooms. So, what, do we abolish restrooms? There are now "family" restrooms at places like the zoo or the mall, so moms can take their sons into the bathroom (when I was a toddler, I just went with my mom into the ladies') and dads can take their daughters. Have these led to all manner of immoral sexual encounters? Not that I've heard....

                "Pizza started out a pizza, then people came along and put stuff on it that it was never intended to have like pineapple. That is not pizza, it is food dish but it is not pizza."
                Dude, it's totally pizza. tongue

                1. ib radmasters profile image61
                  ib radmastersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Jeff

                  It no more sillier than the argument of gays being able to have children. It uses the same reasoning that was given on gays having children.

                  Heterosexual encounters are not invited into separate gender restrooms, while gays and lesbians sexual preference gender is already there.

                  Family restrooms are not for strangers.

                  You know nothing about pizza, and I not your dude.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image22
                    Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    ib radmasters
                    It no more sillier than the argument of gays being able to have children. It uses the same reasoning that was given on gays having children.
                    -World's greatest problem is over population, like most people on earth we do not need more Christian children, we need more kindness.

                    Heterosexual encounters are not invited into separate gender restrooms, while gays and lesbians sexual preference gender is already there.
                    - That is disrespectful , I'm straight yet swam for a gay master swim team for 2 years, they were the beat in the country and never got hit on once.

                    Family restrooms are not for strangers.
                    -Would not change a thing, gays are not pervert  strangers

                  2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "It no more sillier than the argument of gays being able to have children. It uses the same reasoning that was given on gays having children."
                    No, it really, really doesn't.

                    "Heterosexual encounters are not invited into separate gender restrooms,"
                    So, do you claim that no heterosexual encounter has ever occurred, or ever will occur, in a gender segregated public restroom?

                    You've never heard of the mile-high club? smile

                    "Family restrooms are not for strangers."
                    That's right, they're not. Go to the head of the class, I guess?

                    "You know nothing about pizza, and I not your dude."
                    I can make delicious pizza from scratch, dude. Can you? smile

              3. junkseller profile image90
                junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                This from the guy talking about people marrying themselves?


                I am fairly confident that there aren't any same-sex couples that really care about your approval. They just want you to get the hell out of the way. If you refuse, you will be compelled. That's all there really is to it. Make peace with that however you choose.

                1. calpol25 profile image74
                  calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ++++++ love it junkseller smile

                2. ib radmasters profile image61
                  ib radmastersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  JUNk

                  You haven't made a compelling argument and have attacked me rather than my arguments.

                  calpol25 do you have any compelling arguments?

                  Homosexuals are not the reason why we have two genders.
                  Pure homosexuality couldn't sustain a population.
                  It is only because of bisexuals that homosexuality can continue.
                  That is a fact and what compelling arguments do you have for those facts.

                  And if you are going ridicule something that I have written then at least set it in the full context and not out of context.

                  It no more sillier than the argument of gays being able to have children. It uses the same reasoning that was given on gays having children.

                  ---
                  I don't have a problem with homosexuals, I do have a problem with militants that want to force their lifestyle into society

                  1. junkseller profile image90
                    junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You have yet to make a single argument supported by anything other than your own personal feelings or observations. A compelling argument includes evidence. Until you present some, there really isn't any way to respond to you.

                    I've really only been interested in the legal aspect of this issue, so here it is again.

                    1. Marriage is a fundamental human right (according to the Courts).
                    2. Gay men and lesbians are humans.
                    3. In the absence of a reason, a right can not be granted to one group of people and not another (according to the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution).

                    It's really very simple.

                    These arguments you and glendoncaba have been putting forth are the same sort of arguments that your side brought in front of the courts, and the courts said it was all a bunch of nonsense and drivel. Our side doesn't need compelling arguments. The argument has been won and now that antidote to the poison of your inequity just has to work its way through the system.

                  2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "Pure homosexuality couldn't sustain a population."

                    True, but luckily most people aren't gay, so we'll probably always have more people.

                    "It is only because of bisexuals that homosexuality can continue."
                    Most gay people have straight parents, dude. 'Cos most people are straight.

                    "That is a fact "
                    No, it's a made-up piece of nonsense.

                    "what compelling arguments do you have for those facts."
                    Well, the fact that they aren't facts is a pretty compelling argument against them. smile

                3. Felixedet2000 profile image61
                  Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Why is same sex and heterosexual marriages in conflict today? We only care about what we feel is right or should be done, have we really sit together as intelligent beings and canalize our priorities before we can set them right?
                  Maybe the word marriage should be struck out completely from the normal usage, because it has really mess up the mentality of most people in the world.

                  Any man and woman, man and man, woman and woman living together and having sex in my opinion is marriage enough.....call it carnal sex, casual sex, just for sex, legal sex and illegal sex, whatever..it is all sex and for that purpose and any other those couples live together.

                  Why do you need registration,when you know for sure things won;t be easy that way.

                  1. junkseller profile image90
                    junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If you listen to same-sex partners who are not allowed to marry, you will find out that they find living unmarried is very difficult for them. Not only do people have a desire to be married, but they also often have a desire to share that relationship and bond with family, friends, and others, so things aren't easy for them either way.

                    I have some sympathy for the fact that it may offend your sense of right and wrong, but that is partly just the reality of living with other people. No one gets everything their way. And the reality is that if no one had ever denied same-sex couples from marrying, you probably wouldn't have ever even noticed.

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm bi and working on my 5th + 6th children.  So, is it okay for me to go ahead and marry a woman now... or does God want me to have MORE children... cause I gotta say the "go forth and multiply" thing is pretty much checked off my bucket list now...

        oh crap... I'm planning on having tubal ligation surgery after the kids are born... do I have to divorce my hubby now?

      3. junkseller profile image90
        junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Procreation isn't possible or desired in some opposite-sex couples either. That has never been used to prevent them from marrying, hence can't be used as an exclusionary factor for same-sex couples. The courts are of the same opinion. There is as much meaning in marriage to same-sex couples as there is to anyone else. Why would you want to take that away from anyone?

    5. alian346 profile image32
      alian346posted 4 years ago

      Every human being has the right to a happy family life - whether that be in a straight marriage or a gay marriage or a single parent family or whatever.

      Certain elements in some of the Western democracies seem to be actively campaigning against gay marriage - therefore positive discrimination for gay marriage is necessary at this time.

      Thankfully, here in the UK, there is cross-party support for gay marriage, which will shortly be on the statute book.

      Surely, it is all about love, compassion, tolerance and acceptance of us all for us all?

      To Felixedet2000 - a very shrewd question - I salute you!

      1. ginosblog profile image32
        ginosblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really glad your in the UK....pal or gal or whatever they call you! Tolerance and acceptance are the only words that enter the picture here. Half the Parliament is probably queer. Oh, that's the word I grew up with so that is politically correct with my world.

        1. calpol25 profile image74
          calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          They are and they even have secret LGBT clubs that they think people dont know about smile

    6. AnythingArtzy profile image81
      AnythingArtzyposted 4 years ago

      NO.

      1. calpol25 profile image74
        calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why not? Or is it because your fictional fairytale god told you that we are subhuman and incapable of love and just commit sin everywhere.
        Sorry but most of the mass murderers through out history were heterosexual and quite a few did it in Christs name smile
        As for love etc twice as many heterosexual marriages end in divorce, yet very few LGBT relationships have ever ended...  smile

        1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
          Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          the urge for people to commit wickedness has nothing to do with their sexual orientation, gays and heterosexuals are only different in their sexual orientation, aside that we are all human and prone to wickedness.

    7. alian346 profile image32
      alian346posted 4 years ago

      I don't understand 'NO' - it's a bit brief!

    8. ginosblog profile image32
      ginosblogposted 4 years ago

      So I guess all you "live and let live" liars, cowards, spineless bastards, or whatever you call yourself, would have been happy if your parents were queer, gay, fags, whatever it's been called through the years, so you would not exist and have to make a real decision on how you actually feel about this waste of time issue! It makes me sick to my stomach that this is even on a blog! What a waste of human effort.

      1. calpol25 profile image74
        calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        My father was gay, but the religious society and era made homosexuality illegal and he was unhappy he smoked himself to cancer and died broken hearted because he was trapped in a marriage with two children and could not be with the man he loved. sad

    9. alian346 profile image32
      alian346posted 4 years ago

      Simply because it is important to some of us to not be discriminated against because of something which is not a choice.

    10. alian346 profile image32
      alian346posted 4 years ago

      Actually, where I come from (UK) it is not the 'liberal' agenda - it is completely cross-party politically.

      1. calpol25 profile image74
        calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Quite right smile

    11. 59
      seochefposted 4 years ago

      it's against the law of nature. It can't be a positive idealogy in any sense

      1. calpol25 profile image74
        calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What do you know about the law of nature - 40% of animals are homosexual, 400 species are homosexual yet only 1 species is homophobic - You do the maths smile

      2. junkseller profile image90
        junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really? You obviously don't watch much animal planet, 'cause there's all kinds of freaky going on out in the wild. Although, I'm sure that is all just camera tricks  of the liberal media on their great gay agenda.

        1. calpol25 profile image74
          calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          hahaha +++++

    12. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago

      I think people are getting off track here.  The question isn't about gay sex.  Gay sex is happening and is going to happen regardless of anyone in this threads personal opinions or directives from God.  Stopping gay marriage will not stop gay sex... any more than not offering condoms to teenagers will stop teen sex.

      Christians, your battle there is already lost.  Cope.  There isn't a thing you can do about it.

      Fighting gay marriage is essentially a last ditch effort at denying that homosexuality exists.  You don't like it so you are going to try to make sure that it receives no legitimacy.  Again... Cope.  Homosexual relationships are already seen as acceptable by the majority of American society.

      The rights to the word "marriage" is the Christian's equivalent of Custer's last stand.  It's a semantics war that used to sway the moderates.  That's changing more and more each day though, as even the moderates are appalled by the extremism of the Christian Right.

      1. calpol25 profile image74
        calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well said Mellissa smile +1

      2. livelonger profile image91
        livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        As usual, you've nailed it.

        With homosexuality no longer demonized, then abortion is the final barrier/distraction between the religious right and an honest confrontation of their own sins.

      3. glendoncaba profile image80
        glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        When did the majority of Americans vote on that 'positive ideology'?!!!  Acceptable?

        Many many many years ago I read a comic strip which was way ahead of its time.  It predicted the rise of homosexuality, and a 'proper parent' trying to protect a child from the public profiling of homosexuality on the street, might have been a gay parade or just an obvious couple or something.  Back them I thought the writer was going to the extreme.  Well, well!!!  I have lived to read someone claiming (correctly or not) that the majority of Americans accept homosexual relationships.  I would dare to say the majority who produce soap operas and movies.

        1. calpol25 profile image74
          calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Are you just naturally prejudiced or do you practice it at night?

          1. glendoncaba profile image80
            glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Just like you I had to make some choices along the way.

            You chose this:
            http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gay … 52159.html

            And I chose the Eden model.

            So you must now prove:

            1.  The anthropological arguments in support of same sex marriage.
            2.  That nature and God pay no attention to same sex marriage.
            3.  The positive ideology of same sex marriage even in an amoral paradigm.

            I am no longer afraid of your labels.  The last resort of crybabies and people who know that they have nothing to stand on except it exists therefore it is right.  Sick. 

            I don't approve of murder.  Does that make me prejudiced against serial killers?  So now we need a serial killer lobby to accuse Christians of hating on them!!!!!

            It comes down to ethics.  By whose standards do you assess the morality of any action. 

            There are just two things to discuss in this thread:

            What is positive ideology?
            How do we formulate an ethical position on biological and relational issues?

            1. calpol25 profile image74
              calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              First of all I did not choose to be gay I was born gay, you chose to be a bigot. 

              Secondly - here is your answer to anthropological question - http://borngay.procon.org/view.resource … urceID=162

              Thirdly god does not exist, if he did he would be here to tell you how wrong you are at taking his name in Vain,

              Fourthly - One scenario -  when a gay man or woman is in a relationship and he is taken to hospital and say he needs surgery his partner is not allowed to have any kind of say, and so it falls onto the family. The positive be that the partner would have the full rights as a husband and wife.

              1. glendoncaba profile image80
                glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Were you really born gay?  If so are the majority of gays born or socialised into it.

                I would bet that only a tiny minority are born with abnormal genetics.  Accident of nature. 

                Humanity is gendered for a reason.  Opposite attracts.

                Your labels are tedious.  Notice I never ever put labels on you guys.  I respect the humanity of my combatants.

                1. Greek One profile image79
                  Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  .. just not their human needs

                2. calpol25 profile image74
                  calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Your trying to get off the hook, you did put labels on us I seen your previous posts and I am pretty sure that Abnormal genetics, and Accident & Nature are also considered labels. Dont try to turn this on me glendoncaba it was your posts that started all this smile

                  1. glendoncaba profile image80
                    glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So you are saying that nature has no predictable pattern in the science of gender opposites.  That male/female relationship is not the natural reproductive and relational norm.

                    Dont go out on an illogical limb.

                    1. calpol25 profile image74
                      calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I did not say that at all and am pretty sure if you check my posts I never mention anything like that.

                    2. junkseller profile image90
                      junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Female Komodo Dragons can reproduce through parthenogenesis (conception without mating) if they find themselves in an area without males. Interestingly, these offspring will be all males, which she can then reproduce with 'naturally'.

                      Life is amazing. It isn't bound to predictable patterns. Homosexuality exists in the animal world and has always existed in humans, therefore it is just as easy to say that it is in fact a natural and normal pattern of human bonding and relations. Just because your holy book got it wrong isn't our fault.

                    3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      "So you are saying that nature has no predictable pattern in the science of gender opposites.  That male/female relationship is not the natural reproductive and relational norm."

                      There's the komodo dragon thing. Earthworms are monosexual: they reproduce sexually, but are neither only male or only female. Bacteria reproduce asexually: they just split down the middle and poof, two new bacteria. So, no, the male/female thing is not the universal natural reproductive and relational norm. Heck, probably asexual reproduction is the most normal thing on the planet, given how many bacteria there are compared to creatures that have gender distinctions....But I don't want to resign myself to an asexual life just because it's the norm among living things. I like girls.

                      Look, nobody is trying to make you like gayness, or make you approve of gay marriage. The only thing the marriage equality movement is trying to do is take away your power to control other people's lives.

                3. calpol25 profile image74
                  calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Furthermore no one is socialised gay, you are born gay just as your born heterosexual its a scientific fact, If this is the basis of your findings then I am afraid you really need to educate yourself then come back and discuss genetics.

                  1. Greek One profile image79
                    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I heard Mao was socialized gay...or was that a gay socialist ??

                    http://www.writedesignonline.com/history-culture/mao91.jpg

                    1. calpol25 profile image74
                      calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      hahahahahaha lol lol

                  2. glendoncaba profile image80
                    glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Even conservative Christians like myself have to admit that science has something to do with the choice but it is not either or.

                    There are many factors at play here including culture, child molestation, male prostitution, prison roles etc. 

                    The twin studies among others have established genetic correlations, but most scholars will tell you that it is not nature or choice.

                    1. calpol25 profile image74
                      calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I am sorry but homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with child molestation, I can tell you that right now.  Child molestation is wrong and should not even be brought into this discussion.

                4. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Were you really born gay?  If so are the majority of gays born or socialised into it."

                  It'd be a pretty neat trick to socialize someone into being gay in the modern US. Have you noticed how badly gay people have been treated by the heterosexual majority over the past several years? Heck, given the constant negative reinforcement against gayness, it's amazing that gay people haven't been stamped out entirely by now. That is, if being gay were in fact a choice. 'Cos it's not. I didn't decide to be straight. I just don't find guys to be sexually attractive.

                  "So you must now prove:

                  1.  The anthropological arguments in support of same sex marriage.
                  2.  That nature and God pay no attention to same sex marriage.
                  3.  The positive ideology of same sex marriage even in an amoral paradigm."

                  Actually, the burden of proof really falls on you: you and others like you want to control people's behavior. Prove that there's a good anthropological case for preventing same-sex marriage. Prove that God exists (faith is not proof) and that He wants us to prevent same sex marriage. Oh, and that "nature" cares one way or the other. And prove that there's anyting negative that comes from same sex marriage.

            2. junkseller profile image90
              junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Love is awesome. Simple.

        2. junkseller profile image90
          junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Gay and lesbian relationships should be legal 62%
          Equal access to job opportunities 89%
          Homosexuality acceptable lifestyle 57%
          http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

          Another poll showed support for Same-sex marriage from 1988-2011 going from 11% up to 50%, while opposition fell from 73% to 45%
          http://www.religioustolerance.org/hompollintroa.htm

          And here is another
          support for SSM for Republicans 45%
          support for SSM for ages 18-34 74%
          support for SSM for Roman Catholics 59%
          http://www.religioustolerance.org/hommarrny8.htm

          1. glendoncaba profile image80
            glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I see a shift but not a remarkable majority.  Gallup poll 57%.  Do not confuse inalienable democratic rights with acceptance of the lifestyle.

            I would love to see the research design on that.

            1. Greek One profile image79
              Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              In an ironic result, a poll recently showed that 69% of Americans favored oral sex

              1. calpol25 profile image74
                calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol lol lol lol

            2. calpol25 profile image74
              calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              @glendoncaba what are you afraid of? Honestly it does not matter what we show you, your mind is closed, but its a really big shame that your mind is not as open as your mouth!

              1. glendoncaba profile image80
                glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                My mind can only be as open as an open bible.

                1. calpol25 profile image74
                  calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well we both know that not very wide dont we smile

                  1. glendoncaba profile image80
                    glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    This is very very wide.  Wide enough to include every one.

                    John 3:16

                    New Living Translation (NLT)

                    16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

                    1. calpol25 profile image74
                      calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Yes and Jesus died for our sins, but cant you understand that you believe homosexuality is a sin, so Jesus died for that sin, so what crime have gay people committed? smile

            3. junkseller profile image90
              junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Those seem like significant shifts to me. They are only over a couple decades, and every poll I have seen, no matter who has done it, that has anything to do with homosexuality or same-sex marriage shows the same general trends. And the stat that really stands out is the attitudes of young people. Times are changing, they just need a few more dinosaurs to get out of the way.

          2. Matthew Ryczko profile image87
            Matthew Ryczkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think the fact that there is overwhelming support among the 18-34 group, regardless of personal beliefs or political preferences, is reassuring. The ignorant ones will die off and the younger people will rise to vote and the nation will change. Right, good, and love will always prevail. No point arguing with the antiquated ones. The time is coming. You are on the right side, or you will be the bitter old lady in the nursing home screaming about how *insert random slur* are a buncha monkeys. Some of my relatives were that lady... it's generational. The only thing that's going to change it is time and openness... and it will change the future generations, not the past.

    13. alian346 profile image32
      alian346posted 4 years ago

      BTW - not everyone lives in the United States.

      1. glendoncaba profile image80
        glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I dont, but USA is a symbol of freedom and democracy.  And still a Christian society, somewhat.

        1. calpol25 profile image74
          calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          In your own words its a symbol of freedom and democracy then how come your trying always to deny gay people their freedom of marriage?

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The US is a society with a Christian majority, not a Christian society. There's a difference, and it's pretty big.

    14. Greek One profile image79
      Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

      the only sane way to address the issue of same sex marriage is to abolish marriage in its entirety.

      that way, both homosexuals and heterosexuals win....

      and the divorce lawyers lose


      (PS.. dont tell my wife I wrote this.. tx)

      1. glendoncaba profile image80
        glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol.  Joke of the day!!!

        Good one.

    15. alian346 profile image32
      alian346posted 4 years ago

      Being gay is not a choice. Are you listening?

      1. glendoncaba profile image80
        glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In some cases.

        The political lobby on both sides of the argument would have us think that it boils down to biology or choice.  There are many variables in between. 

        Here is something a little more balanced from a gay Christian:

        http://www.angelfire.com/nc/yakkow/choice.html

        1. junkseller profile image90
          junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, part of your link is entirely wrong.

          "Myth #3:  If homosexuality is genetic, then gays deserve legal minority status.  Otherwise, they don't."

          Immutability (traits not subject to change) is one of the specific factors the Courts consider to determine if a class deserves protection under the Constitution's Equal Protection clause. In the recent CA case, the judge heard evidence, and agreed with it, that "sexual orientation is immutable or highly resistant to change."

          Immutability isn't the ONLY factor considered, but it is part of it.

          Also, did you actually read your link? He agrees that homosexuality is NOT a choice. "I can tell you from experience.  No, it isn't a choice."

          1. calpol25 profile image74
            calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            We have no choice in it at all we are what we are accept us or dont bother with us! Simple really smile

          2. glendoncaba profile image80
            glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Your point here makes legal sense but I'm not sure it makes ethical sense.  Furthermore I am wondering if you are confronting the myth?  The feller is debating the thing as a myth meaning it is untrue but assumed to be factual.  He states the myth and then contradicts it.

            1. junkseller profile image90
              junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The guy who wrote that article argued that "Genetics have nothing at all to do with determining whether a group of people needs to be protected from discrimination."

              I argued that he was incorrect. Immutability is a factor the court considers. I suppose it is a little fuzzy, since genetics are immutable, while immutability isn't necessarily genetic, but either way, genetics are still a potential factor.

              Then his example of blue eyes didn't make sense to me. IF people were being discriminated against for blue eyes, that would be a reason for legal protection, since it is an immutable characteristic.

              I'm not sure if the Court actually stated that homosexuality was genetic, they did conclude that it was immutable.

              I don't know, I think people have written books on immutability, so I'm hardly the expert, but his claim seems incorrect to me.

    16. glendoncaba profile image80
      glendoncabaposted 4 years ago

      Law.

      This is about ethics and about law.

      Laws of nature and rules of ethics.

      Even in 21st century I propose that the bible addresses both.

      And can be trusted.

      Eden is my norm and heaven is my goal.  In between Jesus calls us to exercise love, patience and forgiveness with ourselves and others.  But not to the exclusion of natural and divine laws.

      Jew, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or any other religion, and true science, will tell you that the universe runs on predictable laws.

      Just look at physics or art.  Even the art of movie making. 

      Throw out the laws and you get chaos.

      Therefore same sex marriage may not be expressed as a positive ideology because it is non reproductive, unnatural, unhealthy, and does not benefit from the gender identity inherent in the genetic code of humanity.

      1. calpol25 profile image74
        calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It maybe unnatural to you, it maybe unhealthy to you but you do not live a homosexual life, you have not experienced the prejudice and acceptances we have you have not walked in our shoes, so to you, your mind is biased one way. I am not a heterosexual but I can accept that there way works for them and is natural to them. Why cant you be the same towards us?

        1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
          Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What makes you think people are against your kind? if you don;t have a bias mind you wouldn't even understand how it is to be bias.

          If all mankind are your kind what will be the fate of the whole world? in terms of pro-creation and that's number job description of every individual, your ability or capability to carry it out to the later...i.e..actually bearing fruits in form of children.

          I see more to it than meet the eyes......I advice you to be happy with yourself and the larger society especially those of us that are different from your sexual orientation.

          1. livelonger profile image91
            livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How about your post just hours later, for starters? "what is bad is bad, there is no justification for sexual perversion under the pretext of freedom of choice and association."

            Oh, and by the way: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

          2. kerryg profile image88
            kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Homosexuality is not contagious, thus all mankind will never be homosexual and your point is moot.

            From an evolutionary perspective, there are also benefits to having some non-breeders around in a species like ours that requires such high parental investment of time and energy to raise children.

          3. junkseller profile image90
            junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Signs which say things like "fags are worthy of death" are a pretty clear indicator of bias I think.
            If all of humanity was any one kind of ANYTHING we probably wouldn't be here. In a complex, social species there are all kinds of important and necessary ways that individuals contribute to the greater good. Differences and diversity are good things. Yes, we need some individuals procreating, we don't need everyone doing it and we do need many other things. Happy, healthy, loving people are good things. And considering the difficulties we face today from population pressures, it could be argued that we need LESS procreating and MORE social equity and understanding.
            That is exactly what everyone has been asking YOU to do. Good advice.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "This is about ethics and about law.

        Laws of nature and rules of ethics.

        Even in 21st century I propose that the bible addresses both.

        And can be trusted."
        Nobody is trying to tell you to abandon the Bible as your compass. But I will do my very best to keep you from being able to force others to use the Bible--and really, we're talking about your interpretation of the Bible--as their compass.

        "Just look at physics or art.  Even the art of movie making. 

        Throw out the laws and you get chaos."
        Except you can't 'throw out' the laws of physics. They apply whether you believe they do or not. Airplanes don't stay up in defiance of the laws of physics; they stay up because of them. The laws of physics were already there; humans didn't make them up. The 'laws' of art, on the other hand, are entirely artificial.

        You can usually tell whether something is a real 'law' of nature or an artificial construct by whether people get upset at you personally when you violate it (or try to).
        Say (for example) that rocks fall up when you drop them, and nobody's going to try to get congress to make upward-falling rocks illegal.

        But say that you have the right to marry someone of the same sex, and everyone freaks out and calls you names and tries to make sure you'll never ever be able to legally do it. That's how you can tell there's no practical reason why two dudes shouldn't get married. The only consequences to the action are in the haters' minds.

      3. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        glendoncaba
        This is about ethics and about law. Laws of nature and rules of ethics. Even in 21st century I propose that the bible addresses both. And can be trusted. Therefore same sex marriage may not be expressed as a positive ideology because it is non reproductive, unnatural, unhealthy, and does not benefit from the gender identity inherent in the genetic code of humanity.

        Castle
        I must give you the  most disturbing German sprockets like award for this post

    17. Hugh Williamson profile image89
      Hugh Williamsonposted 4 years ago

      I live in a state that legalized gay marriage awhile ago. It hasn't made a bit of difference in my life, nor anyone else's life that I know of. The much feared debauchery and orgies in the street never materialized.

      The U.S. military is moving on past the days of gay persecution and the rest of society might do well to follow suit-- for our own benefit. The only anti gay argument left now seems to be a religious objection by some.

      No one can judge another person's moral beliefs, gay or straight. Gays are our fellow citizens and human beings. My suggestion -- give them their rights and then leave them alone.

      1. calpol25 profile image74
        calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you Hugh your voice of reason smile  +1

        1. Hugh Williamson profile image89
          Hugh Williamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks calpol.

          1. calpol25 profile image74
            calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Your welcome I wished so much Earnest would have walked in here before lol smile But am so glad you came lol smile

    18. glendoncaba profile image80
      glendoncabaposted 4 years ago

      Time out to do some real work.

      And try to catch the New Zealand vs Jamaica Reggae Boyz soccer match media prep. 

      On this thread Mark Knowles noticeably absent.  RIP Ernest. I just passed through for a day.  Don't do the forum thing like back in the days of Ernest.

      1. calpol25 profile image74
        calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thank goodness for small mercies, enjoy your game smile

        1. calpol25 profile image74
          calpol25posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Mind you god might not approve of football you best check the bible though just incase smile

          1. glendoncaba profile image80
            glendoncabaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Fell asleep and missed the game which was scheduled to air live on tv here in Jamaica at 1:30 am.

            Jamaica won 3-2.

            Football the most beautiful game in the world.  What God hates is the violence encouraged by competition; why many spiritual persons dont follow up sports.  But Christians in sports encourage fair play and common humanity of all participants.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If the ball is made of pigskin, then the football itself is unclean, and touching it is an abomination.

            If it's made of something else, it's probably fine.

            1. Greek One profile image79
              Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              hence why hockey is clearly God's sport

              1. Niteriter profile image78
                Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                An accidental mispronunciation of "puck" could land a fella in a spot of uncleanliness... at least the accusation of such.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Not to mention an accidental slip of the hockey stick.

              2. Castlepaloma profile image22
                Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                A good name is- Yahweh Hockey fight club

    19. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago

      Same sex marriage is actually a very negative thing.

      It's so negative.

      It's unbelievable how negative it is.

      It's a NEGATIVE RIGHT.

      ... for those unfamiliar with what this means: A negative right is another term for an "inalienable right". The right to association is inherent to living creatures, and marriage is an extension of this right.

      Only tyrants would prevent it from happening.

      Same sex marriage is negative; it's inalienable.

    20. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 4 years ago

      it is individual's right to have marriage with whomsoever he/she wishes as long as both are adults and it is legal...for me i wont go for same sex marriage...but i am no one to judge for others...

    21. Wayne Brown profile image86
      Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

      The problem does not lie within any conflict per se, it lies within the "legal definition" of the word marriage. At present, that definition describes a union between a man and a woman. So you change it to cover same sex unions as well...easy huh?   In terms of making the change, it is easy, but stop and ask yourself where does it end.  What is the next escalation..."cross-species marriages"?  Once the precedence for change has a legal basis which can be referenced, then the door is wide-open for the farmer down the road who has fallen in love with his cow to want to make it "legal".  Beyond that point, what of the laws on the books against various sex acts that are now considered illegal by many states...are those to just be dropped?  This is really not a debate about marriage for there are different avenues any "couple" can go down without completing the marriage ceremony and it certainly has little to do with seeking harmony with the institution of religion thus what can it be about?  It is about "acceptance".  It is about legislated equality based on one's preferences.  I decide to engage in something and I want it declared legal because it is my desire.  Never mind that it has not found that level in society at which equality is earned and the concept is embraced but instead it must be legislated as such.  This has much to do with why it does not sit well with a large faction of the public. If it is the "will of the people" to take such action, then the debate is essentially over. On the other hand, if it is simply an action taken by the government because a group of vote-seeking politicians have the power to get it done, the it becomes another.  The irony of that approach is that it can be legislated to be "legal" and "defined" but that is as high as the bar goes with those who have opposed it for the reasons that I have discussed above. I could care less one way or the other as long as it does not infringe on my life or liberty. At the same time, I am quite concerned that many people blow off the definition of "marriage" as something so easily changed without realizing the ramifications downstream. WB

      1. livelonger profile image91
        livelongerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Say it loudly and often, Wayne. The acceleration of approval for marriage equality wouldn't be possible if its opposition didn't constantly voice empty arguments like you have here.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "Once the precedence for change has a legal basis which can be referenced, then the door is wide-open for the farmer down the road who has fallen in love with his cow to want to make it "legal". "
        You know what? When that cow is capable of giving an informed, competent, adult consent, then I'll advocate for legalized cow-marriage. But since a cow is incapable of grasping the concept of marriage, much less consenting to it, I don't think we'll have much to worry about as far as cows marrying into anybody's family.

      3. junkseller profile image90
        junksellerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The definition of marriage being between man and woman wasn't a legal definition until 1996 and was put in place specifically to block same-sex marriage. So in a legal sense it is the opponents of same-sex marriage who have tinkered with the definition of marriage in order to legislate THEIR preference, not the other way around. Same-sex marriage proponents are simply trying to role back those efforts.

        I can respect arguing for caution and prudence in making these sorts of changes, but it isn't like the Courts have said, "anything goes." Nor have they said that the government can not make classifications. In fact, I think they would say that classifications are necessary for governance. All they have said is that some classifications, due to meeting specific criteria, deserve heightened protections under the Equal Protection clause. These classifications can not be justified if they do not provide a legitimate interest to the state. If you are worried about Farmer John and Bessie, PETA is a bigger concern than same-sex marriage advocates.

        As for sodomy laws, they are already gone. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

    22. Felixedet2000 profile image61
      Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago

      And i ask again , what's the big deal about the word marriage to homosexuals?...is there any thing that is so peculiar about marriages that they feel they have been wrongfully excluded?

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What's the big deal about the word marriage to the Christians?  Are they so insecure about the sanctity of their own marriages that they believe that having a gay couple share the distinction will make their own crack?

        Geez, my marriage is way stronger than that.  I'm sorry theirs isn't.

        1. Felixedet2000 profile image61
          Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Only you can say that for sure, we all speak for our self....theirs might be even stronger, you never can tell for sure.

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "Are they so insecure about the sanctity of their own marriages that they believe that having a gay couple share the distinction will make their own crack?"

          Many, but not all of us.

    23. sen.sush23 profile image60
      sen.sush23posted 4 years ago

      Only the superfluous rich can have such abundant leisure as to debate on whether same sex marriage is right on wrong. Every human being has his right to live his life the way he chooses, so long that does not hurt another person. I think that is the basic teaching of any religion, if you read it with an open mind. There are problems like Ethiopian children falling dead like insects, in hundreds for last so many years. There are those huge tsunamis and floods that wipe out half the life-stock of Bangladesh and Asian coastal cities every year and thousands of people become refugees within hours. There is nuclear armament crisis in the world, with Iran now hankering for nuclear war-heads. There are holes, and more holes in the stratosphere. If we perish, the heterosexual and the homosexuals will both perish!

    24. Greek One profile image79
      Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

      why do people care where adults put their penises in private?

    25. maxoxam41 profile image78
      maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

      Your question is flawed! In what way is it an ideology?

    26. Heather1956 profile image60
      Heather1956posted 4 years ago

      The question is will the same sex marriage promoters stop running around from bed to bed? Marriage is life committment not short term with escape clause. Something opposite sex and same sex need to think hard about. Americans treat marriage like a game but when they break up it rips their hearts apart. Better think 3 or 4 times before marriage.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Just to clarify...  Same sex partners are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals.  It might be reasonably argued that since they are such a small percentage of the population, opportunities to be promiscuous are actually limited by a smaller dating pool.

        1. Greek One profile image79
          Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ..and by snobby woman with standards that are way too high... even at 2 am in the morning when I'm begging!

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            See I don't understand that Greekie... there is nothing that turns me on more than a begging man.

            1. Greek One profile image79
              Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It could be that I wake their husbands up in the process... i'm not sure

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, please. roll

    27. Felixedet2000 profile image61
      Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago

      not at all, what make you think so? See..i am sure you know what i am talking about here...It is all about the question of orientation, mental orientation for crying out loud. Who says heterosexuals marriages are scare of homosexuals?
      There is no reason for them to be scare......the ideology behind same sex marriage is the reason the whole world is against same.--suck it up dude.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "There is no reason for them to be scare."
        Exactly so. Glad you realize this.

        "the ideology behind same sex marriage is the reason the whole world is against same."
        There is no 'ideology' behind it, and 'the whole world' is not against it.
        Them's the facts, dude.

    28. Felixedet2000 profile image61
      Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago

      Well said, in your own view as a person who care even if you don't anyway that's not the point here....what will be your answer if a kid ask you...Uncle can i get married to my brother when i am an adult?

      I will tell you why i ask you the question and then leave you to answer it....the child is not even remotely aware that marriage is not advisable among siblings, all that matter to the kid is getting to be with the person he/she has in mind.

      So over to you big bro....can you play the role of the big brother here?

      1. Castlepaloma profile image22
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I would not want to get married to my Mother then spend the rest my life trying to get back into her, too religious like

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "what will be your answer if a kid ask you...Uncle can i get married to my brother when i am an adult? "

        My answer would be a series of questions: "Why do you want to marry your brother?" "Do you know what it means to get married?" Etc.

        It's probably a nonissue, especially once the kid starts actually thinking about what he/she wants, and why.

        So, what does this have to do with whether two informed competent consenting adults can get married or not? Or are you just trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant details because you know there's no good reason to forbid gay marriage?

      3. kerryg profile image88
        kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How old is the kid? At various points over the last couple years, my daughter (now 5) has announced that she wanted to marry her father, her uncle, her cousin, and her stuffed lion. She is too young to understand the concept of marriage - all she understands is that marriage is what happens when people love each other, and since she loves her father, her uncle, her cousin, and her stuffed lion, it naturally follows in her five year old mind that she ought to marry them.

        This sort of thing is quite common in young children - it's nothing to wring your hands over on incestuous grounds, and certainly no indication of future sexual orientation.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "This sort of thing is quite common in young children"
          Indeed. One of my friends in preschool announced that it'd be better to marry a boy, because girls were icky. smile
          I don't know if he ever did get married; we kind of lost touch when we went to different elementary schools.

    29. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

      People are the ones making the laws and mores are not static. American people are more accepting nowadays. You might be left behind.

      http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1994/poll-s … g-marriage

    30. Felixedet2000 profile image61
      Felixedet2000posted 4 years ago

      The dynamism of laws is understandable because time and people changes over time. But there are some laws that can not change no matter the time and the people involve.ok

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "But there are some laws that can not change no matter the time and the people involve."
        Those would be the laws of physics.