Is same sex marriage a positive ideology?

Jump to Last Post 101-150 of 150 discussions (1332 posts)
  1. glendoncaba profile image78
    glendoncabaposted 7 years ago

    My goodness!  You guys are still going at it.  Ali and Foreman in Kinshasha.

    Guys please understand that Biblical Theology is not plucking verses to suit your favourite sin.

    The Old Testament points to the New Testament.  You had culture specific civil and purification codes that  are now instructive and not binding.  The health laws of Leviticus 11 are binding because it is the same human body.  The sanctuary sacrifices and offerings point to Messiah. Yet tithes and offerings are required in the gospel age to sustain the preaching of the gospel.

    The Ten Commandments are eternal. 

    When in doubt look firstly at what God invented in Eden; secondly, His eternal law of love to God and man (10 commands); and thirdly, the life and teachings of Christ.

    Satan has attacked the plan of God by deceiving humanity as regards the will of God and the character of God.  This forum thread is a loud ad for the deception that God does not require obedience to His Creation family model. 

    The Bible will outlast every sceptic on this thread. 

    In the times of your ignorance God was tolerant but now commands all humanity every where to repent.

    1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
      Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This thread has open my understanding so much about the mentality of humans beings in modern world. People have turn their back against God without bothering to look back.

      This goes a long way to show how deep the influence of Satan is in the hearts of men and the affairs of people.

      1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
        Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Darkness can never prevail for real, and while this is about morals, religion stand as the best resource to get good moral codes.

        Most folks here are anti-Bible with their whole hearts and i wonder why. They see Christian as the main opposition against gay. May be other religion like Islam openly accept Islam, i don't know for sure i am just curious because every pro-gay supporter here has a thing or two against the Christians.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          We don't have a problem with the bible or with people believing it, we have a problem with those beliefs which are to most of us laughable being forced upon us and our neighbors and friends, as for religion being the best source of morality, increasingly more people are moving away from that belief as they recognize that the morality found in religion is outdated and created for a different era, plus some of what they ordain and command is just plain evil.

        2. A Thousand Words profile image75
          A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Probably because America is still predominantly a "Christian" nation, so guess who's influencing the prejudicial laws and fighting against their rights?

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
            Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            One nit to pick: America is a nation with a Christian majority, not a "Christian Nation." There's a difference, and it's pretty important.

            1. A Thousand Words profile image75
              A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              I meant the former, even though I said the latter. I do believe that's why I put the quotations.

      2. A Thousand Words profile image75
        A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        It's interesting that "God" would create a being with such power.

        1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
          Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Without the devil human beings will never truly appreciate who God is.

          1. A Thousand Words profile image75
            A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            His own selfish needs, once again...

            "God loves us all"
            "God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent"
            "We should be thankful."

            This God does not "Love" us. It might feel good to think that way. But, this God created us for His own selfish purposes, did He not? To then create a being that would cause His creations' eyes to be darkened, hearts to be fooled, etc., and then "hope" that they might find His light and choose Him? What a twisted, selfish game to play. If one believes in predestination, then one must believe that God created things just the way He wanted them to be. Whoever's going to Hell would've went anyway. If one does not believe in predestination, but one still believes in His omniscience, than He knew how things would play out even before He decided to create Lucifer in Heaven and the humans that He ultimately ended up destroying like 95% of because He didn't like how they had chosen to live. And now He damns those who do not believe in Jesus to Hell to spend eternity with the fallen angel He created. He knew what all these beings would do, put about all of the things in motion to create such a scenario, but is expected to take no blame for any of it. We're supposed to just ignore all of the injustice just because He "created" us? We should be "grateful." Yea right. What about the people who don't want to "appreciate who God is." They exercise their supposed "free will," and choose a different path from God and are awarded with Hellfire and Brimstone... ? There is no love in this scenario; at least not for everyone. Only vengeance for those who don't follow Him.

            1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
              Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

              this God loves us all, you simply refuse to believe it.

              1. A Thousand Words profile image75
                A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Where in anything that I wrote do you see love? Or does what Jesus "did" nullify it all?

                Once upon there was me. You created me. I'm a fleshly being, with all the normal human parts. A nose, eyes, ears, everything. You then tell me that I am free to roam a beautiful garden full of luscious fruits. More than I could ever imagine. But, there was absolutely one tree that I could not eat from. But, you created me with the ability to choose, and with a sense of curiosity and whatever other personality traits that I had (had you not created them within me, they would not have been there).

                But you didn't only create me. You also created a conniving little being. One who likes to play on the very short comings that you created me with. He tricks me into eating of the tree that you've forbidden me to eat from. But I couldn't help it. His words appealed to a part of me that overpowered my "better judgement" (even though I didn't have a proper understanding of good and evil yet) and I also offer it to the being that you created me from.

                You then decide to cut off my arm because you don't like what I've done. The loss of this arm means I can no longer stay with you in the lush, but eventually my whole self will be destroyed. Later on, you offer to give me a new, lightweight one, made of indestructible material, and tell me I can continue to live with you happily if I choose to accept the new arm. Should I just accept the new arm, and be thankful to you and forget the fact that you cut off my first one because I made a mistake, and was exactly how you created me to be?

                I shouldn't HAVE to make that choice, considering that you created me EXACTLY the way that I was originally. I had no choice 1)to be created or 2)To have my arm cut off. You should be offering it to me with NO conditions, because YOU created all the conditions within me, and the conniving creature, as well, that lead to what happened and YOU decided cut off my arm, knowing what consequences would follow, while I was simply naive. I had no knowledge or good or evil, right or wrong.

                Now, sure, I have the chance to have a new, better arm, even, and with that new arm, the ability to stay with you in eternal bliss, in the lush. But I wouldn't have needed a new one had you not cut it off in the first place. And you wouldn't have cut it off if you hadn't put the tree there.

                Why?

                Why did you put that tree there, if you knew that it might mean my arm would be cut off and I couldn't stay with you forever? I'm sorry. The conniving one told me to eat it. That if I did, my arm wouldn't actually be cut off. That I would still be able to stay. You knew my vulnerability. He did, too, somehow (I guess you created him that way?) and he played on it. Why are you punishing me? I may have known what you said, my lack of knowledge on good and evil would've made it impossible to truly know that it was wrong?

                Was it for sheer kicks?
                To see what I would do? To see if I would listen or eat?
                Is it like a game?

                But then you got mad when I didn't choose to listen. So you cut off my arm, and damned me to be destroyed, unless I accept a new arm? Is that all my life means to you? I thought you loved me. But, you don't, do you? You don't love me. You created me hoping I would do what you wanted it. When I didn't, I was merely to be thrown away. And then you gave me another condition. And if I don't mean that one, I'm still cast away? Is that really what love is, oh God?

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "The Ten Commandments are eternal."

      Which of the Ten Commandments forbids gay marriage, again?

      1. glendoncaba profile image78
        glendoncabaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Adultery and fornication pollute what God designed in Eden.  The negative probition must be interpreted as a barrier to protect the edenic model.  eden was a holy heterosexual marriage between Adam and Eve.

        Jesus first miracle blessed the Edenic ideal at Cana.  Or was Cana a same sex marriage?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Theology has nothing to do with our laws (separation of church and state) plus your hypocrisy is startling, you do not believe in or act on the entirety of the bible (or if you do you are a murderer hundreds of times over) the book you are telling me is an immortal moral guide is the same one that very clearly states you should kill gay people, not for me thanks.

          1. glendoncaba profile image78
            glendoncabaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            But theology has everything to do with the norms that inform our laws.

            Theology is the queen of the social sciences.

            BTW you cant mention the word theology and then throw in careless comments that just dont reflect any effort to understand the study of the Word.

            The theme of the bible is Jesus the Saviour.  Biblical interpretation is based on progressive revelation and understanding the text in context.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
              Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              theology has everything to do with the norms that inform our laws.
              Religion certainly has influenced our culture, but our laws are based on the Constitution, which derives its authority from the people, not from some supernatural source whose existence cannot be proven.

              Theology is the queen of the social sciences.
              That's your opinion, to which you are welcome. I disagree. But it doesn't matter: our laws are secular, not theological.

              you cant mention the word theology and then throw in careless comments that just dont reflect any effort to understand the study of the Word.
              The study of scripture doesn't even enter into this discussion. If you want to use scripture to help you decide what to do and what not to do with your own life, that's great. But you don't get to use scripture to dictate to others what they may or may not do with theirs. We have this nifty thing called freedom of religion in the USA, see, which is why you can't be fined for working on Sunday (or on Saturday, if you're a 7th Day Adventist or an Orthodox Jew). You're free to not go to work on your chosen holy day, but you can't stop me from working on it. Likewise, nobody can force you to go to work on the Sabbath: whether to follow religious doctrine or not is up to you.

              The theme of the bible is Jesus the Saviour.  Biblical interpretation is based on progressive revelation and understanding the text in context.
              So what? What does that have to do with whether gay people ought to be forbidden from marrying in a secular republic?

              1. H P Roychoudhury profile image47
                H P Roychoudhuryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Apart from religious point of view it is most logical from scientific point of view too. An emotion of love develops from the biological need of union of opposite sex. That union of love is nothing but marriage. Such a biological need can not be evolved from the love of same sex.

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                  Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I have to respectively disagree.

            2. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              But Jesus never said anything about gays so why do you oppose gay marriage in the context of the bible when only the old testament bans homosexuality and it is in that same book where it says gays as well as man other people should be murdered, if the bible is so open to pick and choose and interpretation then how is it a leap to decide that the bible does not ban homosexuality, it is banned in strong terms in the old testament, but it also says in strong words in the old testament that we should stone people to death for working on Sunday. So in conclusion your argument is supremely hypocritical, you can ignore the part of the old testament where it clearly says you should kill people but not the part where it says you should abhor gays or deny them rights?

              1. A Thousand Words profile image75
                A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Actually, if the scriptures in the OT are translated correctly, it bans men that are temple prostitutes with other men, just as women who are temple prostitutes with men. I am NOT a Christian, or religious at all, let's be clear, but I have seen some convincing evidence against the idea that it actually is banned in the OT.

            3. junkseller profile image84
              junksellerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              While Theology has always influenced western culture, a great deal of western philosophy is secular, starting with the Greeks (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle). Then there were people like Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Mill, Bentham, Marx, Heidegger, etc. You could add a few hundred names to that list that were non-theistic, as well as scientists like Darwin and Freud. Heck Adam Smith has had as big an impact on our lives as Jesus.

              No, I think your contention that theology is the basis of our norms is hugely inaccurate.

              1. profile image0
                kimberlyslyricsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                big_smile

              2. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                +1

              3. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                +1

              4. glendoncaba profile image78
                glendoncabaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Fortunately you said "I think".

                For despite our best humanistic and dialectical wishes we have to admit that Western Civilization though influenced by the pagan (still theology!) classical ideals of Greece and Rome the Judea-Christian ideas have informed the most advanced societies of Europe and the Americas.


                Marxist-Leninist atheistic philosophies gave us communism...I rest my case.

                The French Revolution attempted to throw out God and rule by Reason; again we saw what happened. 

                True greatness is achieved by the modern secular state which draws its ethics form the best codes of our common faiths while insisting on the separation of religion and politics.  God Bless the USA and the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  And while we are at it God bless Jamaica too.

                1. junkseller profile image84
                  junksellerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't think I would have any argument with the statement you make in the last paragraph, as long as we are including philosophy as a 'faith,' including things like humanism and rationalism. And perhaps science doesn't directly lead to ethics it is definitely something which can inform ethical discovery.

                  One could just as easily say that Christian philosophies led to the burning of witches, the crusades, the slave trade, Manifest Destiny which wiped clean an entire continent of people, etc...I rest my case. But, that would be a bit simplistic, wouldn't it?

                  Marx was not Lenin. Nor am I entirely sure it would be fair to say Marx was even an atheist. I don't think he was opposed to spiritual discovery. In fact, I would think he would have said that it is the church which PREVENTS spiritual discovery. Marx wanted freedom for man, not chains (of any kind). Either way, Marxist ideas have influenced our society through fighting to advance the cause of labor rights. Many people consider this a good thing.

                  Good and bad can come from any ideology, can't it? And so, it seems like to me that the "modern secular state which draws its ethics form the best codes of our common faiths while insisting on the separation of religion and politics" is all any one has really been arguing for.

                  Whatever common faiths we are drawing from, people increasingly believe it is ethically right to allow same-sex marriage, and the only real opposition is a specifically religious one.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image64
                    Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Civilizations and religions aren't static. They are continually marching on. Three steps forward, two backward.

                  2. glendoncaba profile image78
                    glendoncabaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes!  Thats why I placed a hyphen as in Marxist-Leninst philosophy.  Marx the philosopher, Lenin the politician and thinker too. 




                    Let us be clear that by faiths we are talking about a system of religious beliefs.  I am not throwing in secular philosophies in the mix under the definition of faith, in this portion of the discussion.  What I am saying is that we should respect the positive contribution of theology to modern society.

              5. Felixedet2000 profile image57
                Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                theology has influence life on earth more in so many ways.

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
          Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Adultery ... marriage?
          Everything you said is entirely based in religion and therefore inadmissible as an argument for or against a secular law.

          In short, it doesn't matter what you (or I) believe about the garden of Eden. What matters is whether you have the right to force people to live according to your interpretation of scripture (pro tip: you do not).

        3. profile image0
          Phoebe Pikeposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Adultery in Eden? According to the Bible there were only two people! You can't have an affair with someone else if no one else exists...

          You write against gay marriage using your own personal faith. Well, what about their faith? What about what they believe? Why should your own personal beliefs dictate their lives? It doesn't do any harm to give someone else the same rights you experience. So won't you allow people to find happiness in the arms of the one they love?

          And God hates churches. He thinks they are sick and wrong and completely unnatural. See? I can't speak for God or assume what he hates, so maybe you shouldn't either.

  2. Felixedet2000 profile image57
    Felixedet2000posted 7 years ago

    i don't think so, You statement lack substance enough to get one convince let alone believe.
    rules and laws like ''thou shall not kill'' has nothing to do with time and season or age of existence, Why are we so comfortable with our vanities when we know for sure that we are going against our own conscience for instance..you said people are moving away''  as in from believing the Bible into believing what if i may ask?
    may be you are that evangelist or preacher who is preaching them out of their faith...are you happy with that?

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      People are shifting towards belief in humanism and common morality, we don't need the bible to tell us we should not kill and should not steal, we never did, on the other had the bible and other religious texts contain other commands which are evil and unhelpful to society the opposition to homosexuality being one of them I think it's a very good thing we are moving away from those anachronisms and towards a better more accepting more equal future, one that is already dawning, this debate is part of that.

  3. profile image49
    Kontarposted 7 years ago

    The opposition of same sex marriage is bullshit if you ask me. Homosexuals have been around since before Jesus and Christianity itself. As for the United States goes, this was a country built for religious freedom. Saying that, the country cannot run on religious views of the selected few that have power.

  4. profile image49
    Kontarposted 7 years ago

    Correction to my post. "it should not run on religious views

    1. A Thousand Words profile image75
      A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It shouldn't, but that's how things seem to be playing out.

      1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
        Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        God is love, and i will advice you as i would do to any body i care. God is not unjust and wicked as you portray him to be. He loves us and you in particular. Why not take it as part of life knowing for sure you will die one day. Does that make you hate God for sanctioning death for everyone?

        1. A Thousand Words profile image75
          A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I am not afraid of death. I'll accept it one day with open arms, and a satisfied heart. You must not have read my post. Your God does not love me. He wants me to live life His way, and to "accept" His truth, or else a fate worse than anything imaginable awaits for me, which is nothing but unjust vengeance against a world He created. We are supposedly His creation, something He thinks is very special, but then our lives are so easily discarded, for not accepting his "one truth." I don't need that kind of love, thank you. I don't need to live eternally. I don't need a pat or the back. I don't need spiritual rewards and gifts. I just want to live my life, a choice that I have the right to make, because I didn't even choose to be here in the first place, and I have a mind to think. And when I die, I'm just fine becoming dirt in the ground. Thanks.

          1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
            Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            What is the meaning of your life and what do you hope to achieve, this may be very personal though, but for the purpose of understanding our argument it will go a long way in making us appreciate our understanding on what we believe.

            1. A Thousand Words profile image75
              A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              The meaning of my life? All I care to do is to live. To actually live. To enjoy my experiences, do my best to help those who need, do my best to love the people close to me in life. See the wonders of the world. Experience something new. Laugh. Be at peace no matter what state I'm in financially. Learn every language that I can. Etc., etc. I am open to the idea of the "supernatural" in a sense, but what I believe is complicated. It's not really in Divinity that I believe. I am a Free Thinker,  who is slightly secular, but with a special liking for Eastern though/philosophy, and a hint of mysticism. Most days.

              1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
                Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I'm all ears, very interesting please go on.

                1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
                  Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  there is no good enjoyment in this life and the life next without God, in as much as you want to exercise your free will, if you push God aside you embrace the devil instead. whether you agree with this truth or not, that is the way it is. Life abhors vacuum. We don't know more than what we feel and experience from our 5 senses.

                  1. A Thousand Words profile image75
                    A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    That is certainly your opinion and outlook on life. Not mine. I don't see what's on this planet as things to just disregard and write off as less important important than "spiritual things." I don't need your God, but it seems that you do, and that's fine. I'm complacent with how I view life to be, and perfectly fine with being so[being complacent]. I do not believe in the devil. And, of course we don't know more than what we feel and experience with our five, maybe six senses.

  5. Felixedet2000 profile image57
    Felixedet2000posted 7 years ago

    Your problem is with the Christians and their God right? interesting. What about the Muslim? do they sanction gay? as in approve gay marriage? Because this is  a worldwide phenomenon and we ought to realize that this thread is not only about American cultures and tradition...i am sure we are clear on this?

    1. Greek One profile image73
      Greek Oneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ahmadinejad has indicated that in Iran, there are no homosexuals.... so clearly people only choose to be gay in non-Muslim countries.

  6. Felixedet2000 profile image57
    Felixedet2000posted 7 years ago

    Interesting, and that tells you what? does it means people there have no natural tendencies to becomes gay as you guys claim that being a gay is natural.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
      MelissaBarrettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No it means you have no understanding of sarcasm or irony.

      1. Greek One profile image73
        Greek Oneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        that too tongue

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
          MelissaBarrettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          wink

    2. Greek One profile image73
      Greek Oneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It tells you that some societies persecute people based on their sexual orientation, and that we ought to thank God that He has given us the blessing to live in more humane societies.

    3. profile image57
      Squirrelgonzoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly Greek one-They HAVE TO HIDE their sexual orientation because if they don't- they could be killed at the hand of culturally/religiously justified people. You could be ACCUSED and be killed.

    4. jonnycomelately profile image82
      jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I can tell you for a fact that a person who IS gay, and lives in Iran, AND THEY DO EXIST, has courage like you would never understand, Felix.

  7. Felixedet2000 profile image57
    Felixedet2000posted 7 years ago

    No that's not my point, every pro gay supporter here believe that Christians and their God are the one fighting the gay people, and i think otherwise. That's why i wanted to know if it is supported all over the world and you answer correctly.

    Being a gay is option and it is a personal preference life-style wise. I'm i correct?

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
      MelissaBarrettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No.  You aren't correct.  You will never understand that though because you aren't gay and seem to not be able to grasp anything unless it happened to your personally.

      1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
        Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        it is optional or natural either way right?

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
          Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          It's as optional as being heterosexual is.

        2. MelissaBarrett profile image59
          MelissaBarrettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I'm going to try it this way...

          Assume that everyone in the world was gay except you. (I'm not going to try and ask you to put yourself in a gay's shoes) Would you be gay as well?  Could you choose to be attracted to the same sex?

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Felix, we are absolutely saying that gay people do not choose to be gay, every gay person I have asked has told me they would be straight if they could, it would be so much easier, no problems with society, no problems with their family and of course the right to marriage but they can't change who they are attracted to anymore than you or I can choose to be gay .

        3. A Thousand Words profile image75
          A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Why are you using "or?" My view on sexuality most people might not agree with, actually...

    2. Greek One profile image73
      Greek Oneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Generally speaking, oppressive societies oppress minorities, and free societies do so to a less extent.

      So you are right, it is not just some Christians who oppress gay people, but closed-minded people everywhere.

      Ignorance is a human condition, after all.. and pointing out that minorities groups have been subjected to discrimination in many places around the world (based on sexual orientation, race, religion, etc) doesn't make that discrimination logical, right or justified.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
        Hollie Thomasposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Even if you have convinced yourself that it is the will of God.

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      every pro gay supporter here believe that Christians and their God are the one fighting the gay people,
      No, you're wrong. I'm a pro-gay supporter, and I know that God has nothing whatsoever to do with the persecution of gay people. I'm as certain of that as I am of gravity.

      His "followers," on the other hand....

  8. im28beyond profile image72
    im28beyondposted 7 years ago

    I am against it but I respect people who do it if that makes them happy and if their union will create a positive community and not destroy it

    1. jonnycomelately profile image82
      jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      im28beyond, can I just ask you to think a little bit more about what you said. 

      What do you mean when you say, "...people who do it...?"  Do what?  Fall in love? Enjoy a life together?  Have an active and productive life?  Share their love and friendship with others? 

      Be bold now.  Say what precisely you believe gay people "do" that you don't like.  See if you have got your facts right.

      1. A Thousand Words profile image75
        A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Well, don't you know he means sex. I don't see why people seem to limit homosexuality to be specifically about the sex. Sex is sex. As long as it is between to consenting adults, it's all good. And there is more to homosexuality than that, of course. But, I know firsthand, as I too would've have said the same maybe 2 1/2 or 3 years ago, that people have ignorant prejudices against homosexual people that they simply bury underneath and say "let them do what they do, only God can judge them," and anything to that extent, instead of dealing with the prejudice itself.

        Homosexual people are JUST people. Whether they are hetero or homo or bi shouldn't even be a description.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image64
          Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          As somebody said "Sex only goes from good to excellent."

          1. A Thousand Words profile image75
            A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Oh yes, yes it does. smile

            1. Castlepaloma profile image75
              Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              +1

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
            Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That's only true when all the participants are willing.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image64
              Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Very true. Can't argue with that.

      2. im28beyond profile image72
        im28beyondposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I don't like the idea of 2 people of the same gender together but since i have a few friends who are in that kind of relationship, I respect them as a person who has the right to fall in love and be together. It says clearly "I am against it" but I respect their decision for doing as long as they don't hurt other people.

        1. A Thousand Words profile image75
          A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          But why are you against it? Is it religious views? Influence on your own personal values from dominant religious views in your society? (Somewhat different from each other. There are religious people who feel that way. There are non religious people who's values are sometimes affected by the religious views dominant where they grew up, etc.) What has made you specifically against love that happens to be between two people of the same sex?

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Sounds like she finds it "icky" smile

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image64
              Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Nobody's trying to recruit her.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
            Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Who cares? I don't necessarily approve of the whole man-go-hunting, woman-stay-in-cave-and-grow-babies model of marriage either, but I'm not going to try to interfere with people who choose that kind of marriage. As long as the participants are informed, competent, consenting adults, it's their business, not mine.

            If im28 doesn't like same-sex marriage, that's fine. It's not a problem unless and until she tries to forbid it.

        2. A Thousand Words profile image75
          A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Is it that fact that you think a plug and a socket should go together instead of a plug and a plug or a socket and a socket?

        3. Castlepaloma profile image75
          Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          im28beyond

          "I am against it" but I respect their decision for doing as long as they don't hurt other people.

          Are gays worst than straights at the hard game of S&M?

  9. profile image57
    Squirrelgonzoposted 7 years ago

    Okay! wow! I missed a lot here! Lots of things I want to say but I don't really think hijacking a topic of discussion is a good idea at this point-although it seems I've done so already.

    First of all-Felix, I'm sure that it is appreciated what you are trying to do here. You have a heart for people. Please stop. If they wanted to know more, this would be a different conversation, and we all know that this is a decision we all have to make individually.

    Everyone else, my intentions were only to pick Felix up out of the last mud hole he dug for himself, I did not mean to open this thread back up to hateful back and forth messages between Christians and the rest of us. If I may say one more thing about the matter: God DOES love us according to the bible. John 3:16 is a good example of this.

    Logic could say that God wouldn't have spent the time on us if he didn't love us and Jesus would have never come to earth and died as a result because there wouldn't have been a good reason to.

    I read earlier on when some of you were saying that you don't have problems with all those who follow God, just the few that don't show empathy or understanding, and I have to agree with you-I have had my share of experiences with members of the church who are not as compassionate as their doctrine may direct that they should be towards others. Personally, I have been beaned with a few bibles and looked down upon by people who appear to be "holier than thou". It is not fun.

    However, being ridiculed because someone who believes what you believe is a jerk...that isn't cool/fun either. People are still people. Please don't blame every christian because of the ones that were/are jerks, that puts both parties in a bad light.

    To get back on track:   


    (I know that it is very similar to what is in place now, but in my opinion,) At the very least, the states that don't currently support the formal commitment of homosexual couples, should recognize and honor a couple's rights if that couple moves to a state that does not have supportive legislation for homosexual marriage. The rights recognized should be the from the state giving/recognizing the most benefits in favor of homosexual marriage.

    That would spread current rights for homosexual couples across all states until (preferably state) legislation is put in place to honor or bestow rights on all homosexual couples-and that also gives the power to the people to decide when that should be.

    It isn't much right now, but no battle for rights was won overnight. It would also show that the homosexual community is not going to just go away, and that gets attention as well. Just don't try to take away my rights trying to get yours and I won't ever have a problem with you. wink

    As for whether or not Homosexuality is a positive ideology, I served in a  combat zone shoulder to shoulder with a fellow soldier who is homosexual (a few of them actually.) She is a good person, and a great soldier. I didn't think twice about putting my life in her hands then and I wouldn't think twice about doing it again because of that.

    So I would say-Yeah, for the most part it can be positive, but it can be negative too. It depends on the person or group that you are talking to-just like everything else.

    1. junkseller profile image84
      junksellerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure if I am reading what you said correctly, but I think what you described is actually the opposite of what currently exists. Part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) specifically says that states DO NOT have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

      Also, because this is an issue of fundamental rights, there really isn't much of a legal argument to make. No one had the right to deny marriage to same-sex couples in the first place (with DOMA, for instance). No one has the right to prevent them from it now. This has been a 40 year fight already. It doesn't matter when others want it, or how many want it. The Constitution protects fundamental rights absolutely. Same-sex marriage should be legal everywhere TODAY.

      1. profile image57
        Squirrelgonzoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I don't think you understood me correctly and I apologize for not making my point clearer.

        What I was trying to say was that in my opinion, legislation for all states recognizing same sex marriages SHOULD be in place if a homosexual couple is married in a state that approves same sex marriage and they move or travel to a state that does not approve of it.

        I was NOT saying that all states currently recognize same sex unions of any kind.

        There is a definite disconnect in between both parties here(those who support it and those who don't,) and Unfortunately right now, you kinda need to have other people want it, because if they don't want it-they won't vote for it, and their votes matter right now because this decision was given to the people to make.

        I know this next part may seem callous, but understand this is not meant to insult or degrade anyone. This is meant to encourage:

        So suck it up and drive on-Show the people what they should've seen and known before-that you are an asset and being here makes the community a better place to live. Not everyone is going to fight your battles for you.

        Look at Civil rights, Women's rights-it takes a long time. But it was worth it.

        If it is truly worth it to you (and I am not saying that its not,) than it won't matter how long you have to fight to get it. The only thing that matters is that you continue to fight for it until you accomplish your goal.

        1. junkseller profile image84
          junksellerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I can appreciate your position. It is very reasonable. Essentially what you propose is a legislative approach. That people will over time be won over and vote to enact laws that will slowly chisel away at the issue until full equality is achieved.

          I, however, was really taking more of a legal approach. If you look at the recent case in California, the judge deemed DOMA to be unconstitutional, effectively overturning the will of the people as expressed in a piece of legislation. In some ways this seems like a more effective approach and yet in reality the judicial route can take a very long time, so maybe it isn't. I imagine that it will take a little of both approaches and will go back and forth for some time still.

          1. profile image57
            Squirrelgonzoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly.

            (Since there are already battles being fought for this in the legal system, I was offering an alternative of being a good example to encourage those efforts, rather than letting ones self be upset about the opposition that the homosexual community is faced with.)

  10. Evan G Rogers profile image72
    Evan G Rogersposted 7 years ago

    1,018 posts later, no one has changed their mind on anything.

    EPIC.

    What was that, like 20 hours wasted?

    1. Greek One profile image73
      Greek Oneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I changed my mind.. I decided that I am now gay.

      1. livelonger profile image92
        livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Welcome! Wow, the gay agenda really does work!

        1. A Thousand Words profile image75
          A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I done knowed it was a conspiracy!

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image59
        MelissaBarrettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You have just ruined the dreams of not only myself but of millions of women around the world.

        1. livelonger profile image92
          livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Your loss is our gain. wink

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
            MelissaBarrettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            And in return you give us bi women Lindsay Lohan?  It just don't seem fair.

  11. Marsei profile image93
    Marseiposted 7 years ago

    I don't think the time is wasted.  Exchange of ideas is always good.  Days later something that was said may click for someone -- one way or the other.  I checked in occasionally and thought it was remarkably civilized and thoughtful.

  12. Greek One profile image73
    Greek Oneposted 7 years ago

    fortunately, I have 2 penises




    .. as does Lindsay

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image59
      MelissaBarrettposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I call BS... It is widely known that any penis that remains in Lohan's presence for over five minutes is immediately transformed to either 1. Dust or 2. Cheap hamburger filler treated with ammonia.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        *shudder*

  13. Felixedet2000 profile image57
    Felixedet2000posted 7 years ago

    the forces that promoted communism and the rest are at work again. God is gradually being erase from the consciousness of modern man, while many of us sit and fold our arms.

    This is not a free world, it is God's world. The truth must always stand taller than falsehood and perversity.

  14. H P Roychoudhury profile image47
    H P Roychoudhuryposted 7 years ago

    Hi Dear Jeff Berndt,
    By the term ‘Marrying same sex’ means what? Is it not sexual union? How does one can think of against the nature? Water flows from hill top to down-river. Everyone surely will advocate marrying of same sex if not it involves sexual union. Even you are of the opinion “who are advocating marrying to their parent”. Is it the cultural evolution of 21st century? It is better for us, the elderly person to know more of modern culture.

    1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
      Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      more questions than answers, simply because of perversity.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I find that a good touchstone for whether something is or isn't "against nature" is how angry people get when someone does it. If it's against nature, it's physically impossible. Water flows downhill because that's what water does. It hasn't got a choice in the matter.

      If someone said, "Water should be able to flow uphill if it wants to," nobody would freak out and try to enact laws forbidding the uphill flow of water. They'd merely laugh, and know that uphill-flowing water is impossible, because that's not how the world works

      But as for same-sex marriage, this is very different. Two men or two women can in fact have an intimate sexual partnership, therefore "against nature" doesn't even enter into the discussion. Homosexual sex is possible, therefore not against nature. But everyone is freaking out about it. Again, this is not because it's "against nature" for gay people to get married, but because certain people don't like the idea for whatever reason.

      That's cool. It's okay not to like stuff. I don't like the idea of "performance art." But I'm surely not going to try to have it banned. I just won't watch performance art, or give my money to performance artists.

      Felix, you're right that the questions are because of perversity, but not in the way you think. smile

  15. glendoncaba profile image78
    glendoncabaposted 7 years ago

    Choose:
    1.  Religion without morality.

    2.  Morality without religion.

    3.  Religion with morality.

    4.  Immoral atheism.

    Then chart the direction of your life, but with the option to stop and choose again.

    Which do you think will produce the most noble pathway for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You forgot two... moral atheist which I guess is exactly the same as "Morality without religion" and "Immoral with religion", believing in God doesn't make you any better than anyone else and there are many, many immoral believers who go out of their way to attack people who believe differently than they do. To me personal morals are not based on a religious belief.

      1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
        Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Moral Atheism is not the same as morality without religion. i disagree with that submission. Atheism concept is self contradictory.

  16. Felixedet2000 profile image57
    Felixedet2000posted 7 years ago

    Are you saying atheism is the same thing as morality?

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No, I am saying that the religious don't have a lock on morality. As I said "To me personal morals are not based on a religious belief."

      1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
        Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Morals are human natures that can be attain with or without religion or the absent of it. D you now understand why it is baseless to assume that atheists have high morals as though that's is their exclusive privilege.

        1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
          Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Moral atheism is brainwashing indeed.

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
          Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Nobody is assuming that. It's also baseless to assume that a religious person has high morals: many religious people are pretty depraved, and even use their religion as an excuse for their depravity.

          1. Paul Wingert profile image71
            Paul Wingertposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Some peopleturn to organized religion learn morals. You'd think they are capable to figuring out that bigotry and discrimination is wrong by themselves, but apparently not.

          2. Felixedet2000 profile image57
            Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            One thing that stand out among all human is:we are not infallible, morally or otherwise.

            Beliefs and doctrines are to guard our ways. Theists and atheist are concepts as far as i am concern.
            These two concepts is like tom and Jerry cartoon perception-wise. Always at each others neck with adherents trying to proof which is better.
            Is there a need?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Yup, because when the Theist church was in control and virtually unchallenged it blighted the lives of everyone under it's power, from witch trials, to crusades to sexual repression, changing peoples opinion so that these things never come to pass again and their last marks are erased (like the prohibition of the right to gay marriage) is a very good cause. There was a time when people actually believed that atheists would grow horns and a tail.

              1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
                Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Gay issues is government focus not the Church of God. Churches don't control economies and make laws anywhere in the world except the Vatican. So why is the church always on gay's radar of attack?
                Are gays welcome in Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam?

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
                  Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  If the Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic communities influenced US laws and policies as heavily as the Christian one does, then no doubt there would be more focus on those communities and their collective attitude toward gay folks. But in reality-land, there really isn't much of a Buddhist voting-bloc in the US, is there?

                  1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
                    Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    I thought the whole world was the constituency in focus as regard this discussion; it has nothing to do with America, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria or Japan not forgetting the UK and Russia just to mention but a few countries.
                    Because in all these nations, and regions, there exist diverse culture and traditions that most of us can never really comprehend.
                    We are indexing the contents of the human mentality and the various orientations available.
                    I am still expecting your reply Jeff, you had a point, but let look beyond the shores of the U.S and take other nations into consideration before drawing a conclusion.
                    The way it is in America is not quite the same somewhere else and that’s important.

      2. glendoncaba profile image78
        glendoncabaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Right.

  17. mio cid profile image57
    mio cidposted 7 years ago
  18. glendoncaba profile image78
    glendoncabaposted 7 years ago

    Morality seeks the right or the good.

    Ethics like etiquette refers to a way of life, of conduct.

    So moral ethics would describe the conduct which seeks the right or the good.

    Question is how do we know the right way since there are many roads to happiness.  The Christian (and other faiths) assume that we need to be shown the right way by divine revelation (or enlightened philosophers in the case of non-Theistic faiths).

    My worldview is based on divine revelation in Holy Scriptures, and particularly in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

    The moral ethics of the Bible is summed up in the Ten Commandments.

  19. jonnycomelately profile image82
    jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years ago

    Felix, "blinkers" are what a horse wears to block its sideways vision and keeps it focused on the important road and direction ahead.

    You talk about morality and brainwashing coming from ATHEISTS!  You don't see the same but much worse amongst theists?

    1. A Thousand Words profile image75
      A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You mean blinders?

      1. jonnycomelately profile image82
        jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        No, I can understand that might be a term used elsewhere in the world.  Is it?  In the UK where I was brought up, the "Blinkers" were leather appendages to the bridle, which were placed to the side of each eye, preventing the horse from being startled by parallel traffic, etc.

        I use the term in relation to humans, because some have such a narrow, one-focus view of the issue(s) that their opinion is very biased and excludes anything which is a bit off-centre.

        In the context of ultra-fundamentalist religion, this can distort society and they way in which it accepts/rejects diversity.

        1. A Thousand Words profile image75
          A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I believe it is the same term. In America, though, we call them "blinders."

    2. Felixedet2000 profile image57
      Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      That's because we are all humans. don't you think so Jonny?

  20. Felixedet2000 profile image57
    Felixedet2000posted 7 years ago

    Jeff, Can we look beyond the U.S possibly having Africa in focus?

    Even without legislation or legal laws and government, these societies have a way of handling their affairs in a way that is equitable.
    Traditional Africans do not despise gay before the per-colonial days.

    The orientation change with the advents of the white  men with their Christianity. Right now Christianity has taken a firm grip on the lives of the people including myself. and only the free minded can truly challenge existing understanding of issues like the one we are talking about here.
    Assuming i am confuse though i am not, but for clarity sake:what's you take on that?

    Just be careful before answering.

    1. junkseller profile image84
      junksellerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Umm, free your mind, obviously.

      1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
        Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        wow, I see it in this light...''Africans are no ones guinea pig  for orientations experimentation, be it faith base, logic base or whatever. the Arab came with Islam and Africans are killing one another because of Islam today, the Europeans came with Christianity and people are being killed as a result of their believe in Christianity. Do you see the thin line right inside?

        This orientation and or ideology may not be totally different though.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Can we look beyond the U.S possibly having Africa in focus?
      Sure, but I won't be able to say very much since I know very little about the various countries in Africa and how their societies are organized etc etc etc. I'd be happy to learn more about them, though.

      Traditional Africans do not despise gay before the per-colonial days.
      Okay, that's cool.

      The orientation change with the advents of the white  men with their Christianity. Right now Christianity has taken a firm grip on the lives of the people including myself. and only the free minded can truly challenge existing understanding of issues like the one we are talking about here.
      Okay, I think I still understand you.

      Assuming i am confuse though i am not, but for clarity sake:what's you take on that?
      I'm not sure I understand the question.
      It sounds as though you're saying that Christianity's influence on Africans has created an anti-gay atmosphere in Africa. Did I get that right, or have I misunderstood?
      If I'm right, are you asking what I think about the situation?

      1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
        Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Perfectly correct, it is not only Christians though, Islam inclusive. Both religion abhors gay marriage. And Africans see it the way their religion sees it. Almost 905 of the people.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
          Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Okay, so both Christians and Muslims work against gay marriage, then?

          The same is true in the US, though Muslims in the US are a lot less vocal about it (probably because Muslims in the US are a tiny minority themselves).

          What's the ratio of Christians to Muslims in your region?

  21. jonnycomelately profile image82
    jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years ago

    Felix, if there was a consensus, and the vote came out with just one balancing in favour of accepting same-gender marriage, would you EVER accept it? 

    Are we all equal in your eyes, but some are more equal than others?

    1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
      Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      There has to be one for me to decide...you never can tell Johnny.

      1. gmwilliams profile image83
        gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I am going to explain this issue as succinctly as possible.  People, no matter what "religion", race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, as long as they are CONSENTING ADULTS, should be free to love and marry who they WANT without any OUTSIDE interference.  SIMPLE!  You totally complicating the issue!

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
          Hollie Thomasposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          +1

          1. gmwilliams profile image83
            gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Now since that was a CONCLUDING statement, this thread has completely ran its course!  Let us not repeat the same thing ad infinitum.  This thread has come to its ultimate conclusion.   Thank you!

        2. H P Roychoudhury profile image47
          H P Roychoudhuryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          “Free to love and marry who they WANT without any OUTSIDE interference” – with reference to the above statement I beg to apologize to oppose it. When we are living in a house, no one is authorized to do anything against the opinion of the majority members of the house to break the discipline and brink chaos in the house order. In a bigger perspective no country is free to do nuclear weapons of mass destruction at their will and love of the country.

          1. gmwilliams profile image83
            gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            - 1,000,0000,0000.

            1. H P Roychoudhury profile image47
              H P Roychoudhuryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Marrying the same sex enjoying a couple life being living in the same house where other normal couples of opposite sex are living –will not vitiate the house atmosphere?

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
                Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                That all depends on whether the inhabitants of the house are all well-adjusted adults, or if they have an irrational need to control other people's lives coupled with an irrational fear/loathing of gay people.

                1. H P Roychoudhury profile image47
                  H P Roychoudhuryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  It is not to control other people's lives coupled with an irrational fear/loathing of gay people. It is going to create a new revolution in the building of a society jeopardizing the existing order of the society. I like to be clear by expanding my idea further. Yes, the ethics of law never allows to disturb individual’s right but that right should not infringe the other’s right. Let us elaborate the other’s right. People have learnt to live together and thereby a community culture and community environment of living atmosphere is developed. Now by the introduction of Gay-Marriage, a new culture is going to introduce in the community. Does the new system is not going to infringe the right of existing cultural community?

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
                    Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    It [gay marriage] is going to create a new revolution in the building of a society jeopardizing the existing order of the society.
                    In what way exactly will two men getting married "jeopardize the existing order of society?"

                    Does the new system is not going to infringe the right of existing cultural community?
                    In what way will the marriage of two men or two women infringe upon anybody else's rights?

              2. jonnycomelately profile image82
                jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                No more than if you have incompatible heterosexual couples living together. 

                For your information, Sir, homosexuality is not contagious or infectious!  So sorry to disappoint you if it means altering your false understandings.

                Homosexual couples can be even more stable and loving than many heterosexual ones.  And much more contributing in a practical way to the surrounding society.

                In my opinion, we need a healthy community, with mutual respect, strong sense of responsibilities and the human rights which go with the responsibility.  Diversity is good for any species, whether it be animal, vegetable, insect, fish, bird.... whatever.

                1. H P Roychoudhury profile image47
                  H P Roychoudhuryposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Sir, it is said “Homosexual couples can be even more stable and loving than many heterosexual Ones”. Is it not we are going to experiment with a danger as good as a Nuclear Bomb?
                  Sir, it is said “In my opinion, we need a healthy community, with mutual respect, strong sense of responsibilities and the human rights which go with the responsibility”. Yes, who will fix the responsibility? Definitely it is not individual’s right. How can you say “Gay –Marriage” is the individual’s right? It is not because as you rightly said “We need a healthy community” which will be determined by the community and not by an individual.
                  I like to be clear by expanding my idea further. Yes, the ethics of law never allows to disturb individual’s right but that right should not infringe the other’s right. Let us elaborate the other’s right. People have learnt to live together and thereby a community culture and community environment of living atmosphere is developed. Now by the introduction of Gay-Marriage, a new culture is going to introduce in the community. Does the new system is not going to infringe the right of existing cultural community?
                  Further with reference to my earlier analogy where you expressed a million times negativity, I beg to express that I might be failed to high light the content of reference clearly. As I said above how the Gay-Marriage is going to infringe the other’s right. It is also going to create a new atmosphere of community culture that might be termed as the pollution of atmosphere. Let us come to the earlier analogy, after 2nd World War, the UNO has enunciated certain bindings for nuclear proliferation for peace of the Globe. USA is rightly protesting against the nuclear proliferation of North Korea. Similar to that the existing community is enjoying life with certain bindings although these bindings are not certified by the UNO. That is why for the sake of universal peace the existing community has every right to protest against the Gay-Marriage as USA has the right to protest against the nuclear proliferation.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
                    Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    So, gay people getting married has the same destructive capacity as a nuclear bomb? I'm astonished that the country of Holland hasn't been utterly destroyed, along with the US state of New York.  smile

          2. Ralph Deeds profile image64
            Ralph Deedsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That's faulty reasoning. The opinion of the majority can be quite tyrannical as in the case of women's rights, slavery, equal protection of minorities under the law and so forth. As I recall the majority of Germans supported Adolph Hitler.

  22. glendoncaba profile image78
    glendoncabaposted 7 years ago

    I like the way the debate is taking on a cosmopolitan perspective.  Might be the best cure for the monopoly by liberal gay-agenda north Americans.  Mind you, each side will now cite sources to support their views.smile

    Soon people will find alien society in galaxy xx7 which appears to condone something.!!!!

    People stick to the revealed will of the Divine Creator and you cant go wrong.  Even if you dont believe, just read the Ten Commandments.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "Even if you dont believe, just read the Ten Commandments."

      There's nothing in the Ten Commandments about gay people getting married.

  23. Felixedet2000 profile image57
    Felixedet2000posted 7 years ago

    what's your definition of ultra fundamentalist religion when you refuse to admit about ultra fundamentalist concepts and ideology?

    What is good for the goose is good for the gender. Respect the ultra fundamentalist if you ever want some form of respect too.
    IF you see them as fundamentalist for what they believe what choice do you have for them?

    1. jonnycomelately profile image82
      jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      By Ultra-fundamentalist, I mean someone who states, categorically, his/her view of the world and religion is the ONLY way of looking at it, and cannot accept that others may have their own valid reasons for believing otherwise.

      I accept your right to believe what you wish FOR YOU.  I believe what I wish FOR ME.

      YOU are Fundamentalist is you do not allow me my opinion without judging me. 

      I am not judging you for you.  Only in relation to your attitude to ME.

  24. rlaframboise profile image60
    rlaframboiseposted 7 years ago

    I don't think it is positive or negative and I don't think the state should have the ability to create blanket laws nation wide governing marriage, it is an issue best left to the states. Prejudices of a particular regions should not govern the life of people in another -- that's why we were formed as a Republic and not a Democracy.

    1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
      Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      what's the best way to go regarding this issue?

    2. profile image57
      Squirrelgonzoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Well Said rlaframboise!   +1!

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How do you feel about reciprocal recognition? I mean, I live in Michigan, and I learned to drive, got married, etc. If my family and I move to Hawaii tomorrow, am I still married? May I still drive a car?

      Now imagine that I'm gay, and I live in New York (which allows gays to marry). Am I suddenly not married anymore if I move to Michigan (which does not yet allow gays to marry)?

  25. H P Roychoudhury profile image47
    H P Roychoudhuryposted 7 years ago

    We are talking of controlling of warming of atmosphere and green house gases. Industrialized countries are producing carbon dioxide and all other countries are asking for the control of carbon dioxide – why? No body wants to pollute the atmosphere. Similarly two person of same sex will marry and live as couple and pollute the atmosphere just as carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not produced in his country but yet he is talking because it affects him due to pollution of air. Similar the case with marriage of same sex- it pollutes the environment of normal life.

    1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
      Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      none of them will agree with you about what you said and i wonder why so, thank you for this point. Well noted.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
        Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        none of them will agree with you about what you said and i wonder why so, Because it's complete nonsense, that's why so.

        A gay couple pollutes nothing.

        Heck, they could live right next door to you, and unless you're looking in their windows, it won't affect you even a little bit. (And of course, if you're looking in their windows, why the heck are you looking in their windows? That's just rude!)

    2. junkseller profile image84
      junksellerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Bigotry, bias, and intolerance is the pollution we need to worry about. Not loving couples marrying and living happily ever after. People should worry about the pollution they put inside of themselves before worrying about some imaginary pollution others put into the world.

  26. Marsei profile image93
    Marseiposted 7 years ago

    I agree with everythng you said.  It seems to me that those who spend so much time, energy and effort oppsing this issue have some sort of void to fill in their lives, some inner anger looking for an outlet.  Love is love.  It's that simple.  And if we want to really bring the Bible in to this, as they are intent on doing, God is love.  That is the message of the New Testament.  Love does not allow bias and bigotry. 

    A freind of mine remarked:  Well, I was taught to hate that.  Do we really not have the intelligence and courage to make our own decisions instead of holding to the oudated and  often resentment-fueled beliefs of our parents?  Since I know his parents, my answer was:  Do you want to be like the peope who taught you that?  He had no answer.  Enough said.

    There are so very many important things to be addressed.  In a priority list of any person hoping to do good in the world, which would come first opposing gay marriage or feeding hungry children? 
    There will be progress.  In 50 years, same sex marriage will be humdrum, just as integration is now.  There will still be children in our own country without enough food.  Perhaps a realigning of priorities is in order.
    marsei

    1. A Thousand Words profile image75
      A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed

  27. Marsei profile image93
    Marseiposted 7 years ago

    I have to question the "pollution of normal life" remark.
    If we ponder the statistics on how many children are molested
    in normal families by normal fathers, how many children are physically
    abused in normal families by normal parents, do we really want to maintain that normal?  If we ponder current divorce statistics, have we heteros done such a smashing job with this sacred institution?  If we wander in to a divorce court and listen to settlement issues, are we proud of our normal marriages and ending thereof? If we sit in court and listen to one after another domestic abuse case, are we relieved that at least these marraiges are "normal"?

    I recently visited a friend who was sporting one more black eye from
    her normal husband.  The tension in the home was so thick it was suffocating --but it was normal. I couldn't help think of a visit the day before with a young lesbian couple whose home was a joy to be in because they were so happy with each other and with life. 

    I am more comfortable with abnormal, I supposed.
    marsei

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I've been saying for a long time that "normal" doesn't necessarily mean "healthy."

      1. gmwilliams profile image83
        gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Normal is just merely a societal consensus, nothing more.  In other words, "normal" is what the majority believes whether it a consensus of morality and/or societal issues.   However, just because something is agreed upon by the majority DOES NOT mean that it is inherent right.   History has proven it time and time again.  It is the unconventional people who MAKE history and whose beliefs and opinions are eventually adapted by the same majority. Think about THAT!

    2. profile image57
      Squirrelgonzoposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Domestic Violence occurs in around 30-40% percent of Homosexual households. These numbers are the same national average for Heterosexual households.

      Child Abuse occurs in 9-10% percent of households where domestic violence(between adults) is present.

      The idea that being Gay or Lesbian makes you immune to ANY circumstance that a heterosexual person might experience is a MYTH.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
        Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The idea that being Gay or Lesbian makes you immune to ANY circumstance that a heterosexual person might experience is a MYTH.
        I don't think anybody claimed that gay couples never experience break-up, infidelity, abuse, 7-year-itch, or anything else.

        Of course, gay couples are immune from one thing (in most of the US): the possibility of ever getting married.

        I have to wonder why, because assuming your statistics are correct, it looks a lot like a gay marriage is pretty much exactly like a straight one. What's the big deal?

        1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
          Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          The big deal is the difference in sexes. Male and Female, not male and make or female and female.
          that's the whole big deal.
          Some people are scared of the effects on others mind and orientation, and you can't rule that out completely. May be gay marriages should be a secret affair, completely out of public notice.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Are you still flogging this dead horse?

            1. gmwilliams profile image83
              gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Oh yes!  Let us conclude this thread please!  Everyone has elucidated his/her opinions.  Each person knows how the others feel.  Let us not go on ad infinitum!  To Uninvited Writer, you have expressed my sentiments exactly!

              1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
                Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                gmWilliams, This thread  will continue to be either a curse or a blessing to many. The ideas and suggestions therein are invaluable.
                There is still more to learn and more still to teach.
                Comments and opinions herein will go a long way in shaping our various orientations to a greater extent than you can imagine.

                Is a consensus needed in other to legalize gay marriage?

            2. Felixedet2000 profile image57
              Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

              the horse has refuse to die for real.

              1. gmwilliams profile image83
                gmwilliamsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                You have stated your point, ENOUGH ALREADY!

                1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
                  Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Enough is a relative term, is there anything like enough in life when values, morals, ethics and virtues are in view?
                  There is more to talk about dude.
                  Because i am still at a loss how Christianity is seen by most people here as a stumbling block to gay marriages. Honestly i am not yet convince by anyone regarding how Christians are at the center of it. Reason is: Is Christianity the only religion against gay, and the emphatic answer is no.
                  the next question goes thus: Is gay marriages only domicile in the U.S alone. the obvious answer too is no.
                  That means this topic has a universal influence and in the light of that i would say we are not yet done.

                  1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
                    Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    Marijuana was ban in the U.S and many other countries without any tangible reason tow the U.S line, despite the beneficial effects of hemp and it associated benefits .
                    Gay marriages in the U.S and ordination of gay priests openly is causing uproar and acrimony within the Anglican communion worldwide and the Episcopal.
                    this issue has to be exhausted before quitting at least for posterity sake.

                  2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
                    Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    : Is Christianity the only religion against gay, and the emphatic answer is no.
                    Sure, but a related and equally important question is this: "Do Christians act to keep gay couples from marrying?" The emphatic answer is yes.

                    Is Christianity* the only religion that opposes same-sex marriage? Of course not. But it is a religion that does oppose same-sex marriage, and therefore Christianity (as it is now) is a stumbling block for gay marriage.

                    Is gay marriages only domicile in the U.S alone. the obvious answer too is no.
                    Of course. Most of the folks on the forums are from the US, though. I'd love to talk more about your earlier point that pre-Christian Africans didn't have a problem with gay people, but after Christianity was propagated in Africa, Africans started to have a problem with gay people. (Which point, by the way, seems to support the argument that Christianity is a stumbling block to marriage equality.)

                2. Felixedet2000 profile image57
                  Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Gmwilliams: We are not done on this thread yet. Maybe you have exhausted your point, i am not convince and i still want someone to convince me.Jeff had me turning here and there with his points though. I appreciate it, but i want him to look at the larger world, beyond the u.s and beyond the constituency of most people that made comments here....you never can tell how far this will go in enlightening folks out there......Don't give up, there is still more to prove.

  28. Parks McCants profile image71
    Parks McCantsposted 7 years ago

    I believe that love is love. And to protect those dear to you is very human, and of-course natural. I also believe in the division of church and state, as well as your right; as a human being... to safely practice, as well as live your chosen path.
    Beyond the far christian left, lies( no pun intended) a curtain... Behind that curtain? An Insurance and financial sector financed government. The powers to be, have little intent as to shouldering the benefit and medical insurance expense of a same gender marriage. So they use the biblical definition of marriage to poo poo it.
    I truly believe the debate in the U.S. is more of a $ generated concern. But then again, I'm a reformed, white, as well as straight middle-aged, pink if not redknecked man from the San Francisco Bay Area. To dismiss the rights of Gays there? Politically as well as socially incorect.

    Wish to Wedd? Go for it! Love is love...

  29. lostdogrwd profile image59
    lostdogrwdposted 7 years ago

    tell me why should I care it women or men want to married on another. that has nothing to do with me. that between them and God. I don't judge. respect me and I you. live and let live. anything more that that is just hate and trying to take over some one else

  30. jonnycomelately profile image82
    jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years ago

    Broadening the comparisons does not bring good logic to this discussion, I feel.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No, but it will show the illogic of those comparisons. I may compile them into an article.

  31. jonnycomelately profile image82
    jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years ago

    Roy, with respect to your efforts to express yourself clearly I don't feel you have done so.  Maybe your mind is not very clear either.  I appreciate that your English is not 100% but I am trying to see through that and address your fears.... for that IS what comes through to me from your postings.

    "...a healthy community..." can only come about by individuals acting responsibly in community that we can live in harmony together.  If you want to appoint a controlling committee or person at the head who will dictate what happens in the community, then you will have a totalitarian state and the individuals will have no say in the matter.  Is that what you want? 

    If you fear that: "It is also going to create a new atmosphere of community culture that might be termed as the pollution of atmosphere" -- what sort of logic is that?  How can two persons, living in love and harmony, contributing fairly to the society in which they live, be a "pollution of the atmosphere?"

    It seems to me the only "pollution" would be coming from obstinate, ill-informed and a-social attitudes.  If two persons are living together, how will you know for sure what is "going on" in that household?  Are you going to be a peeping tom?  If so, be prepared for others to come peeping around YOUR house, looking through the window at night, to see what YOU are doing.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    If you want to see things differently, try meeting up with a few gay couples (girls or guys) and seeing if you can't win some wonderful new friends in your life.  I can assure you they will not bite, and they will certainly not try to convert you.  You will be quite safe!

  32. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 7 years ago

    AND in creating a state that dictates the religion of it's citizenry. It was a two-edged sword they were wielding. After all, religious intolerance was one of the main reasons immigrants were coming here. In England, the crown determined your church, in Rome, the Pope determined your government. They were agaist BOTH.

    1. A Thousand Words profile image75
      A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ahh, but history tends to repeat itself when people don't learn the lessons to be learned from it.

  33. psycheskinner profile image84
    psycheskinnerposted 7 years ago

    At least one author seem to find that same sex marriage increases general public respect for marriage. http://csx.sagepub.com/content/39/6/684 … gn=1122014

  34. Felixedet2000 profile image57
    Felixedet2000posted 7 years ago

    It is more than you think. What others do has a way of influencing others still negatively. Don't you think so?

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What we do always has the potential to influence others, for good or ill.

  35. Marsei profile image93
    Marseiposted 7 years ago

    I believe we're here to realize that we are all connected, are all one.  It happens once in a while that a person realizes that when we see someone selflessly give their life to save a child or aother person.  If we are all one, and that's the belief, when we hate, ridicule, hurt, another group of people, we destroy our opportunity for self-love because we are hating part of the whole of which we are apart.  I am older than most of you and I don't believe that closing our hearts and minds to the idea of something different is the path to redemption.  I don't believe any of these people are asking that we like the fact that they're gay or that we be their best friends.  All they are asking is the right to live their lives in peace without being judged.  Seems like the Bible should figure in there somewhere about not judging.  And the thing that always comes to mind when I get in judgmental mode, I always say to myself:  What have you done today for someone else?  There's such endless work to be done there, how can anyone find time to find fault with the way people chose to love.

  36. KnowlgfulOpinion profile image57
    KnowlgfulOpinionposted 7 years ago

    I think you love who you love and whether it is legal or not you are not going to stop it. My friends have the right to love who they want to. Just because I am a woman and I like and married a man doesn't mean they can't love and marry their same sex. Why should I care who someone else wants to share their life with? It's not my life.

  37. JPhillipi profile image53
    JPhillipiposted 7 years ago

    Uh, it has nothing to do with me liking it or not. God made adam and eve not adam and steve!

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How original...I've never heard that before roll

      Many people do not believe in Adam and Eve...

      1. JPhillipi profile image53
        JPhillipiposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        And that is very sad. For the day of reckoning is upon us!

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
          Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Even some Christians don't take Adam and Eve as a literal story.

          1. JPhillipi profile image53
            JPhillipiposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            well they should. God says not to take away from His Word or add to it. So read it and it is what it is.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Oh I wish you realized how foolish that statement is, suffice to say just for starters that scientifically the Adam and Eve is completely disprovable, our foundational DNA traits prove we come from a lot more than two initial humans not to mention that the level of inbreeding that would have been caused by two initial progeny would have destroyed the human race (inbreeding creates massive health issues).
      As for the end being nigh Christians have been telling people that claptrap for thousands of years and occasionally some are dumb enough to buy it, there was a guy last year in the US that convinced a few thousand it would happen in October, they gave away all their possessions and waited... Now I serve them at the community soup kitchen on the weekends.

      1. JPhillipi profile image53
        JPhillipiposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The time is near the signs in Revelations are starting. I warn you. Read it and learn it or weep when your time comes. No man knows God's time. He will come when he is ready. Can the world possibly get any worse.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I have seen the world much worse so absolutely but if the end is night please feel free to send me your worldly possessions since you won't need them anymore tongue you sound like the raving homeless guy on the corner anyway tongue.

          I see you never made any response to the evidence presented...

          Since we should obey all of gods word I am baffled as to why you are here talking about gays instead of going and killing them like your bible tells you to.

          "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)

        2. Marsei profile image93
          Marseiposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          We can't pick and choose the Bible verses we want to believe.  Leviticus 11:7 stays that touching the dead skin of a pig makes one unclean.  Is the entire NFP unclean?    I read something about Adam and Eve and I'm truly afraid to read further?  Does somebody actually believe that is anything other than symbolism?  Then where is that extra rib, if we want to get literal?   The one thing I have noticed about people who make remarks like "read it and weep" when speaking of a book that is meant to convey loving one's neighbor and says that "the greatest of these is love" is that they are miserable human beings.  Never met a happy one yet.   And let me end end with this irony:  God is Love.  Read it and weep.

    3. A Thousand Words profile image75
      A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      LoL. :') That always makes me giggle.

  38. jonnycomelately profile image82
    jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years ago

    JPhillipi, you can live in your fantasy land if you wish, but we don't need to join with you.

    That "day of judgment" which you speak about is nothing to do with some airy-fairy date in the future.   It's a metaphor.  It's talking about the "here and now."  It's also talking about each of us as how we, as individuals, conduct our lives.

    You, I, everyone, are our own judge.  Look into your own life, JPhillipi.  Don't worry about anyone else's state of affairs.  You are not responsible for them, and you are certainly not in a position to judge them.  Also, that idea of yours and people like you, that "Jesus" is coming to judge, is a convenient fantasy which allows you to stop looking at your own reality.  It's sort of "passing the buck."

    Get you head out of that book and see life for real.  You better start now, Mate, because if the world is coming to an end you ain't got much time left!

  39. Window Pain profile image57
    Window Painposted 7 years ago

    I’d say a far better question would be “Is going out of your way to make other people unhappy a positive ideology, especially when their lives have no bearing on yours?”

    I don't believe in Jesus or God but I've read the Bible a couple of times (of my own accord) and I'm pretty sure Jesus would not want people spending their time preventing the happiness of others.

    Why is it that people invoke the name of Jesus and then preach the exact opposite of "What Jesus would do"?

  40. profile image51
    meigancam01posted 7 years ago

    No problem, If someone like, should have right to marriage in same sex.

  41. Marsei profile image93
    Marseiposted 7 years ago

    I got involved in a day-long debate with friends on Facebook about this issue.  At the end of the day, no one's mind was changed.  Some of us parted ways, which is okay, because when you know someone's true heart is something you can't tolerate, you need to part.  I don't know if these debates are productive or not.  I do know that having been in high school in Little Rock during the integration of central high, some of these arguments are the same ones used back then to justify segregation, that "God didn't mean the races to be equal or to mix."  It was the excuse for a lot of hurtful rhetoric then and is now, God's will.  My thoughts are that if God truly is watching us, he or she would be devastated at the hurt that is being propogated in his/her name.  I'm going to sign out of here because I said it all in the other debate, but this is my motto and I hope some of those who say such judgmental and hurtful things might take it to heart: Today, if I can't be loving and kind, let me at least do no harm to another person.  Good debating.  Hope you solve something.  If you do, please let me know!

    1. livelonger profile image92
      livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Nice post, Marsei. I agree that most of these debates don't immediately change minds, but they do give you reason to think.

      I also remember a post you made a few months ago where you said more power to the bigots; they remind us what we're up against. If it's only to shock us out of our complacency, that's a good thing. I personally live in a very liberal place and don't interact with bigots almost ever, but bigots are still out there, they shape laws, and if you don't interact with them, you'll never understand their mindset.

      1. Marsei profile image93
        Marseiposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Hey, Livelonger.  I'm just weary.  Although New Orleans is very liberal, the rest of Louisiana is not.   I'm just very tired of interacting with bigots.  After the President's announcement and after listening to months of right-wing rhetoric, I told them all on Facebook that I knew my politics and beliefs are different than theirs but that I felt I had to say a few words to my gay and lesbian friends, which I did, congratulating them on this historic legislation.  To their credit probably 40 of my friends and former students who are hard-core fundamentalists gave me the courtesy of keeping quiet.  One however, went on a rant like nothing i've ever heard, talking about "If they want they can call it garriage and garry each other," really hurtful, hateful stuff.  After a facebook debate that lasted far too long and wasted far too much time, she apologized to me and anyone it offended and removed it from her page.  Yet how can one remain friends with someone like that?  It has just absolutely worn me out psychologically.   There is an additional point I wanted to make with this long rambling post, believe it or not.  The sacred institution of marriage has been sullied by husbands and fathers who regularly have sexual relations with both their male and female children.  I see no uprising over that, no group of Christians targeting those men and banding together to save the sanctity of marriage and family.  There are men who regularly bash their wive's heads against the wall.  I see no uprising of indignant Christians protesting that it's against God's teachings.  If you don't believe these things happen, ask any social worker on Hub Pages.  Yet here are a group of people who obviously have every right that any heterosexual has and they are being accused of destroying the institution of marriage.  What is the message?  I am not being deliberately obtuse to make a point.  I do not understand the thinking.   Anyway, Livelonger and johnnycomelately, hang in there with the debating.  I have to give it a rest for a while.   I honestly believe the thinking is that God didn't say bashing one's wife's head into the wall is a sin and an abomination.  It makes sense, doesn't it, that that would be it?  And finally, I just believe we all have to be better than we've ever been in the next months before the election.  We have to be more tolerant and loving and careful with our words because something may be said that seems harmless to us that can cut someone else to the core.  That goes for all of us, myself included, I say reluctantly, because we are all one .........like it or not.

        1. livelonger profile image92
          livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I get it, and I agree with you. I can't interact with bigots in my real world. However, people I don't know from a can of paint on HubPages that I can easily ignore when I get tired of them? That's another matter entirely. tongue

    2. jonnycomelately profile image82
      jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Marsei, thank you for much-needed good common sense - and a lot of love, obviously.

  42. Window Pain profile image57
    Window Painposted 7 years ago

    johnny, don't you see?

    God will cause barbarism to punish us,  if he sees that we "let" Bob and Joe get married. Like Jerry Falwell saying 9/11 happened because God is punishing America for "allowing" unwed mothers.

    And people buy into this crap.

  43. Dr Billy Kidd profile image92
    Dr Billy Kiddposted 7 years ago

    Two kinds of reactions to new material: assimilation and accomodation.

    Assimilation let's you fit the new stuff into your current cognitive schemas (those thought patterns that let you summarize things). Accomodation requires a person to adopt a whole new schema on how to look at the world.

    Those who are OK with homosexual marriage simply fit it into an existingthought pattern (i.e., I know Johnny and Paul, and they're great guys, and now that they want to get married, it's OK, I guess). Those who have whose cognitive schema says "homosexuality is an obomination" will never accomodate to homosexual marriage--it's too big of a jump. But--

    Getting angry and hating people who are OK with homosexual marriage is a personality trait, built on a different cognitive schema: those who are not like me are evil. (this is why the Republicans are spending so much money trying to say Obama is the other--this allows this type of closed-minded person so hate him.)

    By the way, does anyone know a Romney hater? Nott likely, because the opposition to Romney is built on facts by people who can assimilate the idea of an opposition candidate. But in general, the opposition to Obama is often built on hate--or rather, convictions that he's a socialist alien who is destroying the Constitution and taking all the money we're entitled to get.

    1. Marsei profile image93
      Marseiposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, well.  I said I was through and I've been sucked in once again.  I just want to make one comment.  Isn't there some sort of irony, oxymoron, inconsistency, just plain something strange about the fact that the people who are not necessarily Christians are the ones who are doing everything they can to stop the hate, ridicule, and just plan meannesss, not to mention hate, by the people who are Christians and who live by a book that is the greatest statement of love ever made and contains the greatest statement ever made, that God is love?  I just find that bizarre and hard to reconcile.
      This is a group of people who live by a book that says don't judge that ye be not judged, love your neighbor as yourself, the greatest of all of these is love, and yet the hate is coming from them.  My friend with whom I arugued forever about this issue said some of the most hateful, demeaning things possible about gays and lesbians and yet says that "I stand with Christ." 
      Would Christ want her standing with him?  It's beyond me to figure all this out.

      1. Marsei profile image93
        Marseiposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I just have to say this to add some levity to the situation.  Anyway, I thought it was pretty hilarious.  I received an email with a photograph of the cast of a certain reality show about choosing a husband.  At the bottom, it said:  I think marriage should remain what God intended it to be:  A sacred bond between a man and a woman, formed over a few weeks through an elimination contest on national television.

  44. Window Pain profile image57
    Window Painposted 7 years ago

    “I now pronounce you Man and Wife... after this commercial break! We’ll right back!”

    [followed by erectile dysfunction ads, and for good measure, highlights of an upcoming episode of ‘Cheaters’]

    “... and we`re back!”


    If ever there was a target the ‘marriage traditionalists’ could go after.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image82
      jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Oh!Window Pain, you are so cynical!  lol  But we can see right through you!  Totally transparent!

  45. kcsummers profile image61
    kcsummersposted 7 years ago

    I don't understand why this has turned into a religious debate. The constitution guarantees separation of church and state. This should be an equality issue, not a religious one. Each persons rights only extend as far as infringing on the rights of others, right?

    1. jonnycomelately profile image82
      jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I admire your ideals, but they are not borne out in practice, I feel, either in your country or many other places.

      These Hubs mostly end up as a religious confrontation because most of the anti-gay rhetoric comes from some christians.   Not all of course.  Some have learned a lot from the grace which they feel in their lives, i.e., "I have faith in the forgiveness which I have received, it is my duty to give of that grace to others."

      There is a lot of blind ignorance in the world, I am sure your work has brought you into contact with it.  We can only hope that more eyes (and hearts) will open to other points of view.

    2. Felixedet2000 profile image57
      Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      More questions than answers Kc.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
        Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The questions include:
        * Why is this even a problem?
        * Why shouldn't gay folks be allowed to marry their same-sex partners?
        * Why is the idea of gay people getting married so frightening to some people?
        (This is not an exhaustive list.)

        1. ib radmasters profile image60
          ib radmastersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          For the same reason that people can't have multiple spouses, or marry their dogs. That is not the basis of marriage.

          Gay lifestyle is a deviant from the norm, and to put it into the same bond as opposite sex marriage changes the concept of marriage.

          Marriage is a privilege, that requires a license from a state.
          A constitutional right, doesn't require state action, nor does it require a license.

          The difference between a gay relationship and a straight relationship starts with gender.

          There is also no natural procreation in gay marriages, and there can at best be only one natural parent.

          The sex between the parties also differs from the sex involved in traditional marriages.

          There is no provision in the domestic relations courts to handle gay dissolution. This will be a very expensive and waste of judicial resources.

          There is already a dismal rate of dissolution in traditional marriage, why would it get better with gay marriage.

          The gays need to use their wealth and political power to make civil unions equal in legal status to that of marriage. This would make the two equal, except their is no validation of the gay lifestyle.

          The idea of gay people getting married is frightening because it is a misuse of the constitution to satisfy a minority preference and their need to be validated by society.

          The LGBT is FORCING their lifestyle into mainstream society, and that is not right. That is not the reason for the constitution, and the constitution was not to be manipulated to satisfy minorities.

          It is there to protect minorities but not let the minorities manipulate the constitution.

          Bringing Civil Unions up to the legal status of marriage is all that needs to be done to protect gays.

          Even gay marriage won't protect those couples straight or gay that want a long term cohabitation but don't want to get married. This is the bigger and more important issue. The reason that the LGBT avoids solving this issue is because it doesn't validate their lifestyle preference.

          Gay marriages becomes a national issue and concern because it is being pursued by the LGBT through diluting and misusing the US Constitution. That is the problem.

          Many people, even gay people say that LGBT is based on genetics not preference. If that is true than there is no reason to make the country conform to what is a genetic difference that is opposite of the intended human genetics, which is opposite genders for a reason.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
            Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            For the same reason that people can't have multiple spouses,
            Polygamy is illegal because historically it went hand-in-hand with fraud (having multiple spouses without telling them about each other) or coercion (intimidating young people into a group marriage).
            Marrying a dog is illegal because a dog cannot consent to be someone's spouse.
            None of those things apply to gay adults who wish to marry.

            Gay lifestyle is a deviant from the norm,
            Different /= bad. Millionaires are deviant for the norm. Should we outlaw millionaires?
            to put it into the same bond as opposite sex marriage changes the concept of marriage.
            No it doesn't.

            Marriage is a privilege, that requires a license from a state.
            A constitutional right, doesn't require state action, nor does it require a license.

            Really? Try carrying a gun around some time. Precedent says you're wrong.

            The difference between a gay relationship and a straight relationship starts with gender.
            And it ends there, too. What's your point?

            There is also no natural procreation in gay marriages, and there can at best be only one natural parent.
            I see. So you think that infertile straight couples should have their marriages annulled. Good to know.

            The sex between the parties also differs from the sex involved in traditional marriages.
            And that affects you how, exactly? (Pro tip: It doesn't.)

            There is already a dismal rate of dissolution in traditional marriage, why would it get better with gay marriage.
            It wouldn't. There would be no effect whatsoever, which is kind of the point. Thanks for making it for me.

            The gays need to use their wealth and political power to make civil unions equal in legal status to that of marriage. This would make the two equal, except their is no validation of the gay lifestyle.
            Oh, I see, so you think "separate-but-equal" is a good thing, then? Good to know.

            The idea of gay people getting married is frightening because it is a misuse of the constitution to satisfy a minority preference and their need to be validated by society.
            Wait, what? The constitution exists precisely in order to protect the rights of unpopular minorities. Try reading it.

            The LGBT is FORCING their lifestyle into mainstream society, and that is not right. That is not the reason for the constitution, and the constitution was not to be manipulated to satisfy minorities.
            Nobody is forcing anything upon anyone, unless it's the bigots in the straight community trying to force gays back into the closet. Re your invalid point about the constitution, see above.

            It is there to protect minorities but not let the minorities manipulate the constitution.
            Right: it's there to ensure that even unpopular minorities enjoy the equal protection of the law, and equal access to all the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. Citizens can get married. Simple.

            Bringing Civil Unions up to the legal status of marriage is all that needs to be done to protect gays.
            "Separate-but-equal is inherently unequal." --Brown v Board of Education.

            Even gay marriage won't protect those couples straight or gay that want a long term cohabitation but don't want to get married. This is the bigger and more important issue.
            Well, it's certainly an entirely separate issue. I don't know about bigger or more important. A couple who doesn't want to get married doesn't have to get married. A couple who wants to enjoy the benefits of marriage can get married. Simple as that. For a couple to want the benefits of marriage without the actual marriage is--well, I find it difficult to believe that it's even a problem or an issue for very many people at all. Did you just make this up?

            The reason that the LGBT avoids solving this issue is because it doesn't validate their lifestyle preference.
            The reason they don't 'solve' this issue is probably that it isn't an issue.

            Gay marriages becomes a national issue and concern because it is being pursued by the LGBT through diluting and misusing the US Constitution. That is the problem.
            Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is neither diluting nor misusing the Constitution. It's using the constitution exactly as it's meant to be used: to ensure the equal rights of all (including unpopular minorities).

            Many people, even gay people say that LGBT is based on genetics not preference. If that is true than there is no reason to make the country conform to what is a genetic difference that is opposite of the intended human genetics, which is opposite genders for a reason.
            Oh, so you're against interracial marriages, too, then? Since people are either black or white because of genetics, and there's no reason to make the country to conform to a black and white couple wanting to marry, right? Except that 'the country' doesn't have to conform to anything when a couple (any couple) gets married.

            So, none of your arguments were valid (or original), and you still haven't explained how letting a gay couple get married would affect you even in the smallest way. This is because there would be no effect.

            So, do you have any actual valid arguments that explain how gay couples getting married would have an actual, real, negative effect on you or one society at large? I'd be astonished if you or anybody else can come up with a real reason that doesn't fall back on either "God tells us gay is bad" or on "I just think it's icky."

            Bet you can't.

            1. A Thousand Words profile image75
              A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Search and destroy. That's what I feel like you do. It's pretty awesome. Not trying to toot your horn, but, I wish you could be in power and other reasonable people like yourself, so that this country wouldn't be so crazy and ass-backwards about things.

            2. ib radmasters profile image60
              ib radmastersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              For the same reason that people can't have multiple spouses,
              Polygamy is illegal because historically it went hand-in-hand with fraud (having multiple spouses without telling them about each other) or coercion (intimidating young people into a group marriage).
              Marrying a dog is illegal because a dog cannot consent to be someone's spouse.
              None of those things apply to gay adults who wish to marry.

              Jeff---- What does fraud have to do with multiple spouses that really love each other. And once you break the requirements of marriage to fit your own wants where do we stop. Civil Unions accomplish your want to be legally coupled. Any legal status not afforded by a Civil Union can be fought by the same money, power and political clout used by the LGBT to encroach on traditional marriage.
              -------------------------
              ---------------

              Gay lifestyle is a deviant from the norm,
              Different /= bad. Millionaires are deviant for the norm. Should we outlaw millionaires?
              to put it into the same bond as opposite sex marriage changes the concept of marriage.
              No it doesn't.

              Jeff------
              millionaires are taxed higher than non millionaires. Gay are different, and that difference is the reason they would have a different but equal bond. If all we are talking about is validation for that different lifestyle, then marriage even if attained will not validate it. But if legally equality is the sole goal, than it can be accomplished with Civil Unions. Just because Civil Unions don't currently have equal legal status can be changed. What cannot be changed is to have marriage conformed forcibly to the requirements of a different nature.
              ------------

              Marriage is a privilege, that requires a license from a state.
              A constitutional right, doesn't require state action, nor does it require a license.
              Really? Try carrying a gun around some time. Precedent says you're wrong.
              Jeff----
              Even constitutional rights have limits. You can't shout fire in a crowded place, when there is none. You can't keep mutating the constitution to fit your wants.

              The fact is that a true constitutional right cannot be restricted or defined by the states. If you have examples of that happening, and there are many, it just means that they are not true rights.

              But if marriage was a constitutional right, why should different states have different requirements. The original Bill of Rights came from the Federal Government, and yet each state could selectively incorporate what they chose to take into their state constitutions.

              So while the US Constitution can be manipulated, it shouldn't mean that we consider it the same rights as was intended by the founders.

              Marriage is a state issue that is made worse by the government using it for taxes, and other legal status. In my opinion, marriage should be removed from the power of the federal government. It should be replaced by a contract such as a partnership agreement. This would be far better that the vague and ambiguous contract of marriage. This is the reason why divorce is so hard to settle between the parties.
              ---------------
              The difference between a gay relationship and a straight relationship starts with gender.
              And it ends there, too. What's your point?
              Jeff ---------- my point is obvious. There is a natural reason why our DNA has gender, and gender has differences to do its basic function. Gender is similar to the poles on a magnet. If you want to bind two magnets into one, you have to place opposite poles together.
              -----------

              There is also no natural procreation in gay marriages, and there can at best be only one natural parent.
              I see. So you think that infertile straight couples should have their marriages annulled. Good to know.
              Jeff -------- There are many couples that can't have children and they can adopt them without the need to be married. Marriage is not the answer to solve these problems. And you keep running off the road with your comments. Marriage is not a physical attributes that will change whether a human defect can be cured.
              --------------

              The sex between the parties also differs from the sex involved in traditional marriages.
              And that affects you how, exactly? (Pro tip: It doesn't.)
              Jeff ------ Whenever the constitution and the legal process is manipulated to suit the wishes of a minority, it affects me and the integrity of the country
              -------------

              There is already a dismal rate of dissolution in traditional marriage, why would it get better with gay marriage.
              It wouldn't. There would be no effect whatsoever, which is kind of the point. Thanks for making it for me.
              Jeff ---- You truly don't understand the law, and especially the divorce laws in this country. There would be a tremendous effect on the already burdened and incompetent legal system. Originally divorce law was really held in a court of equity, look it up. Then over the years, the equity part was replaced by chauvinistic good old boy judges protecting and favoring the women. This hasn't changed in many parts of the country.

              The primary point is that traditional marriage fails half the time, and if the same sex marriage even equals that, it will over burden, the more than burdened system. The next manipulation or mutation of marriage may be made by bisexuals who may assert that they can marriage, same sex in one marriage, and at the same time marry an opposite sex in another marriage without being a bigamist.

              Just because you conclude something, doesn't make it so, at least not with out making cogent arguments to support it.
              ----------------

              The gays need to use their wealth and political power to make civil unions equal in legal status to that of marriage. This would make the two equal, except their is no validation of the gay lifestyle.
              Oh, I see, so you think "separate-but-equal" is a good thing, then? Good to know.
              Jeff ----
              Again, you keep running off the road. I used the word Equal in my sentence. Validating the different lifestyle of LGBT is a moral issue and that cannot be validated by law. But, giving the same legal rights to civil unions is equal without validating. Separate but Equal used by you is taken out of its context, and historical use. The issue there was race, not gender. In that respect there is no difference in lifestyle. For purposes of marriage, race should not be a difference to exclude it. The basic requirement was a man and a woman, there was no exclusion for race. Race was only a problem caused by the laws in some states. Again, that is why a constitutional right shouldn't be changed by different states.

              Other than race, the man and the woman are the same as the rest of the men and woman that are in traditional marriage. Again, I believe that marriage as used by the federal and state governments should be taken away from their control.

              More importantly, marriage, especially same sex marriage doesn't help all those couples that want to have a long term cohabitation, but don't want to get married.
              ------------------

              The idea of gay people getting married is frightening because it is a misuse of the constitution to satisfy a minority preference and their need to be validated by society.
              Wait, what? The constitution exists precisely in order to protect the rights of unpopular minorities. Try reading it.
              Jeff ------
              I have read it, and even went to college for it. The tail doesn't wag the dog. And the current day US Constitutional has been mutated beyond its usefulness, and it is no longer your founders constitution.

              Do you really believe that the US and its constitution need to make the wishes and life styles of all minorities fit into the norm of society. Multiple spouses are not allowed in marriage, and yet they are a minority. Pedophiles are a minority, should they be included, don't they have the right to love. Smoking cigarettes is legal, but smoking Marijuana is illegal. They both are dangerous and yet MJ users are forced to break the law.

              Actually, the class of people that is most often discriminated is not a minority. It is the average while, heterosexual male. They are not even protected by any discrimination laws. They are used and abused by their superiors, and even coworkers on the job. How is the country protecting the rights of that class of people?

              Why are you more special than those people, and why should laws be made for your benefit, while ignoring these people.

              How do we know when a minority is hiding behind the law. A person in a protected class could just a well be incompetent at their job, and that was the real reason for their termination. But a person that is not in a protected class won't have the bogus skirt of the law to hide their incompetence.


              The LGBT is FORCING their lifestyle into mainstream society, and that is not right. That is not the reason for the constitution, and the constitution was not to be manipulated to satisfy minorities.
              Nobody is forcing anything upon anyone, unless it's the bigots in the straight community trying to force gays back into the closet. Re your invalid point about the constitution, see above.

              It is there to protect minorities but not let the minorities manipulate the constitution.
              Right: it's there to ensure that even unpopular minorities enjoy the equal protection of the law, and equal access to all the rights and responsibilities of a citizen. Citizens can get married. Simple.

              Jeff-----
              see my previous comment for an answer
              ------------------

              Bringing Civil Unions up to the legal status of marriage is all that needs to be done to protect gays.
              "Separate-but-equal is inherently unequal." --Brown v Board of Education.
              Jeff ----

              I already answered this earlier, see your first reference to unequal
              -------------------

              Even gay marriage won't protect those couples straight or gay that want a long term cohabitation but don't want to get married. This is the bigger and more important issue.
              Well, it's certainly an entirely separate issue. I don't know about bigger or more important. A couple who doesn't want to get married doesn't have to get married. A couple who wants to enjoy the benefits of marriage can get married. Simple as that. For a couple to want the benefits of marriage without the actual marriage is--well, I find it difficult to believe that it's even a problem or an issue for very many people at all. Did you just make this up?
              Jeff -----
              You need to get out more, do some walking among the people
              --------

              The reason that the LGBT avoids solving this issue is because it doesn't validate their lifestyle preference.
              The reason they don't 'solve' this issue is probably that it isn't an issue.

              Jeff -------
              Validation through traditional marriage seems to be the sole motivation of the LGBT political movement to misuse the constitution to satisfy their desire to be considered part of the norm. This is not the same as having the same legal rights, because validation is a moral issue, not a legal one.
              -----

              Gay marriages becomes a national issue and concern because it is being pursued by the LGBT through diluting and misusing the US Constitution. That is the problem.
              Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is neither diluting nor misusing the Constitution. It's using the constitution exactly as it's meant to be used: to ensure the equal rights of all (including unpopular minorities).
              Jeff ----
              not all minorities, especially unpopular ones have the necessary standing to become the norm.
              LGBT is one of them.
              You can't keep falling back to the equal assertion without conditions being attached.

              --------

              Many people, even gay people say that LGBT is based on genetics not preference. If that is true than there is no reason to make the country conform to what is a genetic difference that is opposite of the intended human genetics, which is opposite genders for a reason.
              Oh, so you're against interracial marriages, too, then? Since people are either black or white because of genetics, and there's no reason to make the country to conform to a black and white couple wanting to marry, right? Except that 'the country' doesn't have to conform to anything when a couple (any couple) gets married.
              Jeff --- do you see any signs of being on a road.
              I answered this one earlier, but the race genetics. and now you want to make gender a racial issue. That is a cheap shot, and a red herring. If this was a legal argument it would lack standing, because it has no feet.

              Especially for the purpose of marriage, race doesn't change the attributes of opposite sex, while same sex does.

              -------

              So, none of your arguments were valid (or original), and you still haven't explained how letting a gay couple get married would affect you even in the smallest way. This is because there would be no effect.
              Jeff ---

              I did several times, just in this reply
              -------

              So, do you have any actual valid arguments that explain how gay couples getting married would have an actual, real, negative effect on you or one society at large? I'd be astonished if you or anybody else can come up with a real reason that doesn't fall back on either "God tells us gay is bad" or on "I just think it's icky."
              Jeff --

              This is repetitious and I never once mentioned God as a reason.
              I have answered this one several times in the reply as well,

              -----------------
              Bet you can't.
              Jeff ----
              I did several times
              -------

              You are the one that has made no compelling arguments, the main reason is that you have your own road, and it is not going anywhere..

              I actually don't give credibility, respect or friendship based on groups, either artificial or natural ones. I do it, on a one to one basis of their qualities as a person. I don't give groups free rides, because I like the group.

              I even have friends that are gay, and I like and respect them. But not because they are gay, but because of their quality of being human beings.
              You can't put all your friends in the same room, so you really aren't treating them equally, are you?

              This forum has gotten to large to be of any use, no one would actually read all the posts, unless they were totally bored.

              I think you should take your opinions and make a hub.
              ------

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
                Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                What does fraud have to do with multiple spouses that really love each other
                Nothing. In fact, I have no problem with polygamy between a group of informed, competent, consenting adults. Nor should you, since it has nothing to do with you. I wouldn't join such a group marriage, 'cos that's not my thing, but if other people want to, there's no rational reason why they should be forbidden.
                But it was made illegal (and remains so) because once upon a time, the only way to get more than one spouse was by fraud (having, say, one wife on the west coast and another on the east coast) or by coercion (adult men intimidating younger girls into group marriages).
                If there were a group of informed, competent, consenting, adult would-be polygamists petitioning for a legal recognition of their group marriage, I'd sign their petition. Why? Because I recognize their right to equal treatment under the law.

                Any legal status not afforded by a Civil Union can be fought by the same money, power and political clout used by the LGBT to encroach on traditional marriage.
                Please explain how the LGBT community are "encroaching" on traditional marriage? Is marriage some limited commodity that is in short supply? If the gays can get married, will there be less marriage left over for straight couples? Help me out here: how, exactly, is traditional marriage being "encroached" upon?

                Gay are different, and that difference is the reason they would have a different but equal bond.
                Different but equal (in legal institutions) is inherently unequal. Gay people merely want to get married, just like anybody else. They don't eat gay breakfast, they don't gay drive their gay cars to gay work, they don't go to gay grad school at gay night to earn a gay MBA, and they don't pay gay taxes. Why should they have to get "civil unioned" instead of married like everyone else?

                Just because Civil Unions don't currently have equal legal status can be changed.
                You can’t just go around changing laws that don’t suit you! Next you’ll be saying that we can change the rules of marriage and let two men get married! Oh, wait….tongue

                What cannot be changed is to have marriage conformed forcibly to the requirements of a different nature.
                Again, how exactly will marriage be changed, as an institution, when we let gay people get married? Do you imagine that your marriage is going to turn gay or something? Seriously: how will marriage be changed?

                You can't shout fire in a crowded place, when there is none.
                Correct, because when you do that, people get trampled to death.
                So who gets trampled to death when two gay people get married?

                If you have examples of that happening, and there are many, it just means that they are not true rights.
                No, it could just mean that the rights are being infringed upon, as they are in the case of not letting gay people get married.

                So while the US Constitution can be manipulated, it shouldn't mean that we consider it the same rights as was intended by the founders.
                And a good thing, too, otherwise some of us wouldn’t be allowed to vote, and some of us would only count as 3/5ths of a person.

                In my opinion, marriage should be removed from the power of the federal government. It should be replaced by a contract such as a partnership agreement. This would be far better that the vague and ambiguous contract of marriage. This is the reason why divorce is so hard to settle between the parties.
                Well, you might have something there, but really, the niceties of family law are a bit out of the scope of this discussion.

                Gender is similar to the poles on a magnet. If you want to bind two magnets into one, you have to place opposite poles together.
                Yes, but people of the same sex can and do form long-term domestic partnerships—marriages, if they enjoyed equal protection under the law. That’s the difference between people and magnets. If this analogy were sound, and people were like magnets, there would be no gay people, and this whole discussion wouldn’t be taking place.

                There are many couples that can't have children and they can adopt them without the need to be married. Marriage is not the answer to solve these problems.
                No, I never suggested it was. You, however, suggested that since gay people can’t procreate, there’s no point in them getting married, which is a different thing.
                Since a couple can’t procreate, there’s no point to them getting married. (While I disagree with this assertion, I’ll stipulate it for the sake of argument.)
                So, since an infertile heterosexual couple cannot procreate, and since marriage won’t magically enable them to procreate, should they be allowed to marry? (Bear in mind that their inability to procreate means that their marriage would be pointless.) If you think they should be allowed to marry even though they cannot procreate, why them and why not a gay couple?

                And you keep running off the road with your comments.
                No, I’m pointing out either 1) the inherent unfairness of allowing an infertile hetero couple to marry while forbidding a same sex couple from marrying on the grounds that they can’t procreate, or 2) the silliness of forbidding any couple from marrying on the grounds that they cannot procreate. Take your pick.

                Marriage is not a physical attributes that will change whether a human defect can be cured.
                I never suggested that getting married changes anything about the physical bodies of the spouses. I don’t know where you got that idea from.

                Whenever the constitution and the legal process is manipulated to suit the wishes of a minority, it affects me and the integrity of the country
                Okay, but what I asked was how it affects you? Can you give an example?

                You truly don't understand the law, and especially the divorce laws in this country. There would be a tremendous effect on the already burdened and incompetent legal system.<snip> The primary point is that traditional marriage fails half the time, and if the same sex marriage even equals that, it will over burden, the more than burdened system.
                So, because straight couples getting divorced are clogging up the courts, we should stop gay people from getting married so they won’t clog up the courts? Dude, the obvious answer to the clogged-courts problem is to stop straight couples from getting married until the courts catch up with the backlog. Oh, but that would infringe upon the rights of straight couples, wouldn’t it. Just as preventing gay couples from marrying to keep them from clogging up the courts when they get divorced would violate the rights of gay couples.

                The next manipulation or mutation of marriage may be made by bisexuals who may assert that they can marriage, same sex in one marriage, and at the same time marry an opposite sex in another marriage without being a bigamist.
                That’d be a silly argument. More than one spouse=group marriage. As long as all the spouses are informed, consenting adults, what would be the problem with that?

                Validating the different lifestyle of LGBT is a moral issue and that cannot be validated by law.
                No, but the law can be (and is being) used to oppress gay people by forbidding them from getting married. Wait, are you suggesting that we should criminalize things that someone thinks is immoral? So, should drinking be forbidden? Lots of folks think drinking is immoral. Same with smoking. Same with working on Sunday. Same with having sex without being married. No, sorry. Just because you disapprove of something that harms nobody doesn’t mean it should be illegal.

                Separate but Equal used by you is taken out of its context, and historical use. The issue there was race, not gender.
                True, but the people who insisted that the races should not mix used many of the same arguments you and others use today to argue against marriage equality.

                For purposes of marriage, race should not be a difference to exclude it. The basic requirement was a man and a woman, there was no exclusion for race.
                Except there were laws that explicitly forbade black people from marrying white people. They were called anti-miscegenation laws. And the people who supported such laws back then look like bigoted jerks in hindsight, don’t they? What does that tell you?

                Again, that is why a constitutional right shouldn't be changed by different states.
                Yeah, we agree on this. Constitutional rights shouldn’t be abridged by the states. That’s why every state should allow all citizens to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Glad we agree.

                More importantly, marriage, especially same sex marriage doesn't help all those couples that want to have a long term cohabitation, but don't want to get married.
                Straight couples who want to live together without marrying are a separate issue. If you want to lobby for some kind of legal instrument that isn’t called “marriage” but is functionally identical to marriage, that’s fine. I’ll even sign your petition. But it’s a separate issue from the one we’re talking about. Don’t go off the road. smile

                I have read it [the Constitution], and even went to college for it.
                But... you seem to kinda stink at understanding it, and really stink at applying it equally to all citizens.

                Do you really believe that the US and its constitution need to make the wishes and life styles of all minorities fit into the norm of society.
                If they're not hurting anybody? Yeah, I really do.

                Multiple spouses are not allowed in marriage, and yet they are a minority.
                True, for reasons I've covered. But in a case of consenting adults, there's no reason why polygamy shouldn't be allowed. Next?

                Pedophiles are a minority, should they be included, don't they have the right to love.
                A pedophile who acts on his desire violates the rights of someone who isn't a consenting adult. For someone who supposedly went to college and studied the Constitution, you seem to have a hard time telling the difference between a consenting adult and a child who has not yet reached the age of consent. Child molestation is a crime, because the child can't consent. Two adults having consensual sex is not a crime, because the adults can consent. Seriously, this should have been covered in your freshman year, mate.

                Smoking cigarettes is legal, but smoking Marijuana is illegal. They both are dangerous and yet MJ users are forced to break the law
                So shouldn't we legalize MJ rather than use one injustice to rationalize another?

                Actually, the class of people that is most often discriminated is not a minority. It is the average while, heterosexual male.
                Yes, that’s why there are so few white heterosexual males in positions of influence and power in the US today. roll Everything in your next couple paragraphs is silliness about how white dudes are soooo persecuted in modern American society. Why do you feel this is the case? Because it’s no longer socially acceptable to be racist or sexist or homophobic in polite company? Welcome to a closer look at what equality really means. I wonder how you’ll feel when we straight white dudes really are on an equal footing with gay women of color.

                The LGBT is FORCING their lifestyle into mainstream society, and that is not right.
                Wait, what? Gay people are forcing the rest of us to be gay? Or are they merely insisting on being treated the same as straight couples?

                A straight couple can have a big, lavish wedding with hundreds of guests, at the climax of which they will share a kiss right there in church! And afterwards they’ll go somewhere for a big party to kick off their wedding night, where (most likely) the bride will throw a bouquet to the single ladies, and the groom will throw a garter to the single men, and the two who catch them will probably perform a sexually-charged dance together. How is that not an in-your-face pushing of heterosexuality?

                But if a gay couple want to hold hands in public, kiss in public, or get married in a quiet civil ceremony, suddenly they’re forcing their sexuality on the rest of us!

                Double standard much?

                see my previous comment for a [poorly reasoned, invalid] answer
                There, fixed it for you.

                I already answered this earlier, see your first reference to unequal
                And you were wrong then, too, as I’ve demonstrated above.

                You need to get out more, do some walking among the people
                Translation: I can’t support my assertion with examples, so, ad hominem!

                Validation through traditional marriage seems to be the sole motivation of the LGBT political movement
                No, they want equal treatment under the law. Marriage, just like the majority gets, is equal. A separate “not-marriage” isn’t equal treatment. Nobody can control whether other people will approve of a given marriage.

                not all minorities, especially unpopular ones have the necessary standing to become the norm.
                No, but all minorites are meant to be equally protected under the law. Gay folks aren’t trying to be accepted as ‘the norm.’ they’re trying to be accepted as they are. There’s a difference.

                do you see any signs of being on a road.
                I answered this one earlier, but the race genetics. and now you want to make gender a racial issue. That is a cheap shot, and a red herring. If this was a legal argument it would lack standing, because it has no feet.

                It’s not a cheap shot, it’s a logical and valid response to the assertion that genetic differences should not be granted equal rights under the law.

                Especially for the purpose of marriage, race doesn't change the attributes of opposite sex, while same sex does.
                Okay, two men getting married would look different from a man and a woman getting married. That’s true. But you still haven’t explained why it is bad or wrong for those two consenting adult men to marry. Whose rights are violated? Whose freedoms are infringed upon? Whose property is damaged? Whose body is harmed? Nobody’s. And yet you still want to violate the marriage rights of gay people.

                I did [explain how gay marriage would affect me] several times, just in this reply
                Except you only offered one concrete effect: there would probably be more cases in divorce court, which, as I explained above, even if true was a better reason to forbid straight marriage than gay marriage. Got anything else?

                This is repetitious and I never once mentioned God as a reason.
                That’s true. You’ve never mentioned God. You’ve merely fallen back on other old standbys:
                “It’s not the way we do things,” and “They’re in the minority so their rights aren’t protected.” Both of these arguments are invalid, as demonstrated above.

                I did several times
                Badly, and invalidly.

                You are the one that has made no compelling arguments,
                So now you’re going to play, “I know you are but what am I?” How about “I’m rubber, you’re glue?” lol

                I actually don't give credibility, respect or friendship based on groups, either artificial or natural ones.
                Neither do I. I give it to all, until they prove unworthy of those things.

                I don't give groups free rides, because I like the group.
                Me neither. I also don’t try to infringe on a given group’s rights, whether I like a group or not.

                I even have friends that are gay, and I like and respect them. But not because they are gay, but because of their quality of being human beings.
                But you’re comfortable with stopping them from marrying their chosen spouse? Some friend you are.

                You can't put all your friends in the same room, so you really aren't treating them equally, are you?
                Well, I wouldn’t be doing them any favors by trying to make them all fit in one room. Besides, some of my friends are pranksters, and one of them might yell “Fire.” smile
                No, I'm kidding, but more to the point, “marriage” isn’t a room: it’s not like only so many people can fit inside of “marriage” at once. Stop trying to keep all the marriage for yourself. It makes you seem greedy.

                I think you should take your opinions and make a hub.
                Perhaps I will.

          2. jonnycomelately profile image82
            jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Ib, again this expression "lifestyle" comes up.  There is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle."  There are as many diverse ways of life for homosexual people as there are for heterosexual people.

            Could you give your understanding of it?

            1. ib radmasters profile image60
              ib radmastersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              johnnycomelately

              See my latest reply to Jeff above

              1. jonnycomelately profile image82
                jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                A bit illogical, don't you think?

                A heterosexual man is not discriminated because he is heterosexual.

                 
                Id, I did read some of what you replied to Jeff, but if you really want people to understand what you write, please do some careful editing and use formatting... reduce the load in this Thread.  It's very difficult to see where Jeff's input changes to your input.

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                  Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, the poor put upon white male who isn't treated better than everyone else any more... I weep...

                2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
                  Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  It's very difficult to see where Jeff's input changes to your input.
                  When it stops making sense....tongue

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image82
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    BINGO! lol

        2. Felixedet2000 profile image57
          Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

          ''Why is this even a problem?''
          Jeff, it is a problem because there is a clandestine move to rubbish the church as an institution for good morals by same sex pundits. The church as a body is uniformly against same sex, there might be variations in the approach by different denominations.
          Te idea is frightening because it is un-natural, nature is against same sex.

          1. livelonger profile image92
            livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Is there any threat whatsoever of same-sex marriage becoming legal in Nigeria? And, if not, why are you in a constant lather about it then?

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
            Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            it is a problem because there is a clandestine move to rubbish the church as an institution for good morals by same sex pundits.
            Even if this were the case, unless those people are actually harming the church--assaulting priests or vandalizing church property--then they're completely within their rights.

            The church as a body is uniformly against same sex, there might be variations in the approach by different denominations.
            The church doesn't have to approve of same-sex marriage. All the marriage equality folks want is to be able to get married somewhere else (perhaps by a secular authority) even if the church disapproves.

            Te idea is frightening because it is un-natural, nature is against same sex.
            It's only un-natural if it's actually impossible. Water can't flow uphill: that's unnatural. A positive electric charge can't attract another positive electric charge: that's unnatural. But a male and another male can share a loving relationship just as a man and a woman can.
            Nobody freaks out when someone says that water should be able to flow uphill if it wants to; nobody gets angry when someone says that a positive charge should be able to attract another positive charge. That's because those things are actually against the real laws of nature. There's no danger of either of them happening.

            But since two men can (and sometimes do) have an intimate, loving relationship, and because it's unusual, people freak out when someone says that two men should be allowed to have an intimate loving relationship. Just like many people in the US freaked out when someone argued that it's okay for a black person to marry a white person, or like many people in Renaissance Europe freaked out when someone said that the earth moves around the sun rather than the other way around.

  46. Lions Den Media profile image59
    Lions Den Mediaposted 7 years ago

    * It is a problem because gays apparently want it to be a controversy.
    * They can marry, but society doesn't need to provide them special dispensation.
    * Gay marriage is not "frightening" it is simply not sanctioned by law or God.

    The question is -- What purpose does a gay marriage lifestyle choice serve -- procreation?

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
      Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It is a problem because gays apparently want it to be a controversy.
      It's only a controversy because some people want to stop gay people from getting married.

      They can marry, but society doesn't need to provide them special dispensation.
      They're not asking for special dispensation; they're insisting on equal rights. A gay couple can't get legally married in most of the US. That's second-class status. They're not asking for special privileges, but rather the same rights that everyone else enjoys.

      Gay marriage is not "frightening" it is simply not sanctioned by law
      Because people are scared to death of it for no good reason

      or God.
      So the heck what? What does God have to do with anything? Nobody is trying to force churches to recognize or sanctify marriages between gay people. All the marriage equality movement wants is for all marriages between informed, competent, consenting adults to be equally protected under the law. That's all. Why does that scare so many people?

      The question is -- What purpose does a gay marriage lifestyle choice serve -- procreation?
      Doesn't matter what 'purpose' it serves. Do you propose that infertile couples' marriages be forcibly annulled? I mean, they can't procreate, and you seem to think the inability to procreate means that a given couple's right to marry is null and void, right? Should every marriage be broken up as soon as the wife reaches menopause? Of course it should, since marriage is only for procreation, and after menopause, no procreation can take place. Clearly, if a man becomes impotent, his marriage must be dissolved--no procreation, no marriage.

      Clearly, the idea of denying people the right to get married because they can't produce offspring is patently absurd, so the idea of denying gay people the right to marry because they can't produce offspring is a mere smokescreen for bigotry.

      1. A Thousand Words profile image75
        A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Beautifully put.

      2. Lions Den Media profile image59
        Lions Den Mediaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Equal rights? That is a red herring argument predicated on a false premise. Based on your argument perhaps we can then extend "equal rights" to pedophiles or individuals that desire incestuous marriage. Perhaps we permit bestiality whereupon marriage is legal between an animal an a human, because apparently it is all about "love" and not procreation.  The point is where are lines drawn?

        What does God have to do with it? Are you serious about the religious elements associated with marriage. Perhaps you should make that same argument to fundamentalist Islamist under Sharia Law...because I'm certain you'll be doing the funky chicken (headless). The reality of the situation on gay marriage is that by definition gay marriage is NOT and cannot be considered equal to heterosexual marriage? Because by definition marriage is between a man and a woman. Perhaps we should simply change the definition of words we find unacceptable?

        Your "menopause" thing please! And  "Infertile" couples is not a logical argument either. The fact is that by law and for the history of modern man marriage is defined by the joining of a "man and woman". So obviously the issue of procreation is not criteria. Instead procreation is a matter of sustaining and creating life.  So don't given me your liberal nonsensical assertions.  Thanks Jeff

        1. Cagsil profile image81
          Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Equal rights are a mandatory requirement, as is equality, so growth in America can become a true reality.

          It's not a red-herring argument. Every MAN and WOMAN has and reserves their individual right to marry whoever they choose to marry and no one(including government) can interfere with that right.

          Period! Got it?

          1. ib radmasters profile image60
            ib radmastersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Cagsil

            One of the worst offenders of equal rights is the Federal Government.
            Period, did you get it.
            If not, can't help you..

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
              Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Unsupported statement is unsupported.

        2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
          Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          So you are saying the US should have the same laws as extremist Islamic countries? Laws of the US are not meant to be based on religious choices.

          Comparing gays to paedophiles is a ridiculous argument. It is illegal and not a consensual relationship between consenting adults.

          Why do you put "love" in quotations? For all of my life people have been getting married because they love on another, not just to have children. The human race is not going to become extinct because 10% of the population are gay...

          Worry about your own marriage, not someone elses.

          1. ib radmasters profile image60
            ib radmastersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            red herring alert.........
            get your own bonding, don't steal mine...

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
              Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Red herring alert indeed.
              Nobody is trying to take anything away from you.
              Why are you trying to keep things away from others?

              1. jonnycomelately profile image82
                jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                "Red Herring?"  More like a big cod or a kipper, if you ask me.

        3. A Thousand Words profile image75
          A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          If you were actually reading Jeff's post, you would've seen where the lines were drawn.

          Jeff said:
          -"Marrying a dog is illegal because a dog cannot consent to be someone's spouse."

          The same can be said about a 12 year old girl or boy being married to an adult.
          In bestiality there is lack of consent, in pedophilia, there is lack of consent on the younger party, and there is always manipulation involved by the older party.

          {Oh, and your precious Mary, mother of Jesus, was about 16. wink }

          Gay people wanting to get married are two, consenting adults, who want to marry each other. It's simple. And as citizens of this country who have to pay taxes and everything else, they should not be second-class citizens because they are gay and you and the conservatives are somehow deluded into thinking that this will affect YOU and YOUR marriages... You are bigots underneath it all. Probably the same ones fighting to keep blacks and other racial minorities as second class citizens, as well. 

          "They're different! And we don't like/are scared of different!" Sentiments of an irrational child. Not supposedly reasonable adults.




          Really. REALLY? You propose that the US government start beheading people? Or even that beheading people who come against your set and stone views of marriage should be beheaded ... ? 



          That happens all the time. What do you think happens in court rooms? If that were the case, there would never be a law against cyber-bullying, and any other newer obvious "crimes" that are hard to fit in the definitions of certain crimes we have now. It's called progression. You see it even in dictionaries. You'll find what words mean today are quite different from what they meant just 50 years ago... 100 years ago... Your clinging to old-fashioned bigoted ideas will continue to retard this country's progress.




          He was making a similar argument... Except for the "only a man and woman" part.




          LoL, you must be a pleasant person to be around.

          1. ib radmasters profile image60
            ib radmastersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            red herring alert....

        4. Jeff Berndt profile image87
          Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Equal rights? That is a red herring argument predicated on a false premise.
          Perhaps you could explain how the premise that people should be treated equally under the law is false?

          Based on your argument perhaps we can then extend "equal rights" to pedophiles or individuals that desire incestuous marriage. Perhaps we permit bestiality whereupon marriage is legal between an animal an a human, because apparently it is all about "love" and not procreation.
          No, not based on my argument. Based on a stupid argument, perhaps: one that equates a relationship between informed, competent, consenting adults with a relationship between an adult and an unconsenting child, or a relationship between an adult and and an unconsenting animal. They're not the same, and anyone who thinks they are, well, I'm a gentleman, so I'll refrain from accurately describing such people.

          What does God have to do with it? Are you serious about the religious elements associated with marriage.
          I'm absolutely serious, 100% dead serious.
          You say "God doesn't want gay people to get married."
          I say, "So the heck what?"
          Do you seriously expect people who aren't members of your church to comply with the dogma of your church? That's the moral equivalent of me getting mad at you for eating donuts because I'm on a diet.

          Perhaps you should make that same argument to fundamentalist Islamist under Sharia Law...because I'm certain you'll be doing the funky chicken (headless).
          It's pretty funny that you should speak disparagingly of Sharia law while insisting that the laws of your own religion be applied to people who don't belong to it. Did I say funny? It's bloody hilarious. You want your own religion's law imposed on others, but you have a big problem with someone else's religion being imposed on others. Bwahahahahahaaaa!

          The reality of the situation on gay marriage is that by definition gay marriage is NOT and cannot be considered equal to heterosexual marriage? Because by definition marriage is between a man and a woman.
          Now you're doing the rhetorical equivalent of jumping up and down and screaming until mommy buys you an ice cream. You have no--zero--valid arguments against letting gay people get married. All you have is "[My version of] God says no!" and "I don't like it, so there!" Can you come up with something that's based on something better than the commandments of a God or your own personal preference?

          Your "menopause" thing please! And  "Infertile" couples is not a logical argument either.
          It's absolutely a logical argument; perhaps that's why you can't refute it, and choose rather to make fun?
          Check it: you said that the point of marriage is procreation, and gay couples can't procreate, therefore, gay couples shouldn't get married.
          Are you with me so far?

          Now, let me ask you this: can a straight couple in which the woman has reached menopause procreate? No, they cannot. Therefore, post-menopausal women should not be allowed to marry, and the marriages of post-menopausal women must be annulled, since reproduction is impossible.
          Can a straight couple, one of whom is infertile, procreate? No, they cannot. Therefore, since marriage is for procreation, infertile straight couples must be forbidden to marry. This is according to your own reasoning. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? That should tell you something. I'll leave the logical conclusions as an exercise for the student.

          The fact is that by law and for the history of modern man marriage is defined by the joining of a "man and woman". So obviously the issue of procreation is not criteria.
          Whoa, wait, that's not what you said earlier! You said: "There is also no natural procreation in gay marriages, and there can at best be only one natural parent." as a reason why gay folks shouldn't marry. Now you're moving the goalposts to "It's tradition!"--probably because you realized the procreation argument was more full of holes than the inside part of a salad spinner.

          EDIT: LDMedia actually didn't make the procreation assertion. that was ib radmasters, a different user. So while my arguments are still valid, it's incorrect to say that LDMedia was moving the goalpoasts: the goalposts were placed by someone else.

          But the "tradition" argument is bogus, too: polygamy has been the norm for a bigger part of human history than monogamy has. Remind me how many wives Solomon had? What about David? Lots of biblical figures had multiple wives, along with a few concubines on the side. Perhaps we should return to those traditional values?

          So don't given me your liberal nonsensical assertions. 
          I merely corrected your nonsensical assertions with logical arguments.
          You have replied with little better than incoherent rhetorical flailing. It's not my fault you have no better argument against gay marriage than "God doesn't like it, and besides, I think it's icky."

          You can always tell when someone has based their arguments on nonsense by how angry and incoherent they get when you call them on their nonsense.

          1. Lions Den Media profile image59
            Lions Den Mediaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You are quoting things I did not write, but hey, Obama got elected president making thing up -- should work well for you too! However, You did bring up polygamy -- isn't that men having more than one wife? Hence, they are by definition NOT homosexuals? So your argument for homosexual marriage is predicated on multiple heterosexual marriages?  BRILLIANT logic!! Thanks Jeff...you're giving me headache.

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Wow, your reading comprehension skills are astounding!

            2. A Thousand Words profile image75
              A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              ... Do you suffer from short term memory? Here is your exact post. Jeff's excerpts bolded.

            3. A Thousand Words profile image75
              A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Jeff did mistake you for ib radmasters when he quoted "There is also no natural procreation in gay marriages, and there can at best be only one natural parent." But it was an honest mistake. You both sound identical in your irrationality.

              1. ib radmasters profile image60
                ib radmastersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                This quote of mine, is a Fact..
                You opinion is derogatory using the term irrational.

            4. Jeff Berndt profile image87
              Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              You are quoting things I did not write,
              Yes, that was a mistake. I confounded you with lb radmaster. I think I can be forgiven for mistaking you for each other: you make similar arguments in a similar style. But I do apologize for quoting lb radmaster and attributing the quote to you. That was an error.

              Though, in all fairness, you did mention procreation above, when you said
              The question is -- What purpose does a gay marriage lifestyle choice serve -- procreation?
              I think it's reasonable to infer that you were saying procreation is a pretty important part of marriage, and that since gay couples can't procreate, there's no point to them getting married.
              So by extension, an infertile straight couple shouldn't be allowed to marry either: what's the point? What purpose does a marriage between an infertile straight couple serve -- procreation?

              And then you responded with this goalpost-moving gem:
              So obviously the issue of procreation is not criteria.
              That's funny, 'cos in your previous post, you made it sound like procreation was one of the criteria. Of course, when the foolishness of this assertion was made clear, you bailed out on this argument like it was a plane with engine trouble.

              You did bring up polygamy -- isn't that men having more than one wife?
              Yes, and it's a common thing for the anti-equality crowd to bring up. "If we let men marry men," the say, "pretty soon we'll be legalizing group marriages, too, which is equally ungodly!"
              Except polygamy is all over the place in the Bible, and (unless I'm mistaken) is not one of the abominations unto the Lord listed in Leviticus. I don't even know why the anti-equality crowd even brings it up--it weakens their arguments (which is really saying something, considering how weak their arguments are to start with).

              For the record, I'm also not against polygamy between informed, competent, consenting adults. It's not something I'd practice myself, but if five grownups want to join together in a group marriage, that's no skin off my nose. As long as all participants are consenting adults, no harm, no foul. Good luck finding an adult who will consent to being someone's co-wife or co-husband, though.

              Thanks Jeff...you're giving me headache.
              That achy feeling is what happens when you use something you haven't used in a while. Feel the burn! Work through it. Eventually you won't have that achy feeling after our conversations. smile

          2. A Thousand Words profile image75
            A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Great stuff, Jeff! Only...

            "There is also no natural procreation in gay marriages, and there can at best be only one natural parent."

            That part was from ib radmasters, not Lions Den Media.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
              Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Thanks for that. I've put a correction in the post.

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
              Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Thanks for that. I've put a correction in the post.

        5. jonnycomelately profile image82
          jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Lions Den Media, you talk of "red herring arguments" and "logical arguments." 

          I suggest you sort out your reasoning.

      3. Felixedet2000 profile image57
        Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Jeff i love the way you articulate your points when same sex issue is in view, you have been advocating for them for quite a while now and I must admit I am really impressed but not convince though. I set out my mind to see to the reasons why this sort of union should be allowed and all I could find is void and emptiness, just the same way that the earth was found before God said ‘’let there be light’’
        May be this same light is what is needed in the hearts of each and every one of us for posterity sake.
        Don’t you think so?
        My question to you is, can you advice the society if given the chance; to go all the way gay?
        Assume it to be like Yes or No kind of something.

        1. Cagsil profile image81
          Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          lol

          1. A Thousand Words profile image75
            A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The scary thing as that people with views of your caliber are in important political positions...

          2. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Felix, am I understanding you correctly?  Do you mean to say that it within the power of another human being to tell another person they must be gay?

            1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
              Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

              No Motown, all i am saying is, same sex union is a union and not a marriage, you guys have been defining marriage as a union between two consenting adult whether male-male or female-female, and i have a serious problem with that really.
              A union can be between a male-male, or female-female, but certainly in all honesty not a marriage, don't let us twist things because we want to wallow in our fantasies.
              A marriage is a union between two grown up adult. It has to be a man and a woman. That's one before it can be referred to as marriage morally. WE are talking about morality here, not legality, before some pundits starts giving me what the courts said a marriage is.

              Secondly, when you know that your friend is allergic to smoking and you decide to enter into his bed room and smoke, simply because you are free to exercise your right as human, what are you looking for?
              Aren't you looking for a serious trouble?
              Same sex people know of a surety that the Church is against their orientation, why go there to legalize or sanction your marriage?
              These issues are very clear, but some of us are bent on provoking others in a bid to make them look bad, this is my understanding of what same sex people are doing to the church of God.
              Some commenter said i hate them, but in my hearts of hearts, i love them the same way i love myself honestly and my conscience bears me witness. only that they can get their union legalize, either by establishing their own church or better still , approach the church of Satan or they can open their own church, the choice is theirs anyway.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
                Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                A marriage is a union between two grown up adult. It has to be a man and a woman. That's one before it can be referred to as marriage morally. WE are talking about morality here, not legality,
                Ah, there's the problem: we're having two separate conversations. you're talking about morality, and the marriage equality crowd are talking about legality.

                There are often really big differences between what is moral and what is legal. Plenty of immoral (in my opinion) things are legal, and plenty of perfectly moral (in my opinion) things are illegal.

                Seems to me, the law should focus on stuff that hurts other people. A marriage between to consenting adults, even if they are of the same sex, hurts nobody, and therefore should be legal.

                when you know that your friend is allergic to smoking and you decide to enter into his bed room and smoke, simply because you are free to exercise your right as human, what are you looking for?
                Aren't you looking for a serious trouble?

                Of course! I'll probably get thrown bodily from his home, and quite right, too!

                Same sex people know of a surety that the Church is against their orientation, why go there to legalize or sanction your marriage?
                Why, indeed? I would never try to force a church to perform a marriage ceremony it did not agree with. That would be a violation of the church's religious liberty, just as me lighting up my cigarette in my friend's bedroom would be violating his rights.

                Look, gay people aren't trying to win the right to have sex on the altar at your church, or on your front lawn, or in your bedroom. All they want (and deserve) is to have their marriages treated as equal to mine under the law. Legislation can't (and shouldn't try to) change what you think about a gay couple's marriage, but it can (and ought to) ensure that your (or my) approval isn't required for any random couple to get married.

          3. Jeff Berndt profile image87
            Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I set out my mind to see to the reasons why this sort of union should be allowed
            Thanks for the kind words, Felix, but with respect, you're asking the wrong question. You should be asking yourself, "Why should a marriage between gay people be forbidden?"

            If you can't come up with a good reason other than "God doesn't like it" or "I don't like it," then there's really no good reason to forbid it.

            My question to you is, can you advice the society if given the chance; to go all the way gay?
            Assume it to be like Yes or No kind of something.

            Well, of course not. If you're not gay, it's not a good idea to marry someone of the same sex. You'll be unhappy in the marriage, and so will your spouse.

            What I can recommend is this: Marry the person you want to spend the rest of your life with. If you're very lucky, you'll find someone like that who feels the same way about you, and you can get married. It doesn't matter if you're both men, both women, or one woman and one man: as long as you're both informed, competent, consenting adults, I wish you a long and happy marriage.

            1. Felixedet2000 profile image57
              Felixedet2000posted 7 years agoin reply to this

              Jeff this is the very first time i find you unable to answer a question head on.
              I will tell you why, because you said, you can not advice the society to go all the way gay.
              It was not a test question in anyway, rather it was a question to find out if what we are all saying here is borne out of our conviction in what we belief or simply because we want to follow trends.
              And I chose to direct it to you because of your lucid articulation of what you belief.

              Same sex people have what is call a union and never  will have what is call a marriage no matter how hard they try to brainwash themselves.

              They are encroaching in a domain that is anti-same sex, and they want to get the same privilege under the pretext of equality.

              Are they justified to approach the church with their request, bearing in mind that what the church belief is against what they practice or indulge in?
              I wish you a long and happy marriage too Jeff.
              But we are not yet done with this same sex controversy.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
                Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                rather it was a question to find out if what we are all saying here is borne out of our conviction in what we belief or simply because we want to follow trends.
                I think perhaps I didn't make it clear what I believe, then.

                What I believe is this: if two informed competent consenting adults want to marry each other, they should be allowed to marry each other. That's it.

                If a given holy person thinks a couple should not marry (for whatever reason!), that holy person may of course refuse to perform the marriage ceremony for that couple: to force a holy person to perform a marriage against his convictions would violate that holy person's freedom of religion.

                However, a government which is secular in nature, cannot, and must not, refuse to perform a civil marriage ceremony for a given couple of consenting adults, and further, must treat any marriage between consenting adults as equal under the law.

                Churches don't even enter into my arguments: they're free to preach against gay marriage, homosexuality, transgendering, whatever. That's their right as a church. (I may not agree, but that doesn't mean I'll try to silence them--that would be wrong of me.)

                I've used this example elsewhere, so please forgive me if it sounds familiar:
                The Catholic church does not believe divorcees should marry, will not perform a marriage ceremony for divorcees, and does not recognize any marriage between divorcees. That's okay. But: they do not have the right to stop a different church, or a secular authority, from performing a marriage ceremony for two divorcees.

                I wouldn't advise the entire population to marry someone of the same sex for the same reason I wouldn't advise the gay population to marry someone of the opposite sex: those marriages would certainly be unhappy ones.

                I don't understand why not recommending gay marriage to a straight couple invalidates the right of a gay couple to get married.

        2. Marsei profile image93
          Marseiposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Jeff,
          I work in the legal field, and if you're not an attorney, you have missed your calling.  Wonderful mind, the proverbial steel trap.
          I think we waste our breath, but also think it's necessary in a certain way.  Being old and living through the civil rights movement, I remember so many of these same arguments from back then as they related to civil rights.  I believe it boils down to:  You are different from me.  That scares me.  My fear turns to distrust and anger and loathing.   You are evil and I am good.  It's exhausting.  My ongoing curiosity and neverending question is why does anyone care if same sex couples marry?  As I said last night, I still think the people all these zealots are pouncing on should be the persons who pass the litmus test to be fathers and husbands and abuse and molest their wives and children without a second thought.  Where is the uprising about that issue?  Is that not a threat to the sacred holy institution of marriage?   That's been happening for years and I've never seen a social uprising or a religious uprising to stop it.  Does that not merit .rightious indignation? 
          This battle will be won, just as the one for civil rights was.  Here's my question:  What in the world will people do without a group of "others" to hate?  Where will all the time energy, money, emotion, and thought go?  Let us hope toward something positive, but  I'm convinced there will be another group.  Who will it be?  Heterosexuals like me cannot afford to stay uninvolved in this issue.  Some of us get all complacent and comfortable.  Perhaps we shouldn't.  Someday someone may decide that people with brown eyes are a threat to society, that our vision through our brown eyes is skewed, that more brown-eyed people tend to commit murder, that brown eyes are evil and cause people to do vile things.  Ridiculous, you say?  Makes about as much sense as anything I've heard against  same sex marriage.

          1. A Thousand Words profile image75
            A Thousand Wordsposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Well put. And I agree!

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
            Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the kind words, marsei, but I think you overestimate my cleverness.

            Arguing against people who think gays shouldn't be legally allowed to marry is pretty easy, 'cos they have no rational ground to stand on. They invariably make false equivalencies between a marriage between consenting adults and a crime in which one person forces, defrauds, or intimidates another person (or animal), or use the old "But they can't procreate" argument, which always looks stupid when you apply that rule equally across the board.

            When those silly arguments have been defeated, all they have to stand on is "It's against my religion for those guys to get married" and "I think it's icky, so you shouldn't do it."

      4. jonnycomelately profile image82
        jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Lions Den Media, is that your idea of the purpose for two persons living a loving partnership together?  What about two elderly people, way past their prime for reproducing, neither of which has produced children, yet they pair up at say 75, have a great sexual fun play frequently, enjoy each other, share holidays, help to support at the local charity fund-raisers, etc.  Do you look down on them for have a sex life?

        Or the couple who have been born with cerebral palsy, cannot manage much on their own, yet are helped to share some sexual fun together.  Would you feel uncomfortable about this? 

        There is a lot of discomfort about this subject, I wonder why?

    2. pisean282311 profile image59
      pisean282311posted 7 years ago

      @lions....god must stop interfering in sexual preference of human beings and concentrate more on plight of 1 billion humans who dont get two time food and on extinction of other species ...gay marriage might be best service to god considering how stupidly we r increasing population and using earth resources...

      1. Lions Den Media profile image59
        Lions Den Mediaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        God has never interfered with my sexual preference. But if gay marriage is great for the planet's population why then do gay couples want children?

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
          Uninvited Writerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Why do married couples who can't have children sometimes go to such lengths to have them?

        2. Cagsil profile image81
          Cagsilposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          lol lol lol
          Because they want children. What do you give a damn for?

          If you want children, are you going to let others stop you from having a child?

          If you're not going to permit others to stop you, then you shouldn't be in the way of others having children, regardless of sexuality.

        3. jonnycomelately profile image82
          jonnycomelatelyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Do you have a preference, Lions Den?  Is everything in your life dictated by the necessity of reproduction?

          There are many gay couples who do make excellent parents.  There are many gay couples who would make excellent adoptive parents if the bigots of society would consider the possibility without prejudice.

    3. Window Pain profile image57
      Window Painposted 7 years ago

      ib radmasters wrote...
      "The LGBT is FORCING their lifestyle into mainstream society, and that is not right."


      Agreed. The stiletto shoes they make we wear are killing my feet.

      Really? Someone is FORCING you to change your lifestyle?

      1. ib radmasters profile image60
        ib radmastersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, anytime a militant group forces their lifestyle into the norm, they are forcing their ideology to replace the norm.

        I have heard enough here, and quite frankly there have been no compelling argument to support making same sex the equivalent of the reason why are DNA has two genders. If same sex was genetically important there would be no reason for another gender.

        People are inherently discriminatory by nature. They favor the beautiful people and they shun the ugly. This is the general rule, and there are exceptions.

        I cannot really follow forums, especially when they get too large and convoluted, so if anyone wants to write a hub to consolidate their opinions on this subject, I would read and comment on it. But, there seems to be no point in further comments in this forum.

        You could always read and comment on my hubs.

        1. livelonger profile image92
          livelongerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Please, tell us more about the militancy of pro-marriage equality supporters. Shout it from the rooftops if you can.

        2. Jeff Berndt profile image87
          Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Is anyone else starting to suspect that lb radmasters and Lions Den Media are the same person?

    4. Felixedet2000 profile image57
      Felixedet2000posted 7 years ago

      And my Candid suggestion is that they should establish their own church if they deem fit. This way there won't be any controversy, that's why i use that smoking example.
      Better still, the church of Satan is more liberal and open to such kind of union, that's a better place for same sex people to legalize their union, don't you think so Jeff?

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
        Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Church of Satan, Church of the Sub-Genius, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Church of the Great Green Arkelseizure, who cares?

        Any of the above churches could perform a marriage ceremony for a couple guys, but the marriage would not be legally valid unless it took place in a state that legally recognized same-sex marriage.

        If all it took to get marriage equality was to found a new church, then there would indeed be no controversy.

        Nobody is trying to change anyone's religion. All the marriage equality movement is trying to change is the law.

    5. Felixedet2000 profile image57
      Felixedet2000posted 7 years ago

      Jeff, you will agree with the church leaders that it is not entirely their fault, because they are custodians of the church traditions and belief. Would you have them behave otherwise?

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image87
        Jeff Berndtposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You mean would I insist upon them changing the tenets of their church to accommodate gay people? Nope. That would be wrong of me.

        But I would insist that they not try to interfere with the marriages of people who do not belong to their church: that would be equally wrong.

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)