+280 The sad thing about gay marriage is that it passing doesn't depend on logic, it depends on majority vote-- and right now the majority doesn't care about logic either. There's almost no changing their opinions. So we have to wait for the next generation to not be homophobic... amirite?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ummm not all those who don't support gay marriage are homophobic. Just sayin.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

in what way is not wanting people who are in love to be married not prejudiced against them...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Homophobic mean they are afraid of them. Not everyone is afraid of them. Some religious people sympathize with gay people, but it goes against their beliefs to support them. Of course, homophobia is probably the main reason it's not allowed because while they're still the majority a large portion of the country isn't Christian, and many Christians support gay rights, so homophobia in non-christians as well as some Christians (and maybe muslims and jews, I'm not sure how modern muslims and jews feel about homosexuality though) is probably the major reason gay people can't get married.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, homophobic in the modern sense of the word, does not mean "afraid of them". Nobody goes "eeek! a faggot!" and that's why i dont like religion-- you say that some religious people sympathize, but they're too afraid/too stubborn to be a fucking empathetic human being.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Way to generalize...just because I don't support gay marriage, that doesn't mean I hate them or are disgusted by them. They're just like any other human being, I just don't think homosexuality is right. Sorry I believe in something you don't, but that gives you no right to call me too afraid or stubborn to be empathic. You can't always assume your opinion is correct, so I would stop hating on Christians if I were you.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I don't hate Christians, I dislike Christians who are bigots. if you ask me, the sentence "They're just like any other human being, I just don't think homosexuality is right" is one huge contradiction.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So you're saying any Christian who doesn't support gay rights is a bigot? A bit judgmental, but OK. And I fail to see how what I said is a big contradiction. I acknowledge that homosexuals are just as human as everyone else, it's just that I don't agree with the choices they make. That doesn't mean I hate them or wish them to die, I just think what they're doing is wrong.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

First of all, it's not a choice. But even if it was, you really think they don't deserve to be happy to their fullest potential because of their "choices"?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

This is how I make decisions: If everyone in the world does it and the world goes chaotic, then what I'm dong is wrong. I believe men and women are meant to be together because that is the nature of life. Read my comment below about people not being born gay because I don't want to repeat it. There are such things as ex-gays with their stories and people fail to realize that you can leave homosexuality. If someone finds out they might be attracted to the same gender but they don't want to, they can get help (don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a disorder or something). They're not going to be 'happy to their fullest potential' because of being gay, they're going to do that other ways. I don't 'reach my potentials' by being straight, I just live life to do that. You don't have to be gay to be happy.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The definition of the latin root "phobia" mean "fear". Homophobia means you're afraid of gay people by definition.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

By definition, but that's why I said "the modern sense of the word".

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The word still mean people are afraid. Some people sympathize with gays, but can't support them because of their beliefs. Calling them "homophobic" makes it sound like they hate them and it means that they fear them. Just because they don't support something doesnt mean they hate or fear them.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But in this case, it's saying they shouldn't get married. Marriage would bring them happiness. In most cases it doesn't mean that they're trying to keep gays from being happy directly, but even if it's not their intention to prohibit their happiness, they still are.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ho·mo·pho·bia definition Pronunciation: /ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə/ Function: n : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals ho·mo·phobe Pronunciation: /ˈhō-mə-ˌfōb/ Function: n ho·mo·pho·bic Pronunciation: /ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bik/ Function: adj See it's more than just a fear, there are other things that the word homophobic means. It includes a range of negative attitudes towards gay people.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Perhaps not in the literal definition, but in the discriminatory and bigoted sense of the word, you definitely are. Who the fuck does ANYONE think they are to say any group of people deserves less rights than them based on how they're born or choices they make that harm no one(I'm trying to exclude criminals to avoid any smartassed arguments)? The very idea is just vile and disgusting.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

People aren't born gay.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay, going with your completely unproven and prejudiced argument, you believe that even if being gay was a choice, it'd be the "wrong" choice? That people should not be allowed to be together because of that choice?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It has not been scientifically proven that people are born homosexual. There is no 'gay gene' because every child is born from a heterosexual couple so it is in no way possible that a gay gene has been passed down. One of the reasons people want gay rights is because 'that's how the person was born' so we 'have to' let them get married, but going back to my point, it has not been confirmed that people are born gay. Don't get mad at me, these are the facts.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There are scientifically proven differences in brain function and structural anatomy between homosexual and straight people, such as size differences of the cerebral cortex, and connections between the left and right amygdala. Also subtle physical differences like typically the bones in the arms legs and fingers of heterosexual men are longer than homosexual men and longer in homosexual women than heterosexual women. (source- tenth edition of Biological Psychology) This information suggests that homosexuality is not just an arbitrary decision. So far no 'gay gene' has been found and it may not exist. If it was a gene it would be a recessive one and could be passed down eg: two parents with brown eyes can still have a child with blue eyes even though blue eyes are a recessive gene. Homosexual people have had children, in the past most of them forced themselves to be in heterosexual relationships and had children.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And in more modern times, surrogacy and in vitro fertilisation can be used to have children. Sexuality is innate, it's controlled by our hormones, which are controlled by our brain. Homosexuality and bisexuality has been studied in more than 1500 species of animals. Animals don't choose to have sex, it's a natural uncontrollable instinct. Sexuality, like almost every other aspect of behavior shows natural variation. Sorry for the essay, I just thought I'd let you know some facts about the issue that you may have not been aware of.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Sexuality is a development, not a preset. Just because a homosexual's brain is different does not mean homosexuality is a genetic predisposition. Homosexuality in and of itself is a development and is just as hard to overcome as let's say pedophilia. Brains change according to how they think. If you are a London taxi-driver, your brain will be different than if you were a mathematician.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But will your fingers? And look, if you ever want to say you don't hate gays, you don't compare them to pedophiles.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm not comparing them in a way in which I think they're alike, but in a way to show that if both are caused by brain abnormalities, then they are both curable in the same way.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@920618 (0__________________0): Dude, have you ever heard of a recessive gene? And, like SpearmintMilk said, humans aren't the only ones who can be gay. I didn't know it was more than 1500, but I knew that lions, dolphins, dogs, ducks, goats, and a lot more could be. Do you really think that they're choosing to be gay just to be "rebels"? Apparently, it has been scientifically proven, without having found a gay gene yet? And again, even if it WERE their choice, do you really think they don't deserve to be happy if they made that choice?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes, I know what a recessive gene is. So you're saying when someone with the genotype Hh mates with Hh, then there's a 25% of a gay child? That gene has never been found (and it never will be because there is no such thing). Just because animals are like that, that doesn't mean humans should. No, there might be things that may lead scientists into thinking that it's been proven, but it has NOT been confirmed by the entire scientific community. So don't go around saying something is true when it hasn't been proven yet.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Just because animals are like that means it's NATURAL. And my guess is the only reason it hasn't been confirmed by the scientific community is because it's horribly difficult to study these kinds of things. We're dealing with human beings, so a lot of tests and experiments are hard to follow through with. Especially when it's being rooted down by people like you. And why do you go around saying being gay is a choice then? Do animals choose to be gay?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Animals have nothing to do with the human species. Basically what you're saying is 'Animals can do this, why can't I?' Yeah? Well, animals can live in the jungle and take a crap anywhere they like, why can't I? It's natural? People like me, huh? If you actually weren't so hard headed you might even realize why we think this way. I tried to convince myself being gay is alright, but I just can't.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think shitting in the forest is a bit different than being in love with someone of the same gender. I'M hard headed? this is what religion does to some people, i swear. of course there are good points, but you are a human being and you can't even recognize other human beings as equal to yourself. that is disgusting.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You are misinterpreting everything anyone who disagrees with you says. Stop acting like you're smart and you know it all, because you're still a kid (so am I, but I don't think I'm right all the time). I'm not saying kids are stupid, I'm saying you don't understand a lot of things in this world. This whole time I've been trying to tell you I DON'T!!!!!!! think less of a person because they are gay. They're just as human as anyone else, I just don't agree with their actions. I don't hate them, say bad things to them, or do anything that causes depression towards them. So don't go around telling people I believe that equality's for dumbfucks, because I believe in every bit of equality. What's disgusting is your attitude to anyone you disagree with. Grow up, and realize you're not the only one who has an opinion on here and stop calling anyone who disagrees with you a bigoted freak.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That was a real dignified rant right there, but you just told me that you can't think of being gay as right. You can't see a gay person as a right person. You see homosexuality as a flaw, a flaw that should be fixed (i.e. your pedophile comment, as if you should "cure" a gay person like you would a child molester.) That is not equality.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

OK. Let's say I have a friend who is a constant liar and lies to her parents about everything. She's still my friend, she's just as human as anyone else, but what she does is wrong. I don't support her actions but I still love her. We are EQUAL. Is there something you do not understand?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay, I understand, even though being gay isn't on the same level as being a liar. Anywho, if your friend were to fall in love, would you want her to get married? If liars can marry, why can't gay people? Especially because lying is actually morally wrong.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

If my friend fell in love, I'd want her to get married to a man. Marrying doesn't encourage liars. Gay marriage encourages homosexuality.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

but here's the thing-- THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALITY. if your religion tells you there is, YOU CANNOT MAKE A LAW BASED ON RELIGION.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

but here's the thing-- THERE IS. even if I wasn't Christian, I wouldn't support gay rights. heterosexuality is the nature of humans (don't get animals involved).

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Look, just watch this, it explains it so much more better than I ever could. It's not long-winded, obscene, or condescending, I promise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PooEhBxh0NY

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What do you think people did before there was plumbing? Paedophilia can't even compare, paedophiles are hurting children who can not consent. Homosexual's attraction doesn't hurt anyone. Paedophiles can't just change even if they don't act on their urges they are always going to be attracted to children. Which is why they use chemical (and if the paedophile connects physical) sterilisation because that changes the hormones which change the sex drive etc... Why would you want to do that to people who aren't hurting anybody? Ok, so you know how every foetus is physiologically a female until about 6 weeks right? The male foetus receives a massive dose of male hormones called androgens which first form the testes, and then a second does to alter the brain from a female format to a male format. This is determined by the Y chromosome, it's just the way your brain and body work (although external factors can interfere with the relese of hormones in the

by Anonymous 14 years ago

As I said earlier, 'I'm not comparing them in a way in which I think they're alike, but in a way to show that if both are caused by brain abnormalities, then they are both curable in the same way.' You want me to really pull out all these handy little facts about how homosexuality affects the homosexual and others?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

They are both "curable" in the same way???? Which is by making them undergo hormone treatment to make them sterile and lose their sex drive or physically remove their sex organs to stop them releasing hormones? Well yeah, straight people are "curable" the same way. Are the "handy little facts" dependent on social conditioning thinking that homosexuality is wrong? Facts like how 30% of teenage suicide is committed by gays and lesbians? And how one in every 3 transgender people commit suicide? And studies have been done that most of them grew up in familys and communitys that taught and showed hatred and rejection towards homosexuals.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Just because they commit suicide, doesn't mean we should go straight to conclusions by legalizing it. Homosexuals have more chances of getting STD's.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

look, just watch this video, and i will save you the rest of the argument. it's not obscene, or condescending, it's short and informative. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PooEhBxh0NY

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The whole ex-gay thing is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. You think ex-gays are all liars? If they have no desire for the same sex anymore, then who are you to tell them they 'secretly' still do? http://www.pfox.org/Two_Ex-gay_Stories.html

by Anonymous 14 years ago

http://www.pfox.org/stories.html pick and choose which you want to read.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What? Homosexuality is legalised... homosexual marriage is the issue. Lesbians have the lowest STD rate, and straight people have STD's too... Anal sex is more likely to spread the HIV virus, but again straight people can have anal sex too. Also gay men are less likely to wear condoms because they can't get pregnant, and there isn't as much education for safe sex between men, as between men and women. Being gay doesn't mean you'll get an STD you just have to be smart and safe about having sex, the same as if you were straight.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Not everyone is smart. You can't assume every gay person is smart.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You can't assume every straight person is smart either.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I never said they were, but do we really need anymore not smart people?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

lolwut wait, what?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

now i'm confused...that little icon distracted me :/ why don't we just agree to disagree, and when scientists confirm that homosexuality is/isn't a choice, then the right person can rub it in the other ones faces.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

mother, such as stress and taking contraception pills). If the male foetus doesn't receive the right amount of hormone at the appropriate time they will be born with a different and more feminine brain structure, and will most likely be attracted to men. (I cbfed explaining the female change but yeah if you're smart you can figure out what happens based on the male) Sexuality IS innate, not learned why do you think people go crazy for sex when they hit puberty? It's because of the release of hormones which as I said before depend on your brain structure. There have been many many studies where children were raised as the opposite gender, but then when they hit puberty their hormones kick in andthey are still attracted to the opposite sex. Why do you think animals just have the instinct to have sex? They don't learn it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Sex is natural and essential for the continuation of any species. I don't see why you're being so stubborn about this. If it wasn't for your religion telling you sexuality was wrong you probably wouldn't think it was. In every single culture throughout history there have been homosexuals. It's just a fact, let them be happy. I don't see how letting them get married and have the same legal rights as straight couples is going to do any harm.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You have a good point. In fact, in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PooEhBxh0NY (which I'm pretty sure no one's gonna watch but it's just a reference) it mentions that-- the female body sees a male fetus as an "invader", like a virus or something. So it pumps hormones at it like crazy, apparently. And the more brothers (who share the same mother of course) a gay person has, the more adept the mothers' body becomes at "fighting" the male fetus, giving it more hormones for each male baby. So if you have 6 brothers and you're the youngest, you have a higher chance of being gay. inb4 people say being surrounded by males is what made them gay

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It's really frustrating, that people are just saying it's a choice without looking into it. Hormones control every emotion which intern control every action. IT'S A FREAKING FACT. It's already innate in our brain, just like males will grow facial hair after puberty because of hormones, and females release eggs, hormones can stop it if you give the right ones. It's natural, it's just the way every animal is built.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

sososo true. You know what I dont understand? How did people even start discriminating gays in the first place? Like back in caveman days (or maybe biblical days, i don't know how far back it goes) did maybe the straight couples look at the gay couples and say "we can make babies and you can't"?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well in ancient Greece homosexuality was not only permitted it was highly respected, some of their greatest warriors were gay. They believed it was noble and served a higher purpose. In Persia gay people were allowed to be open about their homosexuality there were legal male prostitution houses the same as female ones. In fact HEAPS of cultures all over the world have accepted and even revered homosexuality (Asia, Africa, South America, Europe etc...) Todays modern view comes from the story in the bible about the city of Sodom where God destroyed the city for immoral behaviour and trying to absorb the Angel's power. Homosexuality was one of the behaviours that the Sodomites took part in but it wasn't the only thing,as they like being abusive and uncharitable and practised bestiality .

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes, I've heard of Sodom, where it was better to allow people to rape your virgin daughter than your friend if raping your friend would default to homosexuality. But that's amazing, I've never heard of those Greece or Persian customs. I suppose I could've imagined it with Asia, as it seems the early Asians were better on track than a lot of the world back then, I think. Why do you think they frowned upon homosexuality in the first place? :o

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Who knows... why did they think that women were more unclean after they had a daughter than a son? Or that women shouldn't be able to teach or have any position of authority over a man? Or that you could cleanse your house of lepracy by sprinkling it with dead bird blood? : | I guess you could say they didn't know any better?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What about people who are religious? I can't pick what parts of the bible to follow, so I'm not going to vote on the issue. If it passes, life goes on. If it doesn't, life goes on.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

If it doesn't, life goes on, but for 40% of the world, very unhappily. The separation between church and state is being vigorously chipped away at.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

40% of the world is not gay. Is it?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Honestly, i dont know. I only got it from answers, but it doesn't sound impossible.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think you mean 40% of the world is in support of gay marriage. I give (a long estimate) 5 years before it passes. Then we are all going to have to deal with bible thumpers complaining...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

so so true. Thank you for correcting me.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I think like 10% is...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

This statement may sum up your intellectual ability. It pains me that so many people are ignorant of that law. Basically, what you think it is (or so I've gathered) is that nothing in the government can be from a religion, or based off religion. Hehehohohaha nothing is further from the truth. Based off that definition, murder would have to be legal, theft would also be legal, and people would NOT be allowed to follow the government's rules, because all that is in the Bible. Ohohono. That's not what it is. The law keeps te STATE out of the CHURCH, and the CHURCH from interfering with the STATE, but if people vote in a law off a majority, even if it's (onoes!) from the Bible, it's passed, until the necessary numbers wish to discontinue the law. Seriously, learn something about your government.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So, without religion, murder would be legal and theft would be legal? The Bible already says rape is legal, if you remember anything about Lott in Sodom. The Bible says if there is a male rapist at your door, it's better to allow them to rape your virgin daughter than your male friend. Do you really think people are so hopeless without religion that they wouldn't figure out that murder is bad? And that's exactly what this post is about, the MAJORITY goes, not LOGIC. You obviously saw the words "gay marriage", put on your ass-cap, and went to town with your ignoramus rants. The post is exactly saying, it's hard to win because of bigots like you who put plugs in their ears to things like empathy and equal rights, and only take them out when their favorite conservative radio show comes back on.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Why don't you educate yourself before you speak? You always complain 'Christians are so stupid they misinterpret the Qu'ran and make Islam sound evil' (which I don't) but you have no good thing to say about the Bible. If you knew the slightest thing about the Bible, you'd know that rape is NOT legal and you're just looking for another reason to hate on Christians.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

When I say (which i said in another post but not in this one; that has nothing to do with the gay marriage debate....) Christians misinterpret the Qu'ran, etc, etc, I'm saying that it's not *mainly* (please please note the word MAINLY) the atheists who misinterpret the Qu'ran, nor the Jews or the Buddhists. That's probably because I'm referring to people in America, and I imagine there are more Christians in American than Jews/Buddhists/Atheists respectively, though. If I knew the slightest about the bible? Please explain the story of Lott in Sodom then.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ono Just learn to read, k? The Bible says to not murder, or steal. And it also says follow the laws of the land, unless they conflict with the laws of God. Now, since apparently you think separation of church and state forbids anything from the Bible. According to that logic, murder and theft would have to be legal. And you completely misinterpreted that, but OK, that's fine if you think that. Well I really just kinda cleared up your error, now didn't I? I never said anything about gay marriage, now did I? Apparently my post went right over your head. Lemme straighten it up: You brought up Separation of Church and State. I told you how irrelevant that is to this discussion. You somehow bring up majority rule, and apparently logic, and never once address my point. Shame. And last time I checked, "ignoramus" is a noun, not an adjective.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That entire comment was just a condescending diversion from logic. I dearly apologize for my grammatical error, let me fix that. You are an ignoramus, because you don't understand the separation between church and state that i'm complaining about is the fact that people are saying that the bible (i.e. CHURCH) is a good reason to outlaw (i.e. STATE) gay marriage. That is where the separation of Church and State is being ignored, even though it depends on majority vote. And you know very well that the rule separating Church and State would NOT mean the State can't do anything the Church does, or vice versa. That is absolutely childish.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"people are saying that the bible (i.e. CHURCH) is a good reason to outlaw (i.e. STATE) gay marriage. That is where the separation of Church and State is being ignored, even though it depends on majority vote." This is actually the only important part in your post. How you managed to drag it out so long is beyond me. People can base laws on whatever they want. If those laws are based on their Aunt Sally's love letters, so be it. That is utterly irrelevant, for all that matters is the majority rule to pass it. Why people want to pass it is personal, and none of your concern. But, once again, basically you're saying you cannot have laws that are in the Bible. That's really all you're saying, which brings us back to the sins in the Bible. You cannot discount something purely because they got it from their religion. Heck, our country was founded as a Christian nation. Sadly, that's no longer the case, but still, you cannot deny a law purely because of the Bible.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's exactly what this post is about. Logic doesn't matter to the people voting based upon the Bible, because it's the majority vote that counts. And that's why it's sad. I will repeat this for the third time: I am NOT saying that you cannot have laws that are in the Bible. I'm saying you shouldn't have laws *BECAUSE* they're in the Bible. You knew that the entire time though, I'm sure. You're an ignorant bigot, Scrantoncity, but you aren't a complete idiot. It's just too obvious.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well, logicially a human baby is a human, but apparently you don't think so, or else you condone murder... Yes. You wanna change majority rule? You wanna make it so any law can be passed if a few people can rationalize it? You wanna lose our great system? Once again, it's majority rule. No matter what their reasoning, if the majority of people want the law passed, it should be passed. That's how the system works. And separation of church and state doesn't affect that in the least. Hey hey let's not call names. Apparently you consider yourself mature, so why don't you act like it?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Are you trying to imply that putting words in my mouth and pretending you had no idea I wasn't saying "the laws can't do anything the bible does" at all isn't childish? And I know that's how the system works. that's what this post is about. I'm not saying it should be the opposite, and I don't know if it should be changed, but that's what's SAD about this debate, because the majority right now is what matters, not logic, and trying to get the current majority to listen to logic is nearly impossible, as evidenced from our current conversation. And if you were making a reference to abortion, a human baby is a human, but a 3 month old fetus is not. Sorry that fact isn't "pretty", but it's true.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Actually, that's what was implied. I know you didn't say it, but honestly, you said that the law couldn't be allowed since separation of church and state. And that's really what you mean. Except somehow there's a difference between one thing in the Bible and the next. Who knew? And no, that isn't childish. Right. And you wanna change that? It's not sad; it's called listening to your God. So people do honor their religion, you know. Really? What kind of being is it, then? Are you telling me that if you don't leave it alone, it won't become a human? Is that what you're saying? Because logically, a half-grown seed is still a tree. Leave it alone, in its necessary environment, and it'll be a full-grown tree. Just like you leave a baby in the womb alone, and it'll be a human. What's the difference?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I didn't say it couldn't. I said it shouldn't. I'm not saying the law shouldn't depend on the majority, I'm saying I wish the majority would be empathetic and listen to logic. If I could only round all of the anti-gay people up and just make them really see what's going on, that they're bringing their God into other peoples lives and putting him in the way of their happiness. It's just not right. And the difference is 1) it's a fucking tree, and 2) a better analogy would be a seed in the ground that hasn't even touched the surface yet. But abortion has nothing to do with this, so quit trying to find unrelated points to pick at.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It's just not right? Well I don't think there should be a speed limit. Because I drive safely! And i spend too much time going to school and back! No speed limit! It doesn't matter what you perceive is "right." People can base their reasoning on whatever they want. Fortunately, it is actually a good base: God. And you've still never explained what Separation of church and state has to do with it. No. Babies are half-grown, right? They've started life, have they not? Leave them in their current state, and they'll flourish, right? Learn to argue instead of insult. I don't mind insults as long as they're accompanied by a semi-decent argument. So I mind your insults.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

People can base laws on whatever they want, but the majority should not be able to make laws to limit the rights of the minority. That's why segregation was legal: white people wanted to limit the rights of black people. Since there was more white people it was easy.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You're right. Now, using that superior logic ability, do reveal how rocks are dated. Because supposedly you're an expert on that. And actually, it's limiting nobody's rights. You can't marry a girl, my mother can't marry a girl. If I had a sister, she couldn't marry a girl. You have the same rights as everyone else.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Again, the rocks are irrelevent, you're just being a dick. Heterosexual people have the right to marry whoever they love. Gay people cannot marry who they love. See my point?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes. You still haven't answered it. Well I love my duck. Can i marry that?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Good for you for loving your duck, but ducks cannot consent. To get married both parties have to consent. If it cannot comprehend love and consent it cannot get married.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Oh, but I allow it. I can talk to ducks, you know. And isn't this discrimination? Because I love my duck. But I can't marry this. It's discrimination.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You can talk to ducks? Proof please? I would also like proof that it loves you back. Love goes two ways.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Murder and theft were immoral before the bible was written. It's common sense that if something hurts anyone in any way it is not moral. Gay marriage harms no one, murder, theft, rape, and other such crimes hurt people so they are immoral.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Evidence? And how are rocks dated, again? I've forgotten, and you can use logic to figure it out, so you'll never forget! But really I just wanna know how old rocks are dated.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What the fuck is wrong with you? And the point she's making is, no your mother, sister, female friend, etc, couldn't marry a girl, but YOU could. That is not equal rights. Maybe your mother should've married a girl, too.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Wait, so it's equally discriminating against males and females? Then who's in the minority?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Gay people are the minority. If it was up to majority rule most straight people would vote to keep gay marriage illegal the same way white people voted to limit the rights of black people.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Then answer how their rights are being oppressed. I'm pretty sure we all have the same rights.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Their rights are not being oppressed because they do not have certain rights to begin with. Their rights are being held from them. Gay people cannot marry who they love, straight people can.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Wait, can I marry whom I love? My little ducky? Should that be allowed?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You can marry your duck as long as it loves you back and can consent to the marriage, but can it? No? That could end up being a problem.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That logic is bullshit and you know it. I think you're just trying to stretch this out as far as possible. The gays obviously. You can marry a girl, but your mom can't. Your mom can marry a guy, but you can't. That's not equal.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay. You are bouncing around between points. Whom is being discriminated against? You said females, because they can't marry other females, but males can and vice versa. Yes. I can marry a girl. And girls can't. That makes girls being discriminated against, right? And I can't marry a guy. But girls can. That makes males being discriminated against, right? Where do gays factor in?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Don't change topic. Your questions are irrelevent. Can you tell me how two people getting married affects you? Where you aware that before Christianity, murder was a crime? So was theft. You know why? Human nature dictates that anything that harms someone is wrong.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes, but not before Judaism, or else, evidence? And no. I wanna know how rocks are dated. This post concerns LOGIC. You said you know that through LOGIC. Completely relevant. And you never answered it the first time. How does someone illegally transferring funds from one rich person to another concern you? That's illegal, though. And yet, you don't think that's right, now do you?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Rocks being dated is not logical, it's scientific, something that the extremist Catholics like you fear. Illegally transferring funds is wrong and harmful. Love is never wrong and harmful. And don't even give me anything about how gays will give everyone AIDS on that point.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm not a catholic. And I know that, explain that to pikabeau. She actually claimed that logic triumphed over science ono Wait wait, how does it affect you?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

When did he/she ever say that? It affects me because I, as a human being, have the responsibility to deter injustice.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Not here, another post. Hmm, I'm trying to think which one (as you well know I'm in hundreds of debates). Ill try to find a link, Kay? Me, too, only with sins! And my God declared homosexuality as a sin. And it still doesn't affect you in any way, though I give you credit for that excellent rebuttal.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I love how you keep bringing up things I said in a past argument that you failed to understand. Everyone but you seems to understand. And I never once said logic is over science. The two go hand in hand, but you use biased sources that fail to mix logic and science.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That I failed to understand? As near as I can figure, you basically ended it with "I don't know, and if evolution were a test you'd fail me." You never explained it at all. And I wanna know. I actually pointed out that your kind of logic has no place with the "science" of radiometric dating, but you kinda ignored that.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Well here's the thing, your God doesn't affect them. That's where the separation between Church and State comes in. That's exactly what this post is about.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay, that's debatable, but sure. He doesn't affect them. AAAAND? Once again, people can base the laws on whatever they wish, and, with a majority, it'll be passed.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

thats. what. this. post. is. complaining. about. i've said that at *least* 3 times.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Then why did you bring up Separation of Church and State? You're bright. Surely you've noticed that we're going in circles. Just admit church and state was irrelevant and we can get outta here.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What the Albus Dumbledore... Read between the lines. That's what I'm saying. It's being chipped away at, because when it comes to the current majority on the subject of Gay Marriage, they won't listen to logic, only their bible.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ono I'm not contesting that, though I wouldn't consider it logic. But anyways, we can go right back around. Bringing up Separation of Church and State was unnecessary. And irrelevant. And that is the sole reason I'm on here.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How is it irrelevant? The majority is using the bible as a reason to withhold a law. That is where the Separation of Church and State is being destroyed. I don't know what isn't to understand about this.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Oh my gosh. Circles. Watch watch, copy paste!! People can base laws on whatever they want. If those laws are based on their Aunt Sally's love letters, so be it. That is utterly irrelevant, for all that matters is the majority rule to pass it. Why people want to pass it is personal, and none of your concern. Copy pasted.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I swear every Conservative I've ever argued with, I've had to remind them this: Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD. Just because you CAN find the loophole to make a completely ridiculous law doesn't mean you SHOULD. do-you-un-der-stand?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It's not a loophole. It's simple fact. People can base laws on whatever they want. If those laws are based on their Aunt Sally's love letters, so be it. That is utterly irrelevant, for all that matters is the majority rule to pass it. Why people want to pass it is personal, and none of your concern Boom. Again right there.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

None of my concern? I think it's none of their concern whether or not gays should get married. and i dont see what you don't understand about can =/= should. I can go out and have sex with a goat right now. Doesn't mean I should.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

lolwut huh? It's not a loophole... I never said anything pertaining to whose concern it is. Whatdya mean? You have yet to make a decent point. Right can=/= should. One has an s and the other a c. But that's irrelevant. It's passed. Majority. Now what about Separation of Church and State, again? You still haven't explained its relevance. That's very strange, but could be legalized in the near future, following the legalization of same-sex marriage.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Dude, oh my god. I have said this so many times. The majority **CAN** pass a law that says you should be sent to work in factories at age 13. **SHOULD** they? NO. The majority **CAN** pass a law about gay marriage that is **BASED ON THE BIBLE**. **SHOULD** they? NO. Because that is just disrespect and prejudice to everyone else who isn't a Christian in the United States. Then there's the **SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE**. The **GOVERNMENT** cannot make a law based on the Bible. However, the **MAJORITY** **CAN** make a law based on whatever the fuck they want, but it's still based on the Bible. They **CAN**. but **SHOULD** they? NO, they should NOT. They don't HAVE to abide by the **SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE**, but they still **SHOULD** because it's more noble, and the **right thing to do**. Doing something unfair that you SHOULDN'T do is called **being an asshole**, especially when it's forcing your religion on the entire nation.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ah, so you admit that bringing up Separation of Church and State was unnecessary? And who are you to tell people what they should do? Are you promoting a single plane of thought, all supporting the common good? Are you endorsing Communism?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

YOU'RE promoting a single plane of thought -- you're promoting that EVERYONE should live by YOUR GODS RULES. Do i really have to emphasize that his much? YOU'RE telling people what to do-- or rather, what NOT to do. You're saying two innocent people who are in love cannot live in matrimony.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's not a single plane of thought. It would just be a morally correct group of people, all inclined to do as God wishes. But you never answered the only reason I'm here: What does the Separation of Church and State have to do with anything?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How do you not understand? Okay here is where it comes in. Our founding fathers decided America was NOT going to be a THEOCRACY. In fact, you can find quotes criticizing religion from almost every one of them. Therefore, they decided on the "Separation of Church and State" rule, that says the government cannot be run by RELIGION. However, there was the MAJORITY rule, where you people apparently found the loophole that you *CAN* make laws based on the Bible, as long as it's a majority vote. When it's a majority vote, people can freak out and force their God upon the entire nation because it doesn't matter the reason for the vote as long as more people agree on it. HOWEVER, you SHOULDN'T, because it's JUST NOT RIGHT. It still IS having the BIBLE run the GOVERNMENT, you just found a way to GET AWAY WITH IT.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

ono Your ignorance is simply appalling. Okay, that is untrue, but for the sake of utterly destroying the parts of the argument that matter, sure. They all hated religion. Ah, this is where you're wrong. You do know why the law was made? Wait, wait, this is the sole purpose I'm here. To educate you. You obviously don't know what that law is. I hope you don't mind being linked to Wikipedia. This isn't exactly a doctoral thesis, and all you really need to know is the purpose of the law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States Basically the law kept the GOVERNMENT out of the CHURCH. Seriously, this is what my original comment was about, and THIS is what I am here to discuss. Because I'm right, and there are no opinions about fact. This is pretty much the only clause in the Constitution regarding it: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (cont)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Where, exactly, does it say a law cannot be made for religious purposes? Hmm? You're basing your entire argument on a non-existent condition. That isn't a loophole. Church and state doesn't limit basing laws on anything. That is the furthest thing from a loophole. That's how our government works. Once again, educate yourself on topics before you argue about them. How is it not right? That's the entire purpose of the Majority rule. There's nothing in the Constitution barring that. No, it isn't. It's simply making laws, no matter of their origin. Once again, you're basing your argument on a non-existent clause.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." that means that the government will not make a law based on a religion and that the government won't interfere with religion. it protects both parties.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No no. That's not what it means. "The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another" That's what it means. If you want it to mean what you said it means, change it. Don't interpret it differently. Change it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another" That is preferring Christianity (and any other religion that is prejudiced against homosexuals) over atheism (and yes I know atheism is not a religion per se, but it is a lack thereof, and cannot be dismissed), Buddhism, and any other religion that *does* tolerate homosexuality.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And if it were to ban the law it WOULDN'T BE FAVORING ONE OVER THE OTHER? You walked into a trap. You lose.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

that is a part of it yes, i don't argue that. what you said is what I ment by government interfering with religion, I should have been more clear. But the other part states that congress cannot make a law based on any religion.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

What part?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

when it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". establishment meaning organization , in other words christianity, judaism or any other organized religion. respect meaning relating to or in reference to. so in other words: congress shall not make a law that references any religion

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Read my response. If you wanna interpret it that way, change it. Don't just interpret it differently from its meaning. You can change it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, I say we over simplify it. Give me one good reason gay marriage should be outlawed (although that term isn't correct, because for most of America it hasn't been "lawed" in the first place.)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Because it's a sin. But that isn't the point. You're wrong. Separation of Church and State has no relevance at all. Just admit that, and accept it gracefully.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

>"it's a sin" >forcing your religion on the entire nation >America is not a theocracy >religious freedom next.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

even Jefferson talked about keeping religion out of government "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions"

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It isn't saying for religious people; i.e. if you want every church to be painted like the sistine chapel, that's fine. However, when your religion is brought into a law that effects people outside your religion, it becomes unconstitutional and unfair. The only reason you get away with it is because it's majority vote. Yes, you can make that law, there's nothing stopping you. But I plead, for the sake of all that is right and constitutional, that you DON'T. Because it just isn't noble or the right thing to do. If your religion says "don't have gays" and the right thing to do is have gays, then don't vote at all.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"It isn't saying for religious people; i.e. if you want every church to be painted like the sistine chapel, that's fine." I couldn't make sense of that, but I don't think it was very important anyways. You're saying it's unconstitutional? How? Show me how, rather than just repeating baseless statements. Support your points, sheesh. No. The whole point is majority vote. You're incredibly ignorant. Separation of Church and State has no relevance to this discussion. You have yet to explain how it relates to the matter at hand. Once again, constitutional? It's perfectly constitutional. Show how it isn't. In fact, I think it was brought before the Supreme Court and DEEMED constitutional. But I may be wrong. But for the sake of all arguments everywhere, SUBSTANTIATE YOUR POINTS! HOW is it unconstitutional? HOW does SOCS affect this at all? HOW HOW HOW???

by Anonymous 14 years ago

How is it not?! Look, here is what the voters are saying: "God says gays should not get married, so I am going to ensure that my government does not allow them to be married." HOW IS THAT NOT THEOCRATIC?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Honey, how is it unconstitutional? Show me where the Constitution says that's not allowed.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state. The phrase means the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion. Therefore, a man can find a way to make a law based off of anything he wants, and therefore base it off of religion. But were the founding fathers standing next to that man, there is no doubt in my mind they would tell him that that isn't the right thing to do. Just because you found a way to get around not being able to base laws off of religion doesn't mean you should. An honest, noble man would allow gays to marry, because he would realize they most likely do not believe in the same God he does, and he would respect that. Because an honest, noble man would realize they are humans too, and they deserve exactly equal rights regardless of who they fall in love with.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Alright. We're done here. You haven't presented a new, nor compelling, case. You cannot supplement your continued statements that it's unconstitutional, nor do you have the authority to speak on behalf of the founding fathers. Apparently you have no argument at all, so you resort to hinting that anyone who utilizes the very legitimate, in fact, ONLY way to make laws is apparently ignoble and a liar. Until you show how it's unconstitutional, we're done.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Until you show me one logical reason to withhold love from hundred-thousands to millions of people in this nation alone, that doesn't involve forcing them to abide by your religion, I haven't a fuck to give to you.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Haha, resorting to that? We're done. You're incapable of supporting your statements. You lose.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

you still have yet to give me a logical reason for gay marriage to be outlawed, and if you think "it's a sin" would ever count you for a shred of respect in a debate you should really think again.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

you still have yet to give me a logical reason for gay marriage to be outlawed, and if you think "it's a sin" would ever count you for a shred of respect in a debate you should really think again.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That's not why I'm here. That doesn't even matter. I came only to correct your flawed notion of the First Amendment, and once your ignorance was corrected, I fully intended to leave. I'm not about to engage in yet another debate with an incompetent person just spinning the argument in circles like you have been. You've shown that you don't listen to reason, or, really, the other person's argument at all. Separation of Church and State had nothing to do with this discussion at all. I know that. You know that. You're just too prideful to admit you were wrong.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The Separation of Church and State says you can't make a law just because it says so in the Bible. That cannot be your reason. When they outlawed murder, the reason for doing so was not because it's in the 10 commandments, it's because murder is inhumane. When they outlaw gay marriage, their reason is because it's in the Bible. You cannot do that. You have to have a reason other than "it's in the Bible". If you don't understand that, there is seriously something wrong with you. Now tell me a logical reason why gays shouldn't get married.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"The Separation of Church and State says you can't make a law just because it says so in the Bible" Let's see where it says that. That's all I'm asking. I've asked that maybe 6 times, and you haven't showed where it says that. So, where does it say you can't make a law based off a religion?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, 'wall of separation between church and state,' as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802." >distance in relationship >wall of separation They do not intersect. Now it is time for you to give me one logical reason for gays not to live in matrimony.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Honey, then, what, you're saying laws that are in the Bible cannot be passed? Because, honestly, there is no difference between outlawing thievery and outlawing gay marriage. Sure, murder affects someone. But it's in the Bible, therefore part of a religion. But that isn't even the point. You know what's actually written in the Constitution? Jack squat about limiting laws.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, I'm not saying that, and you know it perfectly fucking well, so I'm not going to explain myself just so you can say it's wrong and have me repeat it over and over again. I'm saying this: let's say we're deciding on laws. "I believe gay marriage should be illegal!" "Alrighty. Why is that?" "Because it's in the Bible!" Now tell me what's wrong in this situation.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Nothing is wrong with that. Tell me where it's outlawed in the Constitution.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes, something is wrong with that, because the reasoning for the law is that it's in the Bible, therefore forcing the Christian faith on the entire nation, therefore defying religious freedom, you sick Nazi. It is outlawed in the first amendment.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You're incredibly stupid. I've asked about 10 times. WHERE IN THE CONCTITUTION DOES IT OUTLAW THAT? WHERE WHERE WHERE IS IT OUTLAWED? SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS WITH EVIDENCE YOU IGNORANT CHILD!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

THE FIRST AMENDMENT, MOTHERFUCKER. "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as erecting a separation of church and state."

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes. I explained What that meant. Did you hear that? "The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another" And, once again, if you take it away, it's promoting another religion. But that's not what it means. What it means is that it won't give preferential treatment towards a certain religion. Like tax bonuses, or free land etc.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So you're telling me they could make a law forcing everyone to abide by one faiths rules? No, they could not. That is what freedom of religion is.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

If enough people agreed to it, yes. Though some laws may interfere with the constitution in other parts. But that's legal.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, it isn't. You cannot make a law forcing the entire nation to operate under a religious aspect. If you were to pass a law like that, it would be "the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another" which would mean preferring Christianity over every other religion.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Ah, not necessarily. You may or may not be able say "follow everything in the Bible," but you could pass all the laws in it. Oh yes you could.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But you would have to have a reason for doing so, or else you could not get the vote of the people. And the reason cannot be "it's in the Bible", because that would be passing a law that prefers Christianity over all other religions.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"But you would have to have a reason for doing so, or else you could not get the vote of the people" You're right. But if you COULD get the votes, it'd be legal. ORLY? And what basis would that law be blocked? Wouldn't that prefer OTHER religions over Christianity? Yes, it would. You cannot win. That's not even what that phrase means. And you STILL cannot compose a decent argument.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

>"the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another" ONE religion over another, get your head out of your ass pl0x.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay. Then, theoretically, by blocking it it's preferring... Well atheism over Christianity. Or Buddhism. Or whatever you pick.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No, it's not preferring anything at all. Just because we're not allowing Christians take over the United States doesn't mean we're oppressing them. If your religion requires you to be a tyrant, I recommend you gtfo of America. We are not a theocracy.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Once again, how isn't it preferring the other religions over Christianity. But this is a moot point, as that's not what that phrase means!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It's not preferring ANYTHING. You cannot base a law on everything but Christianity.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

And Judaism, and Islam. But you conveniently forgot those, didn't you?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

hello, my name is scrantoncity, and today i would like to talk about my desperate attempt to make myself feel better once i realize i am a prejudiced asshole, by making the other debatee seem prejudiced as well, by pointing out that they named one religion rather than three.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

My name isn't scrantoncity. What kind of parent would name their kid that? And don't you insist that you're more mature than most 13 or 14 year olds? Who resorts to that pathetic display? Lol you're just mad you cannot construct a compelling rebuttal. And, with that lame attempt at mockery, I'm out. Bye, and I hope you'll learn to know what you're talking about!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I just proved you wrong and you think you intimidate me by constantly saying I have no argument, rebuttal, or debate skills, without specifically naming anything. Goodbye, and I hope you learn how accept other human beings as the human beings they are.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

If the Government cannot interfere with the Church, the Church cannot interfere with the Government. James Madison called it a "wall of seperation", and that is exactly what it is. A wall. .you.cannot.make.a.law.based.on.religion. you are implying that someone could say: "in the bible, it says no one may shave their beard. so many people in America are sinning by shaving their beards! i must make a law that says you may not shave your beard." and theoretically, that law could be made. but no. that is not how it works. they cannot make a law based on Christian faith (or Judaism or Buddhism or anything like that for that matter) that people outside of that faith have to abide to. That is called freedom, I hope you've heard of it.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"you.cannot.make.a.law.based.on.religion." Support that statement. I've asked nearly ten times, and you have yet to back it with evidence. Actually, with majority vote, it'd be legal and constitutional. If the majority wanted it, it's in. And SOCS has no authority to bar its entry. Yes. You can. With majority vote. It's perfectly legal and constitutional. I've shown that nearly ten times. Please tell me where you're getting all this incorrect information. Your ignorance of your government is appalling.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It doesn't concern me personally, but since it's illegal it must concern someone somewhere. It doesn't matter if it hurts me, it matters if it hurts anyone in anyway, even if it just inconveniences someone.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I thought I answered this. Well, not really answered, as you conceded. *takes a bow*

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I never conceded, I just said it didn't affect me. Plenty of things don't affect me but are still illegal because they affect someone in a negative way. How does gay marriage affect anyone in a negative way?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It doesn't matter, because plenty of illegal things don't affect you. And how does speeding (if you're the only one on the road, I was pulled over for this, actually) affect anybody. I was doing like 85 in an 70 at 4 in the morning, and I couldn't see anybody on the interstate, yet, I would've gotten a ticket, cept I talked my way out. (My father owns a tactical supply company-no more tickets, ever.) The thing is, it doesn't affect me. But you care about the scumbags stealing money from companies, like Fannie May and Freddie Mac, but you weren't affected.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Does someone getting murdered on the other side of the world affect you? Probably not, but it affects someone so it is still illegal. Speeding on an empty road is illegal because you never know if something will jump out in front of you. If you're going to fast on an empty road and get a ticket it's to teach you that you shouldn't speed. You could be on a seemingly empty road but a deer or a dog or even a child could come out of no where. Speed limits were designed to protect people. Speeding is illegal because when someone speeds they are more likely to hurt themselves or others. You still haven't answered my question. How does gay marriage negatively impact anyone?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

You just made an argument contrary to what you want. You're right. It doesn't affect me. So murder should be legal? Is that your point, that, even though homosexuality doesn't affect me, neither does murder? Honey, I seriously doubt 15 mph will change the outcomes for that. Maybe if it were 30-45, but from 70-85? You're dead either way. Ah, but no one did get hurt. It doesn't matter what COULD happen. Theoretically, a madman COULD murder someone everytime he saw two men kissing. Does that mean homosexuality is dangerous? No, that means hypothetical situations get you nowhere. It negatively impacts the sanctity of marriage, actually. And therefore, all people currently, previously, or intending to get married are affected.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

But murder affects SOMEONE, and it affects them negatively. Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone negatively at all. And are you telling me that you're that much of an asshole that if you were to get married, and then two gay people got married, you would be negatively affected?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yes. Murder does. Good job. Actually, yes, but only because it directly contests God's definition.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

My point isn't that it doesn't affect me and you'd know that if you were as smart as you claim to be. My point is that it's wrong if it affects anyone in a negative way. Murder may not always affect me, but it affects SOMEONE. What defines the sanctity of marriage? Is the sanctity of marriage even tangible? If there is in fact a sanctity of marriage wouldn't it make sense that divorce, shot gun marriage, and drunken Vegas marriages degrade it more? Wouldn't gay marriage just be spreading the sanctity of marriage?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Does it affect me? No. If that's your logic, then why is speeding illegal? And drug trafficking? Hmm? Why would those be illegal? I'm pretty sure speeding didn't hurt anyone. Yes it *could* but it doesn't. Anything *could* hurt someone, even non-speeding. And drug trafficking? It didn't hurt anyone! Indeed, the drugs themselves did... Not the trafficking? Oh! And WikiLeaks? Hmm? That guy is being tried for treason, but was anyone harmed? No! Your logic is utter crap. Is love tangible? What defines love? Wouldn't killing everyone single spread love, because they don't have a significant other? See. Your superior "logic" is just drivel.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

pikabeau's point is that although things like murder, rape,etc. may not affect you personally it harms someone and that's why it is illegal. They said that many times! The wikileaks guy released confidential information that puts the country at risk! In actuality he harmed the entire country. And how would killing all the single people spread love? It wouldn't. Your entire argument has no logic or sense in it

by Anonymous 14 years ago

A little over a week ago I was rear ended by a speeding driver, so yes, speeding does hurt people. The speeder hurt me and totalled my car. Speeding is illegal to prevent things like that from happening. Treason hurts the people who are being lied against. Drug trafficing distributes harmful substances. Love is not tangible, which is why two people who are of the opposite sex and just met can marry each other. If the sanctity of marriage exists, doesn't that harm it? You also never told me what the sanctity of marriage is.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No! That was an accident. Speeding itself causes nobody harm. Tell me how speeding causes anyone harm. Orly? I'm pretty certain it doesn't involve lying. Treason is just betrayal. And I don't think a government can feel emotions. And treason doesn't hurt anyone. No. The drugs themselves harm someone, not drug trafficking. I was mocking you, actually. Sanctity of marriage (if that's the right word) is God's intent for marriage, a man and a woman, together forever, in worship to Him.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Speeding and drug trafficking lead to situations that hurt people. Treason (betrayal) hurts the person being betrayed. Not everyone believes in your God so what you believe to be His intention of marriage is not necessarily right, unless of course you prove your religion right.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Marriage can lead to divorce, which hurts both parties. Marriage is harmful. Even straight marriage. Maybe it should be illegal. Gah you have no argument.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

My argument is that speeding is wrong. It's harder to stop a speeding car than one going the speed limit so a car going too fast is more likely to crash. Speeding is then made illegal to protect people. Marriage is legal because even though it can hurt people it typically doesn't. If marriage hurts someone the person who gets hurt is usually at fault. When someone speeds and hits another car the person who got hit is not to blame. You have yet to prove that your god exists so your sanctity of marriage argument is not valid at this point.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Do you understand that you're basically saying ones bad because something bad can happen, but the other isn't bad even though something bad can come from it. Just... ono No. Crashing is bad. Speeding isn't. The person getting hurt is usually at fault? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard. Sometimes, yes. Usually? No. Usually one person leaves because they're bored. What about if they have children, hmm? Is it the children's fault, because they got hurt? Oh good argument. You're just an idiot incapable of making a good point, so you resort to stupid points like that. Can you prove homosexuality isn't a choice? Oh! Okay then. Guess they can't get married.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I said the person who got his is usually NOT to blame. Notice the word not. My proof that homosexuality is not a choice is that I didn't choose to be gay. Yes I chose to be with a girl, but I didn't choose to love her. You supposedly chose to be straight, which means you're actually bisexual. People choose to commit crimes, but they're still allowed to get married. Whether or not it's a choice shouldn't matter as far as marriage goes. People choose whether or not to take a home ec. class, but anyone can start a family.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

"marriage hurts someone the person who gets hurt is usually at fault." I was talking about here. That's not proof. Proof that God exists is that I think He does. That's the same as your argument, Hun. You chose to date her. Love at first sight doesn't exist. Oh no. That's lust. You chose to get to know her, and ultimately, become more acquainted. I'm not bisexual. Maybe you're just deluded. Marriage still can hurt people, just like speeding.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I was friends with my girlfriend first. I never lusted after her. It wasn't love at first sight, it was friendship, admiration, crush, then love. I never chose to love her, only to date her. If you chose to only like girls that means you could also choose to like boys which makes you bisexual. You're just pissed that you got caught speeding and you're taking it out on me. Marriage can be a beautiful thing if both people are in love.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I'm not pissed I got caught speeding... Is there something wrong with you? I didn't get a ticket... The cop let me off... What? No. You just cannot construct an argument. So now you're trying to validate that inability by attributing your complete annihilation to other means.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I know you didn't get a ticket, but you still got caught. You are bisexual if you can be attracted to both girls and boys. You've said before that you can choose who you love and that person can be a boy if you so choose. That makes you bi. I am homosexual and cannot choose who I love.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

We should remove rights from those who oppose it, see how they like it. People need to stop caring their lives on a 2000 old childrens story book.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

*basing not caring

by Anonymous 14 years ago

this comment is as true as apple pie. ^-^

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Gay marriage is already legal in Canada, or maybe it's just Ontario, don't really pay a whole lot of attention to it, but I know we passed it in some shape or form up here

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I may be wrong but I think it's just the Northern Canadian Islands where gay marriage isn't legal.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Yeah, but that's because the government doesn't have much control up there, it's mostly Inuit based from what I understand

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It's legal nationwide in Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Question: why can't gay people be happy unmarried and living together? Marriage began with the church and the church on balance opposes gay marriage.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Why can't straight people just be happy unmarried and living together? Why does anyone have to get married at all? First of all, to be told they can't get married means they have less rights. I know if I was told, "Mayrose, you are not allowed to get married because (insert ridiculous reason like "The Bible says so" here)," I would be fucking pissed. It's completely unfair. Marriage shows you will always be faithful to each other (or that's what it's supposed to represent) and love each other, and it's something everyone should be able to experience. Also, "As a group, married people suffer less absences from work, less illness, and live several years longer. They seem to suffer less from depression and loneliness and are less prone to commit suicide." It's also pretty sad that only 60% of adoption agencies in America accept applications form homosexuals.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There actually has been a study that shows that a homosexual's lifespan can be decreased by up to 15 years. Besides, that only says stuff about heterosexual married couples. If you look at statistics for only homosexual married couples, it would be quite different. And no, it's not sad. I'd rather have a mom and a dad rather than 2 moms or 2 dads. It's unfair for the child.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

My half-brother has had 3 dads, but he's still 16, making money from being a drummer, has a 3.9 GPA, and a girlfriend who's like a hilarious sister to me.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Good for him.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Therefore, having multiple dads doesn't matter.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Show me this statistic. My gay uncle and his partner are perfectly healthy, as is my lesbian great aunt and she's in her 60's. So "statistically", she should be dead in about 5 years. Again, show me the statistics. I don't believe that one bit. They still love each other, why would being the same gender change anything? That's just prejudice. I would so not mind 2 moms, or 2 dads. You've never known life like that. To a kid with gay parents, that's all they've known. Are we not allowing single parents to adopt either now, since they're only one mom/dad? You're kind of a douche.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

My mom was with a woman for years. It was more fair to me to see her happy and in love and be friends with my dad, than to see my mom and dad suffer in a relationship with no love anymore.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

This country had multiple fathers. Who are you to say that gay couples can't be good parents?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

There are also tons of legal benefits to being married. TONS. I'd google it, but I'm lazy.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Marriage existed before the monotheistic religions. (Learnt it in evolutionary psychology)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Marriage existed before the monotheistic religions. (Learnt it in evolutionary psychology)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Because marriage grants financial and legal benefits to the couple. That's why non religious people get married. They can be happy living together, but it's unfair that they get denied rights that straight couples have.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

so uh it's about the money then?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It's not about the money, it's about being legally related to love of your life and being given certain rights awarded to spouses.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

No it's not just about money but also things like: next of kin status for hospital visits and medical decisions, legal adoption of children from past relationships,legal right to make the decision of the disposal of their partners remains upon death, sick leave to take care of their partner etc... There are apparently more than 1400 legal rights granted to couples when they marry. A lot of them are financial such as, joint insurance benefits, tax credits, automatic inheritance in absence of will. Straight couples can get these benefits so why can't gay ones?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

This.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Scrantoncity, murder and theft were not prohibited solely on the fact the bible deemed them wrong. I'm positive that even without religion people would still be intelligent enough not to do those things. So I really don't understand how your argument has any point in what the op is trying to say. Slim shady, question: why can't homosexuals be allowed the same rights as everyone while still upholding religion? Can homosexuality and religion not coexist? Is it harming anyone?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

you are a wise person, anon.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

uh... Can you read? What you said is completely irrelevant...

by Anonymous 14 years ago

The reason they should be able to get married is because there are certain legal rights married couples have that unmarried couples don't. If those rights were available any other way, I'm sure the actual act of marriage wouldn't be so important, since it is a religious institution in most people's minds. I'm too stoned to debate right now. I think I neep a nap.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Scrantoncity can you read? What you also said, once again, is completely irrelevant. You suggested that without the bible, such things like theft and murder would be legal. Which is obviously not the case. The bible has much good information on how to live your life (10 commandments, etc.) however without the bible we would still know how to differentiate between right and wrong. Simple as that.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

a lot of christians are actually pro-choice, because a lot of us believe God gave us free will for a reason

by Anonymous 14 years ago

That was random. I commend you though, you are a dying breed. :)

by Anonymous 14 years ago

haha i know it's sad :/ but hey maybe i'll be pres someday ;) lol vote for me in 2032! hahaha

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Will do! ^_^ and i don't know if it seems like it, but i honestly don't hate all Christians. I moved from Upper Michigan to Kentucky, and the Christian population in both those places is really dense. So i have plenty of Christian friends. But I've never met any Christian personally like the ones I hear about (i.e. Scrantonc., PhilTheMinion, WBC, etc.) so that's why I lean toward the question of whether or not they're just trolls. xD

by Anonymous 14 years ago

psh i ain't no troll :P i'm a cali boy myself

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I've never met a christian like scrantoncity or amish_allousaurs either. I've never met anyone who doesn't believe in evolution and I can count all the pro-life people I know on one hand.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It doesn't concern me personally, but since it's illegal it must concern someone somewhere. It doesn't matter if it hurts me, it matters if it hurts anyone in anyway, even if it just inconveniences someone.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Okay. It doesn't concern you. *takes a bow*

by Anonymous 14 years ago

It doesn't really matter about having the majority of the public opinion, the law can still be changed.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Just because someone is against gay marriage doesn't mean they're homophobic.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

in what way?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I can't speak for everyone; only for myself. For example, one of my best friends is bisexual, and I'm not afraid of her ever getting a crush on me or whatever. I also don't care either way about gay marriage (but since majority vote is anti-gay-marriage, I guess one could say that I'm against it). So I'm kind of against it, but I'm not afraid of homosexuals.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

So you have nothing against gays... you just don't want them to be together and happy?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Like I said, I don't care either way. But in situations such as this, the fact that I don't care means that there is one less person for gay marriage, and by not caring, I might as well be against it. By not doing anything for gay marriage, I'm helping leave things as is, with the majority vote being against gay marriage. Do you get what I'm trying to say?

by Anonymous 14 years ago

gays should have rights, but not marriage rights If gays had marriage rights, then other ppl like incests or bestiality lovers will think its ok for them to have their marriage rights Do we really want cyclops babies or weird ass animal-human babies? Think about it

by Anonymous 14 years ago

troll.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Since when can animals sign marriage contracts anyway? BTW: A human animal mixed person like a centaur or a fawn would be amazing.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

When you think about it we may never be able to scientificly prove people are born gay but with the same thinking we'll also never be able to scientificly prove god exists. Without proof that god exists there is no reason for gay's to be though of wrongly. If god exists gays are wrong, if he doesn't exist there's nothing to really say they are wrong. Meaning proving the theory of the 'gay gene' is irrevelant until we can clearly source the orgin of homophobia and prove it otherwise.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

If god exists as Christians believe* :) If I were to believe in a god (which I don't), it would be an all loving and accepting god.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Hi, just popped in to say HOMOPHOBIA IS GAY!

by Anonymous 14 years ago

:D http://tinyurl.com/4hnf8a3

by Anonymous 14 years ago

<3 Some people are gay, and a lot of people are sexy ;) That's why I swing both ways ;D

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Hey, just reading this giant wall o' text here, and when I came across scrantoncity's duck argument, I just laughed at loud at the absurdity of it. Can anyone explain to me how it makes any sense? He loves his duck so he should be able to marry it? Um, hehe... DUCKS. CAN'T. TALK (besides making the occasional quack). For one thing, they don't have opposable thumbs either to sign a legal binding document. To think otherwise would just be stupid. Then again, I did hear about that guy in Japan who married a pillow. But hey: that's Japan.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Lmao i love how you ended that. Yep, they do some pretty odd stuff in Japan... but anyway, as logical as your point is, what Scrantoncity is sure to do is say it's wrong without giving any reason for it being wrong, forcing you to re-explain it until he just says it's wrong again, and when he is given no choice but to accept you have a reasonable point, he will ignore it and try to pick at something else, and/or say "i'm done with this, learn some debate skills, you have no argument," etc.... of course with nothing to back up those claims with.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

If Judicial precedent established that denying gays the right to marry was unconstitutional no law could be passed that would prevent gays from marring. I think that is whats going to happen.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

I hope that's what's going to happen... but when I think about it, I'm sure it has to pass one day. Like everyone says, people probably thought the same things about African-American rights and women's rights.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

@997200 (ClaireTheBozo): I think it should become a constitutional amendment but I doubt that would happen because you need most of Congress or most of the states to agree on it. It will probably be a Supreme Court Case.

by Anonymous 14 years ago

Thank you for understanding how the law works.

by Anonymous 14 years ago