Same Sex Marriages?

[william]

I totally disagree with Buddy and Stalos for saying that homosexuality is a choice. It's something that's out of your control. You can't just click your fingers and be straight. It would eat you up inside, pretending to be something your not. Think about it, say you are straight, you can't just decide to start fancying people of the same gender, you'd still fancy people of the opposite sex. What if you were gay and you hid it, ended up marrying someone because you were religious, and spent your life unhappy?

Also, I completely disagree with the registering thing, what if you were 18, registered straight, but came out when you were older?

I think gay people have the right to marry. Whoever quoted the comparison to apartheid, I agree with you. At the end of the day, it's discrimination, saying 'they can't marry because they're different.'

[Deleted]

First of all, I find it funny that people saying that homosexuality is ok are calling non-homosexuals "straight."

To me, that means you're calling homosexuals crooked, or on the wrong path.

Second of all, since when were wild animals homosexual? If you're talking about how sometimes male dogs seem to be...well...you know, that's not what they're doing. The top male is asserting his place as the leader. He's saying, "I'm better than you."

As a note, I don't dislike homosexuals. I just think it's wrong.

[Buddy]

Yuki said:

I know humans who have monogamous relationships even though they're not married. What I am saying is that marriage itself is a religious practice. Otherwise it'd be anywhere from a "Well, you want to shack up, live together forever, and have sex?" to, more likely, a sexual free-for-all. Take out any religious influence, and I garuantee marriages would never have existed.

Are you saying that the only thing that keeps two people who love each other together is this little thing called "religious marriage"?

What about atheists? They get married, but they don't believe in God or any of the religious aspects that go along with marriage. And they can live just as happily "sexual free-for-all-less" lives like anyone else.

Besides, as I've heard correctly, the idea of a conventional "marriage" - both legally and religiously - is falling out of favor in Europe (I heard statistics once, and they were pretty startling, but since I don't remember for sure, I won't quote anything). These people go on, live their lives, having one, two three children - WITHOUT getting "married".

Not to mention the millions of gay couples who live together without any kind of marriage-type bondage.

All of this without any "sexual free-for-all"!

[william]

TheComedian said:

First of all, I find it funny that people saying that homosexuality is ok are calling non-homosexuals "straight."

To me, that means you're calling homosexuals crooked, or on the wrong path.

Second of all, since when were wild animals homosexual? If you're talking about how sometimes male dogs seem to be...well...you know, that's not what they're doing. The top male is asserting his place as the leader. He's saying, "I'm better than you."

As a note, I don't dislike homosexuals. I just think it's wrong.

I guess you're kinda right. I just used 'straight' as that is the standard term that most people use. Would it be more PC to say hetro' instead?

[Stal]

Buddy said:

Are you saying that the only thing that keeps two people who love each other together is this little thing called "religious marriage"?

What about atheists? They get married, but they don't believe in God or any of the religious aspects that go along with marriage. And they can live just as happily "sexual free-for-all-less" lives like anyone else.

Besides, as I've heard correctly, the idea of a conventional "marriage" - both legally and religiously - is falling out of favor in Europe (I heard statistics once, and they were pretty startling, but since I don't remember for sure, I won't quote anything). These people go on, live their lives, having one, two three children - WITHOUT getting "married".

Not to mention the millions of gay couples who live together without any kind of marriage-type bondage.

All of this without any "sexual free-for-all"!

Buddy, you misunderstood what I was saying. Let's say that there was never any form of religion. Without those religious backgrounds there'd be no such thing as a marriage. As I said, it'd be anywhere from a "Let's shack up, stay together forever, etc." to a sexual-free-for-all....And I said most likely, because look at America and the sexual free for all it all ready is...WITH religious influence. You can not claim that with statistics such as 1/4 people have an STD (I forget which one it is. And I don't have my sources on that one, just working by memory) that a sexual free for all is not going on in the country (much less the world).

Taking it a step further, without any forms of religion that had existed which has strict teachings on morality and ethics, where would said teachings come from? From humans in general? Maybe some, but it wouldn't be a normal thing.

I have graphs and charts of statistics here with me. In 1963 "Divine law" was taken out of schools, which is to say that they no longer taught such things as morality based on the Bible. In that year there was about 350 cases of Gonorrhea per 100,000 people in the 15-19 age group.

In '64 (the year after those laws were removed from the classroom) the number had jumped to 400. 425 (There are all rough numbers rounded to nearest 25 for my purposes, FYI). 500 By '67. In 1975 That number had jumped to approx. 1275. (Basic Data from the Center for Disease Control and Department of Health and Human Resources)

In 1963 there was about 5000 pregnacies to unwed girls under the age of 15.

The graph just shoots up from '63, though. By 1975 Live Births + Reported Abortions (which is an added total of both) were around 25,200 to girls under 15. The Live Birth report itself is only about 10,200 for that year. (Basic Data from DHHR)

STD (Includes: Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Chancroid, Granuloma, Inguinale, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, and AIDS) Statistics:
1963: Approx. 400,000 reported STD cases.
1975: Approx. 1,075,000 reported STD cases.
Now, that takes into account Population growth. Based on the population growth, the same ratio of that 400,000 in 1963 would've been 500,000 in 1975. So don't think those numbers are skewed because I'm not taking population growth into account. (Basic Data from DHHR, CDC, and the Department of Commerce, Census Bureau)

Now, as I was saying...it's becoming a Sexual free-for-all today. Without the morality and practice of marriage that is taught in religions, such things either wouldn't exist (marriages) or be a very minute percentage of followers around (Morality and ethics).

And I'm not saying all athiests are evil, immoral people. I'm just saying if there was never any religions in the world....

Please try to understand what I'm saying next time, Buddy.

[william]

I think we're getting off topic here. It now seems we're discussing whether religion (or lack of) being taught has correlation with the ammount of STDs in young adults, rather than the original same sex marriage topic.

[icant]

Personally, I see no reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. You could argue that marriage is a religious thing, and religion is against homosexuality, and therefore we shouldn't let them get marry. But then, one could argue that marriage is becoming less and less a religious term, and more a social term. My parents weren't married to be joined in holy matrimony before the eyes of god, they were married because they loved eachother and wanted to spend the rest of their lives together. I have no idea what the statistics are, but I can easily guess religion is having nothing to do with an increasing number of marriages.

Lets think, for a moment, about what gay is. In the past, we have grown to accept women as equal beings, members of another colour as equal beings, disabled people as equal beings, and I believe this is because we have no choice over it at birth. Being gay is another thing we have no choice over. I don't think homosexuality is natural, the very nature of life is to reproduce and continue, and homosexual reproduction simply isn't possible. However, they are just as capable of being decent human beings as everyone else. I do not think they should be denied marriage.

[♥ Jey ♥]

I'm just posting only once on this thread. I'm going to make my opinion very short. And it's only on sentence.

Why are homosexuals deprived of some things and discriminated just because they are different?

There ends my two centavos.

[Retired Blub]

Jey said:

I'm just posting only once on this thread. I'm going to make my opinion very short. And it's only on sentence.

Why are homosexuals deprived of some things and discriminated just because they are different?

There ends my two centavos.

Yeah, I agree. Why is this so?

[Buddy]

Yuki said:

Buddy, you misunderstood what I was saying. Let's say that there was never any form of religion. Without those religious backgrounds there'd be no such thing as a marriage. As I said, it'd be anywhere from a "Let's shack up, stay together forever, etc." to a sexual-free-for-all....And I said most likely, because look at America and the sexual free for all it all ready is...WITH religious influence. You can not claim that with statistics such as 1/4 people have an STD (I forget which one it is. And I don't have my sources on that one, just working by memory) that a sexual free for all is not going on in the country (much less the world).

Taking it a step further, without any forms of religion that had existed which has strict teachings on morality and ethics, where would said teachings come from? From humans in general? Maybe some, but it wouldn't be a normal thing.

I have graphs and charts of statistics here with me. In 1963 "Divine law" was taken out of schools, which is to say that they no longer taught such things as morality based on the Bible. In that year there was about 350 cases of Gonorrhea per 100,000 people in the 15-19 age group.

In '64 (the year after those laws were removed from the classroom) the number had jumped to 400. 425 (There are all rough numbers rounded to nearest 25 for my purposes, FYI). 500 By '67. In 1975 That number had jumped to approx. 1275. (Basic Data from the Center for Disease Control and Department of Health and Human Resources)

In 1963 there was about 5000 pregnacies to unwed girls under the age of 15.

The graph just shoots up from '63, though. By 1975 Live Births + Reported Abortions (which is an added total of both) were around 25,200 to girls under 15. The Live Birth report itself is only about 10,200 for that year. (Basic Data from DHHR)

STD (Includes: Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Chancroid, Granuloma, Inguinale, Lymphogranuloma Venereum, and AIDS) Statistics:
1963: Approx. 400,000 reported STD cases.
1975: Approx. 1,075,000 reported STD cases.
Now, that takes into account Population growth. Based on the population growth, the same ratio of that 400,000 in 1963 would've been 500,000 in 1975. So don't think those numbers are skewed because I'm not taking population growth into account. (Basic Data from DHHR, CDC, and the Department of Commerce, Census Bureau)

Now, as I was saying...it's becoming a Sexual free-for-all today. Without the morality and practice of marriage that is taught in religions, such things either wouldn't exist (marriages) or be a very minute percentage of followers around (Morality and ethics).

And I'm not saying all athiests are evil, immoral people. I'm just saying if there was never any religions in the world....

Well Stal, I must say, those are some rather interesting statistics. However, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to prove. What, are you saying that without the religious aspecst of marriage, people will suddenly have no idea on how to act? That people will suddenly just go around, having sex with each other for the heck of it?

Perhaps you're right - but not in the way you want to be.

First, those numbers. Now, I think everyone knows about the 60's. It was the time of many many revolutions in America - Vietnam, the draft, black/civil rights movements, etc. The culture changed ratically during this time. There came to be a more rebellious, more, errr, "liberal" culture during this time. People did drugs, slept around, all this stuff.

The emergence of rock and roll, along with it, the culture of drugs and sex, came about in the 60's. It continued through the 70's, as well. In the 80's, we had even more drugs and sex, what, with heavy metal and everything. Then, in the 90's, came the emergence of hip-hop/rap and, along with it, even more drugs and sex!

Truthfully, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is it that things were fine untill we took the idea of religious marriage/ideals/beliefs/customs out of the equation, and then everything went straight to the gutter? And from what I do understand, it seems to have nohting to do (much less prove your case against) gay marriage. All I can see you saying is that, without the morality and practice of marriage that is taught in religions, people seemingly have no way on how to act. This is just ridiculous. yes, many of our laws, principles, and just general concepts on good and bad today are from religion. I never argued that! I agree! But that still does nothing to say on whether or not gay marriage should or shouldn't be allowed.

I do agree, however, there there's too much sex in the media and, therefor, the culture. I never said there wasn't. But that has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Please try to understand what I'm saying next time, Buddy.

Please try to explain what you're saying better next time, Stal.

[william]

Buddy and Stal, I'm interested in what you have to say about my post at the top of this page, since no-one's yet commented on it.

[Stal]

Buddy, here's what I originally stated. I made a simple comment that technically speaking the government shouldn't be allowed to perform "Marriages" as it is a religous practice. It was nothing more than a random musing and technicality.

If you want my view on homosexual marriage, read like my first or second post on this thread (second page). It says all I have to say on that topic. I'm not discussing same sex marriages at all past that point. You know what, I'll do one better and quote:

Yuki said:

Oh? My beliefs. I belief Homosexuality is a choice, and is wrong. This comes from my very deep religious beliefs.

But though I do not support any form of Homosexual Marriages due to my beliefs, I cannot give any reason why the government should not allow them to marry. No arguement I could give would be able to push forth anything but my own religious bias.

And that was all I have to say on the homosexual marriage subject. I've not said anything else on the topic, nor do I intend to.

I went on to clarify what I meant about marriages being a religious term and how it's only the religious influence that brought it around to begin with. Which means for all purposes, marriage is a religious practice. The government can only, by legal standards of today, perform something similar to a civil union for everyone. That by performing marriages, it is performing a religious custom and breaking the "wall of seperation."

You with me so far?

You misunderstood everything stated. You thought I was making an attack on atheists. Saying that they're immoral people who can't marry and are in the midst of sexual free-for-alls.

You went on to imply in your own words my use of the term sexual free-for-all was more of a lie (even though I said that if there had never been any religion ever, the relationships of today would be all over the spectrum). I kind of took offense to that and brought out my facts to shut you down on that end. My point with those facts was to show what happens without a religious influence in support of my earlier statements of "What if there had never been any religions." If there is no religious influence the black & white areas of right and wrong become void and no one can say another person is wrong on any sort of moral/ethical level. It seems that you agree with me on that (which did not seem to be the case in your previous post)

It's all very plain if you read my posts in order and what they're saying and what I'm actually responding to. As stated, it had nothing to do with the topic of homosexual marriages. I just pointed out a technicality to throw a new variable into the debate. My variable itself seemed to spark a new mini-debate.

You still with me/get it now, Buddy?

[Buddy]

Yuki said:

Buddy, here's what I originally stated. I made a simple comment that technically speaking the government shouldn't be allowed to perform "Marriages" as it is a religous practice. It was nothing more than a random musing and technicality.

If you want my view on homosexual marriage, read like my first or second post on this thread (second page). It says all I have to say on that topic. I'm not discussing same sex marriages at all past that point. You know what, I'll do one better and quote:



And that was all I have to say on the homosexual marriage subject. I've not said anything else on the topic, nor do I intend to.

I went on to clarify what I meant about marriages being a religious term and how it's only the religious influence that brought it around to begin with. Which means for all purposes, marriage is a religious practice. The government can only, by legal standards of today, perform something similar to a civil union for everyone. That by performing marriages, it is performing a religious custom and breaking the "wall of seperation."

You with me so far?

You misunderstood everything stated. You thought I was making an attack on atheists. Saying that they're immoral people who can't marry and are in the midst of sexual free-for-alls.

You went on to imply in your own words my use of the term sexual free-for-all was more of a lie (even though I said that if there had never been any religion ever, the relationships of today would be all over the spectrum). I kind of took offense to that and brought out my facts to shut you down on that end. My point with those facts was to show what happens without a religious influence in support of my earlier statements of "What if there had never been any religions." If there is no religious influence the black & white areas of right and wrong become void and no one can say another person is wrong on any sort of moral/ethical level. It seems that you agree with me on that (which did not seem to be the case in your previous post)

It's all very plain if you read my posts in order and what they're saying and what I'm actually responding to. As stated, it had nothing to do with the topic of homosexual marriages. I just pointed out a technicality to throw a new variable into the debate. My variable itself seemed to spark a new mini-debate.

You still with me/get it now, Buddy?

Well, this is a perfect example of why debating over the internet, through words, doesn't work as well as debating face-to-face on a stage somewhere.

Of course, it would all make sense now that I didn't understand you're point - you ultimately had none!

So, for what it's worth, sorry. I don't know if I really did anything wrong, past simply not understanding what you said... But if I did, I'm sorry. I'll certainly be sure to take more care in the future to make sure there aren't anymore misunderstandings.

[Stal]

Buddy said:

Well, this is a perfect example of why debating over the internet, through words, doesn't work as well as debating face-to-face on a stage somewhere.

Of course, it would all make sense now that I didn't understand you're point - you ultimately had none!

So, for what it's worth, sorry. I don't know if I really did anything wrong, past simply not understanding what you said... But if I did, I'm sorry. I'll certainly be sure to take more care in the future to make sure there aren't anymore misunderstandings.

;D No need to apologize. Remember, I have admitted I have a problem with phrasing things in a way where I understand what I mean, but no one else can. ^_^;

You did nothing wrong. It was an oversight. I look back on past debates I have and see many times where I've made slight oversights that blew the whole thing up and it became err...an embarrassment. ^_^;

[Buddy]

Yuki said:

;D No need to apologize. Remember, I have admitted I have a problem with phrasing things in a way where I understand what I mean, but no one else can. ^_^;

You did nothing wrong. It was an oversight. I look back on past debates I have and see many times where I've made slight oversights that blew the whole thing up and it became err...an embarrassment. ^_^;

Ummm... so what now? Do we hug or something?