Why isn't gay marriage legal?

[Piquechampion]

You do realize that makes you as bad if not worse than the people you hate, right?
Intolerance should not be tolerated, I can agree with you there. But, as the classic line goes, "Why lower yourself down to their level?"

Why does gay men have to be tolerent of homophobes?

Eye for an eye, that´s the only way we are gonna get our rights.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Here he would have been finned and banned

Point well taken.

Oh and btw, I don´t have issues with his issues, franky that kind of homophobes, IMHO should just die, sorry if I´m too harsh, but that´s the way I think...

But we should hate the haters as much as they hate us?

I didn't see any hate here, just an ignorant opinion.

Oh, and lastly he is beyond help...and frankly I do not waste my time with that kind of people.

But yet you go out and start another thread against him and his views after I removed the first one.

Might I suggest an ice compress somewhere to cool that Latin blood of yours?

 

[oceanmachine]

Why does gay men have to be tolerant of homophobes?

Eye for an eye, that´s the only way we are gonna get our rights.

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, as Ghandi said.

We don't have to be tolerant. We can simply ignore them just as easy as we can point out how flawed their logic is. We don't have to be violent, we don't have to be angry, we don't have to wish for their deaths. We are better than that, aren't we?

 

[Piquechampion]

But it's we should hate the haters as much as they hate us?

That´s the only way we are getting our rights, and you living in Texas (which I have first hand knowledge btw) should know that.

But yet you go out and start another thread against him and his views after I removed the first one.

Might I suggest an ice compress somewhere to cool that Latin blood of yours?

Dont remove that thread, its in a much lighter tone

 

[slobone]

How many of those 70% of American men have sex with men? If they arent having sex with men it in no way concerns them. The day it is OK for a community or nation to say 2 men cant marry, is the day it is OK to prohibit a man and a woman from marrying.

Why cant they get a fucking clue! Us having the freedom to marry who we love cannot in any way adversely affect their marriages. (well... maybe it would be tougher to book a hall)

To those who would try and restrict my freedoms: FUCK YOU!!!

I'm glad you expressed yourself. Do you feel better?

Now what are you going to do to change people's minds so they give us what they want?

 

[Centexfarmer]

That´s the only way we are getting our rights, and you living in Texas (which I have first hand knowledge btw) should know that.

No I don't. Being an American rights are not always won at the end of a barrel of a gun, or a noose, or anything else that threatens the life of another. That's tyrany not democracy. If we claim that as a right for our equality, then we give our enemies the same rights to defend "traditional family values" and however they're defined during any given election cycle.

Dont remove that thread, its in a much lighter tone

I noticed, but you're still dancing on the edge of our Code of Conduct, which you've been reminded more than once in the past few weeks to read and observe.

 

[Piquechampion]

I noticed, but you're still dancing on the edge of our Code of Conduct, which you've been reminded more than once in the past few weeks to read and observe.

I´ll behave, I promise

 

[The_Reaper]

*I also posted a slightly edited version of this message on the "Still Vomiting All Over Myself..." Thread.


I hear cries from our beloved moderators to attempt to educate our fellow member as to why his arguments are incorrect. Very well, I shall attempt to do my best with the knowledge I have.

I feel one comment I must get out of the way, and in effort protect my hypothetical ass on not being called out as a hypocrite, The Vatican has stated that the Story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, meaning not accepted canon of the Catholic Church. In essence, they still believe God created humanity but no longer believe that Adam was created from dust and Eve from a rib. Their official stance has yet to be confirmed. There, now onto the educational portion of tonight's programme:

Since the creation of the human race, be it by Divine Will or by the scientific methods presented to us, we have been a changing race.

As such, it seems that change is a constant in the world in which we live. One can simply look at the "institution of marriage" itself to see change and adaption in action.

We don't know what "caveman" wedding practices we like, if they had them or not. Or if it was the ideal of communinity systems in which everyone slept with who they wanted to. However, we can look at weddings as they evolved.

People talk of marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. What about the years in which polygamy was considered not only proper, but encouraged? Many societies engaged in the idea of one man with MANY women, but that is now frowned down upon.

As for the Bible advocating the purpose of marriage is to have children, look at Abraham and Sarah. They couldn't have children, so Abraham broke his marital bonds and slept with a slave girl. Obviously, since God did not strike him down, this is surely an endorsement of God supporting adultery for the sake of children.

The next greatest example comes from that of Jesus Christ himself. Jesus was not born of this earth, according to the New Testament. Rather, Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit of God, rather than by her husband. To further beat the matter with a stick, there is no evidence or support that Mary and Joesph had children of their own, that Jesus was the single child in the family. As such, we see again a marriage that resulted in no children. Therefore, the argument that men and women marry to create offspring, is a flawed argument from a religious standpoint.

The next problem comes later on in the evolution of marriage, in terms of later years. Polygamy was gone, but a new trend was sweeping the marriage world. Older men, marrying much younger women. In the times of the Marquis de Sade, it was not uncommon to see a man in his 30s or 40s (or older), married to a woman who was not yet 18.

And then, of course. There is the arranged marriage. This can probably be said to be the only form of marriage that encourages starting a family, as parents hope their children with procreate from the union, and not to mention profit off a nice wedding dowry.

Eventually, marriage evolved again (with legal assistance of course), requiring age limits or parental consent, to what we see as it's current form.

Marriage is not set in stone like most people who look back believe. They look as far back as our "Traditional Idea" of marriage, but fail to look further back to see how much it has changed during humanity's short time on this planet.

Hence, gay marriage is another step in the evolution of marriage. We are not seeking to replace "traditional marriage" but allow it to open to the alternative lifestyle.

Marriage has changed constantly over the years and centuries since people began taking ceremonies to create a solemn vow to one another, and in the end that's what marriage is. Marriage is a life long committment to another person, promising to be there for them through thick and thin. To stand by, and support them when they need help, as long as they'll do the same for you. Not to mention the legal benefits of actual marriage, such as insurance coverage and other rights. Sure, straight couples can produce children, but that is not the overall purpose of marriage.


If anyone can logically argue against those reasonings, I welcome it.

 

[cAndId]

I'm glad you expressed yourself. Do you feel better?

Now what are you going to do to change people's minds so they give us what they want?

Do you mean give us what we want? Where I live gay people have equality in terms of marriage, adoption rules, equal opportunity employment etc. But there are still people and politicians out there in Canada working to undermine our freedoms, so what am i going to do? Be active politically, work against the election of Conservative mp's (impossible task where I live), and I am going to remind people how stupid and hurtful their anti-gay views are... but I am am limited to what I can do now that I am living under my parents roof and scared shitless to come out of the closet. Not that my fears are going to stop me... thats a story for another day.

 

[Centexfarmer]

It shouldn't be legal. This is supposed to be a God-centered country, and the purpose of marriage is to give one's self full to his spouse and to PROCREATE. Homosexuals cannot procreate...

I'm not a devout Christian, and yes, I have homosexual tendencies, but I don't act on them. . . So I believe gay marriage should not be legal simply because two men or two women can not make a child together.

It's not restricting freedoms, it's about morals. Most gay couples are based mostly on lust anyway, and don't deny it. A man and a woman marrying is completely different from 2 men marrying, like i said in my previous message A MAN AND A WOMAN CAN PROCREATE! A marriage without having children is a marriage not worth having.

Wait... God created man and....oh that's right, WOMAN--i'm not saying that homosexuals cannot have relationships, but getting married destroys the purpose of male and female. Sure, you can adopt an orphaned child, but no matter how you look at it, the child will never be your actual child.

Yeah, but I know I would feel nothing but guilt in knowing that I never procreated. I'm not going to argue anymore, gay marriage is wrong and that's all I have to say on the subject. I do have a feeling that it will be legalized more and more, and as long as there are homosexuals, the marriages will continue. I'm not trying to stop gay marriage here, I'm just simply pointing out that I think making a family is the purpose of marriage, and the majority of America believes the same thing. No matter how you look at it, the majority ALWAYS has the upper hand.

*I also posted a slightly edited version of this message on the "Still Vomiting All Over Myself..." Thread.


I hear cries from our beloved moderators to attempt to educate our fellow member as to why his arguments are incorrect. Very well, I shall attempt to do my best with the knowledge I have.

I feel one comment I must get out of the way, and in effort protect my hypothetical ass on not being called out as a hypocrite, The Vatican has stated that the Story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, meaning not accepted canon of the Catholic Church. In essence, they still believe God created humanity but no longer believe that Adam was created from dust and Eve from a rib. Their official stance has yet to be confirmed. There, now onto the educational portion of tonight's programme:

Since the creation of the human race, be it by Divine Will or by the scientific methods presented to us, we have been a changing race.

As such, it seems that change is a constant in the world in which we live. One can simply look at the "institution of marriage" itself to see change and adaption in action.

We don't know what "caveman" wedding practices we like, if they had them or not. Or if it was the ideal of communinity systems in which everyone slept with who they wanted to. However, we can look at weddings as they evolved.

People talk of marriage between ONE man and ONE woman. What about the years in which polygamy was considered not only proper, but encouraged? Many societies engaged in the idea of one man with MANY women, but that is now frowned down upon.

As for the Bible advocating the purpose of marriage is to have children, look at Abraham and Sarah. They couldn't have children, so Abraham broke his marital bonds and slept with a slave girl. Obviously, since God did not strike him down, this is surely an endorsement of God supporting adultery for the sake of children.

The next greatest example comes from that of Jesus Christ himself. Jesus was not born of this earth, according to the New Testament. Rather, Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit of God, rather than by her husband. To further beat the matter with a stick, there is no evidence or support that Mary and Joesph had children of their own, that Jesus was the single child in the family. As such, we see again a marriage that resulted in no children. Therefore, the argument that men and women marry to create offspring, is a flawed argument from a religious standpoint.

The next problem comes later on in the evolution of marriage, in terms of later years. Polygamy was gone, but a new trend was sweeping the marriage world. Older men, marrying much younger women. In the times of the Marquis de Sade, it was not uncommon to see a man in his 30s or 40s (or older), married to a woman who was not yet 18.

And then, of course. There is the arranged marriage. This can probably be said to be the only form of marriage that encourages starting a family, as parents hope their children with procreate from the union, and not to mention profit off a nice wedding dowry.

Eventually, marriage evolved again (with legal assistance of course), requiring age limits or parental consent, to what we see as it's current form.

Marriage is not set in stone like most people who look back believe. They look as far back as our "Traditional Idea" of marriage, but fail to look further back to see how much it has changed during humanity's short time on this planet.

Hence, gay marriage is another step in the evolution of marriage. We are not seeking to replace "traditional marriage" but allow it to open to the alternative lifestyle.

Marriage has changed constantly over the years and centuries since people began taking ceremonies to create a solemn vow to one another, and in the end that's what marriage is. Marriage is a life long committment to another person, promising to be there for them through thick and thin. To stand by, and support them when they need help, as long as they'll do the same for you. Not to mention the legal benefits of actual marriage, such as insurance coverage and other rights. Sure, straight couples can produce children, but that is not the overall purpose of marriage.


If anyone can logically argue against those reasonings, I welcome it.

Thank you for explaining why individuals like evanjd are talking out of thier asses!

 

[cAndId]

A canuck comedian pretty much sums up the position of those who believe in 'traditional values'.

 

[Piquechampion]

Now what are you going to do to change people's minds so they give us what they want?

Frankly, cause my own country (Guatemala, not Spain) is such a place, when I get into politics (and believe me I will) I will have to use bribes, violence and the shit, to get what I want in terms if gay rights. Yeah, I know, sad but true. Such is my own country. But that´s the only way to do it over there

 

[Centexfarmer]

A canuck comedian pretty much sums up the position of those who believe in 'traditional values'.

Yeah, here in America they're known as "reactionaries," or more commonly as Evangelicals, BushRepublicans, and Fascists.

 

[ambiguity]

Marriage has changed constantly over the years and centuries since people began taking ceremonies to create a solemn vow to one another, and in the end that's what marriage is. Marriage is a life long committment to another person, promising to be there for them through thick and thin. To stand by, and support them when they need help, as long as they'll do the same for you. Not to mention the legal benefits of actual marriage, such as insurance coverage and other rights. Sure, straight couples can produce children, but that is not the overall purpose of marriage.

To add to Reaper's very good post; Where in the traditional Catholic marriage vows do you find anything about procreation? The only part I can recall from the many weddings I have attended, is about love. "To have and to hold, in sickness and in health, til death do us part". As reaper said, it's about the relationship, not about furthering the human race. It is in the baptisms that you will find the retoric about bringing the child up in a loving home, in accordance to the churches laws, etc. Also, unless it has been done due to extreme issues (infidelity for example) divorce is not tolerated, yet the government has approved that. Divorced people are also not permitted, under church doctrine, to marry again. The only way another marriage is possible, is to have had your spouse die.

Anyway, backing up to what I mentioned earlier. Furthering the human race is a purpose of sex between men and women... and if you also want to foray into the Vatican's views, sex should be done for the only for the explicit purpose - or open to the possibility - of procreation. No types of contraceptive means are allowed.

But as we all know, there is another side to relationships between men and women as well... sex is used as a way to bond, as a source of enjoyment. It is the same within homosexual relationships. Reproduction is obviously not an issue, but in healthy relationships, sex is used as a way to deepen a bond that two people share.

 

[Andross]

To those who claim same-sex marriage has a negative effect on hetero marriages: I wonder why same-sex marriages in many countries of the world had no negative effect on hetero marriages whatsoever?

We have same-sex marriages in many countries and civil unions in Germany, yet hetero marriage is alive and just as well or miserable as always. The only effect of it is that gays can live happily together and are legalized couples with some rights and duties, just like hetero couples. The discrimination and separation of hetero (first class) citizens and gay (second class) citizens, is quite similar to the racist movements of the Nazis and the pre-Civil Rights movement era of the U.S. It is discriminatory and wrong. And frankly, I don't care about anyone's religious views on the issue. Marriage is a civil issue, not religious.

 

[teddy14]

Move to Europe.

 

[luminum]

Yeah, but I know I would feel nothing but guilt in knowing that I never procreated. I'm not going to argue anymore, gay marriage is wrong and that's all I have to say on the subject. I do have a feeling that it will be legalized more and more, and as long as there are homosexuals, the marriages will continue. I'm not trying to stop gay marriage here, I'm just simply pointing out that I think making a family is the purpose of marriage, and the majority of America believes the same thing. No matter how you look at it, the majority ALWAYS has the upper hand.

You do know that in the history of every human civilization, marriage has been first used as a tool to bind groups of peopel together, gain money, or make some kind of deal, right?

You understand that the idea of the marriage ring was meant to symbolize that the woman was owned by the man? Or why it is that it's so 'traditional' for the bride's father to pay for the wedding ceremony? The payment of the wedding is the newer version oft he age-old dowry, where the bride's family pays the husband and his family to accept her so that they can get rid of her and also secure a beneficial connection to the (hopefully) richer family of the husband?

That's what marriage has always been about: contracts and deals...if you really want to talk about tradition.

Having a family, specifically a son, was only a means to secure a woman's lasting ties to the husband's resources. You know how all those women used to get divorced, thrown out, or executed for not having sons? Why do you think that is?

The problem with a lot of people who say the things you say is that you don't look at context. You talk about "traditions" and "history" without ever actually looking at history. You deal in relative situations that you treat as fact. In truth, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Guilty for not procreating? That's a new one. Kids should be made out of obligation? Not love?

If it wasn't 6am, I'd try to help you out more, because you really need it. I feel sorry for you.

 

[metta]

Wait... God created man and....oh that's right, WOMAN--i'm not saying that homosexuals cannot have relationships, but getting married destroys the purpose of male and female. Sure, you can adopt an orphaned child, but no matter how you look at it, the child will never be your actual child.

Please question your beliefs. They really do not make any logical sense.

Gay couples getting married does not destroy anything. It helps to recoganize and build relationships. It does not stop straight couples from getting married. It does not harm their marriages. It does not stop them from having children.

And your statement about adoption is disgusting!

 

[rareboy]

EvanJD might wish stick to his own playpen in the Bisexual Forum where he can spew his nonsense as a self-hating homo. Pfffft, doesn't act on his homo urges...give me a fucking break. What's he doing here online then?

 

[metta]

EvanJD might wish stick to his own playpen in the Bisexual Forum where he can spew his nonsense as a self-hating homo. Pfffft, doesn't act on his homo urges...give me a fucking break. What's he doing here online then?

look at his gallery
http://justusboys.com/forum/view.php?photos=144200&title=evanjds-homepage