Great arguement! Well, if you allow two consenting adults to marry, then why not let a jewish albino German Shepard marry a one legged blind deaf hindu 11 year old boy? Of course, that is not what is being argued, but somehow NAMBLA keeps popping up.

The arguement is two consenting adults who love each other wanting to marry, LEGALLY, but the republicans/rednecks/christians/ignorants say marrige is a religous matter. Well, guess what? A marrige license is a legal piece of paper, not religous. In other words, religon is out the window.

Anyways, please stop bringing NAMBLA or the Dog Lovers of Indian/Black/Mongoosian Descent.(DLIBMD, this is made up)Want a legal reason, not opinion, not religous, not scientific, but legal. Sure, I don't care much for gay marriges, but I don't think it is my place to tell people who they can and can't marry. If they love each other, let them marry. Hell, it is like a republican telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body. Wait, they do with abortion laws. Damn, controll the poor, the gays, and the women. Anything the republicans don't control? Oh yeah, FREEDOM TO LOVE!

"DLIBMD" LOL

Look, it's a joke, but the fact remains... Where will this stop? OK so what if we lets gay marriage become legal... Would 40 year old men hooking up with 17 year old females be next? People may think it's disgusting and not moral, but isn't that what the MAJORITY of America thinks of gay marriage?

The only criteria that should be considered as to whether someone can marry someone else is whether they are human.

It is a human right, not a state or federal government gift.

If religion X wants to prohibit it, well that's fine. Let them live in their own ignorance.

Want to get the government involved in marriage? Consider this: certain sectors of our society have out-of-wedlock birthrate of around 70%.

Why not make marriage MANDATORY in cases like this? If you make a baby, you must marry the person.
If you father/mother out-of wedlock, then you pay a fine. Ignore the fine, or do it more than once, go to jail.

Those who want the government involved, make them solve problems, not create them.

john

So then a 14 year old girl should be able to marry a 30 year-old man because they're both human, right?

Is this your logic at work?

[Edited on 01/13/04 by kramtronix]

Good grief, does everything need to be explained to you? We're talking about two consenting ADULTS here. Same blood-line rules apply, also, to answer your next question.

john

Originally posted by kramtronix

Originally posted by KrazyJethro I agree, but there are so many screwed up kids now from straight homes that the arguement is almost moot.

a) Two wrongs do not make a right.

Trying to dismiss a claim by pointing out another negative is intellectually unbalanced.

b) The study showed that in COMPARISON, homosexual households produced a larger amount of children with "issues" than that of the same number of heterosexual households.

Moot it is not.

First off, why are you arguing against me, I'm on your side.

Second, I understand that two wrongs don't make a right, what I am saying is that with the distruction of hetrosexual marriages, there are so many kids with only one parent etc that the point is almost moot.

Third, if you can not produce this study, then it is irrelevent.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Great arguement! Well, if you allow two consenting adults to marry, then why not let a jewish albino German Shepard marry a one legged blind deaf hindu 11 year old boy? Of course, that is not what is being argued, but somehow NAMBLA keeps popping up.

The reason is, is that hetrosexual couples can marry even if one member is underage with parental consent (which I disagree with). If gay marriage is allowed, then it must follow the same guildlines. Therefore folks like NAMBLA can marry even underage with parental consent which is rediculous. Is that a difficult connection?

The arguement is two consenting adults who love each other wanting to marry, LEGALLY, but the republicans/rednecks/christians/ignorants say marrige is a religous matter. Well, guess what? A marrige license is a legal piece of paper, not religous. In other words, religon is out the window.

Right and wrong. Yes, we do enjoy seperation of church and state which means we can not have religion infused in the government. It does NOT mean that religious ideals are not important or not to be considered. By the way, when you say Christian, do you mean Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jews, Mormons, and Buddists? They all are against it (majoritivly).

Anyways, please stop bringing NAMBLA or the Dog Lovers of Indian/Black/Mongoosian Descent.(DLIBMD, this is made up)Want a legal reason, not opinion, not religous, not scientific, but legal.

Legally, they are entitled to the rights, but not nessisarilly the priviledge. To make things equal, hetrosexuals who get married by the state should also be considered Civil Unions, subject to the same laws.

Sure, I don't care much for gay marriges, but I don't think it is my place to tell people who they can and can't marry. If they love each other, let them marry. Hell, it is like a republican telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body.

Abortion and Marriage are two VERY different things. But for short, yes, we do have the right to tell women what they can and can't do, much like they do everyday.

Wait, they do with abortion laws. Damn, controll the poor, the gays, and the women. Anything the republicans don't control? Oh yeah, FREEDOM TO LOVE!

Since when did the ability to marry have anything to do with love? Is it a stipulation that in order to love you have to be married? That is a falacious arguement.

"If religion X wants to prohibit it, well that's fine. Let them live in their own ignorance. "

What are you talking about? What are religion ignorant about?

Do you know what that word means?

I use ignorant as to mean lacking in knowledge or understanding. I have heard so-called Christians say that JC was against homosexuality. They cannot provide one written word to back it up.

Regardless, the mere thought that a God would prefer one race, gender, or sexual preference above others is absurd on the face of it. After all, didn't God create everybody?

john

Originally posted by jsobecky
I use ignorant as to mean lacking in knowledge or understanding. I have heard so-called Christians say that JC was against homosexuality. They cannot provide one written word to back it up.

By saying that JC was against it is due to the fact that Christ was not there to contradict the law of Moses, but rather to fullfill it. Since there is instance of Anti-gay material in the OT that is the basis in which they speak.

Regardless, the mere thought that a God would prefer one race, gender, or sexual preference above others is absurd on the face of it. After all, didn't God create everybody?

Is it so absurd? God created all people, but yet he allowed free thought and choice, therefore we are in control of the choices we make. God is against murder and adultry as well, but he created those people as well. Homosexuality is an action, not a race or gender. It is the action, not the people Christians SHOULD be against.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by jsobecky
I use ignorant as to mean lacking in knowledge or understanding. I have heard so-called Christians say that JC was against homosexuality. They cannot provide one written word to back it up.

By saying that JC was against it is due to the fact that Christ was not there to contradict the law of Moses, but rather to fullfill it. Since there is instance of Anti-gay material in the OT that is the basis in which they speak.

Regardless, the mere thought that a God would prefer one race, gender, or sexual preference above others is absurd on the face of it. After all, didn't God create everybody?

Is it so absurd? God created all people, but yet he allowed free thought and choice, therefore we are in control of the choices we make. God is against murder and adultry as well, but he created those people as well. Homosexuality is an action, not a race or gender. It is the action, not the people Christians SHOULD be against.

KJ, please don't go the Old Testament route. There is way too much there to prove hypocrisy/stupidity. The argument would, more or less, be weaker. I agree with that they should not have a marriage in the traditional sense, just adding that type of argument is easier to combat.

Don't worry OX, I'm not. I was only addressing an issue that someone brought up by saying that Christians were ignorant.

I was explaining why they say JC was against homosexuality.

It has not bearing on this arguement, although I am sure that some will come to jump on it as if it was.

Lumping homosexuality with murderers is absurd. And I agree with the person that suggested to stay away from the OT...it's just too bizarre.

Free will? If God knows what the final score of the game is going to be before the first kickoff happens, where's the free will? If God doesn't know, is he/she really a God?

john

I think Jesus must've been a homosexual himself. I've never known a straight person to be so caring. That's right, Jesus was gay!

You know, your point does have some merit. After all, JC never did get married, did he? Was it because of the prevailing laws of the time?

Hmmmm...makes you think.

john

Originally posted by jsobecky
Good grief, does everything need to be explained to you? We're talking about two consenting ADULTS here. Same blood-line rules apply, also, to answer your next question.

john

Well, if the Government cannot dictate what is MORAL or WRONG, then it shouldn't be able to dictate what any human being wants to do. That was the hiden point in my post.

Where will it stop?

Well that is a good point, well taken. But the point is, what is wrong with being gay and getting married?

john

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well that is a good point, well taken. But the point is, what is wrong with being gay and getting married?

john

Jesus couldn't marry the man of his dreams so, no man should be able to. I think that's what they're trying to say.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Lumping homosexuality with murderers is absurd.

I did not lump them together, you assumed I did. They were just other examples.

And I agree with the person that suggested to stay away from the OT...it's just too bizarre.

Free will? If God knows what the final score of the game is going to be before the first kickoff happens, where's the free will? If God doesn't know, is he/she really a
God?

This is a huge question not to be answered lightly. If you really want to know, start another thread, it's too long and off topic for here.

john

Good point, Jesus went around with 12 guys for most of his life. Well, if you go by the bible the church gives you, points to Jesus being a homosexual. Now if you add the books that were left out by the church, then Jesus and Mary Magedline were lovers. Also, Mary was never a prostitute like the church edited in, but the leader of the 7 women disciples, while Jesus was the leader of the 12 male disciples. Wait, the bible isn't edited, it is not wrong, it is all that is good and caring in this world. Hahahahaha Sorry, couldn't keep a STRAIGHT face.(Pun intende)

Also, didn't I say this is a legal battle, not religous, opinion, or scientific arguement. So throw out all invisable all powerful people that live in the clouds. And no, I think it is wrong, or well it against nature, for they are born gay, and again, a LEGAL battle, so you have to use the law. In fact, the law says you have to treat people the same, no discrimination, so people who ban gay marriges are breaking the law. And also, a marrige is not a religous controlled activity, a preist does not sign a marrige certificate inbetween butt rapings of 6 year olds, but the judge or other legal people of the state do. People say the church controls marrige, so what about Hindu marriges? Do they count? Not christian marrige, but still marrige. Or Wiccan Handfasting, that is a marrige, but from most arguements I've seen, since it wasn't done by a christian leader, it doesn't count.