SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Well, apparently while I was sleeping someone announced a "Poke a stick at the conservatives" day. I'm not surprised that many here don't know what most conservatives are saying about this.
Generally, from what I've been reading and hearing, most conservatives agree that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. However, most also agree that civil unions are acceptable for all the same reasons that have been posted here. The collective that oppose all of this outright is the Religious Right. They believe homosexuality=bad. The differences between marriages and civil unions are slight but meaningful to religious conservatives. There is a solid history around marriage and they don't want the institution cheapened or tainted by frivality. Of course, the rate of divorce in traditional marriages is doing enough of that already.
Personally, I don't care who gets married. The 2 major arguments against it are religious and financial (in terms of benefits). I am not religious so.. that's that. As far as benifits go, I don't believe the impact will be all that great. As far as I'm concerned, if 2 people profess to spend the rest of their lives together, they should receive the same support that traditional marriages have for years.
Hmm, perhaps people poke sticks at conservatives on this issue because there is a lack of coherence in thought. Is one for personal freedom and egalitarian treatment of all citizens, or not? It seems that conservatives are very much for freedom of the individual but under responsibility. That include marriages, but apparantly this institution is reserved for a particular configuration of partnership. I'm agreeing with many conservative ideas, but when it comes to this, too many are too reluctanct to accept the notion of marriage as an institution in our society. It is fine with me that religious faction this or that reserves marriage for mixed gender couples, but the state, the law should not. Equal treatment for all dutiful citizens. I can understand the argument put forth against g*y marriage - I'm seeing what is meant - but I just cannot accept it's validity.
As a Christian, I say that I'm for this. Heck yeah they deserve marriage! Marriage isn't about sanctity; it's ridiculous to think of marriage as something that's "sacred", mostly because the concept of loving unions barely deals with spiritualism anyway. And marriage isn't about procreation, because marital bonds last much longer than pregnancy and birth.
Marriage is about committing to someone for the rest of your life. It's about cultivating a very close bond with your partner because it's a human need. It promotes and eventually creates your own family. I think that transcends something as minor as sexual orientation.
<!--QuoteBegin--Lord Fanny-[MacH]+Nov 20 2003, 03:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Lord Fanny-[MacH] @ Nov 20 2003, 03:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As a Christian, I say that I'm for this. Heck yeah they deserve marriage! Marriage isn't about sanctity; it's ridiculous to think of marriage as something that's "sacred", mostly because the concept of loving unions barely deals with spiritualism anyway. And marriage isn't about procreation, because marital bonds last much longer than pregnancy and birth.
Marriage is about committing to someone for the rest of your life. It's about cultivating a very close bond with your partner because it's a human need. It promotes and eventually creates your own family. I think that transcends something as minor as sexual orientation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ROFL.
Which part of the Bible gives ANY support to what you just said Fanny? Marriage isnt about sanctity lol. Thats like calling yourself a Muslim and claiming the Koran promotes the drinking of alcohol and the driving of cars.
I dont go to church anymore, because I cant stand the hypocrites. I wont even call myself a Christian, because I refuse to be associated with them. They claim to be Christians, yet they ignore whatever the Bible tells them, and do whatever the hell they like. The Bible has absolutely nothing positive to say about homosexuality at all. It does however, have some very strong things to say about it being EVIL.
Calling yourself a Christian, and then deleting, cutting and pasteing the very book your faith is founded upon is wrong. If you must insist upon identifying with the Christians, at least say "well I kinda follow the whole Christian thing, but I dont take it too literally, and I ignore anything it tells me that I dont like".
As for the U.S. constitution - bleh. The very people that made that legislation would, were the alive today, be opposing it with all their strength.
Noone cares why you hate christians. Get over yourself.
As for the signers of the constitution. I seriously doubt it. The only opposition to homosexuality in any respect is from a religious standpoint, and most of the founding fathers were not religious.
Did you have an opinion of your own? I mean **** marriage of course, but feel free to go off on another long winded, off topic rant if you must.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Also, this isn't about the U.S. constitution. This is about the Massachusets State Constitution. There are no federal marriage licenses. They are only provided by the states. The national significance arrives when a married couple moves from one state into another. Should a state that does not license homosexual marriages be forced to recognize a marriage from another state?
There isn't really any argument against **** marriage. I mean, what would you say without sounding like a bigot?
Marriage is defined as
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. The state of being married; wedlock. A common-law marriage. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
This, however, was a definition of it before openly **** marriages happened. And a marriage, something very sacred to many peole can't be turned away from someone for being ****.
Hooray for Massachewtits, I'm impressed that someone in the US has a little bit of tolerance. It's great to see TBH <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Spooge+Nov 21 2003, 01:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Nov 21 2003, 01:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Should a state that does not license homosexual marriages be forced to recognize a marriage from another state? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Nope (though eventually I think the federal government decide on a clear definition of a civil union, be it called marriage or something else, for tax, health and financial reasons)
Also, no church need marry a **** couple if they feel it goes against thier ideology.
I personally think marriage has nothing to do with religion.
Maybe Marine01 would be so kind to go ahead and find all instances and mentions of the word and concept of marriage in his Bible version, so we could discuss with some actual knowledge about the subject.
He claims to be very devout... he is so angry, I can't help but think maybe he isn't quite walking the "straight and narrow" path.
Why, according to statistics, 98% of men feel attracted to the same sex? For some the urges are bigger than for others, but most of the men have more or less homosexual feelings at some point of their life. Sooo...is it really so unholy, seeing that even the most devout followers of God DO have these feelings? Is it Satan just teasing us or what? If it would be unnatural, we wouldn't have those feelings. There wouldn't be any homosexuals in the world -> it's either a huge-a** mutation in the brains or it's natural. Take your pick(or is there a choice c?)
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Nov 21 2003, 02:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Nov 21 2003, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why, according to statistics, 98% of men feel attracted to the same sex? For some the urges are bigger than for others, but most of the men have more or less homosexual feelings at some point of their life. Sooo...is it really so unholy, seeing that even the most devout followers of God DO have these feelings? Is it Satan just teasing us or what? If it would be unnatural, we wouldn't have those feelings. There wouldn't be any homosexuals in the world -> it's either a huge-a** mutation in the brains or it's natural. Take your pick(or is there a choice c?)
/stab <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I question these "statistics".
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Nov 21 2003, 08:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Nov 21 2003, 08:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If it would be unnatural, we wouldn't have those feelings. There wouldn't be any homosexuals in the world -> it's either a huge-a** mutation in the brains or it's natural. Take your pick(or is there a choice c?) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> OK... well i seem to just seeing this forum open afgter a long while and this will my first post here.
Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y and since 2 keys don't fit and 2 keyholes dont work doesnt that tell you something? there is as supposed to be physical unison of 2 people. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago and we wouldnt be here to discuss this now. There is something that changes "naturaly" in persons chemical make up that acounts for homosexuality and it is not a disease just a behavior manuarism that affects certain people there fore it is abnormaility, not NATURAL!!!
<!--QuoteBegin--[DT]StrongBad+Nov 21 2003, 04:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([DT]StrongBad @ Nov 21 2003, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y and since 2 keys don't fit and 2 keyholes dont work doesnt that tell you something? there is as supposed to be physical unison of 2 people. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago and we wouldnt be here to discuss this now. There is something that changes "naturaly" in persons chemical make up that acounts for homosexuality and it is not a disease just a behavior manuarism that affects certain people there fore it is abnormaility, not NATURAL!!! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Human is a product of nature. If a human can do it, it is natural. By defintion. Ball's back in your half again I am afraid.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Nov 21 2003, 09:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Nov 21 2003, 09:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Has anybody ever even set foot on the straight and narrow path? give him a break, you are not so holy yourself you know <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I never claimed to be perfect.
I merely said what I said because I don't think anybody should fall for his ridiculous little lies about his religion.
Every step like the one Massachusetts has taken brings us one step closer to the death of God and Christianity. We won't live to see the day, but we will live in such an exciting time of progress. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--[DT]StrongBad+Nov 21 2003, 02:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([DT]StrongBad @ Nov 21 2003, 02:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Nov 21 2003, 08:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Nov 21 2003, 08:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If it would be unnatural, we wouldn't have those feelings. There wouldn't be any homosexuals in the world -> it's either a huge-a** mutation in the brains or it's natural. Take your pick(or is there a choice c?) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> OK... well i seem to just seeing this forum open afgter a long while and this will my first post here.
Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y and since 2 keys don't fit and 2 keyholes dont work doesnt that tell you something? there is as supposed to be physical unison of 2 people. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago and we wouldnt be here to discuss this now. There is something that changes "naturaly" in persons chemical make up that acounts for homosexuality and it is not a disease just a behavior manuarism that affects certain people there fore it is abnormaility, not NATURAL!!!
Just my 2 cents,
Billy Hives <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Love isnt about procreation, neither is marriage in the eyes of the law. The fact that homosexuality occurs at all makes it natural. Is it "OK"...well thats completely relative and your opinion is no better than mine. What dictates that every man and woman is supposed to participate in pro creation? That pattern doesnt occur anywhere else in nature. Only the strongest males mate and only with the most fertile females...nothing to do with love, no emotions involved. That is what ensures pro creation in nature for most species. If that were so for humans only half of us would be having sex at all. Humans are emotional creatures. Love and lust and the bonds that stem from them are emotions. Dont try to rationalize them by reciting darwinian scripture...they cant be explained. Love is an abnormality, and if 2 people actualy find it...who cares where the keys fit.
<!--QuoteBegin--Parasite+Nov 21 2003, 04:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Parasite @ Nov 21 2003, 04:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Nov 21 2003, 02:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Nov 21 2003, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why, according to statistics, 98% of men feel attracted to the same sex? For some the urges are bigger than for others, but most of the men have more or less homosexual feelings at some point of their life. Sooo...is it really so unholy, seeing that even the most devout followers of God DO have these feelings? Is it Satan just teasing us or what? If it would be unnatural, we wouldn't have those feelings. There wouldn't be any homosexuals in the world -> it's either a huge-a** mutation in the brains or it's natural. Take your pick(or is there a choice c?)
/stab <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I question these "statistics". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I think I saw it in some document on tv and it seems quite reasonable actually. I'm not going to ask people because I'm not sure if the maturity level is high enough <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> but what I've gathered, it's pretty common for people to question their sexuality and so forth. The crap your biology teacher/nurse talks at school...it's prolly true.
It's just something that is not widely discussed about.
<!--QuoteBegin--[DT]StrongBad+Nov 21 2003, 10:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([DT]StrongBad @ Nov 21 2003, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Nov 21 2003, 08:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Nov 21 2003, 08:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If it would be unnatural, we wouldn't have those feelings. There wouldn't be any homosexuals in the world -> it's either a huge-a** mutation in the brains or it's natural. Take your pick(or is there a choice c?) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> OK... well i seem to just seeing this forum open afgter a long while and this will my first post here.
Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y and since 2 keys don't fit and 2 keyholes dont work doesnt that tell you something? there is as supposed to be physical unison of 2 people. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago and we wouldnt be here to discuss this now. There is something that changes "naturaly" in persons chemical make up that acounts for homosexuality and it is not a disease just a behavior manuarism that affects certain people there fore it is abnormaility, not NATURAL!!!
Just my 2 cents,
Billy Hives <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You're seeing things in black and white. Homosexuality is natural, but so is heterosexuality. And bisexuality. They're all perfectly natural. However, the human race will never be completely homosexual or completely heterosexual because THAT itself is not natural. And homosexuality isn't just limited to humans, either. Other species of animals engage in homosexual activities as well. You have to keep in mind: Sex isn't JUST about procreation. It's also about fun. Sex is meant to be pleasurable and is just another things for animals to enjoy. ("Animals" including humans.)
<!--QuoteBegin--cri.tical+Nov 21 2003, 09:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cri.tical @ Nov 21 2003, 09:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Every step like the one Massachusetts has taken brings us one step closer to the death of God and Christianity. We won't live to see the day, but we will live in such an exciting time of progress. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They said the same thing about the rise of scepticism in the 16th century. While scepticism did alter the field of philosophy greatly, it didn't have an overwhelming effect on the general population.
I question how exactly two men getting married interferes with one's ability to go about their life. If you don't like homosexuality, don't be homosexual. Two people of the same sex getting married isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be.
Which part of the Bible gives ANY support to what you just said Fanny? Marriage isnt about sanctity lol. Thats like calling yourself a Muslim and claiming the Koran promotes the drinking of alcohol and the driving of cars.
I dont go to church anymore, because I cant stand the hypocrites. I wont even call myself a Christian, because I refuse to be associated with them. They claim to be Christians, yet they ignore whatever the Bible tells them, and do whatever the hell they like. The Bible has absolutely nothing positive to say about homosexuality at all. It does however, have some very strong things to say about it being EVIL.
Calling yourself a Christian, and then deleting, cutting and pasteing the very book your faith is founded upon is wrong. If you must insist upon identifying with the Christians, at least say "well I kinda follow the whole Christian thing, but I dont take it too literally, and I ignore anything it tells me that I dont like".
As for the U.S. constitution - bleh. The very people that made that legislation would, were the alive today, be opposing it with all their strength.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Keep claiming that people are "taking what they want out of the bible and ignoring what it says." After all, your claims of the "sinful nature of homosexuality" runs against two very very basic edicts of the bible: 1) we are all with sin 2) we are all god's children. Guess who that includes? Those homosexuals. And guess who isn't "any better" than them? You and I. And guess who God still is cool with? You, me, and them there homosexuals. There is no redemption, only belief. That's what Christianity is.
As for the sanctity of marriage... Societies and cultures that aren't even connected to the history of christianity have had marriage within their societies. Heck, China's version of marriage barely involved religion. And tell me, what part of the modern Western version of marriage has to do with Christianity, outside of the priest or pastor?
Despite all of this, you sit here and moan about how people are so apparently "self-serving" about what they want from the bible... Well, yeah, they are. They do things like pass judgement on others, condemn them for what may be trait beyond their control, bolster their pride. They cut out quotes and use it for their own means, but are incapable of understanding the work as a whole. Of course people take what they want out of the bible and ignore the rest, because you're doing it yourself, just like everyone else. After all, you've clearly lost the aspects of fellowship and evangelism from your own brand of Christianity... unless you don't that either has to do with it.
It's language. Language isn't static, it's subjective. Worse, this is a document that has been written by dozens of people in several different languages that has been translated to our own. It doesn't get more subjective than that.
<!--QuoteBegin--The Finch+Nov 21 2003, 09:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Nov 21 2003, 09:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I question how exactly two men getting married interferes with one's ability to go about their life. If you don't like homosexuality, don't be homosexual. Two people of the same sex getting married isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My thoughts excactly. I mean if you think being homosexual is wrong, how does that affect you? It's not your job to save that person from the curse of twisted sexual desires. Just let the God punish the guy in afterlife and mind your own business. Don't try to be second Jesus, because you don't know for sure how to be one.
That's pretty much my ideology. As long as some person doesn't bother me, I don't care what he does and I don't even want to know.
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 19 2003, 01:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 19 2003, 01:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031119/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage&cid=519&ncid=716' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=519&ncid=716</a> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> BOSTON - In the nation's most far-reaching decision of its kind, Massachusetts' highest court declared Tuesday that the state constitution guarantees g@y couples the right to marry — a ruling celebrated with a popping of champagne corks and the planning of spring weddings.
"Without a doubt, this is the happiest day of our lives," said Gloria Bailey, who with her partner of 32 years was among the seven g@y couples who had sued the state in 2001 for refusing to issue them marriage licenses
In its 4-3 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of g@y couples.
Although courts in other states have issued similar rulings, some legal experts said this one goes further in its emphatic language and appears to suggest that g@y couples should be offered nothing less than marriage itself — and not a lesser alternative such as civil unions, which are available in Vermont.
The ruling was another milestone in a year that has seen a significant expansion of g@y rights around the world, including a U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) decision in June striking a Texas ban on g@y sex. Canadian courts also legalized g@y marriage over the summer.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote.
The dissenting justices argued that the court was treading on lawmakers' territory. "Today, the court has transformed its role as protector of rights into the role of creator of rights, and I respectfully dissent," Justice Francis Spina wrote.
The decision prompted complex legal questions about the next step and about when the nation's first g@y marriage licenses will be issued, if ever.
Republican Gov. Mitt Romney denounced the ruling but said there is little the state could do beyond pursuing a constitutional amendment
"I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts," he said. "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution and laws should reflect that."
But the soonest a constitutional amendment could be put on the ballot is 2006, potentially opening a window of a few years in which g@y marriage licenses could be granted.
Vermont's high court issued a similar decision in 1999 but told the Legislature that it could allow g@y couples to marry or create a similar institution that confers all the rights and benefits of marriage. Lawmakers chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions in that state.
The Massachusetts decision makes no mention of such an alternative, and instead points to a recent decision in Canada that changed the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to marriage licenses being issued there.
The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote, adding that denying g@y's the right to marry deprives them "of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."
Still, legal experts pointed out that the wording leaves it unclear whether the court would accept an alternative to marriage.
"It's poorly drafted in that they are going to create all of this controversy about what they meant," said Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA.
The Human Rights Campaign, a national g@y rights organization, said that the Massachusetts decision goes beyond Vermont by saying that it is unconstitutional to bar g@y couples from the institution of marriage, and not just the accompanying benefits — such as hospital visitation and inheritance rights.
Meanwhile, President Bush (news - web sites) criticized Tuesday's ruling and said he would work with Congress to "defend the sanctity of marriage."
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said in a statement released shortly after he arrived in London for a state visit. He said the Massachusetts ruling "violates this important principle."
In Washington, congressional Republicans renewed calls for a constitutional amendment banning g@y marriages.
Bush has said in the past that he supports strengthening the federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. But he has declined to endorse a constitutional amendment banning g@y marriage and his statement Tuesday gave no specifics of how he believes that stronger definition should be accomplished.
"I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he said.
It is unlikely that Congress will be able to act on any legislation this year. Congressional leaders have said they want to recess for the year by Thanksgiving, and House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., is unlikely to hold hearings on the proposed constitutional amendment or other g@y marriage legislation this year.
The federal government and 37 states have adopted laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman — assuring legal battles over whether g@y marriages performed here will be recognized outside the state.
In the 1990s, Hawaii's Supreme Court ruled that a ban on g@y marriage might be unconstitutional, but state lawmakers amended the constitution before same-sex weddings were allowed. Similarly, a trial court in Alaska ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, but the Legislature amended the constitution to ban them.
Without any pressure from a court, California's Legislature passed a law signed by Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) this summer that avoided using the term "marriage" but granted g@y couples who register as domestic partners most of the rights and responsibilities of spouses.
Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who is openly g@y said Tuesday's decision "will enhance the lives of probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Massachusetts citizens, and will have no negative effects on anyone else."
House Speaker Thomas Finneran, a Boston Democrat opposed to g@y marriages, said he would reserve comment on the decision until after reviewing it. Finneran is perhaps the most powerful politician in the state, and he could set the course for the debate.
[edit] if you couldn't tell, **** = ****. i'll change it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't like how they classified the anti g@y marriage people as Republicans. They are conservative not nescessarily all Republicans are conservative though many are. I am a liberal Republican and if you look at the bottom it looks like there is such thing as a conservative Democrat.
<!--QuoteBegin--Lord Fanny-[MacH]+Nov 21 2003, 03:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Lord Fanny-[MacH] @ Nov 21 2003, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Keep claiming that people are "taking what they want out of the bible and ignoring what it says." After all, your claims of the "sinful nature of homosexuality" runs against two very very basic edicts of the bible: 1) we are all with sin 2) we are all god's children. Guess who that includes? Those homosexuals. And guess who isn't "any better" than them? You and I. And guess who God still is cool with? You, me, and them there homosexuals. There is no redemption, only belief. That's what Christianity is.
As for the sanctity of marriage... Societies and cultures that aren't even connected to the history of christianity have had marriage within their societies. Heck, China's version of marriage barely involved religion. And tell me, what part of the modern Western version of marriage has to do with Christianity, outside of the priest or pastor?
Despite all of this, you sit here and moan about how people are so apparently "self-serving" about what they want from the bible... Well, yeah, they are. They do things like pass judgement on others, condemn them for what may be trait beyond their control, bolster their pride. They cut out quotes and use it for their own means, but are incapable of understanding the work as a whole. Of course people take what they want out of the bible and ignore the rest, because you're doing it yourself, just like everyone else. After all, you've clearly lost the aspects of fellowship and evangelism from your own brand of Christianity... unless you don't that either has to do with it.
It's language. Language isn't static, it's subjective. Worse, this is a document that has been written by dozens of people in several different languages that has been translated to our own. It doesn't get more subjective than that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First of all - I'm not a Christian. Even slighty. I dont pray - I havent accepted Jesus Christ as my Saviour, and as such I feel no obligation to love everyone etc, and I feel no obligation to do what almost every other Christian I know would do - just let gross hypocracy sit there.
Marine01 => NOT CHRISTIAN
But having spent 18 years with a bunch of hardcore Baptists, some of it has obviously rubbed off onto me. And the same thing that infuriated me when I got dragged along to church I see rampant here.
Once again people go broad when trying to get the Bible to agree with their own personal beliefs. Basic edicts, the whole "vibe" of the Bible etc
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Those two are part of the Jewish laws categorising Sexual Sin. Jesus himself condemned sexual immorality to a Jewish audience - so either Old or New testament you still have no support.
So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper could be found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and cholsed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of a the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman', for she was taken out of a man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
For this reason a man will leave his father and be united to his "husband"? Not quite. Jesus parrots this in Matthew 19:4-5
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->"Havent you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female', and said, ' for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'.<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Both OT and NT saying the same thing - Homosexuality = bad. Marriage = man + woman.
Fanny you just restated it yourself above - Bible = subjective. i.e. I hereby give myself free license to ignore whatever I dont like. Of course God loves the homosexuals - the same way he loves the murderer's, and the people doing the wrong thing. We're not any better than them - they are people doing the wrong thing just the same as everyone else. And the laws of the land arent there to stop them doing the wrong thing if it only affects them. So I hold nothing against the homosexuals in that regard.
But when you start claiming that you are a Christian and support this and actively encourage it - then the eyebrows are on the rise. Its clearly condemned, its called an abomination. Sure you do the wrong thing, but to actively support people doing the wrong thing is - well, wrong. When you do the wrong thing, you are supposed to confess and try harder not to do it - not rejoice in it. If you continue to do the wrong thing, then obviously you arent sorry at all. All the verses above are NOT taken out of context - and if they are, by all means look up the surrounding passages and show me. I cut out quotes and use it for my own purposes? Of course. The Bible is the foundation of conventional Christianity - what else am I going to quote?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no redemption? Only belief.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you accused me of ignoring the general message of the Bible?
But you're right - its all OT.
And feel free to ignore the post before this - alcohol is bad for you people, and your posts come over a lot harsher after a few drinks. I still believe it, but it wasnt put nicely.
<!--QuoteBegin--CForrester+Nov 21 2003, 11:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Nov 21 2003, 11:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--[DT]StrongBad+Nov 21 2003, 10:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([DT]StrongBad @ Nov 21 2003, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Nov 21 2003, 08:15 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Nov 21 2003, 08:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If it would be unnatural, we wouldn't have those feelings. There wouldn't be any homosexuals in the world -> it's either a huge-a** mutation in the brains or it's natural. Take your pick(or is there a choice c?) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> OK... well i seem to just seeing this forum open afgter a long while and this will my first post here.
Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y and since 2 keys don't fit and 2 keyholes dont work doesnt that tell you something? there is as supposed to be physical unison of 2 people. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago and we wouldnt be here to discuss this now. There is something that changes "naturaly" in persons chemical make up that acounts for homosexuality and it is not a disease just a behavior manuarism that affects certain people there fore it is abnormaility, not NATURAL!!!
Just my 2 cents,
Billy Hives <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're seeing things in black and white. Homosexuality is natural, but so is heterosexuality. And bisexuality. They're all perfectly natural. However, the human race will never be completely homosexual or completely heterosexual because THAT itself is not natural. And homosexuality isn't just limited to humans, either. Other species of animals engage in homosexual activities as well. You have to keep in mind: Sex isn't JUST about procreation. It's also about fun. Sex is meant to be pleasurable and is just another things for animals to enjoy. ("Animals" including humans.)
[Parasite] Love isnt about procreation, neither is marriage in the eyes of the law. The fact that homosexuality occurs at all makes it natural. Is it "OK"...well thats completely relative and your opinion is no better than mine. What dictates that every man and woman is supposed to participate in pro creation? That pattern doesnt occur anywhere else in nature. Only the strongest males mate and only with the most fertile females...nothing to do with love, no emotions involved. That is what ensures pro creation in nature for most species. If that were so for humans only half of us would be having sex at all. Humans are emotional creatures. Love and lust and the bonds that stem from them are emotions. Dont try to rationalize them by reciting darwinian scripture...they cant be explained. Love is an abnormality, and if 2 people actualy find it...who cares where the keys fit.
Immacolata Posted on Nov 21 2003, 08:52 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUOTE ([DT]StrongBad @ Nov 21 2003, 04:32 PM)
Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y and since 2 keys don't fit and 2 keyholes dont work doesnt that tell you something? there is as supposed to be physical unison of 2 people. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago and we wouldnt be here to discuss this now. There is something that changes "naturaly" in persons chemical make up that acounts for homosexuality and it is not a disease just a behavior manuarism that affects certain people there fore it is abnormaility, not NATURAL!!!
Human is a product of nature. If a human can do it, it is natural. By defintion. Ball's back in your half again I am afraid. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> ok....you are talking about animals and humans we can reason and understand while animals cannot they react on instinct so are you sayin we are no better then dogs when it comes to sex? People have sex for variuos reasons and people love things/people for there own reasons just because they belive it to be right doesn't make it so. Then beasteality would be kosher?? Hell bessie's lookin mighty fine......seriuosly though love is not an abnormality it is a "feeling" a reason a thing but it is natural for people to love wether a love for there kid or for there mate animals show no "love" for there own because they are animals they go on insticnt and "example". The mother bird will push the chicks out the nest so that they learn to fend for themselves and become adults in a sense people do this but to a higher degree of emotion we don't simply know when a kid is ready and if a kid is defective we do not kill them and forget the decisions made by humans are filled with alot of feelings. Just because we are a part of nature doesnt mean we are natural with how we live today no one is "real" everyone including myself has relied on other means of life when nature deals you a raw deal....other wise we wouldn't have plastic sergury or artificial insemenation so it is ok for homosexuls to be loved and feel love but plz stop trying to make it sound like it is normal i keep makin the point that it is natural for the "tools" to work you cant fit a bit into the wrong position b/c it just wont work as with homosexuality if was meant to be then 2 men or 2 women should be able to produce a baby with outside insemenation or with surreget mothers so it has to be wrong other wise it wouldnt work.....Again i am ot saying i hate homosexuals or am bashin them but it is what it is i have had this discussion with some of my friends one of whom is g@y and we both clashed in views but this is a topic that will never be resolved to everyones satifaction.. ok I am done.
<!--QuoteBegin--[DT]StrongBad+Nov 21 2003, 06:32 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([DT]StrongBad @ Nov 21 2003, 06:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't that kind of silly? It can be okay without requiring that everyone be that way. I mean, there's no law against people with blue eyes getting married. But if having blue eyes was okay, we should all have blue eyes. Right? No. That makes no sense. Are you making sense? Start making some sense. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--cri.tical+Nov 21 2003, 06:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cri.tical @ Nov 21 2003, 06:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Every step like the one Massachusetts has taken brings us one step closer to the death of God and Christianity. We won't live to see the day, but we will live in such an exciting time of progress. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You know, when you say stuff like that, it just makes it more difficult for the good guys. We can have fairness and tolerance in our legal system without "killing" God and Christianity. IMHO, a real Christian would WELCOME these things instead of fighting tooth and nail - but if you turn the fight for tolerance into a fight against religion (WHICH IT SHOULDN'T BE), well, tolerance has a much tougher time of things than it would otherwise.
<!--QuoteBegin--[DT]StrongBad+Nov 21 2003, 07:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([DT]StrongBad @ Nov 21 2003, 07:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ok....you are talking about animals and humans we can reason and understand while animals cannot they react on instinct so are you sayin we are no better then dogs when it comes to sex?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're assuming that we're smarter than other animals and that all animals are stupid. Yes, they act on instinct, but they also reason and understand. Not as much as humans do obviously, and it's not as apparent because they communicate differently, but they do reason and understand.
I'm not saying that we're "no better" than dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation. It's also for pleasure and expressing love. (Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People have sex for variuos reasons and people love things/people for there own reasons just because they belive it to be right doesn't make it so. Then beasteality would be kosher?? Hell bessie's lookin mighty fine......seriuosly though love is not an abnormality it is a "feeling" a reason a thing but it is natural for people to love wether a love for there kid or for there mate animals show no "love" for there own because they are animals they go on insticnt and "example". The mother bird will push the chicks out the nest so that they learn to fend for themselves and become adults in a sense people do this but to a higher degree of emotion we don't simply know when a kid is ready and if a kid is defective we do not kill them and forget the decisions made by humans are filled with alot of feelings.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Animals love, too. Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you) Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because we are a part of nature doesnt mean we are natural with how we live today no one is "real" everyone including myself has relied on other means of life when nature deals you a raw deal....other wise we wouldn't have plastic sergury or artificial insemenation so it is ok for homosexuls to be loved and feel love but plz stop trying to make it sound like it is normal i keep makin the point that it is natural for the "tools" to work you cant fit a bit into the wrong position b/c it just wont work as with homosexuality if was meant to be then 2 men or 2 women should be able to produce a baby with outside insemenation or with surreget mothers so it has to be wrong other wise it wouldnt work.....Again i am ot saying i hate homosexuals or am bashin them but it is what it is i have had this discussion with some of my friends one of whom is g@y and we both clashed in views but this is a topic that will never be resolved to everyones satifaction..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Homosexuality isn't a choice. You can't say "Okay today, I'm going to be a homosexual" one and then say "Okay today, I'm going to be a heterosexual" the next. Well, you can SAY it, but it's not going to be true. You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love.
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Nov 21 2003, 08:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Nov 21 2003, 08:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--cri.tical+Nov 21 2003, 06:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cri.tical @ Nov 21 2003, 06:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Every step like the one Massachusetts has taken brings us one step closer to the death of God and Christianity. We won't live to see the day, but we will live in such an exciting time of progress. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know, when you say stuff like that, it just makes it more difficult for the good guys. We can have fairness and tolerance in our legal system without "killing" God and Christianity. IMHO, a real Christian would WELCOME these things instead of fighting tooth and nail - but if you turn the fight for tolerance into a fight against religion (WHICH IT SHOULDN'T BE), well, tolerance has a much tougher time of things than it would otherwise. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Define Real Christian.
Someone who treats their beliefs seriously, or dc&ps?
Christians fight tooth and nail because thats what they are instructed to do. Thats what their beliefs tell them. I dont believe the battleground should be in the courts. If courts want to legalise, fine - but when we have people claiming to be Christians and at the same time throwing support behind homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice, then we have problems.
Comments
Generally, from what I've been reading and hearing, most conservatives agree that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. However, most also agree that civil unions are acceptable for all the same reasons that have been posted here. The collective that oppose all of this outright is the Religious Right. They believe homosexuality=bad. The differences between marriages and civil unions are slight but meaningful to religious conservatives. There is a solid history around marriage and they don't want the institution cheapened or tainted by frivality. Of course, the rate of divorce in traditional marriages is doing enough of that already.
Personally, I don't care who gets married. The 2 major arguments against it are religious and financial (in terms of benefits). I am not religious so.. that's that. As far as benifits go, I don't believe the impact will be all that great. As far as I'm concerned, if 2 people profess to spend the rest of their lives together, they should receive the same support that traditional marriages have for years.
Marriage is about committing to someone for the rest of your life. It's about cultivating a very close bond with your partner because it's a human need. It promotes and eventually creates your own family. I think that transcends something as minor as sexual orientation.
Marriage is about committing to someone for the rest of your life. It's about cultivating a very close bond with your partner because it's a human need. It promotes and eventually creates your own family. I think that transcends something as minor as sexual orientation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ROFL.
Which part of the Bible gives ANY support to what you just said Fanny? Marriage isnt about sanctity lol. Thats like calling yourself a Muslim and claiming the Koran promotes the drinking of alcohol and the driving of cars.
I dont go to church anymore, because I cant stand the hypocrites. I wont even call myself a Christian, because I refuse to be associated with them. They claim to be Christians, yet they ignore whatever the Bible tells them, and do whatever the hell they like. The Bible has absolutely nothing positive to say about homosexuality at all. It does however, have some very strong things to say about it being EVIL.
Calling yourself a Christian, and then deleting, cutting and pasteing the very book your faith is founded upon is wrong. If you must insist upon identifying with the Christians, at least say "well I kinda follow the whole Christian thing, but I dont take it too literally, and I ignore anything it tells me that I dont like".
As for the U.S. constitution - bleh. The very people that made that legislation would, were the alive today, be opposing it with all their strength.
As for the signers of the constitution. I seriously doubt it. The only opposition to homosexuality in any respect is from a religious standpoint, and most of the founding fathers were not religious.
Did you have an opinion of your own? I mean **** marriage of course, but feel free to go off on another long winded, off topic rant if you must.
Marriage is defined as
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
This, however, was a definition of it before openly **** marriages happened. And a marriage, something very sacred to many peole can't be turned away from someone for being ****.
Nope (though eventually I think the federal government decide on a clear definition of a civil union, be it called marriage or something else, for tax, health and financial reasons)
Also, no church need marry a **** couple if they feel it goes against thier ideology.
Maybe Marine01 would be so kind to go ahead and find all instances and mentions of the word and concept of marriage in his Bible version, so we could discuss with some actual knowledge about the subject.
He claims to be very devout... he is so angry, I can't help but think maybe he isn't quite walking the "straight and narrow" path.
/stab <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
/stab <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I question these "statistics".
OK... well i seem to just seeing this forum open afgter a long while and this will my first post here.
Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y and since 2 keys don't fit and 2 keyholes dont work doesnt that tell you something? there is as supposed to be physical unison of 2 people. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago and we wouldnt be here to discuss this now. There is something that changes "naturaly" in persons chemical make up that acounts for homosexuality and it is not a disease just a behavior manuarism that affects certain people there fore it is abnormaility, not NATURAL!!!
Just my 2 cents,
Billy Hives
Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y and since 2 keys don't fit and 2 keyholes dont work doesnt that tell you something? there is as supposed to be physical unison of 2 people. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago and we wouldnt be here to discuss this now. There is something that changes "naturaly" in persons chemical make up that acounts for homosexuality and it is not a disease just a behavior manuarism that affects certain people there fore it is abnormaility, not NATURAL!!!
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Human is a product of nature. If a human can do it, it is natural. By defintion. Ball's back in your half again I am afraid.
I never claimed to be perfect.
I merely said what I said because I don't think anybody should fall for his ridiculous little lies about his religion.
Every step like the one Massachusetts has taken brings us one step closer to the death of God and Christianity. We won't live to see the day, but we will live in such an exciting time of progress. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
OK... well i seem to just seeing this forum open afgter a long while and this will my first post here.
Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y and since 2 keys don't fit and 2 keyholes dont work doesnt that tell you something? there is as supposed to be physical unison of 2 people. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago and we wouldnt be here to discuss this now. There is something that changes "naturaly" in persons chemical make up that acounts for homosexuality and it is not a disease just a behavior manuarism that affects certain people there fore it is abnormaility, not NATURAL!!!
Just my 2 cents,
Billy Hives <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Love isnt about procreation, neither is marriage in the eyes of the law.
The fact that homosexuality occurs at all makes it natural. Is it "OK"...well thats completely relative and your opinion is no better than mine. What dictates that every man and woman is supposed to participate in pro creation? That pattern doesnt occur anywhere else in nature. Only the strongest males mate and only with the most fertile females...nothing to do with love, no emotions involved. That is what ensures pro creation in nature for most species. If that were so for humans only half of us would be having sex at all. Humans are emotional creatures. Love and lust and the bonds that stem from them are emotions. Dont try to rationalize them by reciting darwinian scripture...they cant be explained. Love is an abnormality, and if 2 people actualy find it...who cares where the keys fit.
/stab <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I question these "statistics". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I think I saw it in some document on tv and it seems quite reasonable actually. I'm not going to ask people because I'm not sure if the maturity level is high enough <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> but what I've gathered, it's pretty common for people to question their sexuality and so forth. The crap your biology teacher/nurse talks at school...it's prolly true.
It's just something that is not widely discussed about.
OK... well i seem to just seeing this forum open afgter a long while and this will my first post here.
Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y and since 2 keys don't fit and 2 keyholes dont work doesnt that tell you something? there is as supposed to be physical unison of 2 people. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago and we wouldnt be here to discuss this now. There is something that changes "naturaly" in persons chemical make up that acounts for homosexuality and it is not a disease just a behavior manuarism that affects certain people there fore it is abnormaility, not NATURAL!!!
Just my 2 cents,
Billy Hives <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're seeing things in black and white. Homosexuality is natural, but so is heterosexuality. And bisexuality. They're all perfectly natural. However, the human race will never be completely homosexual or completely heterosexual because THAT itself is not natural. And homosexuality isn't just limited to humans, either. Other species of animals engage in homosexual activities as well. You have to keep in mind: Sex isn't JUST about procreation. It's also about fun. Sex is meant to be pleasurable and is just another things for animals to enjoy. ("Animals" including humans.)
They said the same thing about the rise of scepticism in the 16th century. While scepticism did alter the field of philosophy greatly, it didn't have an overwhelming effect on the general population.
I question how exactly two men getting married interferes with one's ability to go about their life. If you don't like homosexuality, don't be homosexual. Two people of the same sex getting married isn't as big of a deal as people make it out to be.
Which part of the Bible gives ANY support to what you just said Fanny? Marriage isnt about sanctity lol. Thats like calling yourself a Muslim and claiming the Koran promotes the drinking of alcohol and the driving of cars.
I dont go to church anymore, because I cant stand the hypocrites. I wont even call myself a Christian, because I refuse to be associated with them. They claim to be Christians, yet they ignore whatever the Bible tells them, and do whatever the hell they like. The Bible has absolutely nothing positive to say about homosexuality at all. It does however, have some very strong things to say about it being EVIL.
Calling yourself a Christian, and then deleting, cutting and pasteing the very book your faith is founded upon is wrong. If you must insist upon identifying with the Christians, at least say "well I kinda follow the whole Christian thing, but I dont take it too literally, and I ignore anything it tells me that I dont like".
As for the U.S. constitution - bleh. The very people that made that legislation would, were the alive today, be opposing it with all their strength.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keep claiming that people are "taking what they want out of the bible and ignoring what it says." After all, your claims of the "sinful nature of homosexuality" runs against two very very basic edicts of the bible: 1) we are all with sin 2) we are all god's children. Guess who that includes? Those homosexuals. And guess who isn't "any better" than them? You and I. And guess who God still is cool with? You, me, and them there homosexuals. There is no redemption, only belief. That's what Christianity is.
As for the sanctity of marriage... Societies and cultures that aren't even connected to the history of christianity have had marriage within their societies. Heck, China's version of marriage barely involved religion. And tell me, what part of the modern Western version of marriage has to do with Christianity, outside of the priest or pastor?
Despite all of this, you sit here and moan about how people are so apparently "self-serving" about what they want from the bible... Well, yeah, they are. They do things like pass judgement on others, condemn them for what may be trait beyond their control, bolster their pride. They cut out quotes and use it for their own means, but are incapable of understanding the work as a whole. Of course people take what they want out of the bible and ignore the rest, because you're doing it yourself, just like everyone else. After all, you've clearly lost the aspects of fellowship and evangelism from your own brand of Christianity... unless you don't that either has to do with it.
It's language. Language isn't static, it's subjective. Worse, this is a document that has been written by dozens of people in several different languages that has been translated to our own. It doesn't get more subjective than that.
My thoughts excactly. I mean if you think being homosexual is wrong, how does that affect you? It's not your job to save that person from the curse of twisted sexual desires. Just let the God punish the guy in afterlife and mind your own business. Don't try to be second Jesus, because you don't know for sure how to be one.
That's pretty much my ideology. As long as some person doesn't bother me, I don't care what he does and I don't even want to know.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
BOSTON - In the nation's most far-reaching decision of its kind, Massachusetts' highest court declared Tuesday that the state constitution guarantees g@y couples the right to marry — a ruling celebrated with a popping of champagne corks and the planning of spring weddings.
"Without a doubt, this is the happiest day of our lives," said Gloria Bailey, who with her partner of 32 years was among the seven g@y couples who had sued the state in 2001 for refusing to issue them marriage licenses
In its 4-3 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court gave the Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of g@y couples.
Although courts in other states have issued similar rulings, some legal experts said this one goes further in its emphatic language and appears to suggest that g@y couples should be offered nothing less than marriage itself — and not a lesser alternative such as civil unions, which are available in Vermont.
The ruling was another milestone in a year that has seen a significant expansion of g@y rights around the world, including a U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) decision in June striking a Texas ban on g@y sex. Canadian courts also legalized g@y marriage over the summer.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote.
The dissenting justices argued that the court was treading on lawmakers' territory. "Today, the court has transformed its role as protector of rights into the role of creator of rights, and I respectfully dissent," Justice Francis Spina wrote.
The decision prompted complex legal questions about the next step and about when the nation's first g@y marriage licenses will be issued, if ever.
Republican Gov. Mitt Romney denounced the ruling but said there is little the state could do beyond pursuing a constitutional amendment
"I agree with 3,000 years of recorded history. I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts," he said. "Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman ... and our constitution and laws should reflect that."
But the soonest a constitutional amendment could be put on the ballot is 2006, potentially opening a window of a few years in which g@y marriage licenses could be granted.
Vermont's high court issued a similar decision in 1999 but told the Legislature that it could allow g@y couples to marry or create a similar institution that confers all the rights and benefits of marriage. Lawmakers chose the second route, leading to the approval of civil unions in that state.
The Massachusetts decision makes no mention of such an alternative, and instead points to a recent decision in Canada that changed the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex couples and led to marriage licenses being issued there.
The state "has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples," the court wrote, adding that denying g@y's the right to marry deprives them "of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions."
Still, legal experts pointed out that the wording leaves it unclear whether the court would accept an alternative to marriage.
"It's poorly drafted in that they are going to create all of this controversy about what they meant," said Paul Martinek, editor of Lawyers Weekly USA.
The Human Rights Campaign, a national g@y rights organization, said that the Massachusetts decision goes beyond Vermont by saying that it is unconstitutional to bar g@y couples from the institution of marriage, and not just the accompanying benefits — such as hospital visitation and inheritance rights.
Meanwhile, President Bush (news - web sites) criticized Tuesday's ruling and said he would work with Congress to "defend the sanctity of marriage."
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said in a statement released shortly after he arrived in London for a state visit. He said the Massachusetts ruling "violates this important principle."
In Washington, congressional Republicans renewed calls for a constitutional amendment banning g@y marriages.
Bush has said in the past that he supports strengthening the federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. But he has declined to endorse a constitutional amendment banning g@y marriage and his statement Tuesday gave no specifics of how he believes that stronger definition should be accomplished.
"I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he said.
It is unlikely that Congress will be able to act on any legislation this year. Congressional leaders have said they want to recess for the year by Thanksgiving, and House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., is unlikely to hold hearings on the proposed constitutional amendment or other g@y marriage legislation this year.
The federal government and 37 states have adopted laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman — assuring legal battles over whether g@y marriages performed here will be recognized outside the state.
In the 1990s, Hawaii's Supreme Court ruled that a ban on g@y marriage might be unconstitutional, but state lawmakers amended the constitution before same-sex weddings were allowed. Similarly, a trial court in Alaska ruled in favor of same-sex marriages, but the Legislature amended the constitution to ban them.
Without any pressure from a court, California's Legislature passed a law signed by Gov. Gray Davis (news - web sites) this summer that avoided using the term "marriage" but granted g@y couples who register as domestic partners most of the rights and responsibilities of spouses.
Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, who is openly g@y said Tuesday's decision "will enhance the lives of probably thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Massachusetts citizens, and will have no negative effects on anyone else."
House Speaker Thomas Finneran, a Boston Democrat opposed to g@y marriages, said he would reserve comment on the decision until after reviewing it. Finneran is perhaps the most powerful politician in the state, and he could set the course for the debate.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Discuss.
[edit] if you couldn't tell, **** = ****. i'll change it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't like how they classified the anti g@y marriage people as Republicans. They are conservative not nescessarily all Republicans are conservative though many are. I am a liberal Republican and if you look at the bottom it looks like there is such thing as a conservative Democrat.
As for the sanctity of marriage... Societies and cultures that aren't even connected to the history of christianity have had marriage within their societies. Heck, China's version of marriage barely involved religion. And tell me, what part of the modern Western version of marriage has to do with Christianity, outside of the priest or pastor?
Despite all of this, you sit here and moan about how people are so apparently "self-serving" about what they want from the bible... Well, yeah, they are. They do things like pass judgement on others, condemn them for what may be trait beyond their control, bolster their pride. They cut out quotes and use it for their own means, but are incapable of understanding the work as a whole. Of course people take what they want out of the bible and ignore the rest, because you're doing it yourself, just like everyone else. After all, you've clearly lost the aspects of fellowship and evangelism from your own brand of Christianity... unless you don't that either has to do with it.
It's language. Language isn't static, it's subjective. Worse, this is a document that has been written by dozens of people in several different languages that has been translated to our own. It doesn't get more subjective than that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all - I'm not a Christian. Even slighty. I dont pray - I havent accepted Jesus Christ as my Saviour, and as such I feel no obligation to love everyone etc, and I feel no obligation to do what almost every other Christian I know would do - just let gross hypocracy sit there.
Marine01 => NOT CHRISTIAN
But having spent 18 years with a bunch of hardcore Baptists, some of it has obviously rubbed off onto me. And the same thing that infuriated me when I got dragged along to church I see rampant here.
Once again people go broad when trying to get the Bible to agree with their own personal beliefs. Basic edicts, the whole "vibe" of the Bible etc
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->Leviticus 18:20
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Those two are part of the Jewish laws categorising Sexual Sin. Jesus himself condemned sexual immorality to a Jewish audience - so either Old or New testament you still have no support.
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->Genesis 1:20 - 24
So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper could be found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and cholsed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of a the man, and he brought her to the man.
The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman', for she was taken out of a man."
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
For this reason a man will leave his father and be united to his "husband"? Not quite. Jesus parrots this in Matthew 19:4-5
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->"Havent you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female', and said, ' for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'.<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Both OT and NT saying the same thing - Homosexuality = bad. Marriage = man + woman.
Fanny you just restated it yourself above - Bible = subjective. i.e. I hereby give myself free license to ignore whatever I dont like. Of course God loves the homosexuals - the same way he loves the murderer's, and the people doing the wrong thing. We're not any better than them - they are people doing the wrong thing just the same as everyone else. And the laws of the land arent there to stop them doing the wrong thing if it only affects them. So I hold nothing against the homosexuals in that regard.
But when you start claiming that you are a Christian and support this and actively encourage it - then the eyebrows are on the rise. Its clearly condemned, its called an abomination. Sure you do the wrong thing, but to actively support people doing the wrong thing is - well, wrong. When you do the wrong thing, you are supposed to confess and try harder not to do it - not rejoice in it. If you continue to do the wrong thing, then obviously you arent sorry at all. All the verses above are NOT taken out of context - and if they are, by all means look up the surrounding passages and show me. I cut out quotes and use it for my own purposes? Of course. The Bible is the foundation of conventional Christianity - what else am I going to quote?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no redemption? Only belief.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you accused me of ignoring the general message of the Bible?
But you're right - its all OT.
And feel free to ignore the post before this - alcohol is bad for you people, and your posts come over a lot harsher after a few drinks. I still believe it, but it wasnt put nicely.
OK... well i seem to just seeing this forum open afgter a long while and this will my first post here.
Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y and since 2 keys don't fit and 2 keyholes dont work doesnt that tell you something? there is as supposed to be physical unison of 2 people. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago and we wouldnt be here to discuss this now. There is something that changes "naturaly" in persons chemical make up that acounts for homosexuality and it is not a disease just a behavior manuarism that affects certain people there fore it is abnormaility, not NATURAL!!!
Just my 2 cents,
Billy Hives <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're seeing things in black and white. Homosexuality is natural, but so is heterosexuality. And bisexuality. They're all perfectly natural. However, the human race will never be completely homosexual or completely heterosexual because THAT itself is not natural. And homosexuality isn't just limited to humans, either. Other species of animals engage in homosexual activities as well. You have to keep in mind: Sex isn't JUST about procreation. It's also about fun. Sex is meant to be pleasurable and is just another things for animals to enjoy. ("Animals" including humans.)
[Parasite]
Love isnt about procreation, neither is marriage in the eyes of the law.
The fact that homosexuality occurs at all makes it natural. Is it "OK"...well thats completely relative and your opinion is no better than mine. What dictates that every man and woman is supposed to participate in pro creation? That pattern doesnt occur anywhere else in nature. Only the strongest males mate and only with the most fertile females...nothing to do with love, no emotions involved. That is what ensures pro creation in nature for most species. If that were so for humans only half of us would be having sex at all. Humans are emotional creatures. Love and lust and the bonds that stem from them are emotions. Dont try to rationalize them by reciting darwinian scripture...they cant be explained. Love is an abnormality, and if 2 people actualy find it...who cares where the keys fit.
Immacolata Posted on Nov 21 2003, 08:52 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE ([DT]StrongBad @ Nov 21 2003, 04:32 PM)
Ok well i have absolutly no problem with homosexuals and what they do however i do have a problem with people always trying to make it seem natural or ok. If homosexuality is natural then every one should be g@y and since 2 keys don't fit and 2 keyholes dont work doesnt that tell you something? there is as supposed to be physical unison of 2 people. Otherwise the human race would have died out long ago and we wouldnt be here to discuss this now. There is something that changes "naturaly" in persons chemical make up that acounts for homosexuality and it is not a disease just a behavior manuarism that affects certain people there fore it is abnormaility, not NATURAL!!!
Human is a product of nature. If a human can do it, it is natural. By defintion. Ball's back in your half again I am afraid. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
ok....you are talking about animals and humans we can reason and understand while animals cannot they react on instinct so are you sayin we are no better then dogs when it comes to sex? People have sex for variuos reasons and people love things/people for there own reasons just because they belive it to be right doesn't make it so. Then beasteality would be kosher?? Hell bessie's lookin mighty fine......seriuosly though love is not an abnormality it is a "feeling" a reason a thing but it is natural for people to love wether a love for there kid or for there mate animals show no "love" for there own because they are animals they go on insticnt and "example". The mother bird will push the chicks out the nest so that they learn to fend for themselves and become adults in a sense people do this but to a higher degree of emotion we don't simply know when a kid is ready and if a kid is defective we do not kill them and forget the decisions made by humans are filled with alot of feelings.
Just because we are a part of nature doesnt mean we are natural with how we live today no one is "real" everyone including myself has relied on other means of life when nature deals you a raw deal....other wise we wouldn't have plastic sergury or artificial insemenation so it is ok for homosexuls to be loved and feel love but plz stop trying to make it sound like it is normal i keep makin the point that it is natural for the "tools" to work you cant fit a bit into the wrong position b/c it just wont work as with homosexuality if was meant to be then 2 men or 2 women should be able to produce a baby with outside insemenation or with surreget mothers so it has to be wrong other wise it wouldnt work.....Again i am ot saying i hate homosexuals or am bashin them but it is what it is i have had this discussion with some of my friends one of whom is g@y and we both clashed in views but this is a topic that will never be resolved to everyones satifaction..
ok I am done.
Billy Hives
Isn't that kind of silly? It can be okay without requiring that everyone be that way. I mean, there's no law against people with blue eyes getting married. But if having blue eyes was okay, we should all have blue eyes. Right? No. That makes no sense. Are you making sense? Start making some sense. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
You know, when you say stuff like that, it just makes it more difficult for the good guys. We can have fairness and tolerance in our legal system without "killing" God and Christianity. IMHO, a real Christian would WELCOME these things instead of fighting tooth and nail - but if you turn the fight for tolerance into a fight against religion (WHICH IT SHOULDN'T BE), well, tolerance has a much tougher time of things than it would otherwise.
You're assuming that we're smarter than other animals and that all animals are stupid. Yes, they act on instinct, but they also reason and understand. Not as much as humans do obviously, and it's not as apparent because they communicate differently, but they do reason and understand.
I'm not saying that we're "no better" than dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation. It's also for pleasure and expressing love. (Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People have sex for variuos reasons and people love things/people for there own reasons just because they belive it to be right doesn't make it so. Then beasteality would be kosher?? Hell bessie's lookin mighty fine......seriuosly though love is not an abnormality it is a "feeling" a reason a thing but it is natural for people to love wether a love for there kid or for there mate animals show no "love" for there own because they are animals they go on insticnt and "example". The mother bird will push the chicks out the nest so that they learn to fend for themselves and become adults in a sense people do this but to a higher degree of emotion we don't simply know when a kid is ready and if a kid is defective we do not kill them and forget the decisions made by humans are filled with alot of feelings.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Animals love, too. Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you) Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just because we are a part of nature doesnt mean we are natural with how we live today no one is "real" everyone including myself has relied on other means of life when nature deals you a raw deal....other wise we wouldn't have plastic sergury or artificial insemenation so it is ok for homosexuls to be loved and feel love but plz stop trying to make it sound like it is normal i keep makin the point that it is natural for the "tools" to work you cant fit a bit into the wrong position b/c it just wont work as with homosexuality if was meant to be then 2 men or 2 women should be able to produce a baby with outside insemenation or with surreget mothers so it has to be wrong other wise it wouldnt work.....Again i am ot saying i hate homosexuals or am bashin them but it is what it is i have had this discussion with some of my friends one of whom is g@y and we both clashed in views but this is a topic that will never be resolved to everyones satifaction..<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Homosexuality isn't a choice. You can't say "Okay today, I'm going to be a homosexual" one and then say "Okay today, I'm going to be a heterosexual" the next. Well, you can SAY it, but it's not going to be true. You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love.
You know, when you say stuff like that, it just makes it more difficult for the good guys. We can have fairness and tolerance in our legal system without "killing" God and Christianity. IMHO, a real Christian would WELCOME these things instead of fighting tooth and nail - but if you turn the fight for tolerance into a fight against religion (WHICH IT SHOULDN'T BE), well, tolerance has a much tougher time of things than it would otherwise. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Define Real Christian.
Someone who treats their beliefs seriously, or dc&ps?
Christians fight tooth and nail because thats what they are instructed to do. Thats what their beliefs tell them. I dont believe the battleground should be in the courts. If courts want to legalise, fine - but when we have people claiming to be Christians and at the same time throwing support behind homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice, then we have problems.