The looming war over gay marriage

[☭proletarian☭]

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.
Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.
If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.

Gay marriage goes way back - LiveScience- msnbc.com

That's a kitten's age compared to evidence of a male on male union as found in Samuel. Believe that was a few thousand years ago.

I forgot about David and Jonothan.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.
Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.
If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.

Gay marriage goes way back - LiveScience- msnbc.com

That's a kitten's age compared to evidence of a male on male union as found in Samuel. Believe that was a few thousand years ago.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CurveLight again.

 

[CurveLight]

Gay marriage goes way back - LiveScience- msnbc.com

That's a kitten's age compared to evidence of a male on male union as found in Samuel. Believe that was a few thousand years ago.

I forgot about David and Jonothan.

Imao it is easily one of the most hilarious debates to have with homophobes. Especially when they try to say it was strictly platonic and they were just very close. So I usually ask if they can remember the last time they showed devotion to their best same sex friend by getting naked in a field and kissing. It's ******* Lewis Black comedy!

 

[Big Fitz]

And throughout most of history, people have not had the rights enshrined in the Constitution. Heck, most people in the United States did not have the rights in the Constitution throughout most of our history. There are so many things that humanity has done throughout history that has been wrong, so relying on history is a nonstarter.

The past does not give your position on the subject credibility.

So why were you trying a bogus appeal to tradition then?

I'll have to deal with this when I have more time. Suffice it to say,

 

[CurveLight]

The past does not give your position on the subject credibility.

So why were you trying a bogus appeal to tradition then?

I'll have to deal with this when I have more time. Suffice it to say,

The average life of an american is 78 years. Time is not a luxury under your umbrella.

 

[JD_2B]

So, based on your arguement: people should not be denied the right to marry their parent or close relative, or animal of their choosing?
That small portion of the population has the right to marry, they have just chosen to marry people that they are forbidden (lawfully) to marry. There is a big difference. That is an additional "right", not equal "right".

I'm so sick of this braindead bestiality comparison. Can it be determined if an animal consents to a marriage? No, so it'll never happen.

So you give bad rep when you don't have a good arguement, nice.
Homosexuals are not being compared to those that want besiality legalized. It is a demonstration, once you open the door to 'please' a small group of individuals, that obviously has no long term benefit for society, every other group, no matter what their agenda (those that want to marry animals or motorcycles included), will use the same arguements to be 'pleased' also.

The old "slippery slope" rhetoric.. Much akin to the arguments that people used regarding desegregation, or ending slavery. These same arguments have also been used in regards to cohabitation, when it was with people of the opposite sex, or when one or both of the people cohabitating were still married at the time.
Prior to this, people who were even divorced, and dating, were considered the "taboo" and the slippery slope arguments came to call.
Why do slippery slope arguers always resort to such inane comparisons, though?
With animal marriage, anyways- Humans are animals, too. Penguins are monogomous.. Even moreso than Humans are. Penguins find a mate, and stay with them for life. Humans have a seven year interest cycle, which is why we came up with the term "the seven year itch".

Also, marriage does not equal procreation, which is a generally socially acceptable means of living one's life. Since cohabitation is also a generally socially accepted way of living, and single parenting, or foster or familial, or adoptive parenting is accepted as well- then I truly do not understand why gay marriage is still taboo in the slightest.

Instead of calling names and repeating yourself, please start listing all the great things that will happen when homosexuals are allowed to marry. Demonstrate how this idea will be beneficial to our children (generaly speaking) over the long term. Will it give our communities more integrity? More stability? Less crime? Less drug or alcohol use?

Why should it do any of those things? We do not exactly consider it to be socially taboo towards an individual, just because their community is lacking in integrity. Most communities ARE lacking in integrity, also, when you consider the amount of premarital sex that occurs, the people who lie, and are unaccountable for their actions. How are these issues more homosexual than they are heterosexual, though? Could it be that it might actually put more pressure on straight, single, never married men, to man up a bit and actually pop the question? Is that what you are truly scared of?
And yes it would benefit the community, very much. 1- it would definitely increase the pressure on single hetero males to actually conform to society's historically regarded moral compass, and get married. 2- It would increase stability by giving people who would otherwise not be in a contracted agreement, someone else to whom they must hold themselves accountable. Since all legal contracts are voluntarily binding, then yes that would increase stability, overall- not just with gays, but with straights, also.

I have called no names, I have pointed out that there are very NEGATIVE affects of homosexual marriage on society. Can you show me a 'virtual' homosexual community that is everything a society wants? Can you demonstrate where families will want married homosexuals to move to theirr communities in any large numbers?

Homosexuals are not "in large numbers", in the first place. They account for only about 10% of the population, so your argument is moot.
Also, nudist societies and neighborhoods exist, but they are not against the law.

Who cares whether two people who live together are gay, married and having sex, or straight and platonic roommates??? Why is that such an issue here, anyways?

When did Marriage become the "M" word, anyways?

 

[Father Time]

"would definitely increase the pressure on single hetero males to actually conform to society's historically regarded moral compass, and get married."

**** You, you hypocrite.

So apparently when someone cites social standards for why people shouldn't be gay that's bad but apparently it's OK, nay good to use the same stupid appeal to bandwagon (and appeal to tradition) 'social standards' nonsense to pressure a man to get married? What exactly is so moral about getting married, anyway? It's not even a guarantee you love someone.

 

[Toro]

Homosexuals are not "in large numbers", in the first place. They account for only about 10% of the population, so your argument is moot.

Actually, its about 3%.

And society is going to collapse if 3% of the population is given the same rights as everyone else.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

 

[CurveLight]

In response to the demand for facts there is a new op available requesting a response to some specific facts.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...dvocates-address-these-facts.html#post1858934

 

[CurveLight]

Homosexuals are not "in large numbers", in the first place. They account for only about 10% of the population, so your argument is moot.

Actually, its about 3%.

And society is going to collapse if 3% of the population is given the same rights as everyone else.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I'd say once bi-sexuality and honesty are factored in the percentage is a lot higher. I'd say it's one of the dumbest ******* polls ever created. Asking people (even anonymously) to admit to being guilty of one of the worst social stigmas is pretty much a racket designed to bolster an argument absent of evidence.

 

[Father Time]

Homosexuals are not "in large numbers", in the first place. They account for only about 10% of the population, so your argument is moot.

Actually, its about 3%.

And society is going to collapse if 3% of the population is given the same rights as everyone else.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I'd say once bi-sexuality and honesty are factored in the percentage is a lot higher. I'd say it's one of the dumbest ******* polls ever created. Asking people (even anonymously) to admit to being guilty of one of the worst social stigmas is pretty much a racket designed to bolster an argument absent of evidence.

It could be worse, it could be one of those 'do you take an illegal drug' polls.

 

[CurveLight]

Actually, its about 3%.

And society is going to collapse if 3% of the population is given the same rights as everyone else.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

I'd say once bi-sexuality and honesty are factored in the percentage is a lot higher. I'd say it's one of the dumbest ******* polls ever created. Asking people (even anonymously) to admit to being guilty of one of the worst social stigmas is pretty much a racket designed to bolster an argument absent of evidence.

It could be worse, it could be one of those 'do you take an illegal drug' polls.

That could produce inflated percentages based on the demographics.

 

[JD_2B]

I'd say once bi-sexuality and honesty are factored in the percentage is a lot higher. I'd say it's one of the dumbest ******* polls ever created. Asking people (even anonymously) to admit to being guilty of one of the worst social stigmas is pretty much a racket designed to bolster an argument absent of evidence.

It could be worse, it could be one of those 'do you take an illegal drug' polls.

That could produce inflated percentages based on the demographics.

I guess, so could the poll on homosexuality, as well, then.. based on the demographics, as well as any number of other sociological issues.

See, the thing is- most people are not entirely straight, in the first place. Most people are willing to do things with or are attracted to their own sex, as well, maybe not as much as they are to the opposite sex, but it is there.
A more straight than gay guy would probably not want to watch male on male gay porn, but let's say he watches more porn where there is one woman servicing one, or several nude men- then that indicates that he enjoys looking at, or is not disturbed sexually, at least, by looking at nude men, when he is horney. In fact, men who watch male on female porn have faster moving sperm than men who watch female on female porn. BUT you take a man that is homophobic, who refuses to watch a naked man having sex, then that man can say he is straight as an arrow, but really he just has issues with competition, and probably feels far more insecure with himself than a man who is okay with it.
Then you have men who play contact sports with other men, and shower together, in the locker room, etc. These same men may not be open to nude showering with a man in a private shower, at least under normal circumstances, and would tell us that men who shower together are gay, etc.. but these same men also snap each other's tushies with wet towels, and slap each other on the butt when they score.
Again, that does not make someone gay, but one cannot discount that there is a certain bisexual comfort that both men and women share with their own sex, and this can easily be counted as "gay", even though that is usually done by someone who is homophobic and insecure.
Sometimes, a man or a woman who has experimented with a same sex partner is called gay, whether or not they enjoyed that encounter. They may call themselves bisexual, even if they did not enjoy that sexual experience.
So anyways, there is a lot more to it all, than just polls and what people SAY is true. Often times, people are not entirely honest with themselves, and go along with what the popular opinion of "homosexuality" or "bisexuality" actually entails. =)

 

[JD_2B]

"would definitely increase the pressure on single hetero males to actually conform to society's historically regarded moral compass, and get married."

**** You, you hypocrite.

So apparently when someone cites social standards for why people shouldn't be gay that's bad but apparently it's OK, nay good to use the same stupid appeal to bandwagon (and appeal to tradition) 'social standards' nonsense to pressure a man to get married? What exactly is so moral about getting married, anyway? It's not even a guarantee you love someone.

Love does not matter, nor is it the issue here. The issue here is that people are using social taboos as a means of prohibiting gay marriage, and asking what good can come of a community by allowing it.

Having sex with someone is not a guarantee that you love them. It DOES happen, very frequently, between people who are not married, or who don't even know the partner's last name, or real age, even. If THAT is not going to be considered taboo, or something that should be considered as equally as gay marriage to how it affects communities, then the issue of love is exactly MOOT.

GAYS want to marry FOR love. Actually, in cases of marriage, it could easily be estimated that in almost all marriages that are straight, the people chose do do it, FOR love. In some (a few) straight marriages, they do it as a result of premarital sex that led to pregnancy, or there is sometimes an act of coercion. Those marriages that are coerced are not voluntary contracted obligations, and are generally able to be anulled. Some states do not annul their own state's marriages anymore, but that is neither here nor there, anyways. In GAY marriages, the prospect of one of the partners having to marry the other as a result of an untimely pregnancy is entirely null, and the idea of it being coerced is just as likely (unlikely, really) as in a straight marriage, which means that out of gay marriages, the probability that the incidence in which it happens due to two people being in a loving relationship, is automatically higher than in a heterosexual marriage.

Getting married is a STAGE of giving someone your full and uncompromising fidelity and dedication. It is neither the first stage nor the final one.

To claim that gay marriage being legalized would NOT affect the single straight men in this country to choose to marry as well, is preposterous. To claim that just because gays marry, or anyone marries, does not mean that they are in love, is a statistical nightmare of errors, as well.

Let me appeal to your emotional side, since I believe that is where you are coming up with the "love" argument..

How many people do you know that are married?

How many did it for love?

How many did it and did not love each other?

AND how many happily married men would not have done it, had their wives (you have to ask the wives privately this question) not given them an ultimatum of sorts, or some kind of push?

Let me tell you something- Men get cold feet far more often than women do. That means that women who marry, OFTEN have to put their foot down, and say "Look- I love you, but I can't do this dating thing forever. I would like to at least be engaged to you by (the end of the year.. the 4th of July.. give a time frame). I am sorry, darling, but if you don't do this, it will break my heart so much, and make me feel like you don't love me as much as I love you. Still, After this time comes, if there is no offer for marriage, I believe I will have to move on with my life, unfortunately that would be without you in it. I would hate for that to happen, my love."
When that is said, that kinda lights the fire under the guy's ass that if she doesn't get her ring, then he will lose her. Of course, the guy loves her, and doesn't want to lose her. He might not care so much about getting married, but he will do it, because he loves her. If, on the way to the courthouse, to get the marriage license, he gets cold feet again- she simply will say (even if she never had to give an ultimatum to begin with) "I thought you loved me. I thought that is why we were agreeing to marry. You and I are going to this courthouse, NOW, and we are applying for a license to marry, because we love each other. Now, let's get on with it, before I change MY mind about YOU, too, sweetie. This is NOT something we are going to want to fight about, for years to come. We have to do this. I need this, and to keep me around, you need this too." Poof.. Signing the forms.

Women who marry do not need to coerce a man into marrying her. Giving an ultimatum is something that sometimes needs to happen. "Do this or lose me" is OK to say. It is called self respect, and men should never feel like they are being disrespected for being given a choice.

 

[Father Time]

I was not mentioning gay marraige I was just saying pressure to conform to societal standard of marraige is not a positive, it's neutral at best.
oh and marry me or lose me is not a choice so much as it is a threat.

 

[jeffrockit]

No JW.. the legal aspect is about the economics...

I have no issue with anyone having a 'civil union' whether they are gay or straight. I have an issue with 'marriage'. To Catholic (me!!), marriage is an institution - ordained by God - as the union of one man and one women for the procreation of children. Simple concept. The Catholic Church cannot 'marry' same sex couples. That is not being anti-gay - it is sticking with our faith.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why gays insist I recognize their rights while they steadfastly refuse to recognize mine.

It is really not about rights CG, as it is about an agenda. The following I bolded is a quote a poster made a while back and I saved. I think it explains this argument pretty well:

Why are they wasting their time and energy over a WORD if their real goal isn't to completely devalue the institution of marriage for EVERYBODY ?

 

[jeffrockit]

I'm heterosexual and married with one child. For what it's worth, I think gay people should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Judge not les ye be judged.. That is all you need you know!! .

Aaah one of the most misunderstood and most used quote by non believers.

We can only judge what is moral if we have a standard given to us by God, not some standard that is based on emotion, opinion, or the changing morals of society.

1st if you are not a believer, why quote from a book you don't believe in. So many times on message boards Atheist, and other non believers quote from the bible while standing firm in their non beliefs. The irony is pretty funny.
2nd if you use a quote, you should study the true meaning of it (not the world's definition), before you use in in defense of a debate.

 

[Father Time]

No JW.. the legal aspect is about the economics...

I have no issue with anyone having a 'civil union' whether they are gay or straight. I have an issue with 'marriage'. To Catholic (me!!), marriage is an institution - ordained by God - as the union of one man and one women for the procreation of children. Simple concept. The Catholic Church cannot 'marry' same sex couples. That is not being anti-gay - it is sticking with our faith.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why gays insist I recognize their rights while they steadfastly refuse to recognize mine.

It is really not about rights CG, as it is about an agenda. The following I bolded is a quote a poster made a while back and I saved. I think it explains this argument pretty well:

Why are they wasting their time and energy over a WORD if their real goal isn't to completely devalue the institution of marriage for EVERYBODY ?

No one cares about a word, if marraige had no legal quirks about it they wouldn't care nearly as much.

Although it's really ******* funny that the person you're quoting claims marraige is just a word then complains that it's the gays who are devaluing it.

You have to love irony.

 

[Father Time]

Judge not les ye be judged.. That is all you need you know!! .

Aaah one of the most misunderstood and most used quote by non believers.

We can only judge what is moral if we have a standard given to us by God, not some standard that is based on emotion, opinion, or the changing morals of society.

1st if you are not a believer, why quote from a book you don't believe in. So many times on message boards Atheist, and other non believers quote from the bible while standing firm in their non beliefs. The irony is pretty funny.

Since when was it inappropriate for people to quote what they think is fiction? Haven't you ever quoted a Shakespeare play or a favorite movie?

 

[jeffrockit]

I have no issue with anyone having a 'civil union' whether they are gay or straight. I have an issue with 'marriage'. To Catholic (me!!), marriage is an institution - ordained by God - as the union of one man and one women for the procreation of children. Simple concept. The Catholic Church cannot 'marry' same sex couples. That is not being anti-gay - it is sticking with our faith.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why gays insist I recognize their rights while they steadfastly refuse to recognize mine.

It is really not about rights CG, as it is about an agenda. The following I bolded is a quote a poster made a while back and I saved. I think it explains this argument pretty well:

Why are they wasting their time and energy over a WORD if their real goal isn't to completely devalue the institution of marriage for EVERYBODY ?

No one cares about a word, if marraige had no legal quirks about it they wouldn't care nearly as much.

Although it's really ******* funny that the person you're quoting claims marraige is just a word then complains that it's the gays who are devaluing it.

You have to love irony.

Not in the quote. Never states the marriage is "JUST" a word, It asks why...oh just read it as written. I don't feel like pasting it again for you to misread again.
The gays have been the ones stating that it is "just a word"