Ferris Bueller: You already have gone down the slippery slope in certain respects. Bush and his use of "free speech zones" where those protesting against his policies were herded away from the routes Bush took so the press wouldn't see them.

People were arrested for not wanting to go, and a number prosecuted for protesting legally and non-violently.

I think you need your laws clarified to stop this sought of abuse.

Ferris Bueller: First of all, you dont have to be "anti gay" to be against gay marriage.

Talk about a slippery slope... what if next I said i wanted to marry two other people, the 3 of us are in love, we are a happy family, we just want the same rights and privileges that everyone else has?

I am not sure why the government is in the marriage business in the first place? Why not just "civil unions" for ecveryone, both straight and gay, give us the right to choose whomever we want to for benefits and other rights we give to married couples right now?

Another random thought.... what if everyone were gay???? Would that be a good thing?


oh yeah....the courts already have interviened on behalf of gay marriage, California is one state, and even in such a liberal state as California, the people voted to reject the courts!

One more random thought..... there are people born hard wired to be sexually attracted to children, can anyone explain to me how that is really any different than being hard wired to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex?

Czuch: One more random thought..... there are people born hard wired to be sexually attracted to children, can anyone explain to me how that is really any different than being hard wired to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex?

exactly....what if I wanted to marry my hamster, or my son or daughter, maybe even my mother or father??
where does it stop?

Czuch:

>  there are people born hard wired to be sexually attracted to children,
can anyone explain to me
>  how that is really any different than being
hard wired to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex?

Isn't age of consent a factor?  Adult homosexuals are old enough to make a decision about what they want in their lives.  Children do not have the knowledge or experience to make that decision.

I think that ultimately it comes to whether people are free to do what they want or not.  If a homosexual couple wants to marry, it is their choice as free individuals.

Homophobic people are insecure.  They think that if homosexuals marry, it somehow diminishes heterosexual marriage.  "There is no way my heterosexual marriage is in the same league as the marriage among homosexuals."  It is all fear and insecurity.  Homophobic people hide that fear behind the veil of morality.  It can be Christian morality, or morality imposed by the state.  It is much easier to say that "marriage should be as defined in the Bible" rather than "I fear homosexuals and I fear that we are becoming like them."  Those that protest the hardest against homosexuality are often those that fear it the most, and in some cases they are homosexuals who hide their true nature out of fear and shame.

>  I am not sure why the government is in the marriage business in the first place?

It has to do with money and property mostly.  For example, in the US there are 1138 statutes in the law concerning marriage rights and responsibilities and the vast majority of them have to do with property, division of assets, survivor benefits, etc.  Governments around the world have passed marriage legislation to clarify how all that money and property should be distributed, divided, managed or inherited.  This is true also of legal codes outside of modern governments.  Much of the Bible's and the Koran's law on marriage is related to property.

Czuch: We are!! I thought, it was the animal side of us that was given to the point of reproduction and that the 'God' in us was capable of controlling that instinct.

As far as I've read abusers are made. Someone being gay is how their spirit is.

(V): spirit???....really???

I have an aquaintance who married, had twins and after about 15 years the marriage broke down and he eventually turned to another man. Spirit? I think not. He explains it as "trying both sides" he is still with the man after 14 years and just loves females. He says he would never go back to a woman, so what would you "categorize" him as.
By the way...are you speaking from experience, and if not where do you get your presumptions from?

Artful Dodger: Homosexual couples cannot, and never will be able to do what hetrosexual couples can do: create children. Society has the right to define and recognize a marriage ONLY between a man and a women.

I would expect you'd say “society has the right to define and recognize a marriage only between a man and a woman where neither of them suffers from infertility.” Because infertile couples cannot, and never will be able to do what fertile couples can do: create children.

Artful Dodger: Maybe not, but they can love children. And the marriage is about love, not legality. Legality is a way of keeping your neighbour away. She/He has a ring, she/he is committed. Taxes, census..

Btw.. there are some men and women who cannot create babies. Is marriage allowed for them? What about a person born both male and female... what then.

And that gay folk are discriminated against in the form of legal red tape, that is wrong.

The governments have adopted inaccurate old religious interpretation, just like the one about 'witches' .. Because mistakes have been made, should folk be punished?

Artful Dodger:

> Homosexual couples cannot, and never will be able to do what hetrosexual couples can do: create children.

Science has changed that.  I read sometime ago about artificial sperm.  a scientist took the DNA out of an animal's sperm and introduced the DNA of a female into it.  Then he used that sperm to ferlize the egg of a different female.  Not only that, but scientists have taken egg cells and removed all DNA from them, then introduced another sample of DNA and made the egg become a fertilized embrio.  Science is changing reproductive limitations, whether we like it or not.  There are serious ethical questions about these reproductive technologies, but they are there and in the future anybody will be able to have children, regardless of sexual orientation.  What happens then?  It is a difficult question.

Perhaps we could see the problem from another side.  If instead of sexual orientation, we used race or religion as a determinant for marriage, would we feel the same?  "Christians will have marriage, but Jews will have a civil union."  "Caucasians will have marriage, but African Blacks will have a civil union."  If we were to do this, would we be discriminating against a minority?  Obviously.  By the same token, the current law discrimates against homosexuals.  The only reason why the law remains is because the majority of the population supports the traditional definition of marriage.  In essence, it is a law that represents the will of the majority, and discriminates against the minority.  One of the tenets of modern democracy is respect for minority rights.

Übergeek 바둑이: I havent seen anyone respond to the "we 3 are in love, or we 4 are in love" scenario yet?

Why not polygamy then too? Or like Bwild said too, why cant my sister and i be given the same rights as married couples get now? Shouldnt my sister and I be able to cohabitate and adopt children and have each other inherit property etc???



...and your only complaint against sexual attraction to children is that the child cannot consent to the sex???


oh yeah, and homosexuals are already free to marry, just like heterosexuals are, we already share the same rights.... as a heterosexual, I dont have a right to marry another man....


and I agree with AD, calling someone against gay marriage as "homophobic" is a slander and not always accurate

Artful Dodger: If you argue that homosexual couples should not be allowed to get married because they can't create children, I think you should apply the same logic to infertile couples, who cannot create children either.

Artful Dodger: Well I can also state a fact that in general, couples can create children. Only when certain conditions (medical, different sexuality, …) exist, this is not true.

Artful Dodger: And not infertile couples.

Artful Dodger: Are you saying love is a purely biological matter? I thought love was something beyond biology.

"because their union is incapable of reproducing. "

No, they can reproduce. As in the parts of their anatomy just don't start not working. God does not make them suddenly sterile. Just their sexuality does not give to reproduction (unless bi)....

"I can't marry my sister or my daughter or a very close relative. Such unions are restricted by law as they don't fall under the standard set by society. "

those are set for good reason of high mutation rate through a closed gene pool, not a good example if you are going on about not reproducing being part of why they cannot marry.

"What's really being sought by homosexual advocates is a special standing before the law. "

No. If you missed it (seeing as Fox only covered it quickly) ...there was a gay rights march in Washington at the same time as the tea party and the protest against Obama telling kids to work harder... 75,000+ march... though the Obama telling kids to work harder got more time and a reporter.

... basically... they just want the same rights. Equality under the law.

Artful Dodger: Twister Their ability to reproduce has not gone.

" Maybe they decide not to have kids so then I guess it's ok with you."

I never said that.

Look, the basis of all western ignorance on sexuality is based on bad interpretation of the Bible and those who stand by them. Alot of the old laws in the Bible were to do with sexual acts in the temple. If we go by Genesis then isn't God both male and female??

(V): You will never convince me that a man doing it to another man in his anus is a normal and natural attraction

The reason nature makes us hard wired to be attracted to the opposite sex is to propagate our species... because of the advancement of our brains, we are able to do more that what we are hard wired for(IE have sex for pleasure purposes only), but if you are hard wired to be attracted to the same sex, that is not the normal condition as nature meant it to be (notice I did not say "how God meant it to be") To me it is no more normal than if you are hard wired to be sexually attracted to small children, it is a natural abnormality, and taken to the extreme, our species would die if this would happen more often than it does!

Czuch: Ok.. I'll never convince you. But that does not mean that gay folk have to have their lives intruded on by your own prejudice.

(V): But that does not mean that gay folk have to have their lives intruded on by your own prejudice.


Explain to me how I have intruded on any ones life, with prejudice or otherwise?

Because I have voted against changing the definition of marriage?

Because I believe that hard wired sexual attraction to someone else of the same sex is abnormal in nature?

(V):   I didn't think you could come up with an example.  Proves you were wrong and I am right. 

Artful Dodger: so what is different LOL

Artful Dodger: You didn't come up with anything anyway, just a C&P from a right wing site that compares same blood sex to same sex sex. They are not the same.

If you want to forget that a man and women can have children and then work out they are gay.. by all means. If you want forget that love is not an animal thing .. by all means.

And btw... "As communities we all live within the parameters of the standards set by the State."

ahhh you like the state now just because it supports your views. So be it.. but be honest and say so.