[NeoDraven]

The Church is just upset cause they lost there absolute power from after the Dark Ages and now they have no say in government decisions or changes in the world.
I'm open minded and I have one thing to say:
If you Love someone enough and want to be with them the rest of your life let no one stop you, listen not to what the sinners who bare hateful thoughts and illwill to you cause of your difference to those in society, So Love is not about Religion,Politics,Money or Power it's about what is said it's about love and we Canadians accept people for there differences I would choose a Tossed Salad Society over a Boiled Stew Society.

Tossed Salad Society: Multicultural, Open Minded,Free speech and beliefs in what you believe in without persucution.

Boiled Stew Society: Non-Multicultural, Brainwashing to believe in one thing and if you don't believe in it your an outcast in that society and should be killed your basically forced to believe in what they want you to believe in.

[Ferret Overlord]

Here we go, now religion comes into play. IT'S ALWAYS RELIGION!

The gays have their own communities and like to have their own rules and are now seeking to impose this on all others.

It isn't imposing anything on anyone, Doki. They don't have their 'own rules', seeing as they'd have to abide by the law anyway. It's the same thing as a heterosexual marriage, except with two men instead of a man and a woman. Really, I can't see how anyone could oppose this.

[ticktockclok]

I have a new opinion.
I think gay marriage













































































is gay.

[Mobster101]

^^Ohh my god..go tick lol...^^

This post has been edited by Mobster101: 31 March 2006 - 02:08 AM

[Bespetna]

Thats kind of stuped that most Babtist and Cathlic churches agree on same sex marrages. Even thogh its basicly aginst there own relegion. Pluse was Christ in love with a man? No, he was not! (please don't say somthing stuped like he was couse I would be extremly offended). I am not Cathlic or Babtist i'm Coptic Orthadox Christion, and we strongly hate the idea of same sex marrage.

[Ferret Overlord]

So, in essence, if Jesus wasn't gay, no one could be gay?

Does that mean that, since he was crucified, all Christians should be crucified? I think not.

[Kaezion]

hey, i have an idea. why don't we give pedophiles a chance? i mean, they're a sexual minority too. so why are we putting them in jail while promoting same-sex marriage? by the same reason, shouldn't marriages between middle-aged men and little girls be legal, as long as they consent?

This post has been edited by Kaezion: 01 April 2006 - 05:50 AM

[Ferret Overlord]

Oh, I dunno, a little thing called laws?

It's ILLEGAL to have sex with a child without consent of the parent (As far as I know), and trust me, it's a lot different with gays. Also, dealing with children, you go into the idea of them not being able to decide on their own. If you let that happen, then they'd be allowed to get government jobs, own cars, and manage everything alone. Which would severely screw up this Earth.

[?FaLLeN?]

Society today is corrupt.


If we have freedom of speech why can we blurt out in school.
If we are gay what difference is gay people MARRYING than heterosexual( wow i messed that spelling up) MARRYING?


EDIT: this is gonna turn into flamming i can see it now.

This post has been edited by Redhound22: 01 April 2006 - 07:26 AM

[Neraphym]

The strongest arguement against gay marriage is NOT religion, but what Kaezion was getting at; letting gay people get married opens up the door for polygamy, bestiality, pedophelia, incest, and other bizzare and strange relationships. Make no mistake, this is a problem, however, not letting gays get married is not the solution. When we look at these other relationship "options" (some of which creep me out), we shouldn't look at religious views, or political reprocussions. We should focus solely on their moral implications.

Gay marriage is no more morally wrong than straight marriage is. I'd like to see someone make an aguement against that without saying one thing religious in nature. Anywho, if Gay marriage isn't wrong, then why is Polygamy (marriage involving multiple spouses) wrong? Truth is, I cannot find a single thing wrong with polygamy. I wouldn't vote against it, though I probably wouldn't want two wifes nagging me incessantly.

Bestiality is just rediculous. Animals cannot give consent to sex, so yeah. That would fall under animal cruelty, thus laws made against this would have moral backing to it.

Incest... this one is tricky. I can find nothing wrong with marriage and sex between relatives, but reproduction is another issue. Reproducing through an incestuous relationship can lead to complications in the offspring. Because this is a known fact, there should definitely be laws against incest reproduction. Anything else relatives want to do to each other is entirely up to them. I can see nothing morally wrong with that.

Pedophelia is the only double edged sword I can think off. On one hand, I see nothing wrong with adults and teens having sex with one another. If there is consent, how can it possibly be wrong? Well, here's the thing. Kid's are second class citizens in a way. While immune to a ton of laws and granted protection by a ton of others, they are still greatly lacking in rights. Kids can't drive, work, drink, vote, gamble, and tons of other things. Why? It's not because of a facist religious belief. It's because we as adults need to protect kids, because kids aren't yet old enough and mature enough to act independent of their parents all the time. By taking away their rights, we take away the danger that comes with exercising them.

Of course, kids can work when 14 and drive when 16. This is because at that age, they are capable of making adult decisions. When it comes to sex, kids generally know all there is to know about it by 13 (and are capable of performing it by then). Note that this is MY understanding based on me just having lived through it. I have known many kids who have had sex at 13. They knew what they were doing and they were very well educated on the subject. I can see nothing wrong with placing an ABSOLUTE age of consent at 14 (most states have 16, some have 18, mine and Hawaii have 14). By the time you enter into highschool, you'll be 14. When I first went into highschool, I knew just about everything about sex. This was, again, due to being very well educated on the subject. We can thank government funded sexual education programs for that (great, I just jinxed it... now Bush will cut funding to feed his war machine).

So basically, lower the age of consent to 14 everywhere, and I'd be happy with the line drawn between freedom and child-protection. Obviously, others would be appauled by this notion, but this is just my opinion. You could use my moral arguements to support an age of 16 or 18.

I'd type more, but it's rather late. Goodnight!

[Skyone]

Freedom has alot to do with it.

[King_Spamalot]

Vot is gay meaning? Gay people are ghey, no?

[asyluman]

Besp says if everyone was gay we'd die out.

Well, if everyone was celibate (like priests and nuns) we'd die out too. It's because not everyone's gay.

You can't let religion come into the government.

Theocracy methinks?

[Kaezion]

by the way, homosexuality is not inherent. it's acquired. by this, i don't mean that people choose to be gay, but rather that people are somehow made gay after they are born, possibly due to circumstances in their lives or whatnot. this means that it can be reversed, as it is a psychological rather than physiological (genetic) trait of people. just thought i'd put that out there, because i'm sick of hearing this "homosexuality is innate, you can't do anything about it" bs.

and Ferret Overlord, it's a little pointless to refute my argument by citing that it's against the law, when the very thing (aka gay marriage) that you are lobbying for is currently outlawed in 48 states.

plus, the argument you make about children's inability to make decisions for themselves is pretty much exactly the same argument people a few decades ago (and today still) made about racial minorities.

This post has been edited by Kaezion: 02 April 2006 - 07:31 AM

[Neraphym]

by the way, homosexuality is not inherent. it's acquired. by this, i don't mean that people choose to be gay, but rather that people are somehow made gay after they are born, possibly due to circumstances in their lives or whatnot. this means that it can be reversed, as it is a psychological rather than physiological (genetic) trait of people. just thought i'd put that out there, because i'm sick of hearing this "homosexuality is innate, you can't do anything about it" bs.

I honestly don't think that it even matters. Studies go back and forth saying its aquired or its genetic. If it isn't genetic, then there is still no good reason why being gay should be a crime. Homosexuality isn't a disease, there is nothing wrong with it. Just because something can be treated (and I use the word 'can' lightly, as trying to make a gay person straight is about as hard as someone trying to carve mount rushmore by gnawing on a mountain), doesn't mean it should be. Hey, Michael Jackson was born black and became white. Why not force every person of color to undergo the same procedure he went so we can all be the same? That would definitely be easier than turning all the gays straight.

and Ferret Overlord, it's a little pointless to refute my argument by citing that it's against the law, when the very thing (aka gay marriage) that you are lobbying for is currently outlawed in 48 states.

I was thinking the same thing when he posted that.

plus, the argument you make about children's inability to make decisions for themselves is pretty much exactly the same argument people a few decades ago (and today still) made about racial minorities.

Just because an argument doesn't work in one instance, doesn't mean it fails for all others. In this case, my argument is not based on race, but on the fact that children aren't intelectually mature enough to give consent at age 4.