Debate: Gay Marriages

[Sombolia]

decides to do that whole feminine bull-**** they do.

That is a stereotype. Believe it or not- not all guys act like the people on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Besides, aren't women allowed in the military, anyways? Er yes. So I see no reason why being feminine would even be a bad thing.

[Juniper]

Originally posted by Only-now
and could possibly lead to a corruption of the image of an American soldier when some gay person joins the military and decides to do that whole feminine bull-**** they do.

Oh yes, God forbid someone be themselves. Do you really believe what you're saying? Bud... that's a pretty... low... reason to not let someone in the military, and as Sombolia said, completely based on stereotype.

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by Only-now
To be honest, what are the benefits of allowing openly gay people in the military? What exactly is wrong with others not knowing? In a way..wouldnt that encourage divisions in the military? It would cause problems within the ranks...and could possibly lead to a corruption of the image of an American soldier when some gay person joins the military and decides to do that whole feminine bull-**** they do.

Well, what are the benefits of letting women join the military? All available help can be used, so why discriminate? Also, I'm sure most gays who join the military would rather people NOT know... however, albeit most of the guys in the military talk about sex with their girlfriends/wives/whatever, so it's not like they wont ask a closet gay in the military what his experiences with girls are.

Also, you say that allowing gays will corrupt the image of the American soldier? What about those people that made the prisoners pose for nude pics? What about the supremely-macho ones like in "Jarhead"? I don't see how allowing gays to join the military would corrupt the image of the American soldier, because I'm sure that the gays who would join the military, who would be willing to go through intense boot camp and fighting, wouldn't be the feminine steriotypes.

[Dyani]

Originally posted by lionloversam
I find him funny. I don't appreciate his excessive profanity, but I can deal with it. I sort of took slight offense to parts of the gay marriage one. This is probably due to being brought up in a Christian household...

I completely agree with this. The Gryffin guy rocks even though he sometimes is extremely offensive to me.. anmd his over the top searing just makes me laugh, even though I am not one to swear a lot.
He has some very very goo points tho.

People, stop bashing Only-Now. He has an opinion and even though it can offend you please try to see his point of view. And don't call me a hypocrite, because you can't change things in the past and I am sorry for being on your back in the past O-N.

Share the love people!

[Ghamu]

Originally posted by Only-now I don't think ANYONE here actually read the link I provided did they? So they continually misinterpret what I am saying. Such as the animal thing. I am NOT comparing those two types of marriage...I am saying that once traditional marriage is ruined by allowing gay marriages..others are going to ask for more. The only reason we aren't having a debate about whether or not animals and humans should marry is because someone hasn't asked yet. After gay marriage, SOMETHING like so would come up, and you would see more people wanting that as well. This will just deal the initial blow that will weaken marriage so others can take advantage of it.

I did read it, actually. It seemed... well, not quite like a load of horse droppings, but not too far from it. I personally liked the paragraph about fathers marrying sons and lesbian sisters marrying each other and how they'd all be "gay" marriages. Yeah, and a brother marrying his sister would be a "straight" marriage, just as a guy marrying his mother would, so I didn't really see his point.

His point about changing the meaning of red and green traffic to mean the opposite of what they do now seemed odd as well. It made me think of the situation Sweden was in a few decades ago when we switched from driving on the left side of the road to driving on the right side of the road. When that switch was taken care of, every traffic sign in the entire country had to be changed. This was done during one night (obviously some prior arrangements were done before-hand and the people living here were informed about the switch long before it happened). So, big changes can be implemented quickly. One day, you drove on the left side of the road, the next, on the right side. Today, noone here is confused about which side of the road to drive on (well, apart from the occassional drunk driver or looney, I guess).

And still other customs may have entirely invisible or forgotten or unknowable benefits, which we might not even appreciate until after they were gone. How many social benefits were attached to the evening family meal that no one could have predicted or appreciated before women's liberation and the modern economy eroded its prevalence? Indeed, some recent studies indicate that a significant portion of the obesity "epidemic" is attributable to the decline in home cooking, predominately by housewives. Just imagine the response if critics of feminism had said, "If women join the workforce, kids will get fat and cost us billions in health care."

I think that one stands on its own, really. Heaven forbid men and women should start sharing the responsibility of rearing our spawnlings.

And here, from the end of the fourth paragraph from the bottom:

After all, we were right to abolish slavery as a matter of justice. But the lack of social consensus to do so birthed not only America's bloodiest war but generations of civil discord, which endures today.

Yeah, so the right path isn't always the easy one. Sometimes, people will even hate you for taking it.

It would be nice if people didn't think of me as a "nastie" that's out to "get" their Traditions? and change them into something unholy, though.

But I'm thinking that the more people that are of the opinion that allowing homosexual marriages will ruin the inherent meaning of marriage, the less marriage will mean after it has been legalized. "Oh, those filthy ******s are allowed to do this as well, that makes my marriage something I can't appreciate anymore/as much".

I mean, afterall, only you can destroy the sanctity of your own marriage.

[Dyani]

Originally posted by Ghamu
I mean, afterall, only you can destroy the sanctity of your own marriage.

So.. so true. Except when fate comes in an stomps it for you
I don't think you're a nasty person Ghamu!!!!!!

[Only-now]

All I can say is WOW. *laughs* I mean..from my reply to this point, almost EVERY post that has been in opposition to me has twisted, misinterpreted or gotten off topic from my words.

There are SO many instances where I would have to correct you all, that I don't have the energy to do so. I thought maybe reading the article would help...but even THAT person got things wrong. I don't mean that as you all should agree with me after reading it...but even he went off topic, and said things that were not meant in that way whatsoever.

First, I want to say that the current established religions didn't have to be around for people to have spiritual beliefs. Also, I doubt that marriage existed at this time you mention. It is MORE believeable that spiritual beliefs existed, and marriage did not (because of a lack of a legal system) or that both existed together. To try and deny the correlation between marriage and religion..or the relationship rather..is just a waste of time. It IS there. Once again, I want to say that my reasons against this are NOT religious..though the majority of religious people disagree with gay marriage.

Obviously it stands true that my side of the debate is much too hard for you all to understand. I don't mean to call you stupid or anything...but it seems like everyone opposed to me is having a very hard time even understanding where I am coming from. I thought that being outnumbered on this thread was bad...but when not one of the people who are "against me" can even debate with me with points that are accurate and matter..then this is just a waste of time.

I was not saying that all gays are feminine...I was saying that undoubtedly..there WILL be someone who joins and DOES act like that..and will do it for the SOLE purpose of causing "trouble". If you don't believe it..then just look at every activist community and SEE if something like so doesn't happen. Look at some of the outrageous law suits and tell me if that it "too far". In reality, it seems like a lot of you guys are grapsing for things to use against this argument, and that many of you are actually trying to make me look like the "bad guy". I have no problem with gays, but I think that the feminine crap is just funny and stupid. Most of the time it is an act..to purposely let everyone know that they are gay. So no Pnt,it is NOT someone being "themselves" the majority of the time. It gets SO old..and yes I do think it would ruin the image of our soldiers. Last time I checked...women are SUPPOSED to be feminine..and men usually have a different set of standards naturally and because of society.

If that article seemed like a load of "horse droppings" to you..then you didn't understand it very well. I am missing a lot of points that I wanted to point out about how you all had gotten the wrong idea, or misinterpreted me AGAIN...but sadly I am too lazy to go back and read. Just know, that if you responded to me..you most likely said something that was not correct whatsoever.

Finally, I can reply about the Gryphon thing. I am allowed to dislike him for whatever reasons I choose..and I never said that he didn't have the right to criticize my government. I am not however, going to like him for that..or the way he does it. I did NOT say that he was an idiot because he was a furry..but rather that was something else I did not like about him (though I don't think some of the actions that furries participate in help them to look either sane or intelligent).You may consider him intelligent...but I don't at all. I don't consider someone who curses every other word (as that usually symbolizes ignorance because they have no better way to express their thoughts or emotions), attends conventions where you dress up like a big furry animal, and blames the entire US military for one dog being shot, intelligent. In fact, I believe that on one of his shows...which mentioned gay marriage..a guy said that the only reason he agreed with it was because he didn't want "someone else's" God control him. How childish is that?! Anyways, my opinion of that "guy" stands, and so does my opinion on this issue.

If you all can't refute my argument logically and get the "facts" right..then please don't try at all.

I would like to say thanks to Dyani (even though you disagree with me) for actually "defending" me from the others. You know what is funny to think about though? The only reason this is a debate is because one person (me) disagrees with you all...*laughs* It is almost like the gay marriage issue (in the nation) on a smaller scale and reversed.

~Kiva

[Kovu The Lion]

Getting straight down with the points, I agree with you on certain cases, but some cases I do not however meaning that I do not have to agree with you and tell you I agree with you everytime you make a point now. But the military thing I just never saw happening. The way they treat you through Boot Camp, is to toughen you up, and to get you hard core ready for the military, if a gay is feminie and joined the military, he/she probably wouldn't survive through Boot Camp, and if he/she did, and was nominated into joining the army/military.. I'd say let em in because Boot camp = Hell.

That link you posted, I did visit, however I'm sorry to say I don't agree same with the grhypon thing. I'd rather just keep a neutral based side on it, so I can be seen as defending both sides in the subject, but really when it comes down to it the people who are against you, I've to agree with what they say because well sadly they aren't putting any opposition.. and being gay/bisexual whatever it is.. I can't really say anything out the ordinary, or against it, Without putting down a few friends of mine at the same time (Which I've already done) So its sorta hard for me to agree with the opposing side.. But if its going to go about the bible and gay's, then I'd go with the bible... Mostly being i'm trying to convert to christianity however though I don't see homosexuality as a Sin since God never said it himself, but people rather thought they heard or were inspired to say it, but it never really escaped the lips of God himself.

One thing I do and I will admit about what I do not like about homosexual/bisexual, is the way they flaunt out their sexuality(not saying all do), and the same with heterosexual's, however though.. I've YET to meet a homosexual that has flaunted or pushed their views onto others.. But I've heard plenty of ones that do do it.. Being most of those I've met have been rather secretive about their sexuality, and heterosexuals are rather open about theirs, being they talk about their boy friends or girl friends with their friends, or by passing notes to each other in class, or just talking about it on the streets..which is rather the annoying thing to hera 24/7..

Thus, you don't hear homosexual's going up to a group and saying "I had sex with a male/female last night and I'm gay" mostly because of the reason's because they will be easily and quickly prosecuted by mostly everyone around them and shoved aside like a piece of trash (Which I have experienced it) now I am not saying everyone would do that to one person, but I guarantee, EVERYONE will feel uneasy about it, That being you are heterosexual or homosexual, you will feel uneasy, and probably give a quirky look to that person.

Kiva: I do say I agree on you wholy for some things you've said like I've said before, but I am not also against your subjective views upon this matter. What I am against is persecution, and the though of "They don't deserve equal rights"

We are all Humans, We all deserve the same punishment, We all deserve, The Same Rights, No matter what happens.. Because people aren't entirely based on their acts, but on the way they act, and treat others.. If a homosexual was nice, and treated others nicely I'd say he/she should get equal rights, I mean he/she is only doing the same as everyone else, save for liking the same gender.

On another note, if Homosexual's treated Heterosexual's the way some Heterosexual's treated them.. I guarantee you, Their would be another world war, or something close to it.

and perhaps Kiva what you are posting is in direct conflict of us,and you aren't getting "our" facts straight Think about that one..
I hope this post didn't hurt, nor offend anyone, and if anyone's views or judgements/decision's or thoughts conflict with this, Sorry

~KtL

[Ghamu]

Dyani: <3


Kiva: Well, you seem to be coming from the "I know what's really going on, so if you disagree with my opinion, you're wrong" point of view. But if you're being continually misunderstood, maybe the fault lies with you and not everyone else (I'm not talking about being pointedly misunderstood here, though). If your point is so difficult to understand, try to make it easier for us to get it, instead of saying that you're not going bother to explain it.

I read the article and didn't agree with it. If that makes me short-sighted or even an idiot, well then, so be it. But you mentioned in a previous post that in "some countries" that have legalized same-sex marriages, it's not been working out. It seems to work out fine here, but maybe there are things I'm not aware of. Someone asked you to name a country. Could you do that? It would help me a bit.

[Only-now]

Mostly the Netherlands for one..and I thought that I made it perfectly clear. I DID explain things in a way people could understand them....several times. I explained what I meant about religion, and how it ties to marriage...and people continue to misunderstand and misinterpret, and even point out things and disagree with them when they weren't meant that way.

You know I am the ONLY person arguing this side of view now..so it is a bit tough for me to "make it easier" and explain things OVER and OVER when everytime I fix one situation, another one comes up. It isn't about not taking the time..because I did several times..mostly because I didn't want everyone to get the wrong impression...but posts later I am STILL trying to explain what I mean. Every example I use is focused on literally, instead of what it means in terms of this. I don't know how to better explain it..but I did not make my speech complicated. People however, continue to get what I am saying wrong..and I don't mean it as an insult..but how am I supposed to "argue" with people who are basically arguing against their own interpretation of my side that is wrong?

I am NOT coming from that point of view at all. I said many times that I don't KNOW what is right or wrong here..but I know how I feel about the situation..and I know what many people think..and what the past and human nature has shown us/me. You guys can disagree all you want...but please disagree with what I am actually saying and not what you "make up" because you don't understand and aren't trying to. That is what I think is wrong here...you guys are not trying to understand what I am saying at all. You are reading a post..and rermebering a few things...and then because you feel strongly opposed to them....or misintepret them..you respond to something that really isn't the way I meant it. You are taking the fact that I disagree with it too far. Like your comment Ghamu about how men and women shouldn't have equal responsibilities in raising children. That is NOT what he meant AT all...and it isn't what I believe. That wasn't even the point. You overlooked the real point of it...to criticize something that isn't there. That happens continually..because since I disagree...every instance where something could be unjust on my side is capitalized on...even if it is wrong.

I feel very frustrated because I can't explain this better...but I do not have an attitude of not wanting to explain..nor do I think I am superior in my logic. I do think that it is harder to understand this side than it is to understand yours. I think people are letting emotion decide what they post..and I am just getting tired of people not being able to understand..when I have tried my best to explain it. Either you don't know how to understand it..you don't want to...you your guys aren't trying (I am not talking to any one person here).

I think the fault does lie with "you all" because I don't believe I have made it diffidult to understand me..and I HAVE corrected many misinterpretations before..and yet they still keep coming. I can't say exactly what I feel is the reason..because it is hard to explain it in a post. It's like..I say some things..and certain people pick out things that I disagreed with them on..or that they disagree with..and then because they are upset with my disagreement..they interpret it in a way that is completely wrong..and much more sinister than how it is actually meant.

Anyways, I don't know what more to say. I thought that last post explained it well enough...and I think this should end it. I guess I don't have much more to say on the topic now..lol.

~Kiva

[Sadiki]

I don't really see why so many is against gay marriage, there is nothing wrong makeing it offical. I'm against the idea tho that they could adopt or have kids any other way, sinse I don't think that is really a good inviorment for a child to grow in. first of all that kid would have to go through hard times just because other kids wouldn't think it's normal and also kids do need both role models, but gay marridge to make it offical should be right.

[Darkslash]

You know I am the ONLY person arguing this side of view now

I'm with you, but I don't argue/debate because this isn't the forum in which the issue will ultimately be decided. Ideology, though it drives the debate, will not decide the political solution.

Defense of Marriage Amendment has passed committee and will see a floor vote in the Senate in June. Congress will vote with November in mind, so things look good.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by Only-now
I think the fault does lie with "you all" because I don't believe I have made it diffidult to understand me..and I HAVE corrected many misinterpretations before..

It's hard to debate because you tend to use logical fallacies in your debate here. I know where you are coming from with the social and traditional stand point...But I think if I want to understand it better, I should do my own research. That article has a point. But the article was mainly refuting the ideas from a book someone else wrote, so I didn't have a 100% clear understanding to the article (As I didn't read the book he talks about).

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by SimbaTheMighty
I don't really see why so many is against gay marriage, there is nothing wrong makeing it offical. I'm against the idea tho that they could adopt or have kids any other way, sinse I don't think that is really a good inviorment for a child to grow in. first of all that kid would have to go through hard times just because other kids wouldn't think it's normal and also kids do need both role models, but gay marridge to make it offical should be right.

The views I have posted previosly explained my reasoning behind my opposition to gay marriage...

That aside I also say it will cause a break in 'family'... and by that I mean, well gays can't have kids right, and you are concidered a couple, until you have at least one child... then that completes the family... There is adoption, yes but it is not their child in the end is it? ... Weither or not they become parents, it's still someone elses, for did they give birth to him/her? no... are their genes a part of him/her? no... what happens if their personalities clash? what then? abandon the child or something? ...
In one sense I guess it could be safe to call it a gay coupling rather than a gay marriage...
When 'family' is gone, the country is bound to fall (and yes, I'm aware of the fact that heteros too are breaking 'family' as well what with all the devorces, etc...)

[Xinithian]

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
The views I have posted previosly explained my reasoning behind my opposition to gay marriage...

That aside I also say it will cause a break in 'family'... and by that I mean, well gays can't have kids right, and you are concidered a couple, until you have at least one child... then that completes the family... There is adoption, yes but it is not their child in the end is it? ... Weither or not they become parents, it's still someone elses, for did they give birth to him/her? no... are their genes a part of him/her? no... what happens if their personalities clash? what then? abandon the child or something? ...
In one sense I guess it could be safe to call it a gay coupling rather than a gay marriage...
When 'family' is gone, the country is bound to fall (and yes, I'm aware of the fact that heteros too are breaking 'family' as well what with all the devorces, etc...)

So if a straight couple cannot bear children, and they adopt somebody, the adopted child isn't theirs? And should a straight marriage without kids be known as a coupling or should it be known as a marriage?

How exactly is the country going to fall if there aren't more families? In fact, I think it might be the opposite... too many kids will create too much competition for jobs.

[Dare]

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
There is adoption, yes but it is not their child in the end is it? ... Weither or not they become parents, it's still someone elses, for did they give birth to him/her? no... are their genes a part of him/her? no... what happens if their personalities clash? what then? abandon the child or something? ...

Are you implying that genetics are essential for a family to be considered valid? Are you implying that a genetic bond between parent and child is more important or stronger than a bond of love?

I just want to make sure I understand your meaning before I say anything else.

[A-non-a-mus]

Originally posted by Xinithian
So if a straight couple cannot bear children, and they adopt somebody, the adopted child isn't theirs? And should a straight marriage without kids be known as a coupling or should it be known as a marriage?

How exactly is the country going to fall if there aren't more families? In fact, I think it might be the opposite... too many kids will create too much competition for jobs.

The child isn't theres not because they're the parent rather because they didn't give birth to it... meaning, as though it is theirs, it is not truely theirs, it's genes are inherited to whoever it was who had given birth to him/her. You can change the parents, you can change a lot, but you cannot change the past, and will have to remember the child came from another.
In a sense, yes it could be called a coupling just as gays...

I'm talking family bonds... not family as in 'look seventeen kids, we are a powerful family' type of thing. The family is the basis for a strength of country if family is abolished then what reason do the soldiers pesses to protect, to fight for, to die for? If you are fighting one side for some other, there's really nothing there to push you to fight is there? Yet if you are fighting to protect your family you push yourself to you limit, if the family bond is strong that is.
Or you can think of it as, 'What happened to brothers standing up for one another? What about so many who say 'don't talk about my mom/dad' ... or how come it is often insulting the parents that causes a fight? ... that's a show of 'family bond' ... if that wasn't there, then really what reasons have you got to continue?... and why don't you kill your brother? afterall he is just 'competition' is't he?

[lion_roog]

Family bonds can happen outside of blood relations...look at street gangs...

[Jammet]

Originally posted by Only-now
[snip] ... I doubt that marriage existed at this time you mention. It is MORE believeable that spiritual beliefs existed, and marriage did not (because of a lack of a legal system) or that both existed together. To try and deny the correlation between marriage and religion..or the relationship rather..is just a waste of time. It IS there.

There have been many forms of marriage around for eternities now. Just plain a bond between two in love, bound to some basic rules. Gay marriage existed back then too, no doubt. Make them all spiritual if you want, that's probably likely in many cases and doesn't make any difference to what I'm trying to explain here. Admittedly, I'm halfway repeating myself, but ... while it's perfectly fine to doubt marriage has been around for very long if that makes you feel better, I am just certain it's been there.

You seem to base some of your opposition to gay marriage on your feelings, sometimes on religion -- then again not (you keep mentioning religion anyway), and then tradition. I have addressed traditions, I have addressed religions, I have basically pointed out that we've been there before. Your feelings are your own. You'll probably never feel right with things like that. It's just plain different than what you've come to appreciate before. Understandable.

I can perfectly follow most of the arguments made by others in opposition to you the arguments you present here.

It seems that some responses have upset you a little. I'm sorry if I added to that, perhaps I'm doing it again right this moment. Now you are basicaly saying that people "just don't understand" you. Would it really help any of your points if nobody understood them? No. Nowhere. Maybe you could make yourself easier understood? If we all don't understand what we say then we or some o fus have other issues than the ones we were debating. A simple "what I write is what I mean" approach is simple enough for me. I hope that's what you do most of the time.

Please do read your own posts over after- or before posting them while trying to see this through the eyes from someone who might not understand what you mean at first. Make yourself a little more clear.

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
I'm talking family bonds... [snip]. The family is the basis for a strength of country if family is abolished then what reason do the soldiers pesses to protect, to fight for, to die for? If you are fighting one side for some other, there's really nothing there to push you to fight is there? Yet if you are fighting to protect your family you push yourself to you limit, if the family bond is strong that is.

Would you prefer having the kids stay in the orphanage instead?

What kind of statement is that? Strength of family ... sounds good to me - yes, please. But ...

Army? Soldiers? Fighting? Brotherhood in arms? Patriotic pathos like this mixed up with thoughts about gay people possibly maybe adopting children and as a result rendering a whole country defenseless is so ... utterly out of place ... utterly out of perspective ... you and I could discuss a little about abolished family bonds if you want - when you leave stuff like this out of it.
Thank you very much.

[Sombolia]

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
I'm talking family bonds... not family as in 'look seventeen kids, we are a powerful family' type of thing. The family is the basis for a strength of country if family is abolished then what reason do the soldiers pesses to protect, to fight for, to die for? If you are fighting one side for some other, there's really nothing there to push you to fight is there? Yet if you are fighting to protect your family you push yourself to you limit, if the family bond is strong that is.
Or you can think of it as, 'What happened to brothers standing up for one another? What about so many who say 'don't talk about my mom/dad' ... or how come it is often insulting the parents that causes a fight? ... that's a show of 'family bond' ... if that wasn't there, then really what reasons have you got to continue?... and why don't you kill your brother? afterall he is just 'competition' is't he?

Family bonds can exist whether or not you're blood-related.. just as you can not feel a bond towards someone you're related to.

I don't see what this even has to do with a topic at hand.. by your logic, it'd be the same whether two men or two women or a man and a women adopted a child, wouldn't it?


@Only-now: If you're not argueing from a religious point of view, why do you keep mentioning religion?