# What are your views on gay marriage?



## War (Nov 2, 2008)

I was discussing this issue with my mom the other day and wanted to know how you guys felt about this topic. Please explain why you picked your answer!

I picked yes, that it should be legal, and here's why. Everyone has the right to be happy, fall in love with someone, and get married. So what if it's with someone of the same sex? Who are we to have a say in who another person can and can't marry? I see nothing wrong with two people of the same sex getting married, since it's not hurting anyone, and it's not harming anything. I know the bible-thumpers are preaching that "marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman", but really, what gives you the right to go pushing your ideas unto everyone else?


----------



## tinymonkeyt (Nov 2, 2008)

i dont think this is a good idea
internet people _cannot_ possibly have a civilized discussion/debate about their views


----------



## War (Nov 2, 2008)

Well, I'm not trying to start a debate or anything, just want to see how the poll works out. (How many people are pro/con gay marriage). I'm not asking people to argue with each other, just to pick an option and explain why you picked it!


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

I think its unconstitutional to ban gay marriages. I could care less  if you think gay marriage is moral or not, you shouldn't restrict someone's life because of your beliefs.


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

War said:
			
		

> I picked yes, that it should be legal, and here's why. Everyone has the right to be *miserable*. So what if it's with someone of the same sex? Who are we to have a say in who another person can and can't marry? I see nothing wrong with two people of the same sex getting married, since it's not hurting anyone, and it's not harming anything. I know the bible-thumpers are preaching that "marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman", but really, what gives you the right to go pushing your ideas unto everyone else?


Fixed


----------



## tinymonkeyt (Nov 2, 2008)

no, i mean, its nice to see everyone's view and all
and i understand its like for the sake of speculation
but nothing really good can come from this
most people are not against anyway.
you'll see.


----------



## War (Nov 2, 2008)

Pimpmynintendo said:
			
		

> War said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I literally lol'd.


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

tinymonkeyt said:
			
		

> nothing really good can come from this


I give this thread four pages before some calls someone else a nazi.


----------



## tinymonkeyt (Nov 2, 2008)

Destructobot said:
			
		

> tinymonkeyt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


no, 3!


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

tinymonkeyt said:
			
		

> Destructobot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you nazi!... had to do it.


----------



## Raika (Nov 2, 2008)

Wierd thread, but i voted the 3rd option


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

Raika said:
			
		

> Wierd thread, but i voted the 3rd option


me too


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

I do not care either way as long as it does not get in the way of what I would normaly do... And War your avatar change confuses the hell out of me.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

Well gay  marriage should not be legal.


first of all the right to be married is no where in the constitution. Don't say it's unconstitutional.

imposing beliefs?  marriage has been this way as defined man and woman since day one,  if any beliefs are being imposed its the gay agenda viewed by the minority.  

this issue has already been voted on before, and traditional marriage won out.  it was 4 biased pro gay judges ( in San Francisco no less...)  that decided that the voters of california mean nothing.  last time I checked a 2 thirds vote is a substantial victory.

the last video I saw in support of californias vote NO  supporters compared restricting gay marriage to that of the restrictions of asians in WWII concentration camps.  This is utterly offensive to all asians.  to compare the sufferage of the asian people to that of whiney gays who want to have the term 'marriage' instead of the legally equal term 'civil union' is perposterous.  

One's choice of who or what they decide to have sex with should have no merit as to the legal rights they may or may not deserve.  


We all have the right to the pursuit of happiness,  however;  as with all things there are limits,  take a moment and think of inhumane and immoral things that have made people happy before in the past.  Many men would be quite 'happy' being allowed to marry multiple women as poligamists, and some women claim to enjoy that life style as well;  however,  polygamy is and will be illegal.  Too bad for all the men out there who just can't make up thier minds...


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

Gay marriage should be legal. Gay people have families and children, and there are certain rights pertaining to the family that are only available to married people. More to the point though, there are no real reasons to ban gay marriage aside from religion, and forcing your religious views on the general population is unconstitutional.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

Please show me where in the constitution where it says we have the right to marriage...

Forcing religious vies is unconstitutional!?  perhaps you are not familiar with the 10 commandments and how they have shaped the laws of man as well as the laws of the USA.  

It's a religious view that murder is wrong

It's a religious view that stealing is wrong

It's a religious view that lying is wrong

perhaps we should eliminate all laws that coincide with religious beliefs and see how thin our lawbooks become.


please think before you post.


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> Please show me where in the constitution where it says we have the right to marriage...
> 
> Forcing religious vies is unconstitutional!?  perhaps you are not familiar with the 10 commandments and how they have shaped the laws of man as well as the laws of the USA.
> 
> ...


You got this all wrong. Your right that most laws have religious backings but the laws you use as examples are not like the gay marriage proposal. Banning murder and stealing doesn't discriminate against anyone except criminals. If gay marriage is banned that will discriminant against homosexuals. No discrimination is what America is all about in TODAY'S times (although discrimination still exist).


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

Oh please. The idea that you own morality just because you have a book that says so is laughable, as is the idea that anything that coincides with that book must be based on it. And by the way, I never said that marriage was a constitutional right.

It is NOT a religious view that murder is wrong, it is the view of everyone that has ever seen the damage done by murder, religious or not.

It is NOT a religious view that stealing is wrong, it is the view of everyone that has any sense of justice, religious or not.

It is NOT a religious view that lying is wrong, it is the view of everyone that values the truth, religious or not.

The fact that the _men_ who wrote the bible held the same beliefs as most other people on this subject doesn't give the bible any extra authority.


Please think before you post.


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

That is my view on it.


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

Pimpmynintendo said:
			
		

>


That's the best thing I've ever seen!


----------



## Raika (Nov 2, 2008)

Me too...


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)




----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

Banger said:
			
		

>


nice. Real nice.

EDIT: To not break the one word post rule.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

why should rights be granted based on what or who a person has sex with?  if gay marriage should be legal, why not polygamy?  Marriage is defined as a union between man and woman.  It's that simple.  if they want to have rights to legally assign thier insurance policies etc to thier gay lover that's between them and thier own business.  changing the definition to bend exisiting laws and inconsistacies is not the way to go about things.

It has long been established that the healthiest environment for a child to be raised in is with a father and mother 2 parent houshold.  If it is legally acceptable for a man to marry a man, and as a recognised legal couple of 2,  a gay married couple would then have legal momentum to challenge an adoption agency to adopt a child,  putting the child at risk of not being able to be raised in the most prestine of conditions.  would aman and man be suitable parents?  perhaps,  perhaps not... either way a 20/20 special has already addressed the issue, and the results were astoundingly against same sex couples with children; most importantly, the children of the couples were against the unions.

Put simply,  legalizing gay marriage jeopradizes other institutions intertwined with the basic laws of marriage at hand.  A plethora of loopholes will have to be sewn if prop 8 does not pass.


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> why should rights be granted based on what or who a person has sex with?  if gay marriage should be legal, why not polygamy?  Marriage is defined as a union between man and woman.  It's that simple.  if they want to have rights to legally assign thier insurance policies etc to thier gay lover that's between them and thier own business.  changing the definition to bend exisiting laws and inconsistacies is not the way to go about things.
> 
> It has long been established that the healthiest environment for a child to be raised in is with a father and mother 2 parent houshold.  If it is legally acceptable for a man to marry a man, and as a recognised legal couple of 2,  a gay married couple would then have legal momentum to challenge an adoption agency to adopt a child,  putting the child at risk of not being able to be raised in the most prestine of conditions.  would aman and man be suitable parents?  perhaps,  perhaps not... either way a 20/20 special has already addressed the issue, and the results were astoundingly against same sex couples with children; most importantly, the children of the couples were against the unions.
> 
> Put simply,  legalizing gay marriage jeopradizes other institutions intertwined with the basic laws of marriage at hand.  A plethora of loopholes will have to be sewn if prop 8 does not pass.


How can you say that? Most marriages have a 65% of failure. You thinks that a good environment for a child? It does not matter if the parents are the same sex, as long as the parents love the child.


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> It has long been established that the healthiest environment for a child to be raised in is with a father and mother 2 parent houshold.


Please provide a non-religious source to back up this claim.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

Please take the time to use google and do a little research on what the best environment for a child is.

or better yet, take a child development class and get back to me.


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> Please take the time to use google and do a little research on what the best environment for a child is.
> 
> or better yet, take a child development class and get back to me.




Penn and Tellers bullshit has gone though and shown a child raised by gay parents turn out just the same as a child raised by both a mom and dad, actually probably turn out more then normal as gay parents are less likely to argue then straight parents imho.


----------



## Sir-Fritz (Nov 2, 2008)

This has already become a flame war i see :hehe:


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> Please take the time to use google and do a little research on what the best environment for a child is.
> 
> or better yet, take a child development class and get back to me.


You made the claim, you back it up. That's how these things work. I don't owe you my time to research everthing you say just because you said it.


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

Banger said:
			
		

> Lord Kanti said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Crap I ment to edit, if a mod wants they can merge the two topics or delete the other one for a fix


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> Please take the time to use google and do a little research on what the best environment for a child is.
> 
> or better yet, take a child development class and get back to me.


Translation: I dont have a source


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

So Pen and Teller are the autority on child rearing...

Every child development book I have used states that the healthiest environment for child rearing is with a mother father 2 parent household.  As an educator I can assure you that this is common knowledge in the field.  Considering that you do not believe me I will have to take the time to gather specific sources for you to 'read.'  pardon me for not having a source available for you within the last 8 minutes,  one day you will learn adhd will not get you far when compiling a research document.


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

Actually the are pretty good at showing both sides of a situation, they might not be 100% perfect but show me someone that is and I will show you someone thats full of shit...No one should care what someone else does unless it effects them and I am sorry gay marriages do not effect 99% of us.


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> Every child development book I have used states that the healthiest environment for child rearing is with a mother father 2 parent household.


Would you have used a book that said anything else?


----------



## da_head (Nov 2, 2008)

i'm against it.


----------



## Holaitsme (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord kanti why the fuck do you care ? I mean its not even your life.


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

Destructobot said:
			
		

> Lord Kanti said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


good point. Just because its in a book doesn't mean its true. Its called a bias. To prove any of us wrong you need to need to have actually numbers from a reliable and an unbalanced source. 

FYI: this was aimed toward lord kanti not destructobot


----------



## blahman (Nov 2, 2008)

How about change the laws and remove the term "marriage" from it. Replace it with a specific legal term for such a union of individuals. In doing so it can provide homosexuals the same rights as everyone else and let the religious people keep their holy matrimony.


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> why should rights be granted based on what or who a person has sex with?  if gay marriage should be legal, why not polygamy?  Marriage is defined as a union between man and woman.  It's that simple.  if they want to have rights to legally assign thier insurance policies etc to thier gay lover that's between them and thier own business.  changing the definition to bend exisiting laws and inconsistacies is not the way to go about things.
> 
> It has long been established that the healthiest environment for a child to be raised in is with a father and mother 2 parent houshold.  If it is legally acceptable for a man to marry a man, and as a recognised legal couple of 2,  a gay married couple would then have legal momentum to challenge an adoption agency to adopt a child,  putting the child at risk of not being able to be raised in the most prestine of conditions.  would aman and man be suitable parents?  perhaps,  perhaps not... either way a 20/20 special has already addressed the issue, and the results were astoundingly against same sex couples with children; most importantly, the children of the couples were against the unions.
> 
> Put simply,  legalizing gay marriage jeopradizes other institutions intertwined with the basic laws of marriage at hand.  A plethora of loopholes will have to be sewn if prop 8 does not pass.


1. Early on laws stated that marriage was between 2 people.
2. It has not been "established" that a marriage between two straight people is better at parenting that is untrue. No matter how much research you do on something like that, it is total bs. A study of this nature would not be nearly as true as they make it out to be because of biased people doing them and because no matter if you are gay or straight a great parent will always be a great parent and a horrible one will be horrible. A bad environment comes from how the parents act not who they love.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

heres a start for you:

Hilton JM, Devall EL. Comparison of parenting and children's behavior in single-mother, single-father, and intact families. J Divorce & Remarriage. 1998;29 :23 –54


and when youre done with that one try:

Popenoe D. Life Without Father. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1996:144, 146

if you want me to read it to you too damn bad,  Im not hear to read you bed time stories, If you want that then ask your nanny.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

in regards to me not using any other book,  the books used are standard in the field of child development and use complete scientific studies to determine what is best for the physical and psycological well being of developing children.

claiming ignorance to the field is not a way to determine correctness,  if you do not believe me then take a moment to visit your county library,  learn a thing or two and enlighten yourself.  So many people tend to believe that if people do not agree on an issue then there mustn't be a definitive answer at hand.  2 thousand years ago men argued with similar passion as to whether or not the world was flat or round,  by today's standards the men who proposed the world being flat woud be considered just in thier opinion and that they are entitled to thier beliefs...


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

blahman said:
			
		

> How about change the laws and remove the term "marriage" from it. Replace it with a specific legal term for such a union of individuals. In doing so it can provide homosexuals the same rights as everyone else and let the religious people keep their holy matrimony.


People would never go for that. It would be seen as a terrible act of disrespect by both sides, and rightly so. Besides, as you can see from Lord Kanti's posts, keeping gays from having the same rights as heterosexual couples is very important to those that oppose gay marriage. (OMG they might be able to adopt! Won't someone please think of the children!)


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

Uhh that is not evidence. I could easily go online and copy and paste the name of a child development book myself. That doesn't make it true.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

Two men can love a child with all thier heart but neither could ever provide what a mother could.  It's been proven time and time again that there is a link between a child and his or her biological parents (when biological parents are not available an adoptive mother and father are the next best thing to when blood relatives are not available to adopt).  there are psycological bonds and gender issues that go beyond general affections.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
copying and pasting doesnt make it true?   OK then, your ignorance at hand doesnt make it untrue.  If you want the facts you will have to investigate for yourself,  if you think life is about people force feeding you knowledge and taking you by the hand every step of the way then I'm sorry to inform you that in life you will have to take care of yourself and learn to form knowledgable opinions based on facts and research, not ignorance to the subject at hand.  This subject has been scientifically settled,  I do not need to re-prove these studies,  you simply need to avert from laziness and read the studies yourself.  I went out of my way to provide a repuatable source,  perhaps you'd like me to plug a usb cable into your brainstem and click "transmit"


----------



## granville (Nov 2, 2008)

Gay marriage is actually one of the least harmful moral questions, despite the big fuss obsessive religious zealots make of it. In reality, anyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not infringe on the choices and freedoms of others. That's the key difference between gay marriage and something like murder or some polygamist cults that brainwash their women. Murder is killing someone against their will whereas gay marriage is the mutual agreement between two people to become bonded. No one's freedom or rights are being broken here.

Gay marriage is something that would be sickening to me if it were brought upon me. But not because I'm sickened by the people who do it OR by their act of doing it. I'm just strictly strait and it's something that doesn't fit me at all. But I support whatever makes men and women happy as long as it doesn't come into conflict with the rights and freedoms of others.

And just so you know, I am a self-proclaimed Christian. I don't let this religion blind me though.

For anyone against gay marriage: *None of your rights or freedoms are being disrupted. The polygamist cults however, have been known to brainwash their women which is a clear violation of human rights. The same goes for murder and any other act where a person is being a victim of something against their will.*


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> Two men can love a child with all thier heart but neither could ever provide what a mother could.  It's been proven time and time again that there is a link between a child and his or her biological parents (when biological parents are not available an adoptive mother and father are the next best thing to when blood relatives are not available to adopt).  there are psycological bonds and gender issues that go beyond general affections.


Ummm if that is true then how come I have known quite a few kids who get along better and like their adoptive parents way more than other kids I have seen liked and got along better than with their biological parents.
Edit:Also about those "studies" you have read upon like quite a few of us have stated before those are usually biased against gays to show supposed "proof" to keep gay marriage from happening.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

In reality, anyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not infringe on the choices and freedoms of others.

so a baby has a choice if a gay couple is allowed to adopt it?  children do not get the same say so as adults do.

I never mentioned polygamist cults,  In fact polygamy is legal in some countries, no cults involved.  

If gay marriage can be legal why not polygamy?


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

As long as everyone involved agrees to it, polygamy _should_ be legal.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

scientific and psycological journals are based on science and fact, not bias.  extensive work goes into creating a research journal, and if the scientific community senses bias or untrue claims (experiments where the same results cannot reproduce the same results as claimed on paper)  then they do not get published or aknowledged as fact.


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

Destructobot said:
			
		

> As long as everyone involved agrees to it, polygamy _should_ be legal.



If all the people in the relation ship agree it really shouldnt matter.


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> scientific and psycological journals are based on science and fact, not bias.  extensive work goes into creating a research journal, and if the scientific community senses bias or untrue claims (experiments where the same results cannot reproduce the same results as claimed on paper)  then they do not get published or aknowledged as fact.


Not really. I have read dozens of scientific, religious, psychological journals with bias. I tend to read them on a daily basis actually.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

dinofan01 said:
			
		

> Lord Kanti said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Then submit your rebuttal and prove these biased scientific arguments wrong.  Surely if you can subjecta valid claim with scientific evidence your findings will take the place of the previous false biased ones.


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

Banger said:
			
		

> Destructobot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm saying they should have the same legal rights as a monogamous couple (e.g. adopting each other's children to gain legal parenthood), just like gay couples should.


----------



## Satangel (Nov 2, 2008)

My opinion is that it's perfectly okay for the people, but when children come in...
No, that child will be bullied at school forever, that kid won't have a happy life....


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> scientific and psycological journals are based on science and fact, not bias.  extensive work goes into creating a research journal, and if the scientific community senses bias or untrue claims *(experiments where the same results cannot reproduce the same results as claimed on paper)*  then they do not get published or aknowledged as fact.


They can't reproduce the same results because:
1. Parent's are good/bad parent's based on their actions not who they marry.
2. No matter what kind of marriage it is some parents have issues others don't.
3. Same as above except with kids.
4. The other environments the kids live in are always different(neighborhood/friends/school)
5. Speaking of Psychology a lot of people don't even regard it as a science and it is about as reliable as the medicine prescribed by psychiatrists(not very)


----------



## nando (Nov 2, 2008)

as a gay dad i don't see any other option but to legalize gay marriage.


----------



## granville (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> In reality, anyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as it does not infringe on the choices and freedoms of others.
> 
> so a baby has a choice if a gay couple is allowed to adopt it?  children do not get the same say so as adults do.
> 
> ...



A seemingly fair statement, but being bullied for that is society's fault and not the child's or the parents'. I can use the same reason for interracial families (and I went to school with an interracial girl) and a long time ago, black people. Society needs to change, not the people. That's how we are getting over racism (slowly).


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> dinofan01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can say the same to you. You've yet to give valid of gay marriage being bad for a child or bad for society. And no I'm not going to prove some scientific arguments wrong because, well, first off why? I know I'm not going to sway you from your homophobic ways, so whats the point?


----------



## zombielove (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> scientific and psycological journals are based on science and fact, not bias.  extensive work goes into creating a research journal, and if the scientific community senses bias or untrue claims (experiments where the same results cannot reproduce the same results as claimed on paper)  then they do not get published or aknowledged as fact.



You should be able to work this one out for yourself quite easily.

You know from your experience that the human mind does not act the same way in every situation. Nor is it the same for every individual. Psychology can't use the usual scientific method of a repetitive experiment that returns the same results consistently. Psychology is not a real science like physics or chemistry. It's a weak observational method, only called science by name - like social science.

Anyone can have a journal published. Just because someone has "Dr." before their name, or have done extensive research doesn't make their analysis foolproof.

If you can show me proof that a child will be worse off with a loving gay parent than it would be with an abusive mother, or no parent at all (remember it has to be 100% of the time, in all observations. We're doing science here.) then I'll believe you.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

I have already submitted 2 sources,  I dont need to prove what others have already done.


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

granville said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The same can (and does) happen in all sorts of relationships. Anyone that's seen one of their friends get sucked into a relationship with some psycho that makes them miserable can attest to this.


----------



## granville (Nov 2, 2008)

Destructobot said:
			
		

> granville said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True that. And that's what happened between my mother and father. My dad was abusive to her and attempted to control her. She actually said I was a blessing because I'm what made him leave her (they weren't married). Although I think she was strong enough to leave him on her own eventually.


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

zombielove said:
			
		

> Lord Kanti said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah this is what I tried to say before but put perfectly. Psychological journals are not even close to being a scientific journal. If Psychology was a science how come I have been diagnosed around 20 different ways in the past 10 years by so many psychologists. All it really is is guesswork. You can never take a psychologists word for truth imho because there are always at least 100 more willing to give you 100 different views.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

Pimpmynintendo said:
			
		

> zombielove said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Dude,  did you really open yourself up like that with said statement?   I'll avoid the first 20 things that came to mind and hold back snickers and snide remarks for the sake of civility...


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> Dude,  did you really open yourself up like that with said statement?   *I'll avoid the first 20 things that came to mind and hold back snickers and snide remarks for the sake of civility...*


1. I don't care what you think about that statement I was merely proving a point about how stupid it is to believe psychiatrist about the best environment for a family.
2. You are just making yourself sound like an jerk/idiot by saying the part in bold because you have no idea what I was being diagnosed for.(and also because if you were going to be civil you wouldn't have said that at all.
3. At least I know how to quote.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

Consider it advise for future debate, otherwise you will be made out to be the straw man.


----------



## xcalibur (Nov 2, 2008)

I say live and let live. So long as we dont get gay toddlers.


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> Consider it advise for future debate, otherwise you will be made out to be the straw man.


One could say the same about you not being able to spell psychological.


----------



## zombielove (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> Consider it advise for future debate, otherwise you will be made out to be the straw man.



Ok, you've now resorted to personal attacks, and claims that you don't need to prove your asinine opinions.

So, is this the part where you admit you were wrong?


----------



## Sir-Fritz (Nov 2, 2008)

Pimpmynintendo said:
			
		

> zombielove said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What, so your mentally unstable and your giving advice now? lol


----------



## granville (Nov 2, 2008)

zombielove said:
			
		

> Lord Kanti said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That won't be necessary. We know he's wrong. All he did after everyone slammed his "logic" was become an arrogant snob and say "I don't have to answer you".


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> Dude,  did you really open yourself up like that with said statement?   I'll avoid the first 20 things that came to mind and hold back snickers and snide remarks for the sake of civility...
> Wow. All that work to make yourself look like a somewhat intelligent yet naive person down the drain with that comment. That just showed your immaturity. And no your age doesn't actually have anything to do with immaturity.
> *IMO this thread is over. *



All opposition have been proven wrong but are just to full of themselves to listen.


----------



## El Blacksheep (Nov 2, 2008)

I read through half the topic and got sick of the bickering and the circular logic, so I'll just state my 2 cents:

Marriage is rooted in religion, and has become a legal entity over time. As much as I'd like to say "Gay marriage shouldn't be a government issue: let the church decide this for themselves" it's not that simple because of what marriage evolved into over the course of history. As much of a homophobe as I am (and believe me I am. I don't mind the conservative gays but the flamers irk me) *it's just plain wrong to violate somebody's rights when they've done nothing to deserve it.* It wasn't right under indentured servitude, it wasn't right under slavery, and it isn't right here either.

The problem then lies in the fact that marriage has ties into religion, which defines it as being between a man and a woman. As long as this bond exists, this dispute will never be settled; something has to go. Either the term marriage must adopt an entirely new meaning and forsake it's ties to religion (not gonna happen) or the entire concept of marriage altogether must dissolve (also not gonna happen). Pretty much, drastic change is required to bring justice to this issue. It's not an issue that can be settled by passing a law or even a constitutional amendment - look how long ago the Civil War was. The south freed the slaves, and yet to this day racism exists everywhere you go.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

arrogant?  do you have to re-prove fact everytime something faces you in life?  If I had to prove and reinvent things that have already come and passed then my life would be a tedious and wastefull one.  Had this been a research paper or open debate forum, the facts I have stated along with given sources would suffice.  I would most likely have had more than 2 sources but this is GBATEMP.NET   not a real debate.  Had I not used up my last two research papers on the benefits of videogames in the classroom, I'd gladly accept this topic and post my results online.   I did however get an A on my last paper and convince the professor that videogames are good,  so at least I have accomplished that for now...


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

_*snip_

One thing I always found funny was if somebody says they have gone to a psychiatrist the first thing that comes to peoples mind is that person is crazy. It's the same when somebody hears that somebody in the Special Ed they think person is retarded when in reality all gifted kids(in the US) are in special ed.

Also Lord Kanti what you aren't getting is that Psychology isn't a science that gay parent's are worse overall than straight parent's can't be proven as fact. Also having sources doesn't make those sources right. I could quote Jack Thompson on video games and say video games are evil yet that doesn't mean that my source is right lol


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

granville said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If not all members are then no it should not happen but the person who wishs to be in a polygamy relationships can always find those who wish to be in such a relation ship. However whatever way you look at it you can say one of the members have been brain washed by over time everyone has been brainwashed to think a certain way or act a certain way and when someone goes out side of this "norm" they find them to be in the wrong and should be burned alive (using Salem witch trials as am example here) or put in jail (more modern). 

I am sure murder will be brought up with these examples, but lets see...


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> arrogant?  do you have to re-prove fact everytime something faces you in life?  If I had to prove and reinvent things that have already come and passed then my life would be a tedious and wastefull one.  Had this been a research paper or open debate forum, the facts I have stated along with given sources would suffice.  I would most likely have had more than 2 sources but this is GBATEMP.NET   not a real debate.  Had I not used up my last two research papers on the benefits of videogames in the classroom, I'd gladly accept this topic and post my results online.   I did however get an A on my last paper and convince the professor that videogames are good,  so at least I have accomplished that for now...


.....*faceplam* What does a research report on video games have to do with gay marriage? Oh right nothing. Just because your not on a debate forum does not mean you have to "hold back." You were proven wrong. I dare you to go on an open date forum that isn't filled primarily with people from the white south and try the same argument. Listing two books wont get you anywhere. They would laugh you of their website. Your just lucky your on gbatemp and were use to simple minded people such as yourself.


----------



## zombielove (Nov 2, 2008)

_*snip_

I know... I guess I'm dreaming. I just think the world would be a better place if people just admitted they were wrong sometimes, apologised and got on with their lives instead of making excuses and digging deeper and deeper holes for themselves.

I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong about something.

I don't know why it's so hard to say, "I don't believe in gay marriage because I was raised in a predominantly Christian/ Muslim society and I have been taught that homosexuality is wrong from a very young age, therefore it's very hard for me to change my opinion. But this is just an opinion. It's not scientific fact."

Fair enough, you hate gays, you're entitled to that opinion. But don't try to claim your opinion as scientific fact.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

so I 'failed' at proving what has already been proven by providing legitamate sources.


so be it.  now's your chance to prove yourself correct and post your 'evidence' and sources...


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

dinofan01 said:
			
		

> Lord Kanti said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hay can't legally marry I don't know what you are talking about


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> so I 'failed' at proving what has already been proven by providing legitamate sources.
> 
> 
> so be it.  now's your chance to prove yourself correct and post your 'evidence' and sources...


that's the problem, psychology isn't foolproof as you are proving for us right here

sorry about double post


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

zombielove said:
			
		

> Fair enough, you hate gays, you're entitled to that opinion. But don't try to claim your opinion as scientific fact.


Being against gay marriage is not the same as hating gays. Not everything is black and white in this world. Everyone sees the world through their own point of view, and I'm sure we look just as stupid to Lord Kanti as he looks to us. 

He seems to have a genuine concern that allowing gay marriage will harm children, and society in general, and that's fine. Really, the truth is probably somewhere between our viewpoint and his.


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> so I 'failed' at proving what has already been proven by providing legitamate sources.
> 
> 
> so be it.  now's your chance to prove yourself correct and post your 'evidence' and sources...


God your simple. You've yet to give "legitimate" sources. Like I've said, I don't know how many times before, listing books doesn't count as a source. I don't need evidence to prove that an opinion is wrong. If you had actually numbers I would say I was wrong. But you can't. Why? Because it's an OPINION.


----------



## El Blacksheep (Nov 2, 2008)

oh, was my post too late for the "intelligent response" portion of the thread? are we now just in "flamez only" territory?
i wasn't aware.

proceed.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

I'd much enjoy to witness said comments between you and a group of accredited psychologists.  

psychology?  everyone knows psychologists cant be taken seriously, it's not even a 'real' science.


----------



## dinofan01 (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> I'd much enjoy to witness said comments between you and a group of accredited psychologists.
> 
> psychology?  everyone knows psychologists cant be taken seriously, it's not even a 'real' science.


.... this topic is over. Hes reverted to talking aimlessly which in return is causing people to flame. tinymonkeyt was right.


----------



## EmperorOfCanada (Nov 2, 2008)

I could care less and there is a member of my immediate family who is gay.


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> I'd much enjoy to witness said comments between you and a group of accredited psychologists.
> 
> psychology?  everyone knows psychologists cant be taken seriously, it's not even a 'real' science.


Umm it isn't


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

After 6 pages I am still the only one to offer any sources backing his claim....


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

dinofan01 said:
			
		

> Lord Kanti said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Flaming requires some kind of hate for someone and as I love everyone/do not care what they do 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Unless you were not talking to me


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

condsidering this the gay marriage thread,  I figured "flaming"was something else entirely...


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

Banger said:
			
		

> dinofan01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is a gay marriage thread and Lord Kanti hates the idea of gay's being able to marry therefore hate is there.


----------



## zombielove (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> so I 'failed' at proving what has already been proven by providing legitamate sources.
> 
> 
> so be it.  now's your chance to prove yourself correct and post your 'evidence' and sources...



I have nothing to prove. I'm not making a claim such as you, merely refuting your illogic. The burden of proof lies on you.
Your sources have convinced me of nothing. If you have a serious case, state it clearly so that I may challenge it.

Sorry to use a personal attack, but did you say your work in education? Your ability to construct a logical argument, and obey basic rules of spelling and grammar makes me nervous for the children you teach.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

page 7... still I am the only one who has solid sources.

eh so now I'm a hate mongerer... got any other labels for me?


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

Pimpmynintendo said:
			
		

> Banger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ahh what a shame really. Anyone mind stating his so called facts that gays should not marry?


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

Banger said:
			
		

> Pimpmynintendo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because according to his psychology sources gays are worse parents


----------



## granville (Nov 2, 2008)

And the bible.


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

The bible is in no way to be depicted as fact. If he can list even 1,00 sources that show gay's make worse parents than that of a Straight or single parent upbringing I shall believe him. Those 1,000 sources have to be unique and can not just relay the same study group over and over again. To do this study you are going to have to bend your moral values to prove to everyone here you are right putting you (at least in your mind) in the wrong.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

you bring asmile to my face....


I dont want to dig through threads so here we go... YOU STATED that the bible has no merit because it is abible and based off religion.  I STATED that the bible has the 10 commandments and that laws according to these commandments exist TODAY..


i then said,  if laws that coinside with religion are wrong then abolishthose laws and see what is left over.....

I NEVER brought the bible up as a weapon against gay marriage so dont label me abible thumping fool.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IF any one here has taken Soc 16 (marriage and the family) or child development, and actually paid attention,  he or she would know that the best environment for a child is witha mother and father.



Plain and Simple... I listed my sources and so far no one here can do the same.   Call me names and twist what I have said but untill you can at least find a legitiamate source disregarding what is taught in regards to sociology, child  development and psycology, then really you have no merit.

Not only have I posted sources I have taken several classes and read several books that use several sources that all state that  a father and mother is the best for  a child, I am an educator in the field, and a parent.


I wrote a paper on video games,  and by that remark I was informing you taht by writing that paper I have used up my option to write on gay marriage and post my findings.  had I chosen gay marriage beforehand my findings would be posted on page 1 of this discussion.  I do not have the time to do a free research paper for  you.  if you are too lazy to check my sources do not use your ignorance as validity to your claim.


One more thing: I don't spell check, get over it.


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

The 10 commandments are a biblical form and they are based on morality that most humans have. (I can not say all as I do not have that kinda of data to back it up just as you so not have the kind of data to back up gays be worse parents then a straight parent(s)... nor will I state such fact because I wrote a paper about it) I do not honor my father does that mean I am bad?  I mean he did walk out on his family yet I should still honor him because you 10 commandments say I should? I still do not see where you get 2 humans of the same genders should not marry out of these said commandments.


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

IMHO Lord Kanti is the internet Jack Thompson of gay marriage.


----------



## El Blacksheep (Nov 2, 2008)

i figure i'll post this here:

since this thread has devolved to just a bunch of flaming, the actual debate is continuing in IRC right now. if you can manage to stay on point, you're welcome to join in.


----------



## EmperorOfCanada (Nov 2, 2008)

@Lord

I dont want to read this entire thread but if I may ask you something, are you saying that gay parents are actually worse parents than straight parents or just that kids that are raised with a mother and father are better adjusted than kids raised in other environments?

I'm not arguing your statements at all just want to be clear at what some other people here are getting hot and bothered over.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

I believe that it was granville that stated that laws based on religion are wrong....

I then stated that if all laws that coinside with the ten commandments (they're religious after all) or other religious references are wrong then he ought to strip down a lawbook and tell me whats left.....

the point being that his comment was FALSE, that just because a religion holds something to be true doesnt make it false simply because it's a "religious belief."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

to canada-

I stated, as the textbooks state:  the OPTIMAL environment for child rearing is between a man (husband) and woman(wife).

usingthis logic one can see where a dillema arises when the definition of marriage is changed.



now are gays incapable of lovinga child?  I'm sure they can love a child,  but no matter how much they love a child thier love can never provide what a mother and father can.  


I posted sources that coincide with these factualy statments,  99% of this thread is a flame, generally against me  amd ignore fact and logical argument


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
also to clear it up as fritz said i should  I am not against gay rights,  simply i am against the changing of the definition of marriage:   gays should be treated equally legally via Civil Union,  not by imposing thier beliefs on the majority and changing a definition that has existed since day one.


also this has already been voted on,  two thirds vote was in favor of traditional marriage 4 pro gay judges threw the votes out.  the judges wer based in san francisco.......   u be the judge.


----------



## Pimpmynintendo (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> I believe that it was granville that stated that laws based on religion are wrong....
> 
> I then stated that if all laws that coinside with the ten commandments (they're religious after all) or other religious references are wrong then he ought to strip down a lawbook and tell me whats left.....
> 
> the point being that his comment was FALSE, that just because a religion holds something to be true doesnt make it false simply because it's a "religious belief."


I am pretty sure that granville meant laws based solely on religious beliefs are wrong. It being against the law to assailt somebody isn't against the law because of religion it is against the law because you are harming/wronging them.


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

El Blacksheep said:
			
		

> i figure i'll post this here:
> 
> since this thread has devolved to just a bunch of flaming, the actual debate is continuing in IRC right now. if you can manage to stay on point, you're welcome to join in.



I would join but I need to head to bed soon and I was already in an hour long debate today. Is hostmasking set yet, if so I shall join tomorrow.


@Lord I never stated that something that is a religious belief is false. However the law is not based on the commandments more so then morality. These laws that we follow today are those depicted by the rich not majority of everyone. Just because the majority agree on 1 law and not another does not make it right in any shape or form.


~~~~~

Who is to judge what is optimal? Someone making things up or actual proof? Which from what I can see you have shown none. If wish to prove such get 1000 parents and 750. and find some straight parents (Male and female) some gay parents (Male and male aswell as female and female), some single parents (both straight and gay) from different social standings (Ranging from poor to rich) and follow these familys for 20 years and show us unbiased information on such and I shall believe what you are saying but saying you wrote paper tells me nothing.


Someone should not go into a debate thinking they are right and have no interest in changing their mind as that is pure ignorance.


----------



## El Blacksheep (Nov 2, 2008)

if you've ever taken a sociology course (with a completely open mind) you'd realize there really isn't a universal right and wrong; it's all based off of what a society mandates, and in most of the civilized world society's distinction of right and wrong comes directly from religion.

i don't agree with lord kanti at all, but to say laws aren't based on religion is just ignorant. laws define right and wrong (and their punishments), which comes straight from religious beliefs of what is right and what is wrong.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

please tell me how the 10 commandments arent solely based on the bible?

the 10 commandments have been in courthousese for years.  as to recent rulings,  this just goes to show what an ignoramous jackass with free time can achieve....


----------



## granville (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> I believe that it was granville that stated that laws based on religion are wrong....


Wrong. I never said that. +1 for libel. What I said was that laws protect people's freedom. As long as all people's freedom is being respected, there's no reason to deny freedom. Murder is denying the freedom to live. Anything done against someone's will is a strike to their freedom. And gay marriage isn't interfering with ANYONE's freedom.

But if we go by what the bible has to say, why aren't women slaves? The bible states God's quoted words multiple times that women are to be subservient to men. Since woman's liberation, women have never accepted that men are better than they are. With good reason in my opinion. But it just goes to show that the bible can't always be trusted. And I don't blame God for that either. I blame the men who wrote the bible and put their own beliefs into it instead of what is really true.

But I wouldn't take it too serious. The bible is self-contradictory in many subjects. But lets look at the 10 Commandments:

*ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' *

I don't see anything there about gays.


----------



## EmperorOfCanada (Nov 2, 2008)

@Lord

I do not believe gay parents would be worse parents than a mother and father raising their child. However if your point is that on average, children have the best chance to succeed as healthy (physically/spiritually/emotionally) individuals if they are raised by both their mother and their father..

Then I dont think that is so unrealistic. Of course it is never in black and white but you are talking about ideal circumstances and not simply saying that gays are worse parents then.. Meh its late and I am rambling but so far I wouldnt paint you as a gay hater.

Seems like you are simply trying to make a point that has been twisted and distorted into gay bashing.

*Caveat*
I havent read the whole thing, so if Im wrong, Im wrong


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

El Blacksheep said:
			
		

> if you've ever taken a sociology course (with a completely open mind) you'd realize there really isn't a universal right and wrong; it's all based off of what a society mandates, and in most of the civilized world society's distinction of right and wrong comes directly from religion.
> 
> i don't agree with lord kanti at all, but to say laws aren't based on religion is just ignorant. laws define right and wrong (and their punishments), which comes straight from religious beliefs of what is right and what is wrong.


Laws and religion are based on morality. Saying religion and the law are not based on such is ignorance.


----------



## quim69 (Nov 2, 2008)

My views of gay marriage are exactly the same as straight marriage - a pointless exercise.

I don't need my relationships validated by the church or the state.

Marriage/civil partnerships = stupid.


----------



## Hehe Moo (Nov 2, 2008)

If I found out my kid was gay i would go nuts xD


----------



## El Blacksheep (Nov 2, 2008)

morality is a social construct based on the concept of right and wrong.

when a child is born, would you say it's moral or immoral? neither, because it hasn't yet been exposed to that social construct.
it's all based on right and wrong; a creation of mankind.


----------



## Banger (Nov 2, 2008)

El Blacksheep said:
			
		

> morality is a social construct based on the concept of right and wrong.
> 
> when a child is born, would you say it's moral or immoral? neither, because it hasn't yet been exposed to that social construct.
> it's all based on right and wrong; a creation of mankind.



As is religion and the law ;-) 

Kinda proving my un-announced point here 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





I need to get some sleep, I shall continue this when I wake up.


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that the idea of right and wrong predates organized religion. The idea that without religion there is no right or wrong is patently absurd.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

quim i feel the same,  I don't need the state to validiadate my relationships..  however,  I want to show commitment and strap that ball and chain on hard and cold so that my son will grow up to see what it means to be responsible and commited.  I know a couple who have been together for a LONG time and have a son and they never got married.  when I first met thier son and found out his parents situation he was embarrassed and akward about the whole situation and explaining it....

does that make thier situation wrong?  perhaps, perhaps not, but at least my son will never have to face such a dillema and can learn through me the meaning of responisbility; because if "give up"  shes getting half 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   and when you willingly step into a marriage knowing that if you fail and quit at 'making it work'  .....   eh you see where Im going with this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps Destructobot is unfamiliar with mankind.

man needs law and order.  it is in mans nature to worship god and establish laws and religious practices.  without order you will have a society that resembles the lord of the flies.  There is only one way to see if right and wrong would still be around if there was no religion, and frankly that path is too dangerous simply to say "I told you so"


----------



## zombielove (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> you bring asmile to my face....
> 
> 
> I dont want to dig through threads so here we go... YOU STATED that the bible has no merit because it is abible and based off religion.  I STATED that the bible has the 10 commandments and that laws according to these commandments exist TODAY..
> ...



Ok, now this is something we can work with.

Ok first of all - 10 commandments. Most of these are common for any society. Do not steal. Don't kill people. Pretty basic stuff. It sounds to me like you're claiming that these laws actually came from the Bible. And just to be clear are we talking about the 10 commandments from Deuteronomy or Exodus? Have you even read them? If our laws came from the Bible, where are laws about keeping the Sabbath? Not worshipping false idols? Where is the punishment for the 3rd and 4th generations of children who reject God as their saviour?

Or could it be possible that law and morality comes from social norms and not from the Bible at all? I know your main argument is about society, so let's forget about your idiotic " if laws that coinside with religion are wrong then abolishthose laws and see what is left over....." comment.

Ok so you're trying to gain favour in your opinion because you've taken a high school class on society, because you're an "educator" and a parent? There are lots of parents, lots of people who have been to high school and they all have different opinions from you. These facts hold no sway in what you're trying to argue.

Now, you seem to be so caught up in providing sources, so to please you, I'll post a link here.

Now, does that make my opinion any more valid? No.

So let's get down to it:

I have a lot of opinions on why a gay couple should be able to marry - the big one being the 'loved about to die in hospital, but partner not being able to enter the room argument'. But I think your main concern is gay parenting.

I'm not going to post any sources, because frankly this is all pretty logical. If I post sources, you're not going to look at them. If you're really interested all you have to do is go to google.com.

- Gays cannot have kids naturally. Therefore if they want a child, they need to plan ahead, and probably jump through all kinds of hoops in the adoption process. Any man and woman, no matter their psychological state, criminal record, income, or ability to raise kids can have a child. Try to think in extremes. Who would be a better parent? A poor, redneck woman and her criminal husband who will be put in jail just before the child is born, or a rich gay couple who have saved money, planned to adopt for a long time, have researched child psychology and everything they will need to do to ensure the welfare of their child?

A man and woman is always better? Really?

- What about from the perspective of a troubled child who no one would otherwise adopt? Is that child really better going from foster home to foster home, getting involved in drugs and crime. He could've had a home with a willing gay couple, but the law prevented it.

- From the perspective of society: Are we really better off to continue persecuting people just like we have done to other races and religions? Homosexual relationships have worked in other societies such as ancient Greece, Roman and Japan. How about the Spartans? (You MUST have learned about this in your classes. This is basic stuff.) Wouldn't it be better if we stopped interfering in other people's lives and concentrated on more important things, like the environment, international relations and technology?

- You must also know that the world population is growing. By 2040 we're going to have over 10 billion people on the planet. We need to reduce birth rates. Wouldn't you say the homosexual relationship is ideal for this? Even better than a couple producing only producing 1 offspring, they would be reducing the population of unwanted children every time they adopted.

- As you probably know, children will be teased for just about anything at school. If it's not a gay parent, it will be something else. People have been harassed and even murdered for being the wrong race or religion too. You are one of those people now. Your inability to see that society needs to change, not that children need to be protected from being teased, or not following the standard family structure is just plain wrong.

- If you are against anything that isn't the normal family structure, are you saying that a family with just one parent should be illegal too? If one parent dies, should the other parent have to give up the child? What if an aunt or uncle of the same sex helps raise the child? Would you make that illegal?

Sure, maybe the optimal circumstance for a child is to be with a wealthy, white, non-religious mother and father living in a nice house with a dog. But guess what? The world isn't that simple.

Gay marriage is just as legitimate as any other union. Gay marriage shows a progression of society. If you're against gay marriage then you might as be against inter-racial marriage, women voting and the right for a woman to be able to have a legal abortion.


----------



## Psyfira (Nov 2, 2008)

blahman said:
			
		

> How about change the laws and remove the term "marriage" from it. Replace it with a specific legal term for such a union of individuals. In doing so it can provide homosexuals the same rights as everyone else and let the religious people keep their holy matrimony.


Actually that's how they solved the problem in the UK, and I'd be willing to bet other countries have taken the same course too. The only problem is if the religeous types don't accept the title for what it is (like "it's not marriage so it's meaningless").

It isn't that rules like not stealing and not mudering are purely religeous morals, more like the fear of punishment from God at the time was enough keep some people in line. It's a way of enforcing a law at a time when crime fighting, prevention and justice system resources were nothing like what we have today. I'm not saying that's the only reason it's in there, but it's one interpretation.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

youer missing the point: if two identical couples with no history of crime violence and poverty wanted to adopta child but one couple was gay and the other straight,,  the straight couple is the optimal couple.

throwing random variables into the mix does not change the fact that a mother and father are the optimal environment.  

~~~~~~
Homosexual relationships have worked in other societies such as ancient Greece, Roman ...
wtf?  you do realize that these societys faild misserably.... I'm surprised that the hedonistic and pedophilic inhabitants of rome havntbeen excavated as solid pillars of salt......

if youre ok with letting a teacher teach your 10 yr old son in exchange for raping him anally.... I hope to god you are not a parent, as this was the common practice in these ancient societies.


----------



## Destructobot (Nov 2, 2008)

Ideally, children should be anally raped by priests.


----------



## granville (Nov 2, 2008)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> if youre ok with letting a teacher teach your 10 yr old son in exchange for raping him anally.... I hope to god you are not a parent, as this was the common practice in these ancient societies.



Are you implying that all gay people are rapists?


----------



## zombielove (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> youer missing the point: if two identical couples with no history of crime violence and poverty wanted to adopta child but one couple was gay and the other straight,,  the straight couple is the optimal couple.
> 
> throwing random variables into the mix does not change the fact that a mother and father are the optimal environment.
> 
> ...



*facepalm*

Please read more Dawkins. I'm going to play DS.


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Nov 2, 2008)

I don't really care, as long as they stay away from me.


----------



## zombielove (Nov 2, 2008)

granville said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I sure hope not!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





"In 1992, alarmed over claims made during a campaign for an anti-gay state constitutional amendment in Colorado, two physicians reviewed every case of suspected child molestation evaluated at Children's Hospital in Denver over a one-year period. Of the 269 cases determined to involve molestation by an adult, only two of the perpetrators could be identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater.[8]"

Ok, I'm really going to play DS now. Trying to have a proper debate with uneducated, religious zealots has made me bored.


----------



## quim69 (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> quim i feel the same,  I don't need the state to validiadate my relationships..  however,  I want to show commitment and strap that ball and chain on hard and cold so that my son will grow up to see what it means to be responsible and commited.
> And you can't be responsible or committed without being married?  I'm sorry but that is the most ridiculous thing I've read today.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but you have gone from the ridiculous to the absurd.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

OK I cant hold back,  Youre a bloody jackass!  I said that the  ancient greeks exchanged knowledge for pedophile man boy ass love!  its in the history books!!! or is that not enough PROOF for you!!!

did I say all gay people....  

from now on for my own sanity I will disregard all comments made by granville....


----------



## Mei-o (Nov 2, 2008)

No way, not ever, it should never EVER be legal, call me a 'moral freak', 'old' or 'close-minded' but I'll be against it until the end of time! It wholly defiles the sanctity of marriage! Even being gay would be illegal if I was in charge! NOTHING will ever make me change my view! Say what you want, I don't care!




			
				granville said:
			
		

> Are you implying that all gay people are rapists?


It's the truth.


Also, screw hypocrites, almost as bad as homosexuals themselves.


----------



## quim69 (Nov 2, 2008)

Mei-o said:
			
		

> granville said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, aren't you an intelligent little one.

http://www.stormfront.org/ is probably more up your ally.  ;p


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

absurd?

then tell my why in 
ASIA
NORTH AMERICA
SOUTH AMERICA
and AFRICA 

all have pyramids dedicated to the worship of God?   It is in mans nature to establish law, religion and morality.


read a book once in a while...


----------



## berlinka (Nov 2, 2008)

If two (grown up) people love each other they should be able to marry. It's as simple as that.


----------



## granville (Nov 2, 2008)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> OK I cant hold back, Youre a bloody jackass! I said that the ancient greeks exchanged knowledge for pedophile man boy ass love! its in the history books!!! or is that not enough PROOF for you!!!
> 
> did I say all gay people....
> 
> ...



It's the truth that you are lying.


----------



## Mei-o (Nov 2, 2008)

^I'm ignoring that for obvious reasons.



			
				quim69 said:
			
		

> Mei-o said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, your attempts at trying to look smart sucks...criticizing even humor, you sir...ok, never mind, I know what will happen next...


----------



## quim69 (Nov 2, 2008)

Lord Kanti said:
			
		

> then tell my why in
> ASIA
> NORTH AMERICA
> SOUTH AMERICA
> ...


Humour?  there was no comedy in the original post - just idiocy.  Thanks for the humour in your reply though, I needed a laugh.


----------



## Lord Kanti (Nov 2, 2008)

yes, beacue the bible is all about pyramids...


----------



## Mei-o (Nov 2, 2008)

quim69 said:
			
		

> Mei-o said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stage 1: Denial

Oh dear, I've seen this before, no point in arguing with a pretensive homo, sorry for making you cry sir, err, ma'am! I'll be going on my happy homo-free way!


----------



## Joey R. (Nov 2, 2008)

This thread should be locked ASAP, before more people keep making an ass of themselves. Seriously, opinions should be kept away from the public eye. It's obvious that certain users still don't know how to cope with other people thinking differently from them.


----------



## granville (Nov 2, 2008)

Joey R. said:
			
		

> This thread should be locked ASAP, before more people keep making an ass of themselves. Seriously, opinions should be kept away from the public eye. It's obvious that certain users still don't know how to cope with other people thinking differently from them.


I agree. This began clean enough until the religious zealots came in and started calling everyone faggots and the mud slinging began.


----------



## zombielove (Nov 2, 2008)

_*snip_

It wasn't as sordid as you make it sound. Lol! You sound like a Christian or something! Hahaha.

I haven't studied the Greeks much, I'm more familiar with Japanese culture, but it was pretty much the same kind of relationship, I think.

In ancient Japanese society, most high-ranking samurai, monks and other high members of society had a master-apprentice relationship with younger boys.

It was said that a man's relationship with a wife made him more feminine, which was undesirable. Older samurai would teach young apprentices about swordsmanship, poetry, calligraphy etc. and they would build a relationship together. They were lovers - it was often sexual. The younger man would gain experience, knowledge and training. In those times it was expensive to get married and raise kids for a samurai. Often he couldn't get married, so his assets and family name would be passed to his lover.

Some men continued their relationship together forever. Most got married to women later in life, while still maintaining a close friendship.

In battle it was said to make men fight with more ferocity to defend each other. Mori Ranmaru, the lover of Oda Nobunaga famously performed ritual suicide with Oda after trying to defend him.

Even up until World War 2 this kind of practice went on in Japanese society (until the American Christians came and imposed their 'morality' on everyone)

This was seen as a noble relationship, not "pedophile man boy ass love", as you so eloquently put it.

If you'd like to read more on this topic google 'shudo' or 'danshoku'.


----------



## Mei-o (Nov 2, 2008)

Joey R. said:
			
		

> This thread should be locked ASAP, before more people keep making an ass of themselves. Seriously, opinions should be kept away from the public eye. It's obvious that certain users still don't know how to cope with other people thinking differently from them.


Well, duh, calling other people's OPINIONS idiocy is a huge and horrid idiocy by itself!



Toni, you're reading, close please.


----------



## quim69 (Nov 2, 2008)

Mei-o said:
			
		

> Stage 1: Denial
> I'm not in denial - being in the closet isn't my style.  I'll bum anything - man or woman.
> 
> 
> QUOTEpretensive


Sorry, but it's not even a real word, so their is no point arguing your bigotry at all.

never mind though dear, you may come out of the closet one day


----------



## Toni Plutonij (Nov 2, 2008)

I'm sorry to everyone who started to reply, bitch,  flame,  praise etc.  on this topic.....It really shouldn't have been started in the first place! Because, we're all people with our own opinions, and those opinions can conflict rather hard..
This topic was destined to end this  way from the minute it started!

*TOPIC CLOSED!*


----------

