<p>
Neither does uncredible liberal propoganda Jackson...</p>
<p>
you can't prove any of that. for all anyone knows, homosexuality can be attributed to genetics.</p>
<p>you don't need a degree in rocket science to weed through propaganda, evil.
at least I don't.</p>
<p>hotpiece, some think it can be attributed to genetics. as one person said, why would someone choose a sexuality that turns their parents, friends, and the public against them?</p>
<p>Jackson - The riots are starting up again?! I haven't seen anything on CNN yet. Man, France is a messed up place at the moment. </p>
<p>Evil - Tooo... many... big... words.... for... 3:40.... :)
Ok, so homosexuality is a social condition. Does that mean that the government is justified in discriminating against a social group as opposed to a religious one? I do not see your logic - homosexuals are a group any way you look at them and their rights should be upheld.</p>
<p>"The government is not infringing on any religious belief by dissuading gay marriage primarily because no religion supports gay marriage in the first place." Right - the government is not infringing any religious beliefs by banning gay marriage. They are, however, infringing on that groups rights as citizens. I think that civil rights should come before satisfying particular religious groups opinions - who stand to gain from having same sex marriage banned. </p>
<p>'The USFG is thus not regulating religious morality but upholding a certain moral standard in our society' Maybe not officially, but look at the strongest opposers to gay marriage - they all are from religious backgrounds. Most anti gay marriage arguments inevitably link back to religious ideals, so by supposedly regulating 'social morals' they are infact regulating religious morals. </p>
<p>"Also, I never said that I believed that homosexuality was immoral"
well, yes... you did
"This type of liberal radicalism will degenerate the values of a free society since there is no check on what a American citizen can or cannot do and thus corrupts the country. Indeed the government should and does interfere with the choices of Americs and adults when they are so radical that they threaten all the social standards and ethics that we hold dear."
If gay marriage is a form of 'liberal radicalism' that 'degenerates values' and 'threatens all endeared social standards and ethics' then yes, you are saying that it is immoral by threatening conventional American morals.</p>
<p>As for your points (I can argue these easily even when I'm half asleep)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Goes against a dictionary definition of marriage - So what? When dictionaries were written homosexual open relationships were shunned upon and thus could not be even considered for marriage. Since then, thankfully, social opinion has become more open-minded and homosexual relationships are socially accepted. I think it is time to update the dictionary and reflect this newly socially accepted relationship legally (plus, not all dictionaries have the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman - and what does a book matter anyway? It is just one persons opinion on what a marriage conventionally means)
Constitutes a previously socially condemned practice - Stress the previously. Now homosexual relationships are publicly acceptable. Some examples of previously condemned practices are whites socializing with blacks and students offering their opinions in classrooms. Should these practices stop again just because they were previously condemned? Of course not, they changed for a good reason - to promote civil liberty and reflect man's new-found enlightenment. </p></li>
<li><p>What is bad about homosexuality? And anyway, what are you basing this on? I've never heard any fact to back this neo-con dogma up.</p></li>
<li><p>Fine, so it makes some people uncomfortable. The civil rights movement in the 60s went against public opinion in large parts of the country, but it was necessary to promote civil justice. Civil rights come before public unease - especially outdated, predjudiced and uninformed public unease. To intentionally misquote someone famous (Jefferson, was it? I dont do American history), "The needs of the few outweigh the wants of the many" </p></li>
<li><p>No, it doesn't spread disease. If couples are married they will presumably remain mamogonous so no STIs will be spread around. In fact, by providing a social incentive for the couples to remain faithful to one another it would cut down on the spread of STIs. Also, STIs are spread by heterosexuals. What do you mean harms the next generation? I assume you are talking about STIs being passed to the next generation because emotional problems are adressed in your next point... How would less STIs harm the next generation physically?</p></li>
<li><p>If gay marriage was legalised, it would presumably become more socially acceptable so the children would not be as traumatised. There are strict adoption policies for the same-sex couples, so the couples would have to prove that they could help the child cope with any emotional problems. All children have at least basic counselling at their schools. I know lots of children of same sex relationships who are fine (in fact every same-sex child that I know is completely normal)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Man I've got a huge migraine.</p>
<p>bravo madd. it's good to hear some reason for once on this page.
check google news - that's where i saw the riot info.</p>
<p>Holy sh1t! An estimated 250,000 protestors - this could get ugly...</p>
<p>wow - that's way worse than it was when I saw it.</p>
<p>very ugly.</p>
<p>It says they're spread out amongst a few cities, but still...</p>
<p>hmmmm.</p>
<p>it says there have already been clashes... how long is this going to go on?</p>
<p>it wasn't going on while I was there for ten days, but there were police EVERYWHERE.
i must go temporarily.....but this is so interesting....</p>
<p>My guess is until Chirac steps down - why he didn't step down after his Euro referendum failed is anyone's guess. He's less in tune with his country than Bush.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
hdm: Homosexuality is not a "religious belief" but a social condition. The government is not infringing on any religious belief by dissuading gay marriage primarily because no religion supports gay marriage in the first place. The USFG is thus not regulating religious morality but upholding a certain moral standard in our society. Also, I never said that I believed that homosexuality was immoral. I only feel that legalizing gay marriage is unjustified.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I told myself that my previous post would be my last in this thread, but I can't stand being misconstrued. I didn't say that homosexuality was a religious belief (!!), I said that the only reasons for considering homosexuality immoral come from religious belief. I don't think your other reasons don't stand up (Madd did a good job rebutting them). As for religious reasons, I'll respect your belief while disagreeing, but I don't think it should be law.</p>
<p>No religion supports gay marriage? What about mine? I believe in god and in gay marriage. If you're only counting religions with established doctrinal codes, does that mean Shinto is not a religion (for example)?</p>
<p>But that wasn't really my point. I feel that all efforts to avoid legalizing gay marriage are based on religious belief. Legislating one faction's religious beliefs without a good secular reason favors that religion over all others. This, in my opinion, means that forbidding gay marriage violates the establishment clause of the first amendment ("Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion") as it has been interpreted over the years by the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Agreed. At the heart of any anti-gay marriage argument is religion.</p>
<p>madd-- thats a strong statement.</p>
<p>the less- in- tune than bush statement</p>
<p>Maybe, but it is hard to deny that he is living politically on borrowed time.</p>
<p>i dont really get how gay marriage is immoral. yes the bible says that, but i dont understand HOW. and why doesnt the government pass a law saying that ppl are not allowed to cheat on their spouses? thats immoral, isnt it? </p>
<p>"do unto others as others would do unto you" well thats from the bible i say if we follow the bible we follow THAT. if i were gay i'd want to have the right to marry. </p>
<p>for heavens sake, ppl dont CHOOSE to be gay! i mean, like in brokeback mountain, the two guys totally denied being gay at first. its not like anyone wants to be gay. but it just happens that way. its not like its their fault.</p>
<p>I agree, those who denounce and persecute homosexuality in the name of Christianity should reflect on what it means to be Christian.</p>