<p>i'm christian. i have a pastor who is gay! and one is black! and one is a woman! (gasp!) we go to a congregational church. i love it there.</p>
<p>being christian is about being a good person, not following strict, ridiculous, and old-fashioned rules.</p>
<p>and yes, i will have a fun life! :)</p>
<p>haha by the way BC, i actually have nothing personally against you.. i just dont agree with your views... so dont attack my "immoral life" ok?</p>
<p>And before you go off some liberal tirade about how marriage is a governmental privilege -- which came first, the United States or the act of marriage?</p>
<p>"Yeah they pretty much have been - FOREVER"</p>
<p>No, sorry, they are not. Many people marry without ever reproducing. Many people reproduce without being married.</p>
<p>"The 14th Amendment calls for state-run privileges, not the act of marriage, which is a religious one. That's why civil unions should be legalized, but it is the right of religions to grant marriages as they wish.</p>
<p>IMHO, they should just take government out of marriage altogether. Have both Hetero and homosexual couples apply under a gender-blind civil union system, so that they can share the same benefits."</p>
<p>I can't argue with any of that.</p>
<p>i agree too tlak... maybe thats our solution</p>
<p>And ctrain, fyi, you can just copy+paste an excerpt you want to quote, and put [ quote] and [ /quote] (obviously, without the space before the q and the /, respectively.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sorta like this. The wonders of phpBB.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>{quote} Sorta like this. The wonders of phpBB. {quote}</p>
<p>Except the { } would be [ ] instead.</p>
<p>Back to the subject at hand: although that would be the logical solution to all of our gay marriage problems -- there will be vehement protests all throughout the country if that system is implemented. Extremist left-wing individuals will attempt to invade into religion's right to be picky (cough ACLU cough) and some members of the right will say that the sanctity of marriage is still violated, no matter what we label it.</p>
<p><em>shrug</em></p>
<p>I know how to post quotes, thank you very much. FYI, you can also do them like this: " " (with text in the middle, of course).</p>
<p>That method seems annoying. It's very difficult for me to differentiate sometimes what's quoted and what's response text.</p>
<p>I'll make a note of that. In fact, make a list of all your pet-peeves and I'll be sure to scrupulously avoid all of the in my daily life.</p>
<p>Time for bed.</p>
<p>Now that's quite uncalled for. It's not a pet-peeve, but it's really hard esp. for people with lousy vision like me to see the difference between texts, especially when they're all grouped together and improperly spaced out.</p>
<p>I wonder how many people support gay and lesbian marriage!
This marriage and homosexuals in general:
1) antimoral
2) against human population
3) against everything</p>
<p>"Im sure some of the "liberals" arguing on this board are gay..."</p>
<p>Can you read? I said before not to make personal attacks. just because you are unable to support your wild claims doesnt mean you should let you fustration out on us.</p>
<p>Marriage, whether gay or straight, affects each and every one of us. Marriage is the foundation of society. Without it, we'd be a bunch of cavemen (or cave people to be politically correct). By allowing homosexuals to marry, we'd be destroying the foundation of our society.</p>
<p>Do you have any proof that gay marriage ruins society? I would LOVE to read it.</p>
<p>Gays should be entitled to the benefits and disadvantages of marriage, but their unions should not be called marriage because they simply aren't marriages.</p>
<p>Why shouldnt gay marriages considered a real marriage? If they are experiencing the rise and falls of marriage, then they obviously be considered married. Your statements are discriminatory which cannot be supported.</p>
<p>I also think that gays should get the minimum rights of marriage but they really aren't marriage</p>
<p>Again, why should they be considered as marriages? Its the same like gays shouldnt be considered as Americans. Nothing you are saying can really be supportes, they are simply discriminatory remarks.</p>
<p>alright BC i thought about it and you are 100% right its just hard to do you know? but i guess ill have to.</p>
<p>Our first example of flip-flopping!! CONGRATS!!</p>
<p>You, my friend, have the burden of proof. You brought forth the claim and said that the homosexuality was intrinsic; thus, the burden of proof is on you.</p>
<p>What are you talking about? </p>
<p>Before anyone makes another statement of the survey, please check my source:
<a href="http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39%5B/url%5D">http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39</a></p>
<p>I am the first here who is actually debating using a source!</p>
<p>You don't see it...but a MAJORITY of people do. A MAJORITY of people are opposed to gay marriage. </p>
<p>Whats your point? A recent opinion poll carried out in 35 countries has shown that a majority (30 countries) would prefer to see John Kerry as the next President. So the majority-minority factor doesnt count. Remember Terry Schiavos case? The majority wanted to keep the feeding tube but what happened? </p>
<p>Why should we change a privilege for 97% of the population to suit 3% of the population????
PLEASE READ THE RESPONSE BY HILARY6.</p>
<p>Distinguish the idea of privilege and right, my friends.</p>
<p>Are married people elite? We are all human beings. I understand that marriage is not a right, but gays should be treated as equally as everyone else. </p>
<p>There is nothing on earth more holy than a man and a woman joining as one in a ceremony forever.</p>
<p>I disagree. The holiest thing a person can do is to show faith in God and respect his words.</p>
<p>duurrrr wat hilery???? i duno wut you is be talkin bout???? maybe i oughta go tek a nap??????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????</p>
<p>Maybe you should take a nap. You seem useless in this debate anyway.</p>
<p>Tlaktan, please read Hilarys response on pg. 5</p>
<p>First off...its not yet proven that its not a choice...i dont think its a coincidence that the number of gay people seems to be increasing with the increasing social "acceptance" of it.</p>
<p>Elcommando, you own conservative buddy just blasted what you were saying so far.</p>
<p>arguements (notice you speeled it rong</p>
<p>if you are here to fix grammar or make personal remarks, then you should leave this debate and write a comic book.</p>
<p>Statistically, the gay population is MUCH more promiscuous and unhealthy.</p>
<p>What statistics?</p>
<p>No, but there have been psychological case studies on both sides of the aisle; unfortunately, there are a greater number of reports, at least that I've seen, that indicate a.. well, lifestyle off normalcy (not of, off!)</p>
<p>You conservative buddy (uc_benz) himself said that psychological studies are not valid as they are only done to just prove a theory.</p>
<p>Im sure some of the "liberals" arguing on this board are gay...</p>
<p>Stop making personal attacks!! </p>
<p>Tlaktan, read ctrains response on pg. 5 and 6.</p>
<p>Well yall all live fun immoral lives. I'm gonna hold down the moral Christian heterosexual life while yall can destroy the moral fabric of the country.</p>
<p>Perhaps you live the ideal Christian life? I doubt it. </p>
<p>That method seems annoying. It's very difficult for me to differentiate sometimes what's quoted and what's response text.</p>
<p>Why dont you take a reading class at a local elementary school?</p>
<p>I wonder how many people support gay and lesbian marriage! </p>
<p>Hahahahahaa!! Stardragon, I dont think I will have to respond to that as you are the same person who made these statements:</p>
<p>1.Hitler chose to kill other people. Yeah, he's good, it's just his choice. No,no, no... Defending gays and lesbians will lead us to the collapse. They decompose the society. like bacteria. like cancer. What do we do with infection? Kill it!!
2. So why are they citizens of America? they must be pariahs and outcasts..</p>
<p>Uhm, why are you directing me to read posts I've already read? I know the classic arguments, and I didn't say ANY of the things you quoted above.</p>
<p>And quite frankly, my last point hasn't been hit yet. I'm still waiting for a retort.</p>
<p>FYI:
[quote]
No, but there have been psychological case studies on both sides of the aisle; unfortunately, there are a greater number of reports, at least that I've seen, that indicate a.. well, lifestyle off normalcy (not of, off!)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hence, I said "both sides of the aisle" -- since psychological studies prove both, neither side can use them as a valid tool of defense.</p>
<p>tlakyan, i know that you haven't wrote any of the above quotes, they were from your conservative buddies. Most of the posts you made were about the Constitution, contents of which we all know. You should read the posts to your response as they blasted your points.</p>
<p>Honestly, you havent yet provided any coherent argument as to why gay marriages should be banned. At least BCgoUSC implies religious and social reasons, which I believe is not the case when it deals with the law.</p>
<p>Blasted my points? Hardly. You're a bit arrogant to assume that my points are invalid; which they're not.</p>
<p>And quite frankly, I actually believe homosexual couples are entitled to the same legal advantages as heterosexual couples; governmental rights are a must.</p>
<p>However, the act of marriage is a religious one; I'm strongly against it, like BCgoUSC for religious purposes. It is the privilege of the individual religion (Catholicism, Presbyterianism, etc.,) to declare whether or not two individuals can be married under that religion's principal tenets.</p>
<p>You haven't answered any of my proposals on implementing a gender-blind civil union system for both heterosexual and homosexual couples; governmentally, I mean. That is, of course, because you have no argument against it.</p>
<p>If this system is implemented, the sanctity of marriage will be protected, yet no one will be denied the benefits of marriage just because of the nature of their union. Homosexual unions cannot be denied the ** benefits ** that is considered a privilege for joined couples in the eyes of the government, but the Catholic church has every right to deny a gay marriage.</p>
<p>I see that you fail to see the difference between democracy and liberty, primitivefuture. They are not one in the same.</p>
<p>The privilege of marriage is a liberty at best, and this stretches the definition to its limits. Gay marriage is an issue where America must decide to invoke democracy or liberty. </p>
<p>If we enter the route of democracy, then the majority is clear in its belief: gay marriage should NOT be allowed. However, it will be denying this privilege to those who are deserving of it, under the ideals of equality that the government protects.</p>
<p>If we enter the route of liberty, then we circumvent the purpose of the democracy, as the voice of a few manage a change that the majority do not desire. However, is the liberty worth protecting through this process? </p>
<p>People compare this to the civil rights movement -- it's a far cry from the efforts of Martin Luther King and other civil rights leaders. They were fighting for essential rights; not for a privilege, the governmental regulation of which is questionable, but for basic rights of humanity. ** Marriage ** is not a basic right to humanity. Not being lynched on a random basis, having one singular restaurant, restroom, water fountain and school as opposed to two (one for each color) -- proper maintenance of ALL facilities, regardless of creed or color -- THESE are fundamental rights. </p>
<p>There have been unfortunate events with gays and I am sorry to say -- some people in America still resort to vigilante violence. This should be stopped, and we should make every effort to protect the lives of those who declare a different sexual orientation than that of the majority of America. However, in the case of marriage, we are discussing privilege -- not a basic human right to life -- and thus, the argument is inapplicable.</p>
<p>I am not one to say whether or not America should wholly ban or be approving of gay marriage. These are my personal convictions; they are not representative of the whole of the American people.</p>
<p>Primite this is a debate that does not mean you should try to pick away at every quote you see, that is not the reason for this debate and it is really annoying. I see a quote in there from your liberal buddies you even attacked. </p>
<p>Im sure some of the "liberals" arguing on this board are gay...
Stop making personal attacks!! </p>
<p>IS THAT A PERSONAL ATTACK?????????????? WOW I DIDNT NAME ANYONE SPECIFICALLY DID I????? HMM I GUESS NOT THEN.</p>
<p>alright BC i thought about it and you are 100% right its just hard to do you know? but i guess ill have to.
Our first example of flip-flopping!! CONGRATS!!</p>
<p>No sorry that is reserved for John Kerry I wouldnt call it a flip flop just because i wasnt thinking. </p>
<p>First off...its not yet proven that its not a choice...i dont think its a coincidence that the number of gay people seems to be increasing with the increasing social "acceptance" of it.
Elcommando, you own conservative buddy just blasted what you were saying so far.</p>
<p>Actually he didnt. Do you have eye problems? I dont think you are reading the posts right.</p>
<p>if you are here to fix grammar or make personal remarks, then you should leave this debate and write a comic book.</p>
<p>Hilary called me an idiot but of course you choose the conservative to attack. </p>
<p>How about we change the argument? I dont think this is getting us anywhere and everyone just loves to breakdown others quotes about 50,000 times.</p>
<p>Hrm. Let's change it to... stem-cell research?</p>
<p>Personally, I'm a proponent of limited stem-cell research. Opinions?</p>