Miss California?

[Rubystars]

It's true that different people define marriage in different ways, but Western culture, which the United States was founded on, and Judeo-Christian values, which the United States' moral framework was originally based around, even if not all Americans were actually Jews or Christians, defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I don't see any compelling reason to change that now.

[Slytovhand]

Well, let me first say... Rubystar, I'm glad you're on here debating the way you are You see, there's been a lot of discussion about gay marriage, but I don't recall a lot of 'nay' on here... certainly not 'lots' at any rate (maybe 'a bit'), so it's good (IMNHO) to have it out in the open... so to speak!

That being said, your arguments are full of holes - as has been pointed out. Nyoibo just did again the obvious one - where are you getting your definition of 'marriage' from.

Flyn - I'm trying to come up with some 'non-religious' reasons... just for the sake of argument


Nyoibo - no, same-sex marriage (well, male homosexuality) was made illegal because Queen Victoria decided to make it so, and back then, her word was law! (female homosexuality wasn't made illegal, because she didn't think any 2 women would do that sort of thing! Apparently, strange but true!)

Shouldn't we have a seperate thread for the actual pro/con of this marriage debate?? Oh, there is.....

[Nyoibo]

It's not a marriage. The whole idea doesn't make sense at all because a marriage is between an adult man and an adult woman.

Ok, I've posted a couple of times that that's only one interpretation of what a marriage is, you seem to have ignored that, so I'm going to ask you this.

Who says marriage is between a man and a woman?


As to something being a sexual deviance, I may consider people who have sex for any reason other than to have a child are deviants, that doesn't make it true.

I think it was taken off the list of paraphilias because of political pressure and not necessarily sound scientific reasoning.

And I think same-sex marriage was made illegal because of religeous pressure and not necessarily sound scientific reasoning.

[Rubystars]

I think it was taken off the list of paraphilias because of political pressure and not necessarily sound scientific reasoning. We do see some similiarites between different types of paraphilias, such as the fact that both homosexuals and pedophiles are basically "incurable" as far as their sexual desires go, although behavior can be reigned in. Paraphilias are very hard to change. If you're not attracted to people of the appropriate age and gender, you're just not attracted to them, and it's going to be difficult to change that in most cases. I have read many stories to the contrary, but I am a bit skeptical of them.

Of course homosexuality in itself isn't as apalling as pedophilia. It does involve consenting adults, and so yes, in that sense it is less dangerous and less harmful. It doesn't involve rape, so that in itself is a huge difference. I don't hate homosexuals but I would hate someone who had harmed a child.

However I think they are still both sexual deviancies and neither should be considered to be normal. I'm trying to think of something else ridiculous to compare homosexual marriage to so that you'll understand how silly the idea seems to me. When I said it doesn't make any more sense than someone marrying their car, someone accused me of "dehumanizing" homosexuals. When I say it doesn't make any more sense than letting an old man marry a little girl, then I'm accused of saying that homosexuals are evil like pedophiles.

What I'm really trying to say is that it just doesn't make any more sense than either of these scenarios. It's not a marriage. The whole idea doesn't make sense at all because a marriage is between an adult man and an adult woman.

[Nyoibo]

Marriage is between one adult man and one adult woman by definition.

Ok, I'm gonna re-iterate this, the RELIGEOUS definition of marriage is between man and woman, and as there is a (in theory) separation of church and state in the US said RELIGEOUS definition has no place in legislation.

And please don't refer to it as a sickness, the WHO removed it from the ICD-10 19 years ago.

None of this was an issue until they started giving certain legal benifits to married couples, hell, until the 1750's or so state marriage didn't exist.

[smileyeagle1021]

BroomJockey, The government doesn't have the obligation to legitimize perversion or deviancy. That's like saying the government can't deny a mariage certificate between a man in his 60s and a 6 year old girl because it would be discrimination.
.

two things, first, that's a false comparison because a same sex marriage would require both participants to be of legal age, just the same as 'traditional' marriage.
Second, this is at least the second time you've compared homosexuality to pedophilia. In my lifetime I have personally only know ONE gay pedophile, I also have known three straight pedophiles... pedophilia is not limited based on orientation. With the exception of that one person (who is now serving a lengthy prison sentence and rightfully so) every gay guy I know likes his man to be a man (ok, so some like them to be a bit feminine, but the point is that we like em fully grown).
If you want to say we are perverted because we go against the biological norm, feel free, I won't argue the point because, hell, we do go against the 'norm' and if that's how someone wants to define what perversion is so be it. But can we put the comparisons to pedophilia to rest, it brings nothing to the argument and really only serves a purpose (as far as I can tell) to belittle the homosexuals who are good upstanding people who hate those who pray on children just as much as you do.

[Rubystars]

BroomJockey, The government doesn't have the obligation to legitimize perversion or deviancy. That's like saying the government can't deny a mariage certificate between a man in his 60s and a 6 year old girl because it would be discrimination.

Marriage is between one adult man and one adult woman by definition. So how can you deny "marriage" benefits to two people who can't have a marriage anyway? The government is not denying them the right to marry (they can find someone of the opposite gender to marry if they want to just like anyone else). If homosexual "marriage" is illegal, that's because the people of the state are just refusing to legitimize a sickness as normal and healthy.

[powerboy]

So in advocating anyone can have any opinion, you're going on to say that Perez can't have his opinion.


Right. Just wanted to see if I had that correct.

Actually you are wrong. I am not saying that. He has a different opinion than her. Yet, she is wrong because of how she believes. So what if someone has a different opinion than someone else? IS the world going to end? Is the sky falling? Nope.

[Peppergirl]

if people like Miss California want marriage to be just "one man/one woman," then it needs to stop having any sort of government benefits.

I think you mean "opposite marriage"

<ducks and runs away>

[BroomJockey]

I still do not like how anyone cannot have a different opinion about anything. So what if that is her opinion? Bitching about it, is not going to change a damn thing. Perez Hilton really needs to understand that.

So in advocating anyone can have any opinion, you're going on to say that Perez can't have his opinion.


Right. Just wanted to see if I had that correct. Personally, it is my opinion that anyone can have their opinion, but I can have the opinion that they're stupid for having that opinion. I generally have the opinion that Perez Hilton needs to fade in to obscurity, but I also have the opinion that if people like Miss California want marriage to be just "one man/one woman," then it needs to stop having any sort of government benefits.

The government cannot discriminate based on certain factors, which (in Canada, anyways, I'm not sure if it's official in the US) includes sexual orientation. Thus, to decline gay couples marriage benefits because they're gay couples is, well, not something the government can do. For someone with "America" in their title, someone who would carry the force of public scrutiny of their opinions, and have those opinions seen as "representative," it's dangerous to go for something possibly unconstitutional.

[Flyndaran]

...
...are you going to vote for him again in 2012???

I always vote for the lesser of two dumbasses. I may not be a democrat, but I am even less of a republican.

[Tanasi]

I still do not like how anyone cannot have a different opinion about anything. So what if that is her opinion? Bitching about it, is not going to change a damn thing. Perez Hilton really needs to understand that.

I agree, her opinion is after all her opinion. Until one puts said opinion into actual action it's all just vaporwear. Perez Hilton needs to be stepped on, he's at best a boil on the hind-end of humanity. Unfortunately as long as "Political Correctness" rules jerks like him won't face what they so justly deserve, annoniminy.

[Tanasi]

As a slight off topic... if they were a true flamer they wouldn't really like Obama due to his refusal to halt DADT discharges until congress can rework the laws (actually, if you are a non bigoted conservative that bothers you too, because that policy is one of the biggest wastes of tax dollars imaginable) and his lack of movement on social issues.

Better phrasing for that sentence... if you aren't a democrat suck up who will kiss the ass of any democrat in power, then you have trouble finding work.*

*said by a democrat

I didn't mean flaming in a homosexual context but in a liberal democrat context. I retired from the US Army after 26 years of service in active, reserves and national guard, if I ever served with a homosexual I didn't know it. Not all guys or gals feel the need to talk about their conquests. I didn't care for continuous vulgar talk so I put a stop to it. All that being said I stand by what I typed in the context in which I meant it.

Obama has refused to prosecute americans that tortured people.
He promotes an impossibel health care system while showing his ignorance about collective risks the very basis of insurance itself.

I'm a super liberal and consider him a disgrace.

He can't prosecute some without prosecuting all and that would suck in some of his supporters namely Nancy Pelosi regardless of what she says about the CIA. They have her dead to rights and she knows it, that's why it's being dropped.
Obama care or Hitlerly care is and was a no-go before it was mentioned. They're seeing that the money can't be borrowed for it and he doesn't want to raise taxes on the 95%. As it is they're trimming and trimming dropping more and more folks.
Since you consider yourself super liberal (do you wear a cape, mask and your underwear on the outside of your clothes) are you going to vote for him again in 2012???

[powerboy]

I still do not like how anyone cannot have a different opinion about anything. So what if that is her opinion? Bitching about it, is not going to change a damn thing. Perez Hilton really needs to understand that.

[Flyndaran]

Obama has refused to prosecute americans that tortured people.
He promotes an impossibel health care system while showing his ignorance about collective risks the very basis of insurance itself.

I'm a super liberal and consider him a disgrace.