Most people anymore agree that sexuality is genetic. How one exhibits his/her sexual desire for the opposite sex, same sex, etc. is hardwired into the DNA. Now, I don’t want this to turn into a ginormous eugenics/dysgenics debate, but here’s to all you who just abhor homosexuality oh so much that you want to meddle and legislate and disallow this that and the other:

Make gay marriage completely legal, sanctioned and acceptable.

There have been many incidences within various individuals’ histories wherein their marriages have been complete shams. A man will hit 40 and suddenly realize that, after having married a woman and having had a family and lived “that life,” in his true self he is not attracted to his wife, nor any woman for that matter. He is a homosexual. He had been all his life, but society and family and church so forth had told him it was wrong, he was going to Hell, he was mentally ill, he was unacceptable, whatever…. So, he adapted. He was forced into living a “normal” life, in complete opposition to his true nature. Now, what has he done? He has had children. He has passed that evil (or, at least, defective or aberrant) gay gene down to his kids. He has passed gayity to a new generation, for no other reason than said society, family and church had forced him to live a lie and marry a female and have kids, like a good, normal heterosexual.

Now, if gay marriage were legal and open and sanctioned and acceptable, wouldn’t this happen less often, if at all? Joe marries Bob, or Jane marries Sue with no shame or outcry from anyone. By the nature of their gender, this is not a relationship conducive to spawning. Now, there will be the occasional David Crosby inseminating of a lesbian here and there, sure, but for the most part, there will be fewer and fewer homosexuals breeding and making new ones. So, within, what? one or two generations, no more gays. They could be effectively bred out. Then, you will be happy. There will be no more gays to recruit your children, to dress or talk or walk all “funny” and just make you feel generally uncomfortable.

Let them marry. Let them choose whom they want to marry. Let them be happy in their decision. Little will they know, that all the while, it was your fiendish plan to have them be rid of themselves in due time. You may have to live with some ickiness for some time, so may your children, but your children’s children and so on, will be able to live a comfortable, heterosexual-friendly, “Will and Grace” and “Queer Eye For The Straight Guy” and “Queer as Folk” – free life. Happy days for the future generations!

So, I say, all you gay haters and zealots who think that gays should go to Hell and that AIDS was created by God to punish gays for doing bad things, etc … Support gay marriage! Go out and vote! Give them the rights they deserve! Do yourself a favor! Do it for the CHILDREN!

Do yourself a favor! Do it for the CHILDREN!

Haha, well you know your audience!

To be honest though I've got to voice my doubt that homosexuality is genetic. This is not to say that head-in-the-sand members of the religious right are correct, and it's just a choice some people make to piss them off, but there are a lot of biological and mental factors which are not directly under a person's control which also are not genetic. I don't know of any studies that have shown homosexual behavior running in families, and if it were genetic I figure that by this point at least it would have worked itself out of the population. We've been around since the beginning of recorded history, and it's not like we breed like rabbits, yet still there's no shortage of homosexuals in the world. I'd be interested to see a study done of twins (or other multi-births) of whom at least one is gay. The only situation like that I know is my own, my twin brother also likes guys, but again it might not necessarily be genetic, two people raised together, who have been together their entire lives, tend to developed the same tastes in a lot of things.

I have had many gay friends over the years; I accept them and respected them on the basis of their character as they accepted me on equal terms. Now, the gay disorder can be attributed to genetics, or can be attribute to some sort of mental deficiency. Regardless of the nature or not of the gay syndrome. I could never agree to gay marriages as reciprocal to institutional family and marriages known to human kind throughout history. Gays should have the freedom/right of living together with the same rights as natural couples. However, legal marriage it’s just too much to digest. Gays don’t need to step into marriage values and import that right for themselves.
Gays are not more gays if they are allowed to marriage. Or are they?

I have had many gay friends over the years; I accept them and respected them on the basis of their character as they accepted me on equal terms.

Well great, you're a boon to society, we're all so proud.

Now, the gay disorder can be attributed to genetics, or can be attribute to some sort of mental deficiency.

Disorder? Mental deficiency? That's funny, I generaly think of religion in the same terms. Ok, well I think we see your true colors now, you mean that you have several gay friends in the same way you might say that you voulenteer to help run the special olympics, right? Why in the world would you refere to homosexuality as a "mental deficiency" or "disoroder"?

I don't know if this matters at all to you, but people in a better place than you to understand these things disagree with your point of view: http://www.apa.org/pi/statemen.html

Regardless of the nature or not of the gay syndrome.

Syndrome? Jesus christ you've got some mouth on you. But then all of you fucking retards infected with the Het are like that. I should try to be more tollerant of your illness, and accept the fact that you run marketing, which is why I have to watch breasts bouncing up and down trying to sell me things on TV every 5 minuets, It's lewd obscene and disgusting, but I know that you can't help it, you're just sick.

I could never agree to gay marriages as reciprocal to institutional family and marriages known to human kind throughout history.

Well that institution has been fairly fluid and dynamic throught history and quite different from culture to culture, so what version of the institution exactly are you hung up on? I thought that our culture valued it as a loving union between two comitted people, as well as an environment which can be stable and caring for children, I don't see how homosexuality goes against any of those things. But then, maybe I'll just have to accept that this changing institution is now leaning more toward being important only in the sense that the two people involved must have the correct plumbing. I'll just have to wait for the next iteration.

Gays should have the freedom/right of living together with the same rights as natural couples. However, legal marriage it’s just too much to digest.

You've just contradicted yourself. They should have their rights, but they should not have their rights?


Gays don’t need to step into marriage values and import that right for themselves.


Why in gods name not? We were raised in the same culture as you, we hold the same cultural values, marriage is what we want to do, it doesn't effect anyone else, so where did you get a say in any of it? This is supremely arrogant.

Gays are not more gays if they are allowed to marriage. Or are they?

Can you state this again, only this time try to make it coherent, please.

Don't try to fool yourself into thinking you're a tolerant and fair person. You’re nothing but another vicious elitist heterosexist. At least people on the religious right have the courage to come right out and say that they are bigoted, you on the other hand are nothing but a snake.

Everything doesn’t have to be genetic. Lots of differences can be had during development of a child in the womb. Being that homosexuals are observed more frequently in highly populated areas, it could be that homosexuality is some sort of response made by a pregnant mother due to being overcrowded. Some sort of biochemistry thing goes on in her body, and a fetus responds to that by becoming structured to like its own gender, and hence help curb the mother's feeling of overcrowding. This sort of "Disorder" might help keep all you religious types from burying the planet in a squirming mass of too many fricking people. I find an explanation like this far more likely than some sort of "gay gene" because that gene would sure have had a hard time being passed on.

How do you know that the "gay gene" isn't passed down from heterosexual women? This may explain why there seems to be an ever increasing amount of gay people, otherwise their numbers would have dwindled by now, wouldn't they? Perhaps something that the "gay gene" does in men, has an alternate, positive effect on women that make them more diserable to men, thus increasing the chances of gay men being born.

Errr bear with me here people.

If homosexuality is a genetic 'syndrome', 'disability' or whatever judgemental term you wish to use, then how can it be argued that they should be denied the right to marry?
As I understand it the US has some fairly potent laws to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race and disability.
Shouldn't those 'unfortunates' born with the gay gene be accorded the same rights as those born with the cystic fibrosis gene, for instance.

How about it?
Dee Cee

DeeCee, the arguments against having homosexuals marry are not based upon any moral grounds but on the perceived definition of marriage.

i am not sure as to the exact cause of homosexuality, in humans or otherwise. i think though, that it may indeed be gene related. perhaps the "gay gene" [if it exists] acts somewhat like the CF gene in terms of expression.

How do you know that the "gay gene" isn't passed down from heterosexual women? This may explain why there seems to be an ever increasing amount of gay people, otherwise their numbers would have dwindled by now, wouldn't they? Perhaps something that the "gay gene" does in men, has an alternate, positive effect on women that make them more diserable to men, thus increasing the chances of gay men being born.

Ahh so then there's a separate Gay gene and Lesbian gene? hah.

DeeCee, the arguments against having homosexuals marry are not based upon any moral grounds but on the perceived definition of marriage.

Haha, right, keep telling yourself that Oki. The law exists for a reason, that particular definitian was only bought into existance when we legislated on it because the religious right was afraid of homosexuals getting married due to their "moral objections" to homosexuality.

Well chunkylover, it is o' course illegal to get married in a church if gay couple because... well that's obvious. You can't be of a religion if you practice against it. Otherwise what else it the point of being married? Marriage is to connected so that it is legal to have children in the eyes of god. If you don't believe in god why would you want to be joined under his eyes? Why not just live together and be happy?

Marriage is to connected so that it is legal to have children in the eyes of god. If you don't believe in god why would you want to be joined under his eyes?

For the tax breaks and the big party afterwards.
Oh and since when did I need gods permission to have kids?
God just wants the monopoly on omnipotence as far as I can see. :D
Who gave him the right to wander the Universe creating and smiting and such? He needs to get a life and stop interfering in other peoples IMHO.
Dee Cee

Haha, right, keep telling yourself that Oki. The law exists for a reason, that particular definitian was only bought into existance when we legislated on it because the religious right was afraid of homosexuals getting married due to their "moral objections" to homosexuality.

I'm almost certain that Webster's dictionary current definition has remained almost the same since the times of Noah Webster.

Well chunkylover, it is o' course illegal to get married in a church if gay couple because... well that's obvious. You can't be of a religion if you practice against it.

Premarital sex, birth control, right to control what happens to my body, drinking, eating meat on Friday, no birthday or Christmas gifts......this is why I don't ascribe to any organized faith. They take away all the fun stuff.

Otherwise what else it the point of being married? Marriage is to connected so that it is legal to have children in the eyes of god. If you don't believe in god why would you want to be joined under his eyes? Why not just live together and be happy?

I don't plan on ever having kids, but yet I still would prefer to be married to my boyfriend rather than just live in sin with him for the rest of my life. Primarily it's the emotional aspect of choosing someone to be with for the rest of your life and being chosen by someone in return. There are practical aspects as well, like legal property rights and the right to make healthcare decisions. Under your rationale, we, a heterosexaul male-female couple, would be redued to a civil union rather than a wedding. I can appreciate the desire for same sex couples to be married rather than just live together because I want the same thing.

Whenever someone brings up the whole God issue with respect to same sex marriage, any issue truth be told, I just cringe. Who the hell are you to presume to know the mind of God? And don't quote the Bible to me: it wasn't faxed by God from Heaven, it was written, translated, and rewritten over and over again so many times that it is impractical and silly to presume anything contained in it in 2003 even vaguely resembles the original text. (There's a reason the most popular version is the U.S. is called the King James Bible -- the guy had it rewritten to promote his personal agenda, not unlike Henry VIII starting a whole new religion just so he could get divorced).

I don't want to married to be approved by God. I want to be married because I really, really like the idea. I'm not worried about how God feels about my relationship. Since I consider my boyfriend a blessing, I figure He probably feels pretty good about it.

I just cringe. Who the hell are you to presume to know the mind of God?

He's gotta be a Christian or muslim or hindu or some other type of babbling superstitious individual. They all seem to have a hotline to heaven.
Best you can do is smile at them, nod your head and don't start shaking it until your walking away.
Oh and don't forget the golden rule..

If they talk to god their praying.
If god talks to them their schizophrenic.
Dee Cee

Premarital sex, birth control, right to control what happens to my body, drinking, eating meat on Friday, no birthday or Christmas gifts......this is why I don't ascribe to any organized faith. They take away all the fun stuff.

I'm not sure what you talking about... There are plenty of liberal organized faiths.


(There's a reason the most popular version is the U.S. is called the King James Bible --

I'm not sure if that version is the most popular.


the guy had it rewritten to promote his personal agenda, not unlike Henry VIII starting a whole new religion just so he could get divorced).

Let's see. First, Henry VIII did not start an entire new religion just so that he could get divorced but because of the power that the Pope had. In fact, I believe that most anglians consider themselves part of the catholic faith even though they reject the authority of the Pope and do not have apostatic succession. Nevertheless, I don't believe the KJVs bible is willfully corrupted even though it was translated outside of the Church and has some mistranslations.

I'm not sure what you talking about... There are plenty of liberal organized faiths.

The day I find a church that celebrates rather than ignores the Book of Ecclesiates, I'll revisit the issue.


I'm not sure if that version is the most popular.

http://gc2003.episcopalchurch.org/episcopal-life/Ask11'01.html

"Most American households have at least one Bible (93 percent). Among the Bibles people identify as theirs, the most frequently reported is the King James Version (54 percent). A distant second is the New International Version (15 percent). Other versions trailed in the single digits."

I've seen quite a few "If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible" bumper stickers as well, but I didn't consider that a reliable statistical sampling.

Let's see. First, Henry VIII did not start an entire new religion just so that he could get divorced but because of the power that the Pope had. In fact, I believe that most anglians consider themselves part of the catholic faith even though they reject the authority of the Pope and do not have apostatic succession.

Yep. He also got to seize all church property within Great Britain and add it to his personal wealth.

Nevertheless, I don't believe the KJVs bible is willfully corrupted even though it was translated outside of the Church and has some mistranslations.

Any text that is translated or rewritten in a subsequent period of history will by default suffer from the subjective perceptions of those doing the work. Nevertheless....

"It is an irony of history that the popularity of the King James Bible was due to political and economic reasons as much as to the quality of the translation. "

http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0015.html

"Most American households have at least one Bible (93 percent). Among the Bibles people identify as theirs, the most frequently reported is the King James Version (54 percent). A distant second is the New International Version (15 percent). Other versions trailed in the single digits."

I've seen quite a few "If it ain't King James, it ain't Bible" bumper stickers as well, but I didn't consider that a reliable statistical sampling.

Hmm, yeah sort of. Lately there has been a movement towards more people using the NIV and like books since the Englash in the KJV is not all that readable. Most of us, however, have a KJV hanging around along with a few other bibles. The Church never put its approval on the KJV so Catholics don't debate using the KJV.


"It is an irony of history that the popularity of the King James Bible was due to political and economic reasons as much as to the quality of the translation. "

Hmm, well the writer makes a number of mistakes, such as naming the first English bible at 1535 when there were old english ones dating far before this along with partial translations. I'm not sure how accurate the article is overall.

Any text that is translated or rewritten in a subsequent period of history will by default suffer from the subjective perceptions of those doing the work. Nevertheless....


On a side note, that's the same reason that Anime never makes any fucking sense.

Most of us, however, have a KJV hanging around along with a few other bibles.

Hehe you can never have too many.

I'm almost certain that Webster's dictionary current definition has remained almost the same since the times of Noah Webster.

I'm hard pressed to find a reason for this to have any relevance what so ever.

Hehe you can never have too many.

I only have the KJV's New Testament, so I can rattle off the Old Testament quotes of fire and brimstone at you...


I'm hard pressed to find a reason for this to have any relevance what so ever.

Did Webster manage to add the definition 2 to the word marriage? I don't remember it being there the last time I quoted Webster on this issue.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage


Constrast the two definitions http://face.net/Webster's_1828.html

This raises an interesting point. If our interpretation of the constitution is based upon the words that have since changed in their meanings, should we change our interpretation of the constitution or change the constitution? What would happen if words such as freedom, rights, and equality were redefined? Of course there are changes such as defining native americans and blacks as human beings that are beneficial.

This raises an interesting point. If our interpretation of the constitution is based upon the words that have since changed in their meanings, should we change our interpretation of the constitution or change the constitution? What would happen if words such as freedom, rights, and equality were redefined? Of course there are changes such as defining native americans and blacks as human beings that are beneficial.

Yes, that raises some very interesting questions. I suppose that we should be thankful that there's not a single mention of marriage in the constitution. I'd also note that neither Webster nor Christianity has a monopoly on marriage, they didn't invent it, and believe it or not non-Christians and even atheists still marry. Should our government policy on marriage reflect that fact? Or should they let the religious right dictate their own views on marriage to be the policy for all?

1.For the tax breaks and the big party afterwards.
2.Oh and since when did I need gods permission to have kids?
3.God just wants the monopoly on omnipotence as far as I can see. :D
Who gave him the right to wander the Universe creating and smiting and such? He needs to get a life and stop interfering in other peoples IMHO.
Dee Cee
1. Tax breaks only in a screwed up system, and you can have a party anyway
2. You do if you're a proper Christian
3. Sounds like you're not a Christian so therefore you can have kids whenever you like, its the Chrissy's who can't

P.S.-i thought all that was obvious

Whenever someone brings up the whole God issue with respect to same sex marriage, any issue truth be told, I just cringe. Who the hell are you to presume to know the mind of God? And don't quote the Bible to me: it wasn't faxed by God from Heaven, it was written, translated, and rewritten over and over again so many times that it is impractical and silly to presume anything contained in it in 2003 even vaguely resembles the original text.
Hey, um, I never quoted the bible anywhere... coz i don't have one to quote from... so I never presumed the mind of anyone or quoted the mind of anyone. I merely said the same as you that marriage is to avoid sin, and adding that if you're gay there's no point because you're sinning anyway, so what's the problem bitterchick? Seriously, can anyone see where this is from?

Hey, I have this wild idea about why it would be a good idea to let gay people get married.

Because they want to and it's none of my damn business to dictate to them (or anyone) what to do or not to do with their lives!

Just my two cents. :)

P.S.-i thought all that was obvious
Yup it is..
After a while you tend to find yourself stating the obvious pretty frequently 'round here. Particularly when talking to the god botherers.
As silverback has so aptly demonstrated.

Have fun.
Dee Cee

Hey, I have this wild idea about why it would be a good idea to let gay people get married.

Because they want to and it's none of my damn business to dictate to them (or anyone) what to do or not to do with their lives!

Just my two cents. :)


To borrow a phrase, Amen!

As a lawyer I have another completely self-interested reason for supporting gay marriage -- more divorce clients!! Mo money, mo money...

(The preceeding phrase contains sarcasm, which is not intended by the reader to be taken literally).

On a side note, that's the same reason that Anime never makes any fucking sense.

Does "All your base are belong to us" ring a bell? :D

I'd also note that neither Webster nor Christianity has a monopoly on marriage, they didn't invent it, and believe it or not non-Christians and even atheists still marry. Should our government policy on marriage reflect that fact? Or should they let the religious right dictate their own views on marriage to be the policy for all?

The problem is that goverment has to draw the line somewhere concerning marriage.

Disorder? Mental deficiency? That's funny, I generaly think of religion in the same terms.Mystech, I think he has a point here. The gay people that I am good friends with have all admitted to being sexually abused as a kid. Granted, this is only 3 people and a small sample but it still leads to the obvious question. That doesn't mean that the question needs to be answered, or that the answer would matter anyhow. Even if it was decided that 'gayness' was due too a mental disorder, that wouldn't make it wrong.

The problem is that goverment has to draw the line somewhere concerning marriage.

The government is the *last* entity that should have anything to do with marriage. Marriage is both a civil legal institution and in many cases, but not all, a religious rite. Who exactly gets married doesn't affect our foreign policy, economic policy, or military policy in any significant manner.

These darn gays are stealing our jobs, poisoning the minds of our children, and threatening our very way of life. They go door-to-door recruiting new members. They use their exceptional decorating abilities to lure us into their evil hideouts, and just when we feel comfortable with our heterosexuality, BAMM!, they spring their trap. First it starts by casually putting on some Striesand, and offering a glass of Pinot Grigio. The next thing you know your deep into a conversation about the best way to put a fabulous patina finish on your chandelier, how much is too much to pay for a Mapplethorpe, and the best places to stay in Key West. It's all happening so fast. And wont somebody please stop and think of the cattle? What about the cattle. All those leather pants aren't pleather dammit. They're real genuine cow. :(

Aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!

I'm so agitated. I'm going up to storm up to my craft room, calmly close the door, get out my pastels and a fresh canvas, and just mellow out to some Suzanne Vega.

Screw it. Just scratch the institution of marriage altogether.
This gets tiring to hear about. So...just leave off having government interfere with marriage anyway.

Nothing in the Constitution says a word about marriage (although the thirteenth amendment has relevence)

I think I'd agree with you Xev but better to have 2% of the population screaming that their rights are being taken away than the other 98%. And who knows the backlash against homosexuals if this happened?

A right? Marriage isn't a right.
At least not according to the Constitution of the United States.

Marriage is almost dead among my generation, I doubt they'd care a horrid deal.

As for the heteros, who cares? White heterosexuals are pretty much conditioned to bend over whenever they're told that something they're doing is racist, just extend that guilt to heterosexuality.

Black heterosexuals, who cares? Like they even vote.

What's marriage good for anyway? Without legal marriage insurence policies will be forced to cover dependants irregardless of whether they are spouses. Feminists will love it, because marriage is a nasty patriarchial institution, men will love it because they can't be roped into marriage anymore, gays will love it, the only people who'll object are conservative religious morons and stupid whores who dream of wearing pretty dresses.

Jesus freaks and whores....vs. pretty much everybody else. Bentham would say to go with "everyone else".

What's marriage good for anyway?

Married couples provide more to the economy, are happier and better workers than unmarried singles and couples. From this perspective, the goverment has every right to support marriage(giving economic benefits) as they do for taxing tobaco.

I merely said the same as you that marriage is to avoid sin, and adding that if you're gay there's no point because you're sinning anyway?

So sinners in general shouldn't be allowed to marry in your opinion? Don't most flavors of Christianity believe in the original sin of Eve and Adam? Aren't we all guilty and born sinners? And for gods sake, if breaking a rule in Leviticus makes one a sinner, then you should hope that you don't eat shrimp (http://www.godhatesshrimp.com). No sense letting sea-food lovers get married either, really, especially if they'll have it at the reception afterwards!

But again all of that is sort of moot anyway, as when did Christianity get a monopoly on marriage? I don’t remember it ever being the Christian way or the highway in this country.

Hey, I have this wild idea about why it would be a good idea to let gay people get married.

Because they want to and it's none of my damn business to dictate to them (or anyone) what to do or not to do with their lives!

Just my two cents. :)

Jesus Christ you're a visionary! That's the good stuff right there, Silverback, but let's see if you can follow me as I take it a step farther. It's none of your (or straight people in general) business, yet still many people feel that they have the right to vote on it and deny it. Now if they're going to act like it's their problem, wouldn't it be quite fitting if someone were to genuinely make it their problem? I'm not advocating killing a conservative to celebrate every gay marriage in this nation, but it sure would be a satisfying form of poetic justice, wouldn't it?

Sorry, I’m in a pissy mood today, I’ve got an ear-ache, heh.

The problem is that goverment has to draw the line somewhere concerning marriage.

Yes, and between two consenting adults who love eachother and are committed to one another seems quite an appropriate place to draw the line to me. Anything less would simply be discriminatory and unjust. But if you insist on keeping marriage between only a man and a woman, why not outlaw interracial marriage again as well. After all we can't have everyone going around mixing the races up, then how would be know who to hate?!

Even if it was decided that 'gayness' was due too a mental disorder, that wouldn't make it wrong.

It's already been decided that it's not a mental disorder, however. And as for that absurd sexual abuse argument, that's never been popular among anyone who's done any legitimate research on the subject. I myself turned out gay, and didn't even realize that I had a penis until I was 13! (Well I didn't realize that there were other uses for it than peeing and getting caught painfully in my zipper).

These darn gays are stealing our jobs, poisoning the minds of our children, and threatening our very way of life. They go door-to-door recruiting new members. They use their exceptional decorating abilities to lure us into their evil hideouts, and just when we feel comfortable with our heterosexuality, BAMM!, they spring their trap. First it starts by casually putting on some Striesand, and offering a glass of Pinot Grigio. The next thing you know your deep into a conversation about the best way to put a fabulous patina finish on your chandelier, how much is too much to pay for a Mapplethorpe, and the best places to stay in Key West. It's all happening so fast. And wont somebody please stop and think of the cattle? What about the cattle. All those leather pants aren't pleather dammit. They're real genuine cow. :(

Aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!

Haha, don't worry 15, this doesn't make you homophobic, I'd run from it too!

I think I'd agree with you Xev but better to have 2% of the population screaming that their rights are being taken away than the other 98%. And who knows the backlash against homosexuals if this happened?

2%? You really think it's that small? Remember that that number comes from a US Census that was taken while in many states homosexuality was criminalized. How many homosexuals are going to admit on a government form that they are a member of a group that is institutionally persecuted by law? It's like asking a group of strangers on the street to raise their hands if they're gay while you're wearing an "I hate fags" T-shirt. Plenty of us know better than to admit that we're gay to just any old one if we want to keep from getting beat.

Also I'd have to contest the idea of any segment of the population crying out that their rights are being denied if homosexuals are allowed to marry. At what point did Americans gain the right to oppress any segment of the population that they want? I don't remember that being outlined in the constitution. If your right to religious freedom makes you think that you have a right to use your religion to deny other people the same rights that you enjoy, then you're sorely mistaken, more than that you're un-American and downright dangerous to our supposedly free society.

Mystech, it depends alot where you are. In some cities it may be 10%


Census that was taken while in many states homosexuality was criminalized.

This is inaccurate. To may knowledge homosexuality was never criminalized, only the act may have been criminal.


Also I'd have to contest the idea of any segment of the population crying out that their rights are being denied if homosexuals are allowed to marry. At what point did Americans gain the right to oppress any segment of the population that they want? I don't remember that being outlined in the constitution. If your right to religious freedom makes you think that you have a right to use your religion to deny other people the same rights that you enjoy, then you're sorely mistaken, more than that you're un-American and downright dangerous to our supposedly free society.

First, I said "right" only to give emphasis to what I said. I do not believe that goverment sponsership of marriage is a right, but a decision based upon the merit of the institution. Further, I do not enjoy the right to marriage, simply because I'm not married. Although you could argue that I have the possibility, so do you. Now I think its clear that someone's going to be "oppressed" if marriage has a real definition. It's clear that the goverment could allow polygamist to marry, even people marrying animals.

Thus, you only have two reasons for where to decide where to draw the line: morals or pragmatics. The pragmatic reason is clearly based upon the number of people desiring to be married and the ability of the state to carry it out, while the moral reason is based upon religion or preceived justice.

Mystech, it depends alot where you are. In some cities it may be 10%

I'd note that I don't go around shouting the kinsey number, one in ten, just because I haven't got much to back that up personally. However I've never really seen a study on the distribution of homosexuality through out urban/rural areas or just from region to region, so I also haven't got much to say about your "some cities" claim which I may be misinterpreting as implying that homosexuality may be more widespread in urban areas?

This is inaccurate. To may knowledge homosexuality was never criminalized, only the act may have been criminal.

Making it a crime to have sexual intercourse is enough of a criminalization of homosexuality in my book.

First, I said "right" only to give emphasis to what I said. I do not believe that goverment sponsership of marriage is a right, but a decision based upon the merit of the institution. Further, I do not enjoy the right to marriage, simply because I'm not married. Although you could argue that I have the possibility, so do you.

Well I'm very grateful that I have the right to marry a woman, but somehow I have the feeling that you'd be complaining as well if marriage were purely on my terms (as it is now on yours) and you had no right but to marry another man. I don't think I'd tell you to stop being so uppity if you stood up for yourself in that situation.

Now I think its clear that someone's going to be "oppressed" if marriage has a real definition. It's clear that the goverment could allow polygamist to marry, even people marrying animals.

Yes, there does need to be a line drawn somewhere, on that I agree. However, the primary issue here is reasonable limitations. There's absolutely no sense in banning homosexuals to marry one another. In the case of polygamy you have a very strange economic situation, the legal institution simply isn't designed for more than two people. Not to mention that being that the ratio of men to women is nearly half and half we're sure to have deficits of women if guys are making grabs to marry more than one. As for animals. . . there's just so much wrong with that I hardly know where to start. . . it's an animal, it has no rights, it receives no benefits, and it can't consent, not to mention that any illusion of an intent to marry is clearly weighted on one side of the relationship.

The idea of marriage as a union between two consenting adults, however poses few problems, and indeed if someone wasn’t already thinking of homosexuals naming that what a marriage is probably wouldn’t even bring the idea to mind.

Thus, you only have two reasons for where to decide where to draw the line: morals or pragmatics. The pragmatic reason is clearly based upon the number of people desiring to be married and the ability of the state to carry it out, while the moral reason is based upon religion or preceived justice.

Well, aside from the fact that this is a false dilemma, there are always more than two sides to any issue, I’d have to point out that the US government has no right basing a decision on religion. State imposition of theological ideas is a scary thing. And though you didn't bring it up directly I'd also have to note that the arbitrary will of the masses on issues upon which they have no claim, and no real stake, is poor grounds to be making decisions to govern people's lives.

I’d have to point out that the US government has no right basing a decision on religion.

The members of goverment have a right to form their opinions on social issues based upon religion as long as none contradict the separation between church and state. Incidently, the separation of church and state is a religious idea spawned by the reformation. Bottom line is that separation of church and state came from religious idealism, namely people wanted freedom to practice their religion.


State imposition of theological ideas is a scary thing. And though you didn't bring it up directly I'd also have to note that the arbitrary will of the masses on issues upon which they have no claim, and no real stake, is poor grounds to be making decisions to govern people's lives.

Religion does not deal with just theological ideas. If someone argues that stealing is wrong because the bible says so, then there's no harm having laws against stealing, even if the rationale was the bible.


Well, aside from the fact that this is a false dilemma, there are always more than two sides to any issue, I’d have to point out that the US government has no right basing a decision on religion.

Well, sort of. Perhaps I should clarify that people base their decision on either pragmatics or not pragmatics. What is not pragmatics seems to include only morals. Someone could argue that we should have gay marriage to be "fair" to gays, and it would be just as convincing as arguing that gay marriage is wrong. Only with a preconceived idea of morals does the moral argument make any sense.

Bottom line is that separation of church and state came from religious idealism, namely people wanted freedom to practice their religion.

And allowing one religion to control the government and have its religious edicts passed as law is conducive to freedom to practice your own religion how?

Religion does not deal with just theological ideas. If someone argues that stealing is wrong because the bible says so, then there's no harm having laws against stealing, even if the rationale was the bible.

This is a silly argument. We are not against stealing because of any justification in the bible, we are against stealing because we are selfish (used here without the negative connotation) enough to desire private property, and hence the laws of our land represent that. It is not an ineffable mandate from some unknowable supreme force, but very clearly laid out by our own thoughts and desires.

Indeed, I would say that none of our laws have a basis in the bible, the bible just happens to co-opt things people already like. Look at how many biblical laws even strict Christians flagrantly ignore! The bible allows married men to have sex with slaves and prostitutes. Shell fish are called an abomination. Your neighbors are supposed to kill your children if they become to troublesome. Widows are supposed to marry their brothers in law! We don’t pay attention to these laws because we do not base our laws off of the bible, but on what works for a responsible society that we want to live in.

And allowing one religion to control the government and have its religious edicts passed as law is conducive to freedom to practice your own religion how?

No, I only said that members of the goverment form many of their opinions based upon religion. It's part of the freedom of religion.


This is a silly argument. We are not against stealing because of any justification in the bible, we are against stealing because we are selfish (used here without the negative connotation) enough to desire private property, and hence the laws of our land represent that. It is not an ineffable mandate from some unknowable supreme force, but very clearly laid out by our own thoughts and desires.

Notwithstanding that someone could come to an equivalent conclusion by other means, many of those who are religous are taught that stealing is wrong in a religious setting. I know I was. Now we know that almost any time good or evil is used it's tantamount to a religious argument. I would say that belief in the existence of absolute good and evil requires supernatural belief, ergo religion.

Any moral law does require this sort of irrational ideas in the umbrella of religion. It's impossible to rationalize the harm stealing does without defining harm. Yet harm can be treated relative. Whose to say that a good Indian was a dead one? For all people there is a conscience that they use to form their ideas and motives, but basing any law on this conscience is religious argument if our conscience comes from God. Understandingly, then, only atheists can make non-religious arguments based upon their conscience given the non-existence of God.


Indeed, I would say that none of our laws have a basis in the bible, the bible just happens to co-opt things people already like. Look at how many biblical laws even strict Christians flagrantly ignore!

I used the bible as an example. In fact, even the most ardent sola-scripuralist don't use only the bible to form their moral opinions. Most, however, form their beliefs on a particular interpretation of the bible, thus using religion.

It's apparent to me that the separation between church and state could only happen if religion existed. This in itself requires a religious motive: the freedom to practice and establish any religion, even none at all.


The bible allows married men to have sex with slaves and prostitutes. Shell fish are called an abomination. Your neighbors are supposed to kill your children if they become to troublesome. Widows are supposed to marry their brothers in law! We don’t pay attention to these laws because we do not base our laws off of the bible, but on what works for a responsible society that we want to live in.

True, the Old Testament laws that you spoke of were formed in a society where it was natural for brothers to marry their brothers in law. A case in point was that this society valued the familyline, where we value freely given love. The problem is that you cannot say that our system of marriage is better than the ancient hebrews without resorting to semi-religous arguments.

Also, the Old Testament does not allow married men to have sex with slaves and prostitutes before marriage. However, interpreting the Old Testament without fullscope of the new testament is wrong.

The problem is that you cannot say that our system of marriage is better than the ancient hebrews without resorting to semi-religous arguments.

Only purely theological issues require purely theological arguments. Secular reasoning can determine the merits and draw backs of any tangible real world issue, such as marriage.

Only purely theological issues require purely theological arguments. Secular reasoning can determine the merits and draw backs of any tangible real world issue, such as marriage.

To decide what is merit requires a religious like argument since its something that is not logic. Loosely speaking, what is meritable to us is what feels meritable. No logical argument can change that, and it just so happens that quite a few people define what is meritable by religion.

Secular humanists and atheists seem to get on rather well for themselves without having someone else claiming supreme authority tell them what their values are. Even many religious people form their own opinions and values that are contradictory to their religion. What constitutes good behavior is determined by an individual and society, not a god. Even in the bible you can see many examples of where the values came from the writer, as a man of his culture in his time, not so clearly from god. Don’t you yourself admit this when you explain that the old testament must be viewed in the context of the fullness of the new testament? If its all the word of god why would one part of it need to be qualified by the other?

To decide what is merit requires a religious like argument since its something that is not logic. Loosely speaking, what is meritable to us is what feels meritable. No logical argument can change that, and it just so happens that quite a few people define what is meritable by religion.

Well I certainly hope that you're not so unstable that you'd actually believe this. If you're a person with any goals, then it's easy to form a logical idea of what helps and harms those goals, no religion required. If I say to myself I want to help to create a world where people are free, and don't have to worry about large groups of thugs oppressing them the bam we can then allow gay marriage. I don't see that any mystical sky father needs to be taken into account, nor what someone from another culture wrote down thousands of years ago. Helping and hindering, merits and flaws, are not entirely subjective.

Well I certainly hope that you're not so unstable that you'd actually believe this. If you're a person with any goals, then it's easy to form a logical idea of what helps and harms those goals, no religion required. If I say to myself I want to help to create a world where people are free, and don't have to worry about large groups of thugs oppressing them the bam we can then allow gay marriage. I don't see that any mystical sky father needs to be taken into account, nor what someone from another culture wrote down thousands of years ago. Helping and hindering, merits and flaws, are not entirely subjective.

I think your're making a false generalization here. There is obviously only two kinds of logical arguments, that which is false and that which is true. Clearly, then, theology makes use of the simple logical arguments along with a number of premises that cannot be proven. Hopefully, however, these premises are intuitative enough that they can be listed as premises, at least show the opposite belief results in some sort of universally accepted negative.

So what is "universally" good or evil cannot be shown to be so by logic alone. This is simply because logic neither defines good or evil. You cannot argue that having large groups of thugs guarding us is evil without resorting to a semi-religious argument that all free things are good.

A case in point is that before Hitler, the rich industrialists literally let thugs--read Nazis--rule the street in order to stop communists. Is that good or bad? Well, it seems good if one perceives communism is somehow worse than someone's freedom taken away. Surely we cannot read the future. Without seeing the full consequence of an action we cannot truly judge whether it is good or bad, though we can most certainly judge whether the consequence of an action is good or bad.

I don't believe that two wrongs make a right, neither do I believe that there are any situations where a wrong magically becomes a right. However, I recognize that this is religious belief--it has no place in goverment--but I also recognize that our goverment is free to make laws based on this tenet.