Engaging in

[SirMyztiq]

It's sad. "America was made for..." That statement has caused an on going attack the same way Bush based his campaign. A single and misunderstood line that will be the defining factor of somebody's intelligence.

America wasn't made for anything. And if by "America" you mean the Constitution then the constitution was made a long time ago. A LONG time ago. Long are the days of racism and prejudice. Long are the days of total Christian mindset. Long are the days where Christians said jump and the people said "how high". America was made to protect liberty, ensure justice and promote equality. The Constitution never EVEN addressed the issue of marriage. But the Consitution is open and it was intended to be open so that throughout time and changes it would be modified in order to strenghthen equality and liberty. The whole "necessary and proper" clause rings a bell.

What we have here isn't an issue of money, power or even respect(well actually there is no respect when it comes to conservatives attacking gays) We have people like Aluigi saying that homosexuality is unhealthy. Yeah I mean they did start AIDS right!? And it was a punishment for God right!? Stupidity and near-sightness at it's finest.

[url="http://www.uua.org/obgltc/wcp/wc20uuanswr.pdf"]http://www.uua.org/obgltc/wcp/wc20uuanswr.pdf[/url]

Tell me how is homosexuality healthy or unhealthy? Enlighten me with a list of gender-oriented specific diseases.

Natural and God's law?

God's law. WHO CARES? NOBODY asked Christians for their opinion. Nobody asked Christians to accept homosexuality. Christians just felt threatened and they had to put an end to the government doing it's job and ignoring what the Christians have to say by putting pressure on the president. Christianity has been heavily divided with the issue so before you try to fix the world why don't you try to fix your own first?

Natural law. What is natural law? That men and women are supposed to have sex in order to reproduce and that only that combination can cause reproduction? News flash! It has nothing to do with it! They aren't asking nature to allow men to have babies with another guy.

General welfare of society huh?
Since when has society been healthy?
Let's see. High divorce rate? Check. Priest engaging in homosexual acts with children and then having the Church cover it up? Check. Heroin plants in Afghanistan that get their money from Americans? Check. Racism and prejudice? Check.

All the signs of a healthy American society.

Then we have Socrates putting the old but always useful stamp of "I'm better than you because I said so" that many Christians who profess their believes seem to have.

Homosexuality is a sin and vice. According to who?
If you say the entire human population then a point for you.
If you say the Bible then minus a point for you and minus forty points for your narrowminded statement.

Married love create babies right? ALL MARRIAGES ARE MADE OF LOVE RIGHT?!
Please tell me I'm right? Is that why there is such a high divorce rate? Or is that why domestic violence is so rampant?

Dude don't blind yourself with your ego. You don't define love and marriage to the ability of having children. There is always adoption. Gays CAN love and they aren't asking you to accept it. They aren't asking you to let the Church accept it. All they want is the right to have a joint financial and social status. They want to be able to go to the hospital and be able to see their couple without having to wait for a relative to get there. They want to be able to claim taxes the same way a heterosexual couple can. THAT'S IT!!

They aren't asking you to join them.
They aren't asking you to watch them.
They aren't asking you to approve of it.

They want equality and a way to show each other that THEY are truly in love and that THEY are willing to be together LEGALLY. Notice how none of that affects you.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

ok. I'm going to play devil's advocate here in a weird way....

Let's just assume that SirMystic is right in his last post there.

Fine. Whatever.


We believe that people with same-sex attraction are people too with the rights and privledges of all people.

Let's just give up on trying to legislate them - they're human and going to do whatever they want anyway.

We spend so much time and effort fighting it - why not let them do what they want?

All we can do is let them know of our disapproval (assuming they ask), admonish them and pray that they repent and don't end up in Hell.

Should we "shake the dust" from the situation and walk away to spend time, effort and energy on more worthwhile things?

[Balthazor]

I have sometimes thought about this myself....mainly I am miffed because it seems that our biggest worry in our government is same sex marriage. I don't support or want same sex marriage to be a part of my society but somehow I get the feeling that our time and energy and could be better spent on more productive ventures.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Nov 22 2004, 04:59 AM'] ok.  I'm going to play devil's advocate here in a weird way....

Let's just assume that SirMystic is right in his last post there.

Fine.  Whatever.


We believe that people with same-sex attraction are people too with the rights and privledges of all people.

Let's just give up on trying to legislate them - they're human and going to do whatever they want anyway.

We spend so much time and effort fighting it - why not let them do what they want?

All we can do is let them know of our disapproval (assuming they ask), admonish them and pray that they repent and don't end up in Hell.

Should we "shake the dust" from the situation and walk away to spend time, effort and energy on more worthwhile things? [/quote]


For the same reason that we don't let brothers and sisters marry, or give permission to fathers to rape their daughters at puberty. For the same reason we have consent laws, or child abuse laws.
We don't let people have three wives or four husbands [ now that is a thought ] at one time.

Its wrong.

If you permit same sex unions [ they cannot be marriages] then you have NO legal right to stop any other kind of union or prevent child abuse. Ever.

Edited November 22, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 22 2004, 05:01 AM'] If you permit same sex unions [ they cannot be marriages] then you have NO legal right to stop any other kind of union or prevent child abuse. Ever. [/quote]
That is an excellent point Cmom! Thank you!

[SirMyztiq]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 22 2004, 05:01 AM']

For the same reason that we don't let brothers and sisters marry, or give permission to fathers to rape their daughters at puberty. For the same reason we have consent laws, or child abuse laws.
We don't let people have three wives or four husbands [ now that is a thought ] at one time.

Its wrong.

If you permit same sex unions [ they cannot be marriages] then you have NO legal right to stop any other kind of union or prevent child abuse. Ever. [/quote]
How does allowing marriage between gay couples suddenly open up to raping, incest and people wanting to marry a hog?

Explain to me how that would happen.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 22 2004, 01:28 PM'] How does allowing marriage between gay couples suddenly open up to raping, incest and people wanting to marry a hog?

Explain to me how that would happen. [/quote]
Essentially because it reduces sex to a selfish, physical-pleasure-seeking act.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Essentially because it reduces sex to a selfish, physical-pleasure-seeking act. [/quote]

that's wrong on the level that the sex is a union of the love the homosexual share.

[quote]How does allowing marriage between gay couples suddenly open up to raping, incest and people wanting to marry a hog?

Explain to me how that would happen. [/quote]

at least someone understands me! lol

but to clarify, if people want to allow those bad things, that's there perogative. i'm not going to stand for it as i don't think it's reasonable.

i want you to explain how i all of the sudden have to think those are reasonable.


Also, I'd still like soc to explain to me how what he's doing is different than what I am.

Edited November 22, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

you wanna know why it'd happen? because of PRECEDENCE. There are already polygamists preparing their legal fights, pedophiles preparing for their legal fights (ever heard of a little organization from hell called NAMBLA?)

don't dismiss the constitution, it tells the government what it is supposed to do! it's about the government's role, the government is to promote the general welfare. listing off a list of vices that plague the country and saying society isn't healthy doesn't change the fact that the government's role is to promote the general welfare. the constitution is the foundation for the government, the guideline for what it should do when any new issue comes up. the government should know it's purpose, and its purpose is laid out in the pramble to the Constitution of the United States.
why do we have a government in the united states?[list]
[*]to form a more perfect Union
[*]establish Justice
[*]insure domestic Tranquillity
[*]provide for the common defence
[*]promote the general Welfare
[*]secure the Blessings of Liberty
[/list]
if any of these purposes for the government are outdated, let me know. all you've said is that racism and prejudice are outdated and apparently Christianity is as well according to you. but the general reason for the government to exist is the same

homosexuality is unhealthy physically and psychologically

[quote]The Archives of Internal Medicine, "Homosexually active men are significantly more likely to report syphilis and less likely to present with primary syphilis than heterosexual men."

New England Journal of Medicine, "At least 80 percent of homosexual men presenting to our sexually transmitted disease clinic with anorectal or intestinal symptoms were infected with one or more sexually transmissible anorectal or enteric pathogens. Such infections were also found in 39 percent of homosexual men presenting to the clinic without intestinal symptoms."

Harrisonís Principles of Internal Medicine, "In one New York Study, all nontraveled immunocompetent males with giardiasis were, in fact, homosexual."

New England Journal of Medicine, "Anal intercourse may predispose to anal cancer through the transmission of an infection, most probably infection with human papillomavirus."

The Journal of the American Medical Association, "among men, report of any lifetime homosexual activity was associated with an elevated risk for HSV-2 [herpes simplex virus - 2]."

American Journal of Medicine,"... heterosexual men in a sexually transmitted disease clinic have a substantially lower prevalence of cytomegalovirus seropositivity than do homosexual men."

The Centers for Disease Control reveal that homosexuals make up 80 percent of all AIDS cases in America. Heterosexual contact accounts for only 8 percent of the cases.

In addition, the rate of suicide attempts among homosexuals is three times higher than that of normal males.[/quote]

Some say the suicide thing is just because they are exposed to so much intolerance and prejudice. talk to those same people about suicide while not bringing up homosexuals and you'll hear that people who commit suicide have chemical imbalances. homosexual tendencies are the result of developemental problems, the search for love and acceptance amoung peers of the same gender (natural at a young age, you see it all the time they think the other gender has cooties, it's called polarization) is lacking during their upbringing, this natural desire lingers and is still with them at puberty, the desire shifts to a sexual nature. this is a problem in their developement that has led to a chemical imbalance.

for the United States Government to recognize and promote with benefits same sex unions would be promoting something that is not good for the general welfare, thereby doing the opposite of what it is supposed to do. yes, the government is still bound by the constitution, the high offices all swear to uphold and defend it, cheif justices interpret it, and congress makes new laws to current event issues by its power.

[Guest Aluigi]

also, with dairygirl she has already conceded that homosexual behavior isn't healthy, but that she didn't think it shouldn't be recognized. therefore, my argument to her stands that government recognition of same sex unions would be government promotion of them, which is contrary to the general welfare, so it should not be promoted by the government. i have a feeling sirmystiq will continue arguing homosexuality as not unhealthy, i hope he will not continue disregarding the constitution and admit that if it was then it would be something the government shouldn't promote.

-Pax-

[Guest]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Nov 4 2004, 06:33 PM'] If there is a gay gene then their must also be a gene that makes me prefer black women over white women. It must have nothing to do with the fact that I grew up watching Lisa on Saved By the Bell. [/quote]

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 22 2004, 05:01 AM']

For the same reason that we don't let brothers and sisters marry, or give permission to fathers to rape their daughters at puberty. For the same reason we have consent laws, or child abuse laws.
We don't let people have three wives or four husbands [ now that is a thought ] at one time.

Its wrong.

[/quote]
Wrong. Incestuous marriages (and sex in some states) are prohibited on the basis of genetics and the possibility of malformed offspring.

[quote]If you permit same sex unions [ they cannot be marriages] then you have NO legal right to stop any other kind of union or prevent child abuse. Ever.[/quote]

Again, wrong. Same-sex marriages (and yes, they can be marriages) are still based on consent -- any non-consensual marriages can be prohibited. This works in much the same way that non-consenual sexual behaviors are illegal, for example, bestiality and pedophilia.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 20 2004, 08:32 PM'] dairy, i gave you the oppurtunity to clarify your position, asked you specific questions. (you had proposed this is what America was made for, I showed you what the constitution said America was made for and then asked you which of these points you think make America made for government recognition of homosexual unions)

i think you need to remember that currently we are debating wether or not the American government should RECOGNIZE homosexual unions.

so which of those points from the Constitution make America made for government promoted homosexual unions? [/quote]
How about the 14th Amendment? The one that promises equal protection?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 18 2004, 10:35 PM'] Promiscuity is not the only reason homosexuality breeds disease. There are anatomical reasons why sodomy tends to spread disease more than natural sex (between man and woman). I don't want to get censured for graphically explaining this on this site, so I won't go into detail on this.

[/quote]
And even heterosexual couples participate in this activity. This point is moot.

[quote]Secondly, contrary to gay-rights propaganda, very few homosexuals, at least of male homosexuals, are interested in "monagamy."  IN reality, most active gay males are extremely promiscuous.  Gay "marriage" is a farce promoted by gay activists to force acceptance of their "lifestyle."  The vast majority of gay men have no interest in settling into a monogamous "marriage."[/quote]

This is beside the point -- even if only 1% of homosexual couples wants to get married that minority should have the right.

[quote]The primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and raising of children.  This is something homosexual "marriages" can never be ordered towards.  Gay "marriage" is nothing more than a grotesque mockery of true marriage.[/quote]

If this were true the elderly, sterile, and childfree would not be allowed to marry. Or, if you want to take it the other way, homosexual couples could adopt as do many sterile heterosexual couples. In this way same-sex marriage could be ordered towards raising children.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 19 2004, 02:33 PM'] This post betrays an incredible, profound and apalling ignorance of American history!

Until the late twentieth-century, most states had anti-sodomy laws! (Some still do, though these are now for the most part not enforced and being struck down by the "gay rights" crowd). That's right, homosexual activity was a prosecutable crime in this country!

[/quote]
If you want to argue history...well, let's just say that there is a grand history of abortion being legal.

[quote]And Thomas Jefferson, a founding father of our country, and not a particulary religious man, recommended as Governor of Virginia that sodomites be punished by castration!  (a common punishment for sex offenders at the time)
(So much for gay rights being what our country was founded on!)[/quote]

Actually, she said that this was what it was made for, not what it was founded on.

[quote]You might think this unfair, whatever, but the fact is that homosexual "marriages" or even "civil unions" were never legally practiced in this country until a few years ago!

No church, Catholic or protestant, provided homosexual "marriages"!  And until recent decades, anyone would have been appalled at the very suggestion!  (Ask your grandmother!)[/quote]

If I replace the word homosexual with interracial the statements would be equally true.