Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Legally people can and do divorce and remarry. Often multiple times and for reasons far more trivial than adultery. And legally those marriages are given the same status as a church marriage. But in my church you get one marriage so if a couple divorce the church won't marry either of them since they're both still married and always will be.
I'm not defining marriage. God has already done that and society has recognized it in law.
Which God?
Which church?
Which society?
Do you have any idea how arrogant you sound? I completely respect your faith, and the significance of your marriage for you, but it would seem that you are completely incapable of respecting anyone else's beliefs or relationships as being important to them.
Do you have any idea how arrogant you sound? I completely respect your faith, and the significance of your marriage for you, but it would seem that you are completely incapable of respecting anyone else's beliefs or relationships as being important to them.
AMEN to the arrogant part.
Only his Church, His God, and His religion can attain the "state" of marriage.
Well, because I am not gay. That no gay person has ever proposed to me makes little difference. I have no problem with gays being married, no more than Italians, or Slavs, or any other recognized human division/grouping??? not sure how to phrase that, I'm not trying for political correctness, just accuracy. Gays should have the right to suffer through dinner with in-laws just like the rest of us.
The question that has to be answered completely is, what causes homosexuality. And while there is definitely a strong correlation between genetics, gene penetrance, and hormone levels of men that become homosexuals. There is no absolute proof of why many men become homosexuals, so many believe there is also a huge environmental aspect at play with men.
The proof of genetics vs environmental factors is easy to compare if you look at the number of lesbians against the number of gays. There are about two times more gays than lesbians. Scientists have done studies on women, and have proven all women have a physical arousal to seeing two women together sexually(even if the women weren't mentally aroused).
Basically, all woman could technically be lesbians, or all women could be heterosexual, the outcome is cultural. So lets compare that back with men.
There are many men that have had homosexual thoughts, or have been somewhat attracted to other men at times, but that doesn't make them gay. There are even men who have had homosexual relations that consider themselves heterosexual and end up married and happy to be with a woman.
The end problem is that, even if homosexuality does have a heavy basis in genetics. There is still a heavy environmental factor to men and woman in becoming homosexual.
The question then is, should it matter if someone is a homosexual? If half of all homosexuals could have just as easily been heterosexual under the right conditions, then should we push them to be heterosexual? Or should we just be more accepting of homosexuals.
If half of all men become gay by choice and half are born gay, how do we protect the rights of the gays that can't help it, while encouraging the "at risk" men to be straight.
If homosexual behavior is partially "learned", then by making it where homosexuality is considered "normal" would definitely cause an increase in the number of homosexuals(which has been proven to be true). So the problem becomes split based on how you feel about homosexuality.
My problem is that, I worry about the happiness of homosexuals. They can never have kids together(adoption aside). And while many heterosexuals choose not to have children. I think having children is a huge goal of many homosexual couples which is why they are pushing so hard to adopt, because they feel unfulfilled in being incapable of having children(and adopted children aren't their blood). So if we create a system where there are more homosexuals by making it more and more culturally acceptable, we are just going to leave more and more people discontent with their lives.
I am against gay marriage or any other act that might increase the number of homosexuals. I also would like to greatly expand genetic research and focus on preventative measures for homosexuality(like monitoring of hormone levels in utero at a certain stage of developement) because I hate the idea of anyone having to live a poor quality of life.
The main reason religious folks fight so hard against homosexuality is because it contrdicts the (alleged) word of God. I truely believe that some people are born gay and there are others who due to environmental factors gravitate towards that lifestyle (abusive relationships, abuse, incest, rape) and there are some who I call "sexually greedy" do it for physical gratification (bisexuals). Many people of faith will not accept homosexuality b/c it is against nature which is created by God. This would mean that God made a mistake, which cannot be allowed. I believe that they are (born gay) put here also as a part of God's plan(population control?)
As far as gay marriage is concerned, personally I really don't care one way or another, but the REAL reason why businesses are against it is b/c of insurance and leave policies that would cost businesses $$. A married couple can take family leave for pregnancies or family illness, gays cannot.
Your assumption about a quality of life for gay people, what makes you think that they are unhappy? Isn't that the reason that they are called "gay"? Another point, you do agreed that men make more money then women, well the logic stands that two men makes more than a heterosexual couple, and they take less days off from work.
Your thoughts on homosexuals having children is pretty funny. Lesbians who want children and many of them do (the maternal thing is still there) simply find a sperm donor (and there are plenty of men who will do it) and raise a child. Homosexual men usually are happy childless.
Gay people being married may not be accepted as a whole but some sort of reconized union should exist, it just makes sense. I'm trying to figure out how someone else's gayness can affect my marriage anyway
Gay people being married may not be accepted as a whole but some sort of reconized union should exist, it just makes sense. I'm trying to figure out how someone else's gayness can affect my marriage anyway
It can't unless you are in a insecure marriage which seems to be the case for many on this forum.
People who are so against gay marriage should be fighting hard and long to ban divorce.
JBrown Quote:
Seems to me that once you remove the "rights" issue, which IMHO is a red herring anyway, you get to the the REAL motive behind the whole marriage debate.
They want to feel fully accepted in society. That's the real motive.
Well how about that. We finally get someone to begin to get to the real motive. So...It's not "fair" that gays don't feel good about themselves unless everyone else smiles, nods their head and says , Yes you two guys are married...just like me and my wife. It's all about self image huh. Well as you admit...when the "rights" issue is exposed as a red herring it's all about feelings...and heaven forbid anyone have their feelings hurt. So now the government should pass legislation so a subset group of society doesn't have their feelings hurt and they'll feel better about themselves. Sorry, I'm not buying any of that foolishness. That's NOT a role of any government body, there are social and psychiatric counselors that can help with that problem.l
What you fail to take into consideration,at any level, is the feelings of others who don't support your view..a view I might add that is clearly a minority position. But I guess the feelings of the majority don't matter...it's all about you and your feelings and sense of self well being. How nice for you. Everyone else will have to deal with it.
And lastly we come to your final statement wherein you spell out, so as to remove any doubt, just how accepting and understanding you really are.
Of course, I don't expect the anti-gay crowd to ever believe that or to accept them. They're too small-minded, self-righteous, and sanctimonious to do that.
Three final comments from me, FWIW
1. I'm not anti gay and certainly not the least bit religious..I just don't like to pretend something is when it isn't.
2. The bogus rights issue aside your intellectual honesty regarding it comes down to feelings is point worthy. I shall do .
PS..In most cases the "you" is intended as the general you, ie. not you specifically
Even with all of the evidence that people can't change their sexual orientation, you still call it a "lifestyle" and think it's fine to discriminate in the way that you've described?
I read something interesting a long time ago about humans essentially being born with bisexual tendencies, and nature influencing which way the person in question ends up going. Of course, even heterosexual men and women experience brief moments of same sex attraction at some point in their own lives. I think for the most part sexuality is determined at a young age, but I reject what you say about discrimination. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman as it has been defined by society for centuries on end. Not everyone has to be favor of gay marriage, you know. It seems as if activists just aren't willing to even entertain another opinion. Everyone must embrace these alternative lifestyles or face condemnation and ridicule. Well, I will not.
I read something interesting a long time ago about humans essentially being born with bisexual tendencies, and nature influencing which way the person in question ends up going. Of course, even heterosexual men and women experience brief moments of same sex attraction at some point in their own lives. I think for the most part sexuality is determined at a young age, but I reject what you say about discrimination. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman as it has been defined by society for centuries on end. Not everyone has to be favor of gay marriage, you know. It seems as if activists just aren't willing to even entertain another opinion. Everyone must embrace these alternative lifestyles or face condemnation and ridicule. Well, I will not.
Between A man and woman?
Society defined that? What about when marriage was between a man and several women? People accepted that. Marriage was redefined. If people can accept different kinds then I don't see what is wrong with a man marrying a man.
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman as it has been defined by society for centuries on end. Not everyone has to be favor of gay marriage, you know. It seems as if activists just aren't willing to even entertain another opinion. Everyone must embrace these alternative lifestyles or face condemnation and ridicule. Well, I will not.
I regret I can not point you at this time..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
