Why Homosexuality Should be Banned

[thewaever]

Ugh, I hope I'm using this quote thing right...

your fourth argument misses the point entirely, and the first half of it is the same point being made over and over again. Your rather long rant about the logical misstep in Christian's saying that "homosexuality is a choice, and therefore wrong" completely misses the point, your counter argument states that:

"Christianity, by definition, MUST BE A CHOICE. But, Christianity isn't "wrong" despite being a choice, so why is homosexuality?"

This argument implies that people who are homophobic are so because it's a choice.

I'm sorry, but that is not what I intended to say at all.

First off, I'm talking specifically about Christians here, not homophobes.
Second, I was trying to draw attention to the fact that being a Christian is a lifestyle choice.
Finally, I was trying to demonstrate the connection between the Christians' lifestyle choice, and a "homosexual" lifestyle choice.

The conclusion is this: if a person's ability to choose a lifestyle is protected under US law (& it is as demonstrated by all of the religious organizations in the US), then choosing to become a homosexual must also be protected under that same precedent.

NOTE, I am not talking about a person's actual physiological ability to make that choice, only the LEGAL & POLITICAL ramifications of making lifestyle choices.

The people who use this argument Don't go against homosexuality BECAUSE its a choice, they are against it because of their dislike of the nature of being homosexual. They use their "choice" argument to further demonize homosexuals by basically stating that: "Its bad enough that they are gay, but they CHOSE to be that way".

I completely agree. Those are bad people you are talking about.

However! I'm not talking about homophobes. All I'm thinking about at this point is the legal protections that should be extended to a person's inalienable freedom to make lifestyle choices. From a legal & political point of view, precedence is very important. The Christian argument of homosexuality-as-lifestyle-choice puts homosexuality in exactly the same footing as Christianity (which IS a lifestyle style choice).

Also, as a self proclaimed homosexual, how can you say that its a choice?

I didn't say homosexuality is a choice.

I said I made the choice to become homosexual. There is a big difference. I don't know you. I don't know your sexuality, and I have no idea want sort of factors went into the creation of your sexuality.

BUT! I definitely know what into mine.


Speaking of which.....

If it was, in fact, a conscious choice for you to turn gay then please, by all means, share with me the day that you were attracted to women with no sexual attraction to men whatsoever, decided that you were going to become gay.

Certainly. About fourteen years ago, I sat down on my bed & literally considered the question, "Can a person change their sexuality? Specifically, could I become gay?" Over the next couple of days I tested my attractions and found them to be 100% heterosexual. I began doing research at the local university. I talked to as many different people as I could. No one could give me a good answer why it couldn't happen. So, over the course of years, I worked on myself. Now understand, this decision was a big one. Like any kind of lifestyle change, it took a lot of effort, motivation, & will power.


Which brings me to...

Even outside of the scientific data I know a few gay people who hate the fact that they are gay and have tried to force themselves to be straight.

If there's anything that really pushes my depression button, it's the situation that you just described. It's terrible.

That being said, however many people you know, their condition does not describe all of humanity. You yourself pointed out that the science is really inconclusive here. At best, the most concrete thing science can say at this point is that there is no "gay" gene. After that, science cannot rule out "cognizant factors" (i.e. a person's private reflections and thoughts regarding themselves).

i applaud the fact that you are proud enough of your sexuality to stand up and defend it

& I you!

you can bet your ass that the homophobic bigots will, and they will be a hell of a lot more ruthless than I am

I wasn't talking about, or to, homophobes. My post was about the need to expand our argument to create a more persuasive legal/political force.

---

Nobody says "it's a choice, therefore it's wrong", because as you point out that is a stupid argument that leads nowhere.

I've run across enough people in real life & in popular media that I thought it was a good place to start.

They say it's a choice, therefore you should pick the right decision which is heterosexuality just as they would say picking Christianity is the right decision. The argument should be based on "why is homosexuality the wrong decision?" After all the only negative effects of being gay are imposed by other people [The homophobes]'re the real disease.

I completely agree!

I agree with you that there's obviously nothing wrong with being gay, but the argument is that gays are seriously persecuted in some parts of the world, to the point that they could be killed for it, so who on earth would choose that when the risks are so great?

Because the RISKS OF HARM FROM BEING GAY IS ZERO. But, as you so rightly pointed out, if murderous jerks lack a target, they would just find a new one.

Let's be really clear here: The risks of harm from being gay are zero. THE RISKS OF VIOLENCE INFLICTED BY MURDEROUS JERKS IS 100%.

This is a key point, & cannot be repeated enough. There is no harm in being gay.

Even in more civilised countries there is still bullying and hatred so, if it's such an easy thing as just choosing

I took pains to point out the amount of thought & effort that went into making the choice in the first place & the amount of time it took to see that choice through to the end. I think you missed my point.

then why would anyone choose to be gay? There's nothing inherently better about any sexuality but homosexuality comes with all that baggage that would make it undesirable.

I completely disagree. There's nothing wrong or harmful about being gay. Those "undesirable" elements you speak of are the work of the homophobes. Like you said, THEY are the disease.

If we run with your idea, then the people who attacked & killed Matthew Shepard should not be blamed for their crime. The bullies who drove Seth Walsh, Tyler Clementi, & the thousands & thousands of faceless victims to their deaths... the bullies are innocent of any blame... because being homosexual has "baggage."

Do NOT blame the victim. The killers are the ones at fault.

Frankly, I don't want to hear "It gets better." I want to hear the truth: that homosexuals are as perfect & beautiful as the human beings they are. Anyone who feels differently needs help. This is a point that I feel very strongly about.

---

Thanks for taking the time to post replies! If you'll forgive me, I've had this conversation many, many times. I'm sure you understand. I've run into many, many people who feel exactly the way you do! On the other hand... there are a few people like me out there ;P


If you have any other questions, please check out Judge Walker's Findings of Fact & Rulings of Law regarding the August 2010 ruling against prop 8. It nicely explains about 90% of my feelings regarding arguments against homosexuality. You can find it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010

Thanks again!

 

[Atlas13]

what, you think i haven't been following the thread?

Instead of answering directly, I'd just start a sentence:
"Here, on the internet..."
I think you know what I'm going to say. Anyway, nice to see that not everybody "Here, on the internet" is like this.

You've yet to explain why humans "shouldn't" be homosexual.

Funny, because I remember saying that it's not in the manner of nature as sexuality is meant to ensure a race has offspring.

Meant by who?

Nature, evolution,...I bet there are more words for it than I know.

Without appealing to biology, or social norms, or to a subjective moral authority, how can you say human sexuality has any meaning at all?

Why shouldn't I appeal to biology, as it is science and therefore objective. Anyway, take breathing as an example. You use your lungs to ensure you have oxygen to live on. This is natural. Therefore this organ and the process of breathing are meant to keep you alive. The same applies for sexuality. As you're able to argue on the Internet (what's not as usual as it should be), you should be able to understand that it's part of evolution. In layman's terms: You didn't grew a pair just for fun. For example, the same applies for thumbs.

Wow that's a bad argument. You claim that evolution and nature means for you to produce offspring? I'm sorry, but neither nature nor evolution controls anything. Nature, is life, and everything living. While Evolution, is a study of change over time. They do not MEAN anything, they don't FORCE anything. There are NO norms in nature. There is only "this is what is happening right now, this is what happened, this is why it happens." The same applies to biology. It doesn't say what you need to do, it only says "This is what this does, this is why it does it." Have you ever masturbated? Ever sang a song? Ever rode a bike or drove a car? Or even cut or style your hair? If what you're saying is true, all of these are unnatural. Since apparently, your voice can only be used to communicate information, your feet can only help you walk or run, and hair can only be used to keep you cool. Biology does not force one to do anything, and to think it does is to misunderstand biology completely.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I understand your sentiments and sort of agree; to me, marriage is an outdated practice. But, I respect the right and want of others to marry those they love if it makes them happy.

Not trying to "call you out" or anything.

No, I see what you're saying. I have no problem with anybody getting "married," just anyone getting "legally married." By legally marrying people, there's an implied religious element to the government that I don't like. I see why religious people get upset about it because the ability of other people to marry under the same system they do can seem like a threat/change to their belief system. Look at polygamy. The only reason that's not legal is because it doesn't fit in with the majority of people's belief systems in this country. So why should gay marriage be "legal," too?

I digress. My main point is I'm a single and embittered atheist jackhole who uses quotation marks too much. If your religion says you should get married, then fine, "get married," but I don't see why we need to set up our laws to enforce the marriage practices of various Judeo-Christian religions. Should we make it against the law to get divorced for jews and catholics? How about sharia law? And why when all these very VERY anti-gay organizations promote marriage do gays even want to get married at all? To fit in with the people who hate them?

Both my mom and my sister got (pardon the pun) screwed over in their marriages when their idiot husbands rang up tons of debt that the wives were suddenly liable for. Let's not forget alimony, prenups, divorce hearings, marriage licenses, court orders... so much waste. All that shit costs them money and us money all because their religion wants to let everyone know who is fucking who and how awful people are that sin by having sex out of wedlock or commit adultery other people.

/rant

 

[Daveman]

-snipped because otherwise the length is just going to get silly-

I know that the gay people aren't at fault but then by choosing to be gay they would be putting themselves in the firing line moreso than anyone else, that's why the "who would choose to be gay?" argument remains valid. There will be a few exceptions I suppose, as you prove, but overall I disagree, I think the argument stands. However we seem to be mostly on the same page.

I remember the day my parents asked me if I was gay. I felt so embarrassed and ashamed... I had to tell them that unfortunately I was straight and I was just terrible at picking up chicks.

 

[aei_haruko]

Interesting points. I would however point out that before catholosism, in many other faiths, that marrage was a highly religeous act, judism, polytheism, heck, even confuscian china held marrages in a very holy manner. ( by this I mean that marrage was strictly between a man and a woman, usually with some spiritual message/ good luck charms involved) And if you'd like to get into the civil union aspect of things, a civil union is a marrage in the legal sense of things. You just call somebody your " life partner". Again just in case I didn't reidorate this, marrage was, and in my opinion still is a religeous matter. I'm not trying to be some bible thumping moron, or a bigot, I have friends who are gay, and if the hadn't let me stay in a condo of theirs I'd have never met my girlfriend, whom I love with all my heart. I certainly don't think your opinion is wrong, I think that homosexual people deserve just as much love and respect as anybody. I just think that a marrage is between a man and a woman, I mean, if somebody were to change the definition of the word marrage, a word which is pretty common, right? Whats to stop them from rewording other words? Again, give gays civil rights, let them see their partners in hospitals, let them have equal rights and not be harrased by the community, but ya know, is it REALLY such a huge imposition to just call it a civil union?

 

[aei_haruko]

hmm, interesting points, I'll give you that. However, might I use a point of my own. I beilive the definition of marriage was a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between a man and a woman( yes i know there are a lot of them, but I'm referring to strictly the one that is relevent) So lets say that you DO change the definition from that to " a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between 2 persons" whats to stop the definition to change for polygymists? after all, why should such a bond exist between 2 people? Why not 7? and why is it just people? Why not animals for that manner as well? Soon the very thing that makes marrage so sacred will be lost.

In america the divorce rate is 50%. 1/2 of all marrages fail. To me this is astonishing. Can people not manage to work through their issues and just love eachother? ( I know this is off topic, but It'll reach a point, just stick with me here.) And I'm again, PERFECTLY COOL WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS. ya know? Plus what is the whole issue with calling it a civil union anyway? A civil union holds the same status as marrage, same tax bennifits, same eligibility for divorce,same standard that you'll be spending you whole life with this person whom you're with romantically.Plus if homosexuality isn't that cool with religeon, why have churches recognize it as a marriage if you don't even like the guys? WHy not try to first realize that marriage is a HUGE deal? Because I think society in general is taking it too lightly. Ya'll want Gays to be married ( civil union, no issue whatsoever, marriage, issue because in my faith it's a sacrement)yet you guys don't notice how you're making it a joke ( not YOU people reading this, people who don't actually care, yet get all in my face telling me I'm a bigot for disagreeing with them) I certainly like your opinion, and am very glad for the oppratunity for such a very wonderful diolauge, perhaps you could resond to me, I'd certainly like the opinion of such an intelligent person

 

[aei_haruko]

snip

I'm failing to see your point here. Bad thing have happened and do happen to people. Yes. And? Because one group had it rough no other group who is also being beaten and murdered can wish to fight for their rights?

The world doesn't work that way.

My original point was clearly defined: Homosexuals have every right to fight for their rights, but it's not the same as racial discrimination.

Of course it is. One is the treatment of an individual or a people based upon their race. The other is the treatment of an individual or people based upon their sexuality.

Your baffling. But I'm not going to argue with you. Frankly, I'm thankful you don't understand what I'm talking about. no one should.

As a sociology student, I'm going to try anyway.

First of all, I wholeheartily support the equal rights for every human being, regardless of gender, race, income, intelligence, sexual preference, age and beliefs. That's coming straight from the first line of our constitution and I personally think every civilised country should make it part of their constitution.

On the race issue: (sorry for going off topic)

Mimsoftthedawg, I think that the majority of the people that post here can actually understand the picture you described earlier about the discrimination of the Native American People. Despite the fact that majority of us, including me, never experienced it firsthandedly, we can vision it because of global media that are available to us. There are other people/social groups that live in similar or worse conditions over the globe. There are for example, the untouchables that live in Japan, Korea and China, (all with different names and societies), tribes in Africa that are basically enslaved and children that are forced to work as soldiers or prostitutes. Just some examples; Except for the child soldiers and prostitutes, none of these issues and plights are very well known in the Western world.

To the objective eye, there are many similarities (and also differences) and therefore its easy and typical human behaviour to compare your social group to others. I'm certainly not saying "that it's not so bad"; quite the contrary. As I said, I support equal rights for every human being, but that includes no special treatment as an excuse for social groups.

If we think about it, a lot of social groups that have been hit hard over the course of history and feel discriminated against, feel the need to voice themselves. No matter whether it's the Jews, Negroid population, Hispanics or Native Americans. All these groups feel special/unique, which also makes them a strong, but seperate group. Because there are so many social groups that feel left out, they feel like they have to adapt their behaviour to stand out, because each social group still wants (and will fight for) its own place in the bigger group, which is (global?) society.

In other words, with all due respect Mimsoftdawg, like you said, you don't want to be understood, because you feel that is what makes you or your group special and stand out. You don't want to be compared with other social groups, because despite a lot of similarities, you want to be acknowledged as part of your peer group. Unfortunately, this form of antagonal and sometimes provoking behaviour isn't unique in its own way.

Again, i sympathise with your plight, but do not close your eyes for the misery others have in the world. After all, the world is still a ****** place to live in for the vast majority of the population. Also, finding (peaceful) measures to improve your life standard will be more productive than reminiscending over the past. I believe that you also used events in your story that happened way before you were born. Eventually, a social group will have to abandon its "victim role" in its way to equality.

Hope that was helpful. A Dutch sociology student.

Yawn... I'm not gonna play your analytical game. I had several sociologist majors as friends in college (and in fact was one at one point or another). I won't enlighten your "interests" so you can have fun analyzing me. Sociology and Psychology are broken systems and you're highlighting why (analyze that).

At any rate, the systematic murder of millions is not equatable to the debate on whether or not a certain type of person should get married. It just isn't. I have several, SEVERAL homosexuals in my family and everyone of them agree with me. Just don't even try to defend it.

Homosexuals deserve equal rights. But don't say it's the same type of struggle. It isn't.

EDIT: I just want to say two things. First of all, you're right in that there's similar themes. But it's like comparing a gothic novel to a horror film. They're both dark. They're both creepy in their own rights. They often have sad or unnerving parts. But put simply, one is about telling a cohesive story while the other tries to scare the crap outta you. Similar... but end goal i different.

having said that, I agree there are similarities. My problem are the people (and there are lots of them) who say things like, "Blacks, come and rise with us! your struggle is our struggle now!" ..... no it's not.

Lastly...... I know you wanted to sound credible or w/e, but as a sociologist, you should have known you'd come off as more of a prick than professional.

Umm... Hate to say this, but the guy was just trying to make his point, if anything ( no offense) ya didn't have to treat him so poorly just because the guy disagrees with you. For one I agree with you, but you won't win friends by berating people. Like don't you hate it if a homosexual comes up to you and says "YOU'RE OPPRESING ME" of course not. when you just plain cuss a guy out it's just using anominity to be a jerk, and to me thats what is just plain wrong.

 

[Shikua]

hmm, interesting points, I'll give you that. However, might I use a point of my own. I beilive the definition of marriage was a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between a man and a woman( yes i know there are a lot of them, but I'm referring to strictly the one that is relevent) So lets say that you DO change the definition from that to " a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between 2 persons" whats to stop the definition to change for polygymists? after all, why should such a bond exist between 2 people? Why not 7? and why is it just people? Why not animals for that manner as well? Soon the very thing that makes marrage so sacred will be lost.

In america the divorce rate is 50%. 1/2 of all marrages fail. To me this is astonishing. Can people not manage to work through their issues and just love eachother? ( I know this is off topic, but It'll reach a point, just stick with me here.) And I'm again, PERFECTLY COOL WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS. ya know? Plus what is the whole issue with calling it a civil union anyway? A civil union holds the same status as marrage, same tax bennifits, same eligibility for divorce,same standard that you'll be spending you whole life with this person whom you're with romantically.Plus if homosexuality isn't that cool with religeon, why have churches recognize it as a marriage if you don't even like the guys? WHy not try to first realize that marriage is a HUGE deal? Because I think society in general is taking it too lightly. Ya'll want Gays to be married ( civil union, no issue whatsoever, marriage, issue because in my faith it's a sacrement)yet you guys don't notice how you're making it a joke ( not YOU people reading this, people who don't actually care, yet get all in my face telling me I'm a bigot for disagreeing with them) I certainly like your opinion, and am very glad for the oppratunity for such a very wonderful diolauge, perhaps you could resond to me, I'd certainly like the opinion of such an intelligent person

Well, what about churches that DO accept gays? And Religeous gays? I think individual churches should be allowed to say no, but that as a concept gay marriage should be legal. Also, I think Polygamists SHOULD be allowed to marry, as I am a bit of one myself. The line is drawn at animals because they can't agree to it. Any consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

 

[aei_haruko]

hmm, interesting points, I'll give you that. However, might I use a point of my own. I beilive the definition of marriage was a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between a man and a woman( yes i know there are a lot of them, but I'm referring to strictly the one that is relevent) So lets say that you DO change the definition from that to " a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between 2 persons" whats to stop the definition to change for polygymists? after all, why should such a bond exist between 2 people? Why not 7? and why is it just people? Why not animals for that manner as well? Soon the very thing that makes marrage so sacred will be lost.

In america the divorce rate is 50%. 1/2 of all marrages fail. To me this is astonishing. Can people not manage to work through their issues and just love eachother? ( I know this is off topic, but It'll reach a point, just stick with me here.) And I'm again, PERFECTLY COOL WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS. ya know? Plus what is the whole issue with calling it a civil union anyway? A civil union holds the same status as marrage, same tax bennifits, same eligibility for divorce,same standard that you'll be spending you whole life with this person whom you're with romantically.Plus if homosexuality isn't that cool with religeon, why have churches recognize it as a marriage if you don't even like the guys? WHy not try to first realize that marriage is a HUGE deal? Because I think society in general is taking it too lightly. Ya'll want Gays to be married ( civil union, no issue whatsoever, marriage, issue because in my faith it's a sacrement)yet you guys don't notice how you're making it a joke ( not YOU people reading this, people who don't actually care, yet get all in my face telling me I'm a bigot for disagreeing with them) I certainly like your opinion, and am very glad for the oppratunity for such a very wonderful diolauge, perhaps you could resond to me, I'd certainly like the opinion of such an intelligent person

Well, what about churches that DO accept gays? And Religeous gays? I think individual churches should be allowed to say no, but that as a concept gay marriage should be legal. Also, I think Polygamists SHOULD be allowed to marry, as I am a bit of one myself. The line is drawn at animals because they can't agree to it. Any consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Now this is why I'm begining to like you. You make me think so far out of the box. SO let me see... What about the churches that do consent? hmm... That is trickey. tell you what? It's late at night here, and I have to wake up early tommorrow. May I respond later tommorrow? I need rest, and my summer theology class ( i go to a catholic high school with 200 years of tradition, I'm doing this to get a leap in my classes) would be the perfect place to meditate and think up an answer. Again, that was a really good point you made. As for polygymists. That was unexpected. in response to that point, so what, is marriage now communal Living? If so, then why do you need religeous consent when you're not the religeous type? ( at least I don't have you pegged as one) Well I'm off to bed, I'll get a much better espone tommorow. Night

 

[Shikua]

hmm, interesting points, I'll give you that. However, might I use a point of my own. I beilive the definition of marriage was a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between a man and a woman( yes i know there are a lot of them, but I'm referring to strictly the one that is relevent) So lets say that you DO change the definition from that to " a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between 2 persons" whats to stop the definition to change for polygymists? after all, why should such a bond exist between 2 people? Why not 7? and why is it just people? Why not animals for that manner as well? Soon the very thing that makes marrage so sacred will be lost.

In america the divorce rate is 50%. 1/2 of all marrages fail. To me this is astonishing. Can people not manage to work through their issues and just love eachother? ( I know this is off topic, but It'll reach a point, just stick with me here.) And I'm again, PERFECTLY COOL WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS. ya know? Plus what is the whole issue with calling it a civil union anyway? A civil union holds the same status as marrage, same tax bennifits, same eligibility for divorce,same standard that you'll be spending you whole life with this person whom you're with romantically.Plus if homosexuality isn't that cool with religeon, why have churches recognize it as a marriage if you don't even like the guys? WHy not try to first realize that marriage is a HUGE deal? Because I think society in general is taking it too lightly. Ya'll want Gays to be married ( civil union, no issue whatsoever, marriage, issue because in my faith it's a sacrement)yet you guys don't notice how you're making it a joke ( not YOU people reading this, people who don't actually care, yet get all in my face telling me I'm a bigot for disagreeing with them) I certainly like your opinion, and am very glad for the oppratunity for such a very wonderful diolauge, perhaps you could resond to me, I'd certainly like the opinion of such an intelligent person

Well, what about churches that DO accept gays? And Religeous gays? I think individual churches should be allowed to say no, but that as a concept gay marriage should be legal. Also, I think Polygamists SHOULD be allowed to marry, as I am a bit of one myself. The line is drawn at animals because they can't agree to it. Any consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Now this is why I'm begining to like you. You make me think so far out of the box. SO let me see... What about the churches that do consent? hmm... That is trickey. tell you what? It's late at night here, and I have to wake up early tommorrow. May I respond later tommorrow? I need rest, and my summer theology class ( i go to a catholic high school with 200 years of tradition, I'm doing this to get a leap in my classes) would be the perfect place to meditate and think up an answer. Again, that was a really good point you made. As for polygymists. That was unexpected. in response to that point, so what, is marriage now communal Living? If so, then why do you need religeous consent when you're not the religeous type? ( at least I don't have you pegged as one) Well I'm off to bed, I'll get a much better espone tommorow. Night

Perferctly fair request, and question. While I, personally may not need religeous validation, if others do, they should damn well have the legal right to. As I like to quote from Futurama, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." As I said, I think that, let's say St. Georges church in New York (just a random name and place) thinks that gay marriage is wrong. They can refuse to perform gay weddings all they want. However, I think that St. Micheals in Texas, who support gay marriage, should be allowed to wed gay couples. There should be no law against it, on any level. Only rules dictated by individual churches, no matter how backwards they may be.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

I understand your sentiments and sort of agree; to me, marriage is an outdated practice. But, I respect the right and want of others to marry those they love if it makes them happy.

Not trying to "call you out" or anything.

No, I see what you're saying. I have no problem with anybody getting "married," just anyone getting "legally married." By legally marrying people, there's an implied religious element to the government that I don't like. I see why religious people get upset about it because the ability of other people to marry under the same system they do can seem like a threat/change to their belief system. Look at polygamy. The only reason that's not legal is because it doesn't fit in with the majority of people's belief systems in this country. So why should gay marriage be "legal," too?

I digress. My main point is I'm a single and embittered atheist jackhole who uses quotation marks too much. If your religion says you should get married, then fine, "get married," but I don't see why we need to set up our laws to enforce the marriage practices of various Judeo-Christian religions. Should we make it against the law to get divorced for jews and catholics? How about sharia law? And why when all these very VERY anti-gay organizations promote marriage do gays even want to get married at all? To fit in with the people who hate them?

Both my mom and my sister got (pardon the pun) screwed over in their marriages when their idiot husbands rang up tons of debt that the wives were suddenly liable for. Let's not forget alimony, prenups, divorce hearings, marriage licenses, court orders... so much waste. All that shit costs them money and us money all because their religion wants to let everyone know who is fucking who and how awful people are that sin by having sex out of wedlock or commit adultery other people.

/rant

I'll agree with you on most of that. The entire concept of legally binding contract with another and the entitled incentives and possible negatives that come with it are all too much for me. The fact that the government offers tax breaks and cash payouts to people who get married and have children is social engineering and discrimination; they set up a practice that rewards people who enter into it and then make it illegal for certain people to do so. It's no less disgusting and discriminant than if the government was to offer rewards for people to move in together, then exclude black people from being legally allowed to move in with one another. And I won't apologize for that comparison if someone feels it is off.

My feelings on marriage aside, I wanted to point out that marriage isn't a religious issue in and of itself. A lot of people choose to make it that way, but it started as a sort of contract between people -- a way for men to purchase a wife. Various religious groups over the centuries have adopted marriage as a sort of sacred act, but the legal contract remains as detached from any actual religious right as ever. In fact, marriage itself is done by entering a government building and signing a contract. The "wedding" is an entirely separate issue and has no bearing at all on the actual wedlock that has taken place. The fact, for example, that so many marriages take place in a church isn't a sign of religious influence on the marriage contract per se, but rather our continued adoption of religious practices as a society and our willful blindness to facts in the face of tradition and social norms and expectancy.

 

[Snowy Rainbow]

-snipped because otherwise the length is just going to get silly-

I know that the gay people aren't at fault but then by choosing to be gay they would be putting themselves in the firing line moreso than anyone else, that's why the "who would choose to be gay?" argument remains valid. There will be a few exceptions I suppose, as you prove, but overall I disagree, I think the argument stands. However we seem to be mostly on the same page.

I remember the day my parents asked me if I was gay. I felt so embarrassed and ashamed... I had to tell them that unfortunately I was straight and I was just terrible at picking up chicks.

I don't know if I should be laughing or not, lol. But that was pretty hilarious.

 

[aei_haruko]

hmm, interesting points, I'll give you that. However, might I use a point of my own. I beilive the definition of marriage was a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between a man and a woman( yes i know there are a lot of them, but I'm referring to strictly the one that is relevent) So lets say that you DO change the definition from that to " a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between 2 persons" whats to stop the definition to change for polygymists? after all, why should such a bond exist between 2 people? Why not 7? and why is it just people? Why not animals for that manner as well? Soon the very thing that makes marrage so sacred will be lost.

In america the divorce rate is 50%. 1/2 of all marrages fail. To me this is astonishing. Can people not manage to work through their issues and just love eachother? ( I know this is off topic, but It'll reach a point, just stick with me here.) And I'm again, PERFECTLY COOL WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS. ya know? Plus what is the whole issue with calling it a civil union anyway? A civil union holds the same status as marrage, same tax bennifits, same eligibility for divorce,same standard that you'll be spending you whole life with this person whom you're with romantically.Plus if homosexuality isn't that cool with religeon, why have churches recognize it as a marriage if you don't even like the guys? WHy not try to first realize that marriage is a HUGE deal? Because I think society in general is taking it too lightly. Ya'll want Gays to be married ( civil union, no issue whatsoever, marriage, issue because in my faith it's a sacrement)yet you guys don't notice how you're making it a joke ( not YOU people reading this, people who don't actually care, yet get all in my face telling me I'm a bigot for disagreeing with them) I certainly like your opinion, and am very glad for the oppratunity for such a very wonderful diolauge, perhaps you could resond to me, I'd certainly like the opinion of such an intelligent person

Well, what about churches that DO accept gays? And Religeous gays? I think individual churches should be allowed to say no, but that as a concept gay marriage should be legal. Also, I think Polygamists SHOULD be allowed to marry, as I am a bit of one myself. The line is drawn at animals because they can't agree to it. Any consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Now this is why I'm begining to like you. You make me think so far out of the box. SO let me see... What about the churches that do consent? hmm... That is trickey. tell you what? It's late at night here, and I have to wake up early tommorrow. May I respond later tommorrow? I need rest, and my summer theology class ( i go to a catholic high school with 200 years of tradition, I'm doing this to get a leap in my classes) would be the perfect place to meditate and think up an answer. Again, that was a really good point you made. As for polygymists. That was unexpected. in response to that point, so what, is marriage now communal Living? If so, then why do you need religeous consent when you're not the religeous type? ( at least I don't have you pegged as one) Well I'm off to bed, I'll get a much better espone tommorow. Night

Perferctly fair request, and question. While I, personally may not need religeous validation, if others do, they should damn well have the legal right to. As I like to quote from Futurama, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." As I said, I think that, let's say St. Georges church in New York (just a random name and place) thinks that gay marriage is wrong. They can refuse to perform gay weddings all they want. However, I think that St. Micheals in Texas, who support gay marriage, should be allowed to wed gay couples. There should be no law against it, on any level. Only rules dictated by individual churches, no matter how backwards they may be.

I'd have to say that we agree here. With regards to the reason That I'd been against it, It was because I assumed that EVERY church would have to marry. Which is wrong to me, insted why not just have it be a civil union thing, which to me is perfectly fine. However if a church wants to, then I'd have to say That I'm kewl with it. Although using your example it'd be the other way around, texas wouldn't want to marry, new york would.

 

[aei_haruko]

snip

I'm failing to see your point here. Bad thing have happened and do happen to people. Yes. And? Because one group had it rough no other group who is also being beaten and murdered can wish to fight for their rights?

The world doesn't work that way.

My original point was clearly defined: Homosexuals have every right to fight for their rights, but it's not the same as racial discrimination.

Of course it is. One is the treatment of an individual or a people based upon their race. The other is the treatment of an individual or people based upon their sexuality.

Your baffling. But I'm not going to argue with you. Frankly, I'm thankful you don't understand what I'm talking about. no one should.

As a sociology student, I'm going to try anyway.

First of all, I wholeheartily support the equal rights for every human being, regardless of gender, race, income, intelligence, sexual preference, age and beliefs. That's coming straight from the first line of our constitution and I personally think every civilised country should make it part of their constitution.

On the race issue: (sorry for going off topic)

Mimsoftthedawg, I think that the majority of the people that post here can actually understand the picture you described earlier about the discrimination of the Native American People. Despite the fact that majority of us, including me, never experienced it firsthandedly, we can vision it because of global media that are available to us. There are other people/social groups that live in similar or worse conditions over the globe. There are for example, the untouchables that live in Japan, Korea and China, (all with different names and societies), tribes in Africa that are basically enslaved and children that are forced to work as soldiers or prostitutes. Just some examples; Except for the child soldiers and prostitutes, none of these issues and plights are very well known in the Western world.

To the objective eye, there are many similarities (and also differences) and therefore its easy and typical human behaviour to compare your social group to others. I'm certainly not saying "that it's not so bad"; quite the contrary. As I said, I support equal rights for every human being, but that includes no special treatment as an excuse for social groups.

If we think about it, a lot of social groups that have been hit hard over the course of history and feel discriminated against, feel the need to voice themselves. No matter whether it's the Jews, Negroid population, Hispanics or Native Americans. All these groups feel special/unique, which also makes them a strong, but seperate group. Because there are so many social groups that feel left out, they feel like they have to adapt their behaviour to stand out, because each social group still wants (and will fight for) its own place in the bigger group, which is (global?) society.

In other words, with all due respect Mimsoftdawg, like you said, you don't want to be understood, because you feel that is what makes you or your group special and stand out. You don't want to be compared with other social groups, because despite a lot of similarities, you want to be acknowledged as part of your peer group. Unfortunately, this form of antagonal and sometimes provoking behaviour isn't unique in its own way.

Again, i sympathise with your plight, but do not close your eyes for the misery others have in the world. After all, the world is still a ****** place to live in for the vast majority of the population. Also, finding (peaceful) measures to improve your life standard will be more productive than reminiscending over the past. I believe that you also used events in your story that happened way before you were born. Eventually, a social group will have to abandon its "victim role" in its way to equality.

Hope that was helpful. A Dutch sociology student.

Yawn... I'm not gonna play your analytical game. I had several sociologist majors as friends in college (and in fact was one at one point or another). I won't enlighten your "interests" so you can have fun analyzing me. Sociology and Psychology are broken systems and you're highlighting why (analyze that).

At any rate, the systematic murder of millions is not equatable to the debate on whether or not a certain type of person should get married. It just isn't. I have several, SEVERAL homosexuals in my family and everyone of them agree with me. Just don't even try to defend it.

Homosexuals deserve equal rights. But don't say it's the same type of struggle. It isn't.

EDIT: I just want to say two things. First of all, you're right in that there's similar themes. But it's like comparing a gothic novel to a horror film. They're both dark. They're both creepy in their own rights. They often have sad or unnerving parts. But put simply, one is about telling a cohesive story while the other tries to scare the crap outta you. Similar... but end goal i different.

having said that, I agree there are similarities. My problem are the people (and there are lots of them) who say things like, "Blacks, come and rise with us! your struggle is our struggle now!" ..... no it's not.

Lastly...... I know you wanted to sound credible or w/e, but as a sociologist, you should have known you'd come off as more of a prick than professional.

Umm... Hate to say this, but the guy was just trying to make his point, if anything ( no offense) ya didn't have to treat him so poorly just because the guy disagrees with you. For one I agree with you, but you won't win friends by berating people. Like don't you hate it if a homosexual comes up to you and says "YOU'RE OPPRESING ME" of course not. when you just plain cuss a guy out it's just using anominity to be a jerk, and to me thats what is just plain wrong.

Well to me, when a person comes in and the first thing he says is, "As a sociologist student..." I get offended. It's like saying, "As someone who's more qualified than you..." or "As someone who understands your feelings better than you..."

Frankly, I wouldn't have been so rude if he didn't sound like he had his head up his own ass.

Eh, allright. I guess it's kewl and all, It's just that I've known tons of people who have been bullied. It had sounded a little... mean I guess. Oh well. I'd probably be ticked at him as well

 

[Shikua]

hmm, interesting points, I'll give you that. However, might I use a point of my own. I beilive the definition of marriage was a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between a man and a woman( yes i know there are a lot of them, but I'm referring to strictly the one that is relevent) So lets say that you DO change the definition from that to " a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between 2 persons" whats to stop the definition to change for polygymists? after all, why should such a bond exist between 2 people? Why not 7? and why is it just people? Why not animals for that manner as well? Soon the very thing that makes marrage so sacred will be lost.

In america the divorce rate is 50%. 1/2 of all marrages fail. To me this is astonishing. Can people not manage to work through their issues and just love eachother? ( I know this is off topic, but It'll reach a point, just stick with me here.) And I'm again, PERFECTLY COOL WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS. ya know? Plus what is the whole issue with calling it a civil union anyway? A civil union holds the same status as marrage, same tax bennifits, same eligibility for divorce,same standard that you'll be spending you whole life with this person whom you're with romantically.Plus if homosexuality isn't that cool with religeon, why have churches recognize it as a marriage if you don't even like the guys? WHy not try to first realize that marriage is a HUGE deal? Because I think society in general is taking it too lightly. Ya'll want Gays to be married ( civil union, no issue whatsoever, marriage, issue because in my faith it's a sacrement)yet you guys don't notice how you're making it a joke ( not YOU people reading this, people who don't actually care, yet get all in my face telling me I'm a bigot for disagreeing with them) I certainly like your opinion, and am very glad for the oppratunity for such a very wonderful diolauge, perhaps you could resond to me, I'd certainly like the opinion of such an intelligent person

Well, what about churches that DO accept gays? And Religeous gays? I think individual churches should be allowed to say no, but that as a concept gay marriage should be legal. Also, I think Polygamists SHOULD be allowed to marry, as I am a bit of one myself. The line is drawn at animals because they can't agree to it. Any consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Now this is why I'm begining to like you. You make me think so far out of the box. SO let me see... What about the churches that do consent? hmm... That is trickey. tell you what? It's late at night here, and I have to wake up early tommorrow. May I respond later tommorrow? I need rest, and my summer theology class ( i go to a catholic high school with 200 years of tradition, I'm doing this to get a leap in my classes) would be the perfect place to meditate and think up an answer. Again, that was a really good point you made. As for polygymists. That was unexpected. in response to that point, so what, is marriage now communal Living? If so, then why do you need religeous consent when you're not the religeous type? ( at least I don't have you pegged as one) Well I'm off to bed, I'll get a much better espone tommorow. Night

Perferctly fair request, and question. While I, personally may not need religeous validation, if others do, they should damn well have the legal right to. As I like to quote from Futurama, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." As I said, I think that, let's say St. Georges church in New York (just a random name and place) thinks that gay marriage is wrong. They can refuse to perform gay weddings all they want. However, I think that St. Micheals in Texas, who support gay marriage, should be allowed to wed gay couples. There should be no law against it, on any level. Only rules dictated by individual churches, no matter how backwards they may be.

I'd have to say that we agree here. With regards to the reason That I'd been against it, It was because I assumed that EVERY church would have to marry. Which is wrong to me, insted why not just have it be a civil union thing, which to me is perfectly fine. However if a church wants to, then I'd have to say That I'm kewl with it. Although using your example it'd be the other way around, texas wouldn't want to marry, new york would.

I was being hopeful by making a made-up church in texas tolerant XD The thing is, you aren't gay, so you don't have someone saying that no matter what you believe, you can't be married. I think that all non-religeous marriages should be called Civil Unions. Then no one can *****, since it's up to individual churches to change them from Unions to marriages.

 

[aei_haruko]

hmm, interesting points, I'll give you that. However, might I use a point of my own. I beilive the definition of marriage was a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between a man and a woman( yes i know there are a lot of them, but I'm referring to strictly the one that is relevent) So lets say that you DO change the definition from that to " a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between 2 persons" whats to stop the definition to change for polygymists? after all, why should such a bond exist between 2 people? Why not 7? and why is it just people? Why not animals for that manner as well? Soon the very thing that makes marrage so sacred will be lost.

In america the divorce rate is 50%. 1/2 of all marrages fail. To me this is astonishing. Can people not manage to work through their issues and just love eachother? ( I know this is off topic, but It'll reach a point, just stick with me here.) And I'm again, PERFECTLY COOL WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS. ya know? Plus what is the whole issue with calling it a civil union anyway? A civil union holds the same status as marrage, same tax bennifits, same eligibility for divorce,same standard that you'll be spending you whole life with this person whom you're with romantically.Plus if homosexuality isn't that cool with religeon, why have churches recognize it as a marriage if you don't even like the guys? WHy not try to first realize that marriage is a HUGE deal? Because I think society in general is taking it too lightly. Ya'll want Gays to be married ( civil union, no issue whatsoever, marriage, issue because in my faith it's a sacrement)yet you guys don't notice how you're making it a joke ( not YOU people reading this, people who don't actually care, yet get all in my face telling me I'm a bigot for disagreeing with them) I certainly like your opinion, and am very glad for the oppratunity for such a very wonderful diolauge, perhaps you could resond to me, I'd certainly like the opinion of such an intelligent person

Well, what about churches that DO accept gays? And Religeous gays? I think individual churches should be allowed to say no, but that as a concept gay marriage should be legal. Also, I think Polygamists SHOULD be allowed to marry, as I am a bit of one myself. The line is drawn at animals because they can't agree to it. Any consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Now this is why I'm begining to like you. You make me think so far out of the box. SO let me see... What about the churches that do consent? hmm... That is trickey. tell you what? It's late at night here, and I have to wake up early tommorrow. May I respond later tommorrow? I need rest, and my summer theology class ( i go to a catholic high school with 200 years of tradition, I'm doing this to get a leap in my classes) would be the perfect place to meditate and think up an answer. Again, that was a really good point you made. As for polygymists. That was unexpected. in response to that point, so what, is marriage now communal Living? If so, then why do you need religeous consent when you're not the religeous type? ( at least I don't have you pegged as one) Well I'm off to bed, I'll get a much better espone tommorow. Night

Perferctly fair request, and question. While I, personally may not need religeous validation, if others do, they should damn well have the legal right to. As I like to quote from Futurama, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." As I said, I think that, let's say St. Georges church in New York (just a random name and place) thinks that gay marriage is wrong. They can refuse to perform gay weddings all they want. However, I think that St. Micheals in Texas, who support gay marriage, should be allowed to wed gay couples. There should be no law against it, on any level. Only rules dictated by individual churches, no matter how backwards they may be.

I'd have to say that we agree here. With regards to the reason That I'd been against it, It was because I assumed that EVERY church would have to marry. Which is wrong to me, insted why not just have it be a civil union thing, which to me is perfectly fine. However if a church wants to, then I'd have to say That I'm kewl with it. Although using your example it'd be the other way around, texas wouldn't want to marry, new york would.

I was being hopeful by making a made-up church in texas tolerant XD The thing is, you aren't gay, so you don't have someone saying that no matter what you believe, you can't be married. I think that all non-religeous marriages should be called Civil Unions. Then no one can *****, since it's up to individual churches to change them from Unions to marriages.

Totally. If non religeous marriages were called civil unionsm then almost all of these controversies would be null and void, I totally agree

 

[Shikua]

hmm, interesting points, I'll give you that. However, might I use a point of my own. I beilive the definition of marriage was a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between a man and a woman( yes i know there are a lot of them, but I'm referring to strictly the one that is relevent) So lets say that you DO change the definition from that to " a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between 2 persons" whats to stop the definition to change for polygymists? after all, why should such a bond exist between 2 people? Why not 7? and why is it just people? Why not animals for that manner as well? Soon the very thing that makes marrage so sacred will be lost.

In america the divorce rate is 50%. 1/2 of all marrages fail. To me this is astonishing. Can people not manage to work through their issues and just love eachother? ( I know this is off topic, but It'll reach a point, just stick with me here.) And I'm again, PERFECTLY COOL WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS. ya know? Plus what is the whole issue with calling it a civil union anyway? A civil union holds the same status as marrage, same tax bennifits, same eligibility for divorce,same standard that you'll be spending you whole life with this person whom you're with romantically.Plus if homosexuality isn't that cool with religeon, why have churches recognize it as a marriage if you don't even like the guys? WHy not try to first realize that marriage is a HUGE deal? Because I think society in general is taking it too lightly. Ya'll want Gays to be married ( civil union, no issue whatsoever, marriage, issue because in my faith it's a sacrement)yet you guys don't notice how you're making it a joke ( not YOU people reading this, people who don't actually care, yet get all in my face telling me I'm a bigot for disagreeing with them) I certainly like your opinion, and am very glad for the oppratunity for such a very wonderful diolauge, perhaps you could resond to me, I'd certainly like the opinion of such an intelligent person

Well, what about churches that DO accept gays? And Religeous gays? I think individual churches should be allowed to say no, but that as a concept gay marriage should be legal. Also, I think Polygamists SHOULD be allowed to marry, as I am a bit of one myself. The line is drawn at animals because they can't agree to it. Any consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Now this is why I'm begining to like you. You make me think so far out of the box. SO let me see... What about the churches that do consent? hmm... That is trickey. tell you what? It's late at night here, and I have to wake up early tommorrow. May I respond later tommorrow? I need rest, and my summer theology class ( i go to a catholic high school with 200 years of tradition, I'm doing this to get a leap in my classes) would be the perfect place to meditate and think up an answer. Again, that was a really good point you made. As for polygymists. That was unexpected. in response to that point, so what, is marriage now communal Living? If so, then why do you need religeous consent when you're not the religeous type? ( at least I don't have you pegged as one) Well I'm off to bed, I'll get a much better espone tommorow. Night

Perferctly fair request, and question. While I, personally may not need religeous validation, if others do, they should damn well have the legal right to. As I like to quote from Futurama, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." As I said, I think that, let's say St. Georges church in New York (just a random name and place) thinks that gay marriage is wrong. They can refuse to perform gay weddings all they want. However, I think that St. Micheals in Texas, who support gay marriage, should be allowed to wed gay couples. There should be no law against it, on any level. Only rules dictated by individual churches, no matter how backwards they may be.

I'd have to say that we agree here. With regards to the reason That I'd been against it, It was because I assumed that EVERY church would have to marry. Which is wrong to me, insted why not just have it be a civil union thing, which to me is perfectly fine. However if a church wants to, then I'd have to say That I'm kewl with it. Although using your example it'd be the other way around, texas wouldn't want to marry, new york would.

I was being hopeful by making a made-up church in texas tolerant XD The thing is, you aren't gay, so you don't have someone saying that no matter what you believe, you can't be married. I think that all non-religeous marriages should be called Civil Unions. Then no one can *****, since it's up to individual churches to change them from Unions to marriages.

Totally. If non religeous marriages were called civil unionsm then almost all of these controversies would be null and void, I totally agree

Though I'm sure people would just find something ELSE to ***** about >.>

 

[aei_haruko]

hmm, interesting points, I'll give you that. However, might I use a point of my own. I beilive the definition of marriage was a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between a man and a woman( yes i know there are a lot of them, but I'm referring to strictly the one that is relevent) So lets say that you DO change the definition from that to " a bond legally, emotionally, and with happiness between 2 persons" whats to stop the definition to change for polygymists? after all, why should such a bond exist between 2 people? Why not 7? and why is it just people? Why not animals for that manner as well? Soon the very thing that makes marrage so sacred will be lost.

In america the divorce rate is 50%. 1/2 of all marrages fail. To me this is astonishing. Can people not manage to work through their issues and just love eachother? ( I know this is off topic, but It'll reach a point, just stick with me here.) And I'm again, PERFECTLY COOL WITH GAYS AND LESBIANS. ya know? Plus what is the whole issue with calling it a civil union anyway? A civil union holds the same status as marrage, same tax bennifits, same eligibility for divorce,same standard that you'll be spending you whole life with this person whom you're with romantically.Plus if homosexuality isn't that cool with religeon, why have churches recognize it as a marriage if you don't even like the guys? WHy not try to first realize that marriage is a HUGE deal? Because I think society in general is taking it too lightly. Ya'll want Gays to be married ( civil union, no issue whatsoever, marriage, issue because in my faith it's a sacrement)yet you guys don't notice how you're making it a joke ( not YOU people reading this, people who don't actually care, yet get all in my face telling me I'm a bigot for disagreeing with them) I certainly like your opinion, and am very glad for the oppratunity for such a very wonderful diolauge, perhaps you could resond to me, I'd certainly like the opinion of such an intelligent person

Well, what about churches that DO accept gays? And Religeous gays? I think individual churches should be allowed to say no, but that as a concept gay marriage should be legal. Also, I think Polygamists SHOULD be allowed to marry, as I am a bit of one myself. The line is drawn at animals because they can't agree to it. Any consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

Now this is why I'm begining to like you. You make me think so far out of the box. SO let me see... What about the churches that do consent? hmm... That is trickey. tell you what? It's late at night here, and I have to wake up early tommorrow. May I respond later tommorrow? I need rest, and my summer theology class ( i go to a catholic high school with 200 years of tradition, I'm doing this to get a leap in my classes) would be the perfect place to meditate and think up an answer. Again, that was a really good point you made. As for polygymists. That was unexpected. in response to that point, so what, is marriage now communal Living? If so, then why do you need religeous consent when you're not the religeous type? ( at least I don't have you pegged as one) Well I'm off to bed, I'll get a much better espone tommorow. Night

Perferctly fair request, and question. While I, personally may not need religeous validation, if others do, they should damn well have the legal right to. As I like to quote from Futurama, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." As I said, I think that, let's say St. Georges church in New York (just a random name and place) thinks that gay marriage is wrong. They can refuse to perform gay weddings all they want. However, I think that St. Micheals in Texas, who support gay marriage, should be allowed to wed gay couples. There should be no law against it, on any level. Only rules dictated by individual churches, no matter how backwards they may be.

I'd have to say that we agree here. With regards to the reason That I'd been against it, It was because I assumed that EVERY church would have to marry. Which is wrong to me, insted why not just have it be a civil union thing, which to me is perfectly fine. However if a church wants to, then I'd have to say That I'm kewl with it. Although using your example it'd be the other way around, texas wouldn't want to marry, new york would.

I was being hopeful by making a made-up church in texas tolerant XD The thing is, you aren't gay, so you don't have someone saying that no matter what you believe, you can't be married. I think that all non-religeous marriages should be called Civil Unions. Then no one can *****, since it's up to individual churches to change them from Unions to marriages.

Totally. If non religeous marriages were called civil unionsm then almost all of these controversies would be null and void, I totally agree

Though I'm sure people would just find something ELSE to ***** about >.>

eh, everybody bitches. Whats new? besides. It'd at least help a little. to be honest I have no issues with it