Gay Marriage Legalized in Iowa

[Capernicus]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040300376.html

Iowa, whodda thunk it? For shame California! Good for you Iowa, you're awesome! And from the rural midwest? I never realized it was so progressive.

This is my hope: As Iowa goes, so goes America.

[Miss Moonlight]

I'm always happy to hear it when this happens. If only more states would do the same.

And although she's entitled to her opinion, I say for shame, Miss USA California (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMvviFbkf0), as well.

I just have to lol when she says "opposite marriage".

[Rem Nightfall]

At least this is a step in the right direction. People should be able to marry whomever they love. And no law should tell them they can't.

[Diocletian]

How can I put this? Why do homosexuals want to marry so badly? From what I understand sooner or later you hear each others stories to the point of suicide. You have to spend everyday with that person. Well, if you marry the right skin and bones it's all good. This is just me.


Wouldn't you want to keep your relationship to be spontaneous?

[Rem Nightfall]

How can I put this? Why do homosexuals want to marry so badly? From what I understand sooner or later you hear each others stories to the point of suicide. You have to spend everyday with that person. Well, if you marry the right skin and bones it's all good. This is just me.


Wouldn't you want to keep your relationship to be spontaneous?

Sometimes there will people you love so much you want to share the world with them. If this world was a little more acceptant first of all the relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Then they wouldn't be under all this pressure...and wouldn't do things as you have said.

[Miss Moonlight]

How can I put this? Why do homosexuals want to marry so badly? From what I understand sooner or later you hear each others stories to the point of suicide. You have to spend everyday with that person. Well, if you marry the right skin and bones it's all good. This is just me.


Wouldn't you want to keep your relationship to be spontaneous?
Well, since homosexuals are denied most things in society (acceptance, tolerance, etc.) I suppose, just like every other couple, they want this right. It's not a bad right to want.

[Diocletian]

Well, since homosexuals are denied most things in society (acceptance, tolerance, etc.) I suppose, just like every other couple, they want this right. It's not a bad right to want.

I assume it's more of a social thing.

I'm pro homosexuality, however I can't say I'm not disturbed by it. Mainly the flamboyant type, but otherwise I see no reason to not accept.

[Rem Nightfall]

Well, since homosexuals are denied most things in society (acceptance, tolerance, etc.) I suppose, just like every other couple, they want this right. It's not a bad right to want.

Miss Moonlight puts it best.

[GoGo Yoruichi]

Go, Iowa! I'm sure not all gay people want to get married, but at least they should have the right to choose whether they want to do it or not. =)

[Shinn Kamiyra]

3 down, 47 to go.

[Heinekenrana]

I'm amazed Iowa legalized it as well, but go them! :D

[Killapac]

At least this is a step in the right direction. People should be able to marry whomever they love. And no law should tell them they can't.I agree by no means a law,people, and government should tell people who they can't marry. You can not say no to another person when they love the same sex. They are not hurting any one or any thing. Pursuit of happiness can not be controled by laws its people free will to have happiness. At this point in time i feel like its most peoples goal to hurt another. But its good Iowa has same sex marriage

[Señor Nobody]

I wish them the best of luck, and hope they have a swell time being hitched.

[Aulos]

It's always great to see a state gaining some sense. :)

[Jose]

I am surprised, that we have had a single person post "Euuu, h0m0z R gr0ss" or something to that effect.

Oh, well. I am ashamed of you California, and I think Texas will the be the 50th state to make this legal, if they ever decided to make such a law around here D:

[Rem Nightfall]

I agree by no means a law,people, and government should tell people who they can't marry. You can not say no to another person when they love the same sex. They are not hurting any one or any thing. Pursuit of happiness can not be controled by laws its people free will to have happiness. At this point in time i feel like its most peoples goal to hurt another. But its good Iowa has same sex marriage
Isn't the pursuit of happiness even part of our Constitution and what not too?

[Datenshi]

How can I put this? Why do homosexuals want to marry so badly? From what I understand sooner or later you hear each others stories to the point of suicide. You have to spend everyday with that person. Well, if you marry the right skin and bones it's all good. This is just me.


Wouldn't you want to keep your relationship to be spontaneous?

It makes a huge difference in terms of legal benefits whether you are legitimately married or not. For example, many companies offer tax benefits to the spouse of legitimately married couples, married couples have a wider range of insurance plans to choose from, and enjoy more freedom in terms of inheritance rights or visiting rights to hospitals in case a partner becomes seriously ill. It's just not a matter of feeling good about yourself.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

I really doubt all the other states will follow Iowa.

[Gjallarhorn]

I really doubt all the other states will follow Iowa.

History has shown that other states tend to follow Massachusetts. Remember that whole "let's not be British" thing?

I've got a few examples, but it's nothing a quick wiki won't find for you.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

History has shown that other states tend to follow Massachusetts. Remember that whole "let's not be British" thing?

I've got a few examples, but it's nothing a quick wiki won't find for you.
But Iowa isn't as near as cool as Massachusetts, Xero.

[Nanuq]

Whoop whoop. That's whatsup.
Not too sure all the other states will do the same.

[ichimoku_fanboy]

im glad Iowa finally passed the bill, now the only thing left to do is legalize Oregon ^^

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

im glad Iowa finally passed the bill, now the only thing left to do is legalize Oregon ^^

Uh, Oregon isn't the only one that hasn't legalized gay marriage. From what I understand, only Iowa and Massachusetts has so far.

[Gjallarhorn]

Uh, Oregon isn't the only one that hasn't legalized gay marriage. From what I understand, only Iowa and Massachusetts has so far.

1. Massachusetts
2. Conneticut
3. Iowa
4. Vermont.


The reason Iowa was a big deal is because it is a lot less "progressive" (i.e. liberal) than places like California, Washington, or Oregon, where one would expect it to be legalized quickly.

[Aulos]

Not too sure all the other states will do the same.

I do believe they will... Even if it takes a long time.

I know my state and all of it's close-mindedness will be one of the last.

And yes, I am ashamed to be a part of such a state.

[Capernicus]

It makes a huge difference in terms of legal benefits whether you are legitimately married or not. For example, many companies offer tax benefits to the spouse of legitimately married couples, married couples have a wider range of insurance plans to choose from, and enjoy more freedom in terms of inheritance rights or visiting rights to hospitals in case a partner becomes seriously ill. It's just not a matter of feeling good about yourself.

Very well said, thank you.

Xero nailed it right on the head. I brought this up partly because it surprised me so very much that Iowa (of all places! no offense >...>) legalized it. And, as the article says, Cali's officials will be looking at other states' rulings on the matter come June (I think it's June anyway...) when the state gets to decide whether to declare Prop 8 illegitamite.

Here's hoping!

[Ollie]

Wow.
Never expected THAT to happen.

It's a little unnerving how it has to go slowly, state by state, rather than federal. A marriage shouldn't be null if you go on vacation to the next state over just because it isn't legal there. *sigh*

Wouldn't you want to keep your relationship to be spontaneous?
Soooo you oppose marriage altogether, then?

[suzumi]

Woot!! Go Iowa!! Show those other states!!

[Gjallarhorn]

Wow.
Never expected THAT to happen.

It's a little unnerving how it has to go slowly, state by state, rather than federal. A marriage shouldn't be null if you go on vacation to the next state over just because it isn't legal there. *sigh*

Soooo you oppose marriage altogether, then?

Well look at every other major civil rights issue we had.

Slavery was abolished state-by-state...until...well...the Civil War.
Women could originally vote out west, and that movement spread east, and there was the whole sufferage thing.
I'm not too sure about interracial marriage, but I believe it started in the northeast and spread from there.

While we'd all agree today that those are inalienable rights, people didn't see it that way at the time. Gay marriage will end up being the same. 100 years from now people will be saying our current government and society's position on the issue was immoral.

[Capernicus]

Gay marriage will end up being the same. 100 years from now people will be saying our current government and society's position on the issue was immoral.

I sure hope so. Do you think we'll get reparations (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reparations) too?

[Memento Mori]

It's funny how the first three states, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Conneticut, all had some of the highest average IQs in the United States.

If Iowa's is fairly high, that would be the lulz.

Oh, it doesn't mean anything. It just means they're smart.

[Prince Sapphire]

I do believe they will... Even if it takes a long time.

I know my state and all of it's close-mindedness will be one of the last.

And yes, I am ashamed to be a part of such a state.
Ugh, you and me. In Oklahoma's favor though, Oklahoma City and Tulsa are kind of like islands in an oasis so it's not nearly so bad in these cities.

[Diocletian]

Soooo you oppose marriage altogether, then?

It's people's choice to get married, not mine. If I opposed it you'd see me in front of the capital shouting "Stop ruining your relationships because you'll end up divorced in 2 years once you realized you made a mistake, you dopes!".

Otherwise if it works out, Godspeed You Black Emperor.

[Rem Nightfall]

It's people's choice to get married, not mine. If I opposed it you'd see me in front of the capital shouting "Stop ruining your relationships because you'll end up divorced in 2 years once you realized you made a mistake, you dopes!".


Well actually it doesn't quite work that way. Most marriages that end in that way are the kind of people I know who think they are in love and who think they can get married. Most of the time they are also people who do not want to commit to a relationship either, then they have kids, and then they are stuck.

[Archaic Devices]

But Iowa isn't as near as cool as Massachusetts, Xero.

I beg to differ! Iowa is plenty cool as it is my home state >:{ I feel that this a great step for Iowa. Although the mean people here are all "No we never wanted this! Ban it! Ban it!" -_- I'm glad though =)

[Ayame_Sohma]

I know what im going to say is going to upset a lot of people on here.but its what i believe in. i believe gay marriage is wrong and i don't believe they should be allowed to get married.

And Go Miss California for standing up for what you believe in.

[Diocletian]

I know what im going to say is going to upset a lot of people on here.but its what i believe in. i believe gay marriage is wrong and i don't believe they should be allowed to get married.

And Go Miss California for standing up for what you believe in.

You believe what you believe, I suppose. As long as you don't make a group that kills homosexuals late at night with razorblades, or you go around shouting slurs at homosexuals, I suppose it is acceptable.

I'm sure someone will flame you Ayame_Sohma. Good luck?

On a sidenote, the reason that I'm still disturbed my homosexuality (not neccessarily girl on girl, heh) is because of were I was brought up. I've never seen a guyxguy (with the exception of the two gentlemen having borderline sex while crossing through a gay pride parade) or girlxgirl relation. At this point I've become open minded to anyone marrying anyone or anything. Eiffel Tower, go right ahead!

[Señor Nobody]

I know what im going to say is going to upset a lot of people on here.but its what i believe in. i believe gay marriage is wrong and i don't believe they should be allowed to get married.

And Go Miss California for standing up for what you believe in.

Meh, you believe what you believe. I may not agree, but I'll respect your opinion enough not to flame you.

Good luck.

[Ayame_Sohma]

You believe what you believe, I suppose. As long as you don't make a group that kills homosexuals late at night with razorblades, or you go around shouting slurs at homosexuals, I suppose it is acceptable.
I'm sure someone will flame you Ayame_Sohma. Good luck?


Just to make it clear to people, i don't wanna to go around killing them or anything like that.

I just believe what they are doing is wrong and i don't wanna to see it,hear about it or anything like that. and nothing they can do/say that will change my mind.

Yeah i know someone will flame me about this but you know what its truly what i believe in.

[Rem Nightfall]

I know what im going to say is going to upset a lot of people on here.but its what i believe in. i believe gay marriage is wrong and i don't believe they should be allowed to get married.

And Go Miss California for standing up for what you believe in.

So, you want them to not feel the happiness everyone else gets to feel. You want to take from the pursuit of happiness. I'll go with Itachi, believe what you want to believe. Before this turns into an ugly debate.

[Ayame_Sohma]

So, you want them to not feel the happiness everyone else gets to feel. You want to take from the pursuit of happiness. I'll go with Itachi, believe what you want to believe. Before this turns into an ugly debate.


I didn't say that i didn't want them to be happy. You can be with someone and not get married.

I just don't think its right And i don't want this to turn into an ugly debate but i do have to the right to believe in what i believe in.

[Heinekenrana]

You do, indeed. As it is, I have a lot of gay friends who have wanted to get married for a long time because they believe that not only the legal benefits of marriage should be allowed to them, but because since society puts a high premium on marriage being the ultimate expression of love and devotion, they feel it's fair for them to be able to do the same without prejudice. I support them in that.

[Capernicus]

I didn't say that i didn't want them to be happy. You can be with someone and not get married.

I just don't think its right And i don't want this to turn into an ugly debate but i do have to the right to believe in what i believe in.

People are only going to flame you if you behave like this (http://www.animeforum.com/showthread.php?t=63552) in a thread.

[Miss Moonlight]

I didn't say that i didn't want them to be happy. You can be with someone and not get married.

I just don't think its right And i don't want this to turn into an ugly debate but i do have to the right to believe in what i believe in.
Well, it isn't wrong to simply believe it's wrong. You may have your own reasons for believing that, whatever they may be, but as long as you're not hateful or intolerant, then that's just your opinion and it's fine to believe that.

[Ayame_Sohma]

I thought this was America where people have the right to speak their opinions if anybody is wrong its the people that are so narrow minded that don't respect other peoples opinions.

[Diocletian]

Actually this is AF (Anime Forum, not American forum). You can be as intolerant as you want as long as it doesn't break the rules.

[Ayame_Sohma]

Actually this is AF (Anime Forum, not American forum). You can be as intolerant as you want as long as it doesn't break the rules.


So if i don't believe in what you believe that makes me intolerant?

[Datenshi]

I thought this was America where people have the right to speak their opinions if anybody is wrong its the people that are so narrow minded that don't respect other peoples opinions.

Relax. Yes, you have a right to your opinion, and if you'll notice, nobody in this thread has yet to state otherwise.

[Eris]

If this was slashdot, I'd tag it suddenoutbreakofcommonsense.

[Señor Nobody]

*Sigh*

You are intolerant because you think homosexuals don't deserve the right to marry one another. You won't tolerate the idea of them being married.

Can we stop this now before this explodes into a giant flame war? She/he is entitled to his/her opinion.

T . T

[Gero50]

Well ya it is a good thing this means America is getting back to normal. and that people have the right to more chose who they wish to be with

[Diocletian]

*Sigh*

You are intolerant because you think homosexuals don't deserve the right to marry one another. You won't tolerate the idea of them being married.

Can we stop this now before this explodes into a giant flame war? She/he is entitled to his/her opinion.

T . T

Protip: If you don't want to be involved in any flamewars, don't post.


So if i don't believe in what you believe that makes me intolerant?

I really don't care to be honest. All I was trying to to was a failed witty attempt to point out that the internet is not America. You don't have freedom of speech on the internet, as every forum, social networking site, etc. has it's own regulations.

[Aulos]

I thought this was America where people have the right to speak their opinions if anybody is wrong its the people that are so narrow minded that don't respect other peoples opinions.

This is not America. This is an internet forum that people from countries outside of America can post on as well.

Sure you can have your opinion, but don't expect people to be happy with it. What you are doing is hating on a group of people for things they can not control... If you are going to argue for your "freedom of speech" to tell your opinions, than you are also arguing for racists, sexists, and people of other prejudices to give their opinions.

IMO, it's almost an abuse of the freedom of speech. I personally do think that we should keep our prejudices to ourselves. But as long as the prejudices do not reach the government, everything will be okay, I guess.


Ugh, you and me. In Oklahoma's favor though, Oklahoma City and Tulsa are kind of like islands in an oasis so it's not nearly so bad in these cities.

I don't know about that... I live in one of those areas. I have seen a surprising amount of people that are accepting, but I believe I've just been really lucky in the friends I've made.

[Ayame_Sohma]

This is not America. This is an internet forum that people from countries outside of America can post on as well.

Sure you can have your opinion, but don't expect people to be happy with it. What you are doing is hating on a group of people for things they can not control... If you are going to argue for your "freedom of speech" to tell your opinions, than you are also arguing for racists, sexists, and people of other prejudices to give their opinions.

IMO, it's almost an abuse of the freedom of speech. I personally do think that we should keep our prejudices to ourselves. But as long as the prejudices do not reach the government, everything will be okay, I guess.



You didn't hear any nasty comments or prejudices against any gays from me , if you don't like other people to debate issues then don't post.

[Datenshi]

You didn't hear any nasty comments or prejudices against any gays from me , if you don't like other people to debate issues then don't post.

So as you say, let's debate them, then, and then we can agree to disagree.

Why shouldn't gays allowed to be married? Personally I believe that marriage is in itself an arbitrary custom of a particular time and culture, and therefore our conceptions of it should be open to change if it no longer fits the reality of our times.

[SigmaSD]

Wow, that's pretty amazing. Now lets just hope it spreads to the rest of the Midwestern states. To be honest I don't know why gay marriage was ever banned or not permitted in the US. I thought this country was founded on the three principals: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Rem Nightfall]

I didn't say that i didn't want them to be happy. You can be with someone and not get married.

I just don't think its right And i don't want this to turn into an ugly debate but i do have to the right to believe in what i believe in.

No, but marriage is the complete whole of happiness. They are happy in their relationship and want to take it a bit farther then what they have. That is taking that person's right and that person's ability to increase their happy soulful lifes together. And it's wrong.

Also to your comment, I do respect your opinion. But we may lay opinions out so others may express theirs. I expressed mine.

[Seta Souji]

Sure you can have your opinion, but don't expect people to be happy with it. What you are doing is hating on a group of people for things they can not control... If you are going to argue for your "freedom of speech" to tell your opinions, than you are also arguing for racists, sexists, and people of other prejudices to give their opinions.

IMO, it's almost an abuse of the freedom of speech. I personally do think that we should keep our prejudices to ourselves. But as long as the prejudices do not reach the government, everything will be okay, I guess.One of the main reasons why, besides the religious viewpoint, people don't want gay marriage is because marriage was originally created as a bond between man & woman. Thats why a lot of definitions on marriage state, blah blah between man and woman. Before homosexuals voiced their opinions on marriage, when ppl talked about it they would go "oh man and wife."

There are lots of ppl out there that support gay marriage but they want the name to be changed.

[SigmaSD]

One of the main reasons why, besides the religious viewpoint, people don't want gay marriage is because marriage was originally created as a bond between man & woman. Thats why a lot of definitions on marriage state, blah blah between man and woman. Before homosexuals voiced their opinions on marriage, when ppl talked about it they would go "oh man and wife."

There are lots of ppl out there that support gay marriage but they want the name to be changed.

Yeah they could change the name, but doing so will mean cause anther uproar. Because if they did that, they're basically saying that gay marriage isn't tolerated, or that it's not as equal as marriage between man and woman.

[Seta Souji]

Yeah they could change the name, but doing so will mean cause anther uproar. Because if they did that, they're basically saying that gay marriage isn't tolerated, or that it's not as equal as marriage between man and woman.

Yea they'll get pretty pissed. But if gay marriage is legalized, technically we'll be changing the definition of marriage. I wonder how the definition would turn out.

"the social institution under which two humans establish their decision to live as husband and husband or wife and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies"?

[Jose]

I was going to say something to Ayame, but then decided to abstain, anyway, I think Iowa simply redefined marriage from between a man and a woman to, two people.

[BDNguyen]

Hopefully the rest of the states shall do the same, as well as the rest of the world

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

It must of been who I've been brought up around, but I don't care for gay marriage as long as they keep it away. I don't care to see two guys kissing, holding hands, ect. It's sick and wrong.

[Capernicus]

It must of been who I've been brought up around, but I don't care for gay marriage as long as they keep it away. I don't care to see two guys kissing, holding hands, ect. It's sick and wrong.
Thank you for sharing your intolerance.

[TheDesertFox]

Long live the freedom of choice, everyone should have the right to marry who ever they desire.

[Miss Moonlight]

It must of been who I've been brought up around, but I don't care for gay marriage as long as they keep it away. I don't care to see two guys kissing, holding hands, ect. It's sick and wrong.
Care to elaborate on "keep it away" means?

unless you believe homosexuality is contagious.

[Jose]

Thank you for sharing your intolerance.

Ah, yes Cappy we just love to hear it <3 lol


Care to elaborate on "keep it away" means?

unless you believe homosexuality is contagious.


It is contagious ask Caps, she gave it to me D:
stupid lesbian <333

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

Care to elaborate on "keep it away" means?

unless you believe homosexuality is contagious.

They should do that in their house, not in public.

[Miss Moonlight]

They should do that in their house, not in public.
Maybe we should legalize a bill that keeps all homosexuals inside their homes for fear others might see them together. I'd say it wouldn't have a problem getting passed. In an alternate dimension.

[Jose]

So should heterosexuals keep in their houses?

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

So should heterosexuals keep in their houses?
They should.

[Eris]

They should.

Isn't it easier for you to stay in your house, then to make demands on what other people shall and shall not do in public?

[Miss Moonlight]

So should heterosexuals keep in their houses?
No, only homosexuals. The "gay" might get around quickly, and then before you know it ... it will be nothing but anarchy, confusion and parades.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

Isn't it easier for you to stay in your house, then to make demands on what other people shall and shall not do in public?
No. Not until this law comes to Florida. And hopefully it doesn't.

[Rem Nightfall]

No, only homosexuals. The "gay" might get around quickly, and then before you know it ... it will be nothing but anarchy, confusion and parades.

Is that a sarcastic remark coming from you?

[Miss Moonlight]

Is that a sarcastic remark coming from you?
Yes, if you've already read my previous posts in this thread.

[Diocletian]

Is that a sarcastic remark coming from you?

No, it came from me, see?



No, only homosexuals. The "gay" might get around quickly, and then before you know it ... it will be nothing but anarchy, confusion and parades.

[Rem Nightfall]

Yes, if you've already read my previous posts in this thread.

I did, don't get smart. I'm surprised. I see you as a calm sort who portrays their opinions in a calm manner. I was a little surprised is all.

[Diocletian]

I did, don't get smart. I'm surprised. I see you as a calm sort who portrays their opinions in a calm manner. I was a little surprised is all.
[Failed Witty Image Below]

Yeah, Moonlight don't be a movie. I'll say this in caps.

I'M REALLY GLAD NO ONE COMPARED BLACKS TO GAYS.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

I did, don't get smart. I'm surprised. I see you as a calm sort who portrays their opinions in a calm manner. I was a little surprised is all.
She obviously hates people with an opinion gays are wrong.

[Rem Nightfall]

http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n411/musicalmystery/get-smart.jpg

Yeah, Moonlight don't be a movie.

hahahahahahaa. That's funny. :laugh:


@Strumpet: No, I think the best way to compete against you gays are wrong people is sarcasm.

[Jose]

She obviously hates people with an opinion gays are wrong.

As all people should XDDD

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

hahahahahahaa. That's funny. :laugh:


@Strumpet: No, I think the best way to compete against you gays are wrong people is sarcasm.
But the sarcasm doesn't effect us.


As all people should XDDD

Why should we be hated? Because same sex marriage isn't natural in our view?

[Rem Nightfall]

But the sarcasm doesn't effect us.

No. But it's so darn fun to blow your logic by agreeing with you. You're right gays are wrong. So are heterosexual couples. No couples no marriage for anyone. It's wrong.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

No. But it's so darn fun to blow your logic by agreeing with you. You're right gays are wrong. So are heterosexual couples. No couples no marriage for anyone. It's wrong.
I was just saying heterosexuals should be basically having intercourse in public.

And like I said previous post, I don't find same sex marriage is natural.

[Miss Moonlight]

I did, don't get smart. I'm surprised. I see you as a calm sort who portrays their opinions in a calm manner. I was a little surprised is all.
If you've read my previous posts, then my sarcasm should have been blatantly obvious. I don't see where I was "getting smart" ... unless that was in my use of sarcasm, which doesn't always translate so well over the internets.

I am a calm person, usually ... calm people can't use sarcasm? rofl.


But the sarcasm doesn't effect us.

I know why the sarcasm wouldn't affect you, but i'd be "meen" if I were to say anything about it, so I won't.

[Wio]

Why shouldn't gays allowed to be married? Personally I believe that marriage is in itself an arbitrary custom of a particular time and culture, and therefore our conceptions of it should be open to change if it no longer fits the reality of our times.
Personally, I don't think the government should acknowledge any form of marriage. The divorce rate shows the government's incompetence at handling such a thing.
How exactly do you define marriage Datenshi? "Arbitrary custom" is quite vague because you could call wiping your anus with you bare hand an "arbitrary custom" in some places.
The thing is Americans aren't really on the same page on this subject, so they'll NEVER be able to come up with a model that "fits the reality of our times".

But what gets me more than that is when the courts ignore the will of the people to pass their "progressive" agenda. If the people of Iowa voted to legalize gay marriage, I would be relieved. However with California, the people explicitly voted no, and they even had to rewrite their freakin' Constitution to stop the courts from screwing them over.

[Rem Nightfall]

I was just saying heterosexuals should be basically having intercourse in public.

And like I said previous post, I don't find same sex marriage is natural.

You've convinced me. Same sex isn't natural because they don't have the same feelings for each other the way the a heterosexual couple has. They don't have the same natural love for each other what so ever. You're right marriage isn't only the physical appearance of the couple, not the feelings put towards each other. Man you're good at this convincing stuff.


@Miss: No, I'm just not use to you using sarcasm. And I was having some fun with joo is all.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

You've convinced me. Same sex isn't natural because they don't have the same feelings for each other the way the a heterosexual couple has. They don't have the same natural love for each other what so ever. You're right marriage isn't only the physical appearance of the couple, not the feelings put towards each other. Man you're good at this convincing stuff.


@Miss: No, I'm just not use to you using sarcasm. And I was having some fun with joo is all.
You should really shut up--you don't even want to comprehend what I'm saying. All I'm saying is homosexual couples aren't natural. This is one of the few things I believe in from the Bible.

[Wio]

This is one of the few things I believe in from the Bible.
You shouldn't mention the Bible on AF. No matter how logical your argument is, you'll automatically be teased and bullied at mention of "Bible". Always stop at some secular point.

[Rem Nightfall]

You should really shut up--you don't even want to comprehend what I'm saying. All I'm saying is homosexual couples aren't natural. This is one of the few things I believe in from the Bible.

You're right. They don't have the same emotions for each other. They don't share the same feelings of one another. There isn't even a gay gene out there. You're absolutely correct.

[Miss Moonlight]

I was just saying heterosexuals should be basically having intercourse in public.
And like I said previous post, I don't find same sex marriage is natural.
This is an argument I hear basically everywhere. It's as if like-minded individuals copy and paste it from each other.

Obviously it depends on the culture, but I find it odd that marrying objects and animals causes little controversy, but two human beings marrying each other is somehow morally wrong and "unnatural".

And who posted that huge "get smart" image in my rep? thanks, looks ridiculous.

[Wio]

You're right. They don't have the same emotions for each other. They don't share the same feelings of one another. There isn't even a gay gene out there. You're absolutely correct.
Rem, how exactly do you define marriage? It's a "feeling" or "emotion"? Can this emotion be scientifically measured or tested? Is it something only only exists in your strange philosophy/religion?


And who posted that huge "get smart" image in my rep? thanks, looks ridiculous.
lol2tw

[Eris]

And like I said previous post, I don't find same sex marriage is natural.

Though, opposite sex marriage is not natural either. I dare you to show me to a single species of animal (other than humans) that gets married.

Marriage is not natural.

[Diocletian]

You shouldn't mention the Bible on AF. No matter how logical your argument is, you'll automatically be teased and bullied at mention of "Bible". Always stop at some secular point.

Af is backwards.

Most of AF: Accepting of gays.
Most of AF: Unaccepting of Christians, Cathy's, etc.

Most of IRL: Unaccepting of gays.
Most of IRL: Accepting of Christians, Cathy's, etc.


And who posted that huge "get smart" image in my rep? thanks, looks ridiculous.

Thanks!

Remember AF is bizzaro world. White font is more popular than black font, and being an anime fan in an anime forum isn't cool.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

You shouldn't mention the Bible on AF. No matter how logical your argument is, you'll automatically be teased and bullied at mention of "Bible". Always stop at some secular point.
I honestly don't care. Most of them are fools who looks at another persons idea on here and automatically agrees to 'fit in'.

You're right. They don't have the same emotions for each other. They don't share the same feelings of one another. There isn't even a gay gene out there. You're absolutely correct.
Stop trying to act cool. You have no reason to keep responding if you're just trying to be 'smart'.

This is an argument I hear basically everywhere. It's as if like-minded individuals copy and paste it from each other.

Obviously it depends on the culture, but I find it odd that marrying objects and animals causes little controversy, but two human beings marrying each other is somehow morally wrong and "unnatural".

And who posted that huge "get smart" image in my rep? thanks, looks ridiculous.
Uh, I actually feel it's unnatural and wrong. And I don't copy paste them from people, as you seem like a clone.

And I think objectumsexuals are just attention seeking fools, along with marrying animals.

I'm sorry I disagree with 99% of this forum. I'm not a follower.

[Rem Nightfall]

Rem, how exactly do you define marriage? It's a "feeling" or "emotion"? Can this emotion be scientifically measured or tested? Is it something only only exists in your strange philosophy/religion?


Marriage is two people whom have emotions for each other stronger and deeper beyond anything we can comprehend. And they want to tie that emotion and feeling together.

I believe in the Orthodox Christianity. I believe the Bible isn't to be taken literally. It was used as a metaphor to express what life was like and how they could explain it. Remember back then their science was still growing, so this was the way they expressed the world. 6 days was to represent 6 important great giant leaps in geological time. And Genesis is a more simple, and philosophical term for Natural Selection.

[Miss Moonlight]

Af is backwards.

Most of AF: Accepting of gays.
Most of AF: Unaccepting of Christians, Cathy's, etc.

Most of IRL: Unaccepting of gays.
Most of IRL: Accepting of Christians, Cathy's, etc.

Thanks!

Remember AF is bizzaro world. White font is more popular than black font, and being an anime fan in an anime forum isn't cool.

Lol, you forgot to leave your name :[

I guess i'm one of the exceptions, though. I'm accepting of gays inside and outside of AF (as well as in general). I have no problems with christians unless they are of the over-zealous "gays go to hell" type.

[Diocletian]

Marriage is two people whom have emotions for each other stronger and deeper beyond anything we can comprehend. And they want to tie that emotion and feeling together.


Incorrect. I had those feelings about my ex-girlfriend a few years back. We weren't married.

[Wio]

I deleted the irrelevant part cause I never asked for your religion.
Marriage is two people whom have emotions for each other stronger and deeper beyond anything we can comprehend. And they want to tie that emotion and feeling together
If a person can't comprehend this feeling, then how can you expect a government to legislate over it?
Obviously two people shouldn't get married if they don't share this feeling, right?

Also, you have yet to prove that this feeling even exists in the first place. You're not much different than someone saying "Gay marriage is wrong because of this feeling I have."

[Miss Moonlight]

Legally, marriage is a binding contract.

Socially, it's just something couples "do" for financial security, common goals, emotional bonds, dreams, etc. It's considered socially acceptable to get married when you feel strongly for each other and want to share those things together. Although marriage isn't really nessasary for a relationship.

[Rem Nightfall]

Incorrect. I had those feelings about my ex-girlfriend a few years back. We weren't married.
I love my fiancee very much. It is because I love her and want to spend my whole entire life body and soul with her that I want to marry her. We're tying the bond of our feeling together.



I deleted the irrelevant part cause I never asked for your religion.
If a person can't comprehend this feeling, then how can you expect a government to legislate over it?
Obviously two people shouldn't get married if they don't share this feeling, right?

Also, you have yet to prove that this feeling even exists in the first place. You're not much different than someone saying "Gay marriage is wrong because of this feeling I have."

My religion then is Orthodox Christianity.

If you love someone deeply you can comprehend the feeling. This is a feeling between people not outsiders. It's something outsiders wouldn't understand. Example, my mother[grandma] wants to know what I see in my fiancee. Love isn't for a third person party. Love is between two people and that love cannot be shared with anyone else.
Unless you're those weird type who love six different people and they all share the same feeling with one another.

Love a lot like marriage is hard to comprehend to others. But love and marriage can be comprehended through both partners.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

Also, you have yet to prove that this feeling even exists in the first place. You're not much different than someone saying "Gay marriage is wrong because of this feeling I have."


I'm guessing you think only your opinion counts on here? And it's much more than a feeling, Wio. You should really understand this. I find it immorally wrong to marry the same sex. Marriage should be male to female not male to male or female to female. I don't hate homosexuals, I just don't like their ways.

[Wio]

Legally, marriage is a binding contract
That's a holonym, not a definition.

If marriage is to be a legislated institution, it MUST have a clear definition.


I'm guessing you think only your opinion counts on here? And it's much more than a feeling, Wio.
I'm questioning Rem's definition of marriage, not yours. Why are you defending someone else's definition when you have a different definition altogether?

Edit: Oh yeah, if I thought only my opinion counts on here, why would I even be asking someone theirs in the first place? lol

[Rem Nightfall]

I'm guessing you think only your opinion counts on here? And it's much more than a feeling, Wio. You should really understand this. I find it immorally wrong to marry the same sex. Marriage should be male to female not male to male or female to female. I don't hate homosexuals, I just don't like their ways.

The Bible says nothing of man and man not being able to marry.

[Miss Moonlight]

Last time I checked, love had no sexual orientation. That means homosexuals can feel obviously, the same emotions that straight couples do, and want to be married for the same reasons. Cause you know, they're all human and stuff.

[Eris]

Af is backwards.

Most of AF: Accepting of gays.
Most of AF: Unaccepting of Christians, Cathy's, etc.

Most of IRL: Unaccepting of gays.
Most of IRL: Accepting of Christians, Cathy's, etc.

Keep in mind that AF is international. What applies in region does not apply everywhere.

Moreover, sane logic has more impact in text format, so it's easier for a logically affluent group of people to keep logically deficient loudmouths quiet on the internets.


Remember AF is bizzaro world. White font is more popular than black font, and being an anime fan in an anime forum isn't cool.

I claim some portion of the credit for that. People like me put the cool in being an Anime-hating cantankerous person on an Anime Forum.

[Wio]

Last time I checked, love doesn't have an asterisk with "limit 1 per customer" at the bottom either.

[Rem Nightfall]

Last time I checked, love had no sexual orientation. That means homosexuals can feel obviously, the same emotions that straight couples do, and want to be married for the same reasons. Cause you know, they're all human and stuff.

No I refuse to believe that. Once you become a homosexual you're immediately not human.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

I'm questioning Rem's definition of marriage, not yours. Why are you defending someone else's definition when you have a different definition altogether?


Thought you were referring to me about the whole "Gay marriage is wrong because of this feeling."


Because that really sounds like what everyone else is saying.

[Rem Nightfall]

Last time I checked, love doesn't have an asterisk with "limit 1 per customer" at the bottom either.

I know that. But for me love is between one person. Because I cannot feel for four different people all at the same time. Some people may, but others don't. I don't want fourty wives, like some people do. I want 1 person whom I can spend my life with sharing each other body and soul. Love is how many people you can love. For me it's 1 person. And even so. Even if it is more then 1 lover, it's still something within the relationship that those in the relationship can understand. Those not in the relationship wouldn't understand.

[Eris]

No I refuse to believe that. Once you become a homosexual you're immediately not human.

Of course. And a few weeks after being gay a Xenomorph bursts out of your chest.

[Wio]

Thought you were referring to me about the whole "Gay marriage is wrong because of this feeling."


Because that really sounds like what everyone else is saying.
My only problem with you is that I think you should really think more deeply as to why you dislike homosexual relationships. Saying things like "it's unnatural" aren't going to help you get your point across. Half the battle is finding our your true believe down to its core, and the other half is being able to explain it logically.


I know that. But for me love is between one person. Because I cannot feel for four different people all at the same time. Some people may, but others don't. I don't want fourty wives, like some people do. I want 1 person whom I can spend my life with sharing each other body and soul. Love is how many people you can love. For me it's 1 person. And even so. Even if it is more then 1 lover, it's still something within the relationship that those in the relationship can understand. Those not in the relationship wouldn't understand.
Well, I'm satisfied with this answer. It's good to see that you thought about it critically.

[Rem Nightfall]

Of course. And a few weeks after being gay a Xenomorph bursts out of your chest.

Hahahahhaaha. Yes, yes it does. :laugh:

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

My only problem with you is that I think you should really think more deeply as to why you dislike homosexual relationships. Saying things like "it's unnatural" aren't going to help you get your point across. Half the battle is finding our your true believe down to its core, and the other half is being able to explain it logically.




I've mentioned why it felt unnatural. It's because how I was raised; only a male and female should share marriage together, not the same. And from that I've honestly believe homosexual relationships are wrong.

[Rem Nightfall]

Well, I'm satisfied with this answer. It's good to see that you thought about it critically.

I always do....I'm don't know if you know this or not, but I'm not an idiot.

[Wio]

I've mentioned why it felt unnatural. It's because how I was raised; only a male and female should share marriage together, not the same. And from that I've honestly believe homosexual relationships are wrong.
Hmm, but don't you think you were raised that way for a reason? I mean, you are taught that crimes are bad due to the effect they have on victims. With homosexuality, the problem would have to lie in what makes it difference from heterosexuality, would it not?


I always do....I'm don't know if you know this or not, but I'm not an idiot.
It's not that I thought you were an idiot per se. It's just that I find it a waste when people neglect to use the actual reasoning behind their beliefs to make a point as opposed to bullying someoneelse's beliefs because they happen to be an underdog.

[Rem Nightfall]

It's not that I thought you were an idiot per se. It's just that I find it a waste when people neglect to use the actual reasoning behind their beliefs to make a point as opposed to bullying someoneelse's beliefs because they happen to be an underdog.

I don't believe in doing that. That is wrong. I don't bully people with my beliefs. Just takes me a bit of time to make them understand what I'm implying....sometimes. Most times people click right away. Everyone has the right to express their belief without being attacked by another belief.

[Wio]

I don't believe in doing that. That is wrong. I don't bully people with my beliefs. Just takes me a bit of time to make them understand what I'm implying....sometimes. Most times people click right away. Everyone has the right to express their belief without being attacked by another belief.
You kept using sarcasm to the point where the other person got irritated and told you to shut up, and then you kept doing it... did you really expect to reach someone this way? If you didn't then you were merely bullying. If you did then I find your method quite interesting. I mean I try to avoid that approach because people don't tend to open their mind to those that belittle them.

[Piper]

Wow.. I love seeing these types of topics. Brings back memories. =)

Well, I think we all know how I feel about this topic. And I assure you it's not because I want to "fit in". It's because I honestly believe that people are entitled to their own opinion whether they are for or against gay marriage.

[Rem Nightfall]

You kept using sarcasm to the point where the other person got irritated and told you to shut up, and then you kept doing it... did you really expect to reach someone this way? If you didn't then you were merely bullying. If you did then I find your method quite interesting. I mean I try to avoid that approach because people don't tend to open their mind to those that belittle them.

I didn't expect him to listen to me either way or not. Most people tend to look at something with one way to look. What's the point of trying to debate to someone who isn't opinion to hear anyone else's opinion? Most people expect to state their opinion and either everyone has to agree with or everyone doesn't. But the person who doesn't agree with them in most cases is an idiot. I didn't do it to bully. I did it because I knew either way I wouldn't change or have him open his mind to different kinds of thinking.
I expected either way he would disagree with me.

[Piper]

Most people expect to state their opinion and either everyone has to agree with or everyone doesn't. But the person who doesn't agree with them in most cases is an idiot.


I don't think they are an idiot. I think they are just the minority in this topic, which isn't a problem. Now, I may not agree with someone, but I still respect their opinion, and won't be immature about something and start insulting them. Don't get me wrong, I am pro gay marriage, but just because someone does not agree with it, doesn't make them any less of a person, just like being gay (although the majority of Americans disagree with their lifestyle), makes them any less of a person.

Proudly showing your support of gay marriage is equally important as someone disagreeing with gay marriage. We're fighting for equal rights, not anything else.

[Rem Nightfall]

I don't think they are an idiot. I think they are just the minority in this topic, which isn't a problem. Now, I may not agree with someone, but I still respect their opinion, and won't be immature about something and start insulting them. Don't get me wrong, I am pro gay marriage, but just because someone does not agree with it, doesn't make them any less of a person, just like being gay (although the majority of Americans disagree with their lifestyle), makes them any less of a person.

Proudly showing your support of gay marriage is equally important as someone disagreeing with gay marriage. We're fighting for equal rights, not anything else.

I wasn't insulting them. I think you misunderstood. Many people believe because I disagree with or anyone else disagrees with them is stupid, doesn't have clear opinion, or simply an idiot.
I wasn't insulting anyone.

I respect what he says, I respect his opinions. I do not agree with them.

[Shinn Kamiyra]

I've mentioned why it felt unnatural. It's because how I was raised; only a male and female should share marriage together, not the same. And from that I've honestly believe homosexual relationships are wrong.

I believe someone somewhere who knew what he/she was talking about once said that inherited faith and/or beliefs are a dangerous thing. Not to say that what you think isn't right, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong either. Right and wrong are such controversial concepts that topics that revolve around them tend to turn into belitting arguments that don't raise any real truth. In that respect, I'd be more interested in finding out why you were raised that way.


Hmm, but don't you think you were raised that way for a reason? I mean, you are taught that crimes are bad due to the effect they have on victims. With homosexuality, the problem would have to lie in what makes it difference from heterosexuality, would it not?

Some people might think that way; however, I simply don't like to see it as a problem in the first place. The real problem lies in why people think of it as a problem.

[Wio]

Some people might think that way; however, I simply don't like to see it as a problem in the first place. The real problem lies in why people think of it as a problem.
The real problem? If there is a real problem it is that everyone doesn't value the same thing because that's what controversy stems from. We all have different values and no debate, despite how logical, is enough to change them, because we don't hold these values for logical reasons.

[Shinn Kamiyra]

The real problem? If there is a real problem it is that everyone doesn't value the same thing because that's what controversy stems from. We all have different values and no debate, despite how logical, is enough to change them, because we don't hold these values for logical reasons.

Indeed. 'Tis one of humanity's greatest proverbial double-edged swords.

[Rem Nightfall]

The real problem? If there is a real problem it is that everyone doesn't value the same thing because that's what controversy stems from. We all have different values and no debate, despite how logical, is enough to change them, because we don't hold these values for logical reasons.

Well you hit on the mark right there. Take religion out of it, pretend it doesn't exist right now. Even without religion, we would still have controversy. What is comfortable to some isn't comfortable to others. And that level of comfort births controversy.

[Standartenführer]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/for_gay_couple_fulfilling?utm_source=a-section

Wait, isn't marriage a religious union?

[Gjallarhorn]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/for_gay_couple_fulfilling?utm_source=a-section

Wait, isn't marriage a religious union?

Marriage had nothing to do with religion until the Church wanted control over in like the 14th or 15th century, and although it is often overseen by religious officials, it does not, technically, have anything to do with religion. It is a pledge between two individuals that is recognized legally.

Also, you do realize that is The Onion, right? Not an actual news source?

[Diocletian]

Ya know Gja, I grew a little bit today. I grew by not blatantly ridiculing the person for using the fakest new source ever as evidence.


Unless that was meant to be...which I don't believe so...

[Gjallarhorn]

Ya know Gja, I grew a little bit today. I grew by not blatantly ridiculing the person for using the fakest new source ever as evidence.


Unless that was meant to be...which I don't believe so...

Actually, I was just making sure he knew that The Onion isn't a new source. Thanks for the snide remarks, though.

[Diocletian]

Actually, I was just making sure he knew that The Onion isn't a new source. Thanks for the snide remarks, though.

I was actually helping you, just by adding some extra voiceover commentary. I was just making sure that the person never does the same mistake again.

You never EVER forget your mistakes. Best part is mistakes are gratis.

[Capernicus]

How odd this thread blew up while I was at work.

To Miss Moonlight and, to a much higher degree, Rem Nightfall: please, just stop it. I'm so very tired of every gay thread starting a flame war. Did either of you ever stop to wonder why I made the thread? It wasn't so that Maru or any of the other misc mods could close it down for flame baiting and other miscellaneous rule-breaking. It wasn't even meant to debate whether gay marriage should be legal or not! I was to report on the oddity of Iowa accepting gay marriage and speculate on whether or not it will spread to other states (as is the case in Vermont). As a member of the gay community, I would like to speak on behalf of us all and ask you not to "help" us. I think Piper agrees with me (though he didn't say it).

To Wio: just face it, not everyone is as analytical and logical as you. And really, you're a little in the wrong (not to mention unrealistic) to expect them to. It would be nice if people would stop and really think about why they believe the things they do, but it's not likely to happen. And, it annoys people when you do it.

To strumpet: you know what, you're sick. You are the equivalent of stubborn white supremacist in the deep south during the 50s. "I don't care for gay marriage as long as they keep it away" sounds an awful lot like "I don't care if black people go to my school as long as they can't use the same bathroom/drinking fountain/swimming pool as me".

Yeah, I went there Dio. I can't help that I'm still bitter that African-Americans in California voted overwhelming for the ban against gay marriage. Thus, my little side comment on reparations. (You'll be glad to know that I'm also bitter towards senior citizens, who also voted overwhelming for the ban.)

And for the record, gays are just like everyone else. Most are not going to hit on you if you obviously don't want the attention. Also, most do not like public displays of affection (ie making out). It's amazing how some people are ignorant enough to think these things. We're human, not a whole other species.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

I expected either way he would disagree with me.
I didn't agree with the way you were doing it.




To strumpet: you know what, you're sick. You are the equivalent of stubborn white supremacist in the deep south during the 50s. "I don't care for gay marriage as long as they keep it away" sounds an awful lot like "I don't care if niggers go to my school as long as they can't use the same bathroom/drinking fountain/swimming pool as me".




Uh, I'm not nowhere near that, and you shouldn't accuse anyone of that---that's just wrong. I don't agree to gay marriage; why should I be around it? If you don't like something, and it's around you, don't you want to get away from it? And as for the racist remark, I have black friends. So shut the hell up.


Yeah, I went there Dio. I can't help that I'm still bitter that African-Americans in California voted overwhelming for the ban against gay marriage.

Seems like I'm not racist, but someone else it.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

Delete this.

[Shinn Kamiyra]

Uh, I'm not nowhere near that, and you shouldn't accuse anyone of that---that's just wrong. I don't agree to gay marriage; why should I be around it? If you don't like something, and it's around you, don't you want to get away from it? And as for the racist remark, I have black friends. So shut the hell up.

Seems like I'm not racist, but someone else it.

I won't bother trying to dissuade anyone as to their opinion on gay marriage; however, let's not turn this into anymore of a flame war then it already is. We had enough of that nonsense with the troll (Mavericker). We don't need to be doing it ourselves when we're intelligent enough to converse on a mature level.

Ah, and one more thing. I realize I hadn't any place in the original conversation; however, Capernicus merely stated a dissatisfaction with the overwhealming support of the black population in California as a means by which to help support the gay marriage ban. Were I to say that I were dissatisfied with both the senior citizens' majority decision as well as the black population's majority decision, would it be alright that I felt that way towards the former, but not the latter? In either case, it doesn't matter, because I don't believe it's worth it to think about it as being right or wrong. Those are simply one's feelings on the matter; and unless said person has the intent of trying to force those feelings on someone else, which is not the case at the moment, let us not drag it out into something it wasn't meant to be.

[Capernicus]

I didn't agree with the way you were doing it.



Uh, I'm not nowhere near that, and you shouldn't accuse anyone of that---that's just wrong. I don't agree to gay marriage; why should I be around it? If you don't like something, and it's around you, don't you want to get away from it? And as for the racist remark, I have black friends. So shut the hell up.



Seems like I'm not racist, but someone else it.
God, you're so...unintelligent. It's called an analogy. Know what that is? And I'm not racist, as I said I'm bitter at one minority group for discriminating against another. There's no racism involved.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

God, you're so...unintelligent. It's called an analogy. Know what that is? And I'm not racist, as I said I'm bitter at one minority group for discriminating against another. There's no racism involved.
You know, all you care about is passing gay marriage. Everyone elses' opinion is wrong. I remember threads when people just say post your opinion and leave it at that. But here I state it, and I'm basically trying to get 'proved' wrong for an opinion. AF contradicts itself too much.

[Capernicus]

You know, all you care about is passing gay marriage. Everyone elses' opinion is wrong. I remember threads when people just say post your opinion and leave it at that. But here I state it, and I'm basically trying to get 'proved' wrong for an opinion. AF contradicts itself too much.

...THIS THREAD DOES NOT SOLICIT OPINIONS!


How odd this thread blew up while I was at work.

To Miss Moonlight and, to a much higher degree, Rem Nightfall: please, just stop it. I'm so very tired of every gay thread starting a flame war. Did either of you ever stop to wonder why I made the thread? It wasn't so that Maru or any of the other misc mods could close it down for flame baiting and other miscellaneous rule-breaking. It wasn't even meant to debate whether gay marriage should be legal or not! I was to report on the oddity of Iowa accepting gay marriage and speculate on whether or not it will spread to other states (as is the case in Vermont). As a member of the gay community, I would like to speak on behalf of us all and ask you not to "help" us. I think Piper agrees with me (though he didn't say it).

To Wio: just face it, not everyone is as analytical and logical as you. And really, you're a little in the wrong (not to mention unrealistic) to expect them to. It would be nice if people would stop and really think about why they believe the things they do, but it's not likely to happen. And, it annoys people when you do it.

To strumpet: you know what, you're sick. You are the equivalent of stubborn white supremacist in the deep south during the 50s. "I don't care for gay marriage as long as they keep it away" sounds an awful lot like "I don't care if niggers go to my school as long as they can't use the same bathroom/drinking fountain/swimming pool as me".

Yeah, I went there Dio. I can't help that I'm still bitter that African-Americans in California voted overwhelming for the ban against gay marriage. Thus, my little side comment on reparations. (You'll be glad to know that I'm also bitter towards senior citizens, who also voted overwhelming for the ban.)

And for the record, gays are just like everyone else. Most are not going to hit on you if you obviously don't want the attention. Also, most do not like public displays of affection (ie making out). It's amazing how some people are ignorant enough to think these things. We're human, not a whole other species.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

...THIS THREAD DOES NOT SOLICIT OPINIONS!
I didn't start it, but I'm dropping out of this thread anyways.

[Miss Moonlight]

I'm sorry, Capernicus. But usually these kinds of topics start flamewars anyway because of the vast number of differing opinions. My intention was not to flame, but to point out to strumpet, perhaps not in the most mature way I guess, that homosexuals deserve the same rights. But, he doesn't seem to understand anyway, so oh well. :[

[[Spoiler]]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040300376.html

Iowa, whodda thunk it? For shame California! Good for you Iowa, you're awesome! And from the rural midwest? I never realized it was so progressive.

This is my hope: As Iowa goes, so goes America.

A sign that we're living in the end times.

[Dr. Evil]

Okay, I support gay marriage so any state that legalizes it is okay in my book.

[OmegaAlpha]

I don't even know why it's an issue.
Gay people should be able to get married.
The fact some people are "against" it should not even matter.
To hell with ignorance and bigotry.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

I don't even know why it's an issue.
Gay people should be able to get married.
The fact some people are "against" it should not even matter.
To hell with ignorance and bigotry.

If people are able to do what they want, do you realize where we would be right now?

[OmegaAlpha]

If people are able to do what they want, do you realize where we would be right now?

I think people should be able to do what they want so long as they don't infringe on other people's right to do the same.

I don't know "where we would be" if we actually lived in a free country where homosexuals were not discriminated against. Please enlighten me on the horrors of freedom.

[Amray The II]

I did not know that some places still banned such things as Gay Marriage, honestly. I live in an authentic free country, you see. There are no changing rooms that seperate black people from white people here, and that is how it bloody should be! An individual should have the right to be able to do something that they want with no hassle: if it does not directly disregard anothers persons' human rights, of course.

[OmegaAlpha]

I did not know that some places still banned such things as Gay Marriage, honestly. I live in an authentic free country, you see. There are no changing rooms that seperate black people from white people here, and that is how it bloody should be! An individual should have the right to be able to do something that they want with no hassle: if it does not directly disregard anothers persons' human rights, of course.

You're right about gay people being allowed to marry but you're wrong about England being an authentic free country. The streets of London have cameras everywhere monitoring every movement. Your free speech laws are questionable too. I think your firearm laws are tough as well. I'm not saying America is any better off but England does not represent "authentic" freedom either.

Back to topic though. I think this thread was meant to be a congrats to Iowa for being a cut above many of the other American states in the area of civil liberties for homosexual couples. Iowa should be proud of itself for that. Even "liberal" California does not have true equality for homosexuals.

It's sad that it turned into a debate about the overall issue.
(but what would you think would happen with such a touchy subject?)

[Rem Nightfall]

How odd this thread blew up while I was at work.

Rem Nightfall: please, just stop it. I'm so very tired of every gay thread starting a flame war. Did either of you ever stop to wonder why I made the thread? It wasn't so that Maru or any of the other misc mods could close it down for flame baiting and other miscellaneous rule-breaking. It wasn't even meant to debate whether gay marriage should be legal or not! I was to report on the oddity of Iowa accepting gay marriage and speculate on whether or not it will spread to other states (as is the case in Vermont). As a member of the gay community, I would like to speak on behalf of us all and ask you not to "help" us. I think Piper agrees with me (though he didn't say it).


I wasn't trying to create a flame war. I wasn't do of the sort. I'm bisexual, so I think I have a little say on what people are saying.
I wasn't creating a flame war. But even so talking about Iowa and the oddity of their legalship of gay marriage was going to turn into a conversation like this. Whether or not I was here.
And I didn't break any rules that I know of.

[Amray The II]

You're right about gay people being allowed to marry but you're wrong about England being an authentic free country. The streets of London have cameras everywhere monitoring every movement. Your free speech laws are questionable too. I think your firearm laws are tough as well. I'm not saying America is any better off but England does not represent "authentic" freedom either.

The many camera's are there, mainly in London for obvious reasons, due to the British citizens requesting them. Britain is a small, democratic nation so the people make the rules and the requests. Those camera's are also there to prevent people breaching other peoples' human rights, which is why we have talking cameras for the police to speak through when someone causing trouble comes along. A lot of people pleaded for these camera's to their local MP, and they got them. All is free and fair with that.

Anyway, the cemera's are only in the most populated cities such as London and Manchester for police purposes. When something bad happens police are on the scene within seconds. As I am an honest and active citizen that causes no problems to socirty I would never complain at such a thing.

[OmegaAlpha]

The many camera's are there, mainly in London for obvious reasons, due to the British citizens requesting them. Britain is a small, democratic nation so the people make the rules and the requests. Those camera's are also there to prevent people breaching other peoples' human rights, which is why we have talking cameras for the police to speak through when someone causing trouble comes along. A lot of people pleaded for these camera's to their local MP, and they got them. All is free and fair with that.

Anyway, the cemera's are only in the most populated cities such as London and Manchester for police purposes. When something bad happens police are on the scene within seconds. As I am an honest and active citizen that causes no problems to socirty I would never complain at such a thing.

Safety is not "freedom". For an example that stays on topic

(sorry OP, if you start threads like this they are going to turn into an overall discussion of the issue-" Civil Rights + Gay rights" and disagreements are going to happen.)

If 99% of people in America asked for our government to install cameras it would still be an infringement of that 1% of people's rights to walk around without being on camera.

If 99% of Americans wanted gays to be barred from getting married it would still be a civil rights infringement to the other 1%. Just because the majority wants something does not mean they vote in the direction of freedom and civil rights.

You can democratically give up your civil liberties. That's exactly what happened in California with prop 8 actually. (And when England's major cities citizens allowed themselves to be on Camera 24/7 in public)

That said, I believe it's only a matter of time until the rest of the country catches on to Iowa and the other couple of states that have gay marriage.

[-akichan-]

I'm sorry, Capernicus. But usually these kinds of topics start flamewars anyway because of the vast number of differing opinions. My intention was not to flame, but to point out to strumpet, perhaps not in the most mature way I guess, that homosexuals deserve the same rights. But, he doesn't seem to understand anyway, so oh well. :[

Yes, exactly. People that starts sensitive threads would always include pleasing for not flaming. But the idea of starting threads about gays or politics ALWAYS lead to a fight, with no doubt. People are very sensitive to what they sitck with when others sticks with different things. For instant, people fight over the religion threads, people fights because of different opinions, they get all frustrated. Same goes with sexual orientation, people say they disagree with gay marriage because they are in a discussion of either it is fine or not. People answers the question with different opinion cause a war is something I don't appreciate. People get mad easily just doesn't show the spirits ><;


It wasn't so that Maru or any of the other misc mods could close it down for flame baiting and other miscellaneous rule-breaking.

Let say that if the arguments gets worst, then I'm sure this thread would be closed.


you're sick. You are the equivalent of stubborn white supremacist in the deep south during the 50s.

Eww...That's so unnessesary...


And for the record, gays are just like everyone else. Most are not going to hit on you if you obviously don't want the attention. Also, most do not like public displays of affection (ie making out). It's amazing how some people are ignorant enough to think these things. We're human, not a whole other species.

Well, I think the main reason why people disagrees is because either they feel uncomfortable (which one effect me) or because they care how other countries would look at us (Americans).


Marriage had nothing to do with religion until the Church wanted control over in like the 14th or 15th century, and although it is often overseen by religious officials, it does not, technically, have anything to do with religion. It is a pledge between two individuals that is recognized legally.

I think so~but I'm a Christian, and my church is not suppose to marry the same sex. Anyway, I'm still straight xD For me, marriage is between one male and one female, and it is set by God (the one I'm faithful to).


Last time I checked, love had no sexual orientation. That means homosexuals can feel obviously, the same emotions that straight couples do, and want to be married for the same reasons. Cause you know, they're all human and stuff.

I understand what you mean. Love can exist in any relationships, such as friends, boyfriend and girlfriend, and family. As long as people feel love then they can be together. But I'm pretty sure the feelings are different.


Why should we be hated? Because same sex marriage isn't natural in our view?

I guess you can say that gays were used to be a taboo, but nowadays in this society, people look at gays as "love". I know I gotta face the truth without complains as well.

~*~*~*~*~*~*
Seriously guys, threads about opened for fair discussions. I'm not a mod, which I'm not suppose to say all these. But I understand that some people are already tired of arguing over different opinions. I respect those that states something against me, even though we support the opposite side. It's a discussion, not even a debate would go this far. If people can't fairly accept peoples' different opinions, then joining the discussion wouldn't be a good idea.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

If 99% of people in America asked for our government to install cameras it would still be an infringement of that 1% of people's rights to walk around without being on camera.



Sounds like people are hiding something then.

And let me guess,

If 99% of people in America asked for our government to keep the jail system, it would still be an infringement of that 1% of peoples' rights?

[Eris]

Sounds like people are hiding something then.

They are hiding from the prying eyes of the government. In a just society, there must be cause for an investigation to take place. The same way the government can't rifle through your bag or search your car without cause, it should not be able to film your movements without cause.

And in the same way you don't have to motivate to the police why you don't want them tot search your home without a warrant, you should not have to motivate why you don't want them to spy on you with cameras.


The main problem with widespread surveillance is how prone to abuse it is. Any information gathered may lead to extortion from less than honest cops. Because who watches the watchers?

[OmegaAlpha]

Sounds like people are hiding something then.

And let me guess,

If 99% of people in America asked for our government to keep the jail system, it would still be an infringement of that 1% of peoples' rights?

Are you intentionally missing the point?

I will give you that having cameras on the streets would probably make things safer. That someone has nothing to hide is not the issue. You're probably a fan of the patriot act too. If the idea of government watching your every move is cool with you, so be it. It's not with me. But you know what's really getting old? People trying to label potential social stability as "freedom".

Your little attempt at wit with the prison thing is cute too. Too bad that it's not comparable. Jails are are not an infringement of civil rights. Unless you advocate complete anarchy, you need a jail/prison system.

Simply put, you don't put civil rights to a vote. There was a time when if you took a vote, most people would say slavery was fine and dandy. Sadly, Liberty is usually a cutting edge idea. In a few decades gays getting married won't even be a big deal and will be part of the culture. Until then, we're going to have to debate why you care if two people in love get married even though it's not your business. (and it does not harm you in any way)

[Miss Moonlight]

...THIS THREAD DOES NOT SOLICIT OPINIONS!

Threads are opened for discussion, and usually this includes opinions.

I do realize that this thread was not meant to become the "great gay debate", and that's not what was supposed to be discussed, but it's an unwritten rule of the internet that whenever any controversial topic is opened -- homosexuality/gay marriage, racism, or any other kind of controversial topic, it can become heated and flame wars can erupt simply because it's a topic most people feel strongly about.

It matters not what the topic was originally supposed to be about at that point, because misunderstandings are very common. It's unfortunate, but in any topic discussing homosexuality, it's inevitably going to happen. That's not to say that people can be civil, of course.

But i've already stated what I think and feel -- homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians deserve to get married and have the same rights. I have no problems with them at all. I am happy when I see a bill being passed in any state for gay marriage.


If people are able to do what they want, do you realize where we would be right now?

This is an irrational fear. I'm not exactly sure where it comes from, but usually it's founded in ignorance. If allowing homosexuals to marry leads us to become a more accepting country, i'm not sure why that is a bad thing. I do realize it creates certain legal issues, but really, it's more than that.

It sounds as if you believe allowing homosexuals to marry will lead us to a bad place; and i'm not sure why. Where exactly will it lead us?

If it's your sensibilities that you are worried about, well those are usually going to end up dashed anyway.

It does seem that people are simply worried about their tradtional views and sensibilities and what's going to happen to them.


And for the record, gays are just like everyone else. Most are not going to hit on you if you obviously don't want the attention. Also, most do not like public displays of affection (ie making out). It's amazing how some people are ignorant enough to think these things. We're human, not a whole other species.

And I completely agree, just wish others saw it the same way.

[Miss Moonlight]

I think they meant that if people had more or even unlimited freedom, the world would be a disaster. People would kill each other and commit crime because there were no rules of any kind. The world then would clearly be a worse and chaotic place.
I understand, I just don't see how or why gay marriage would open up a pandora's box of chaos. I can understand it from a legal standpoint, maybe -- but not so much a moral one. Either way, it sounds ridiculous to me.

[Capernicus]

If 99% of Americans wanted gays to be barred from getting married it would still be a civil rights infringement to the other 1%. Just because the majority wants something does not mean they vote in the direction of freedom and civil rights.

Okay, you are way off here. If 99% of America banned gay marriage it would in no way affect their civil liberties unless some portion of those people happen to be bi/gay. It's completely different! They are not giving anything up because they can still get married. (Btw, no hard feelings.)


Sounds like people are hiding something then.

And let me guess,

If 99% of people in America asked for our government to keep the jail system, it would still be an infringement of that 1% of peoples' rights?

I thought you were dropping out of the discussion. Silly child.

Miss Moonlight, you're right. I must have forgotten the stupidity of the interwebs. Next time I'll remember to explicitly state "No opinions and flaming please" in the OP.

Aki-chan, what do you mean by "Eww...That's so unnessesary..."? My analogy was unnecessary? I think it was, but young strumpet just missed the point entirely.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

Okay, you are way off here. If 99% of America banned gay marriage it would in no way affect their civil liberties unless some portion of those people happen to be bi/gay. It's completely different! They are not giving anything up because they can still get married. (Btw, no hard feelings.)



I thought you were dropping out of the discussion. Silly child.

Miss Moonlight, you're right. I must have forgotten the stupidity of the interwebs. Next time I'll remember to explicitly state "No opinions and flaming please" in the OP.

Aki-chan, what do you mean by "Eww...That's so unnessesary..."? My analogy was unnecessary? I think it was, but young strumpet just missed the point entirely.
I was until he feels like posting that crap.

[Diocletian]

It's funny how this thread is about legalization. Something that ALREADY HAPPENED! It isn't about homosexuality being moral or immoral. Whether you believe homosexuality is immoral should not have even been brought up.


There is a difference between gays and blacks though, Caps. Blacks were murdered, forced to work in terrible conditions, hung, etc. while the worst thing for gays at the moment is intolerance. Plus, you can't automatically tell homosexuality. You can tell (often) if a person is black.

[Jose]

Threads are opened for discussion, and usually this includes opinions.



Normally, yes. However, you missy, are taking this entire thread out of context. It would be the same as someone opening a birthday day for a black person, and then three pages later, we have a debate whether black people should even have birthdays. D:


Yes, exactly. People that starts sensitive threads would always include pleasing for not flaming. But the idea of starting threads about gays or politics ALWAYS lead to a fight, with no doubt. People are very sensitive to what they sitck with when others sticks with different things. For instant, people fight over the religion threads, people fights because of different opinions, they get all frustrated. Same goes with sexual orientation, people say they disagree with gay marriage because they are in a discussion of either it is fine or not. People answers the question with different opinion cause a war is something I don't appreciate. People get mad easily just doesn't show the spirits ><;

Well...they can get over it.




Eww...That's so unnessesary...

In what way? We use literary devices in post all the time, why is wrong or unnecessary? I used a metaphor today, does that me wrong?



Well, I think the main reason why people disagrees is because either they feel uncomfortable (which one effect me) or because they care how other countries would look at us (Americans).

Uncomfortable? That's ridiculous! I hear this argument all the time, just because you are attracted to one sex doesn't mean you'll hit everyone who is of that sex. Don't worry aki, I am sure that NOT every lesbian will hit on you, just as every man doesn't hit on you.

As for your other point, we are already the most hated country in the world, we should just get over it. The rest of the world views us as a big fat rich stupid bully(not rich anymore) , we don't really concern ourself with our countries appearance, we have nuclear weapons, we don't care, make fun of us and we'll bomb you XD





I understand what you mean. Love can exist in any relationships, such as friends, boyfriend and girlfriend, and family. As long as people feel love then they can be together. But I'm pretty sure the feelings are different.

I can firmly assure the feelings aren't at all different, that's just stupid. When I dated Destiny my feelings for her weren't at all different as when I dated Colby....






Seriously guys, threads about opened for fair discussions. I'm not a mod, which I'm not suppose to say all these. But I understand that some people are already tired of arguing over different opinions. I respect those that states something against me, even though we support the opposite side. It's a discussion, not even a debate would go this far. If people can't fairly accept peoples' different opinions, then joining the discussion wouldn't be a good idea.
Hmm, think framer's intent, Caps did this as an update, not as a debate.


I was until he feels like posting that crap.

...but he's right. >.>; ugh.

[Eris]

It's funny how this thread is about legalization. Something that ALREADY HAPPENED! It isn't about homosexuality being moral or immoral. Whether you believe homosexuality is immoral should not have even been brought up.

The discussion itself, as far as I see it, is valid (all discussion is valid). The actual arguments are lacking, though. Lots of irrelevant and unfounded arguments being thrown about.

[Miss Moonlight]

Normally, yes. However, you missy, are taking this entire thread out of context. It would be the same as someone opening a birthday day for a black person, and then three pages later, we have a debate whether black people should even have birthdays. D:
I knew this thread was not a "debate" thread. I understand the original purpose of it. But I was only responding mostly to strumpet's posts declaring homosexuality as "sick", and so I don't think i'm the one derailed the topic. Or, as much. Sorry, though.

[Diocletian]

The discussion itself, as far as I see it, is valid (all discussion is valid). The actual arguments are lacking, though. Lots of irrelevant and unfounded arguments being thrown about.

Then get in there champ. We can't have Rocky without Balboa.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

...but he's right. >.>; ugh.
Uhm, no he's not. If the 99% voted for whatever, but the 1% gets offended, and they do whatever the 1% voted for, than the 99% will be unhappy. Which ones the bigger part of the group/country/whatever?

[Eris]

Then get in there champ. We can't have Rocky without Balboa.

I did make a bunch of replies, but nobody bit. Besides, this really isn't my avenue. Sure, I have opinions, but it isn't something I really crusade for.

[-akichan-]

Jose, I think you should look at the posts that I quoted for better definition. I said I think the main reason why PEOPLE are disagreeing is because of blah blah blah, not saying that lesbian would hit me someday. From the very beginning, I never said a word about how I look at homosexual, OKAY?! Read carefully, I said that this is a discussion but it is not fairly going anywhere, NOT EVEN a debate should go this far, so I never said that this is a debate.


Don't worry aki, I am sure that NOT every lesbian will hit on you, just as every man doesn't hit on you.

That's one thing I DID NOT include in my previous post. But yeah, I'm shocked that you actually said that.

Read and think carefully!

[Jose]

Uhm, no he's not. If the 99% voted for whatever, but the 1% gets offended, and they do whatever the 1% voted for, than the 99% will be unhappy. Which ones the bigger part of the group/country/whatever?

Majority rules, unless it interfere or in any way shape or form violates minority rights, that was actually on the AP government exam...

Aki, I was simply replying to your comments, you don't have to get so angry. XD

[-akichan-]

Majority rules, unless it interfere or in any way shape or form violates minority rights, that was actually on the AP government exam...

Aki, I was simply replying to your comments, you don't have to get so angry. XD

I'm glad that you said lesbian won't hit on me, as a respond to something I did not talk about, as every men doesn't hit on me, I'm glad that you won't hit on me. To write the best reply according to what the person said is to read carefully and think about what the person was trying to say. Simply commenting, no that's not it. =P


make fun of us and we'll bomb you XD

Just do it! I know you wanted to bomb me since last century!

[Jose]

I'm glad that you said lesbian won't hit on me, as a respond to something I did not talk about, as every men doesn't hit on me, I'm glad that you won't hit on me. To write the best reply according to what the person said is to read carefully and think about what the person was trying to say. Simply commenting, no that's not it. =P



Just do it! I know you wanted to bomb me since last century!


lol and I QUOTE



Well, I think the main reason why people disagrees is because either they feel uncomfortable (which one effect me) or because they care how other countries would look at us (Americans).


You just said there that gay people make you uncomfortable, why? o_O; if it's not because they hit on you, then why?

Either way, one thing was about this thread being about gay marriage...now it's just about he said she said. Ugh, lol Moonlight was right, you can't say anything on this site without someone getting angry.

[Sagat]

Don't worry aki, I am sure that NOT every lesbian will hit on you, just as every man doesn't hit on you.

I'm sure she gets far more guys hitting on her than you wish you did.

[Lola Granola]

I like pictures.

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v373/6/89/97782555186/s97782555186_4861743_4619.jpg

http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v373/6/89/97782555186/n97782555186_4861701_427.jpg

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v359/6/89/97782555186/n97782555186_4861800_5339.jpg

Attached are some wedding pictures. I love the happiness in these photos. Don't feel uncomfortable at the slightest looking at these. They're beautiful.

[-akichan-]

Jose, I just saw that I made a typo and I wanted to type "does not" but made a mistake. But you can see, "which one effect me" doesn't make sense but sound more like a question =]


I'm sure she gets far more guys hitting on her than you wish you did.

Hey you know me so well! Are you one of those guys? xDDDD

[Memento Mori]

Attached are some wedding pictures. I love the happiness in these photos. Don't feel uncomfortable at the slightest looking at these. They're beautiful.

Oh, look how disgusting it is, two people expressing their love for one another in such a beautiful way, it's absolutely criminal.

[Cless Alvein]

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v373/6/89/97782555186/s97782555186_4861743_4619.jpg

Just to pick nits, Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a human right. If any religion wants to withhold that ceremony from certain people they have that authority.

Having said that however, withholding civil rights and benefits based on a religious ceremony is completely, utterly stupid and for it to be one that excludes any competent adult of legal age is inexcusable.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=341178351&blogId=480219183

[Sagat]

Oh, look how disgusting it is, two people expressing their love for one another in such a beautiful way, it's absolutely criminal.

Now you're on the trolly!

[Shinn Kamiyra]

Just to pick nits, Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a human right. If any religion wants to withhold that ceremony from certain people they have that authority.

Having said that however, withholding civil rights and benefits based on a religious ceremony is completely, utterly stupid and for it to be one that excludes any competent adult of legal age is inexcusable.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=341178351&blogId=480219183 (http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=341178351&blogId=480219183)

True enough, hence why many gay couples wishing to be married go simply for state certification rather than encur the wrath of a church and/or religious group. Regardless, I have to wonder what, exactly it was, that set off this mindset in the first place. Sure, we hear all the time about how it's written in the Bible of how marriage between two people of the same sex is indecent, for lack of a more appropriate term; however, it raises the irrefutable truth that people must've had the same kind of attractions even back then. Really makes me curious as to when the whole thing must've started.


I like pictures.



Attached are some wedding pictures. I love the happiness in these photos. Don't feel uncomfortable at the slightest looking at these. They're beautiful.

Let 'em be happy, so I say.

[Standartenführer]

Marriage had nothing to do with religion until the Church wanted control over in like the 14th or 15th century, and although it is often overseen by religious officials, it does not, technically, have anything to do with religion. It is a pledge between two individuals that is recognized legally.

Also, you do realize that is The Onion, right? Not an actual news source?
I did not know that, thanks for the enlightenment.
Yes, I do realize the Onion is fake, just thought it might break the tension

Ya know Gja, I grew a little bit today. I grew by not blatantly ridiculing the person for using the fakest new source ever as evidence.


Unless that was meant to be...which I don't believe so...
It was indeed meant to be. Making assumptions can get you in trouble mister.


I was actually helping you, just by adding some extra voiceover commentary. I was just making sure that the person never does the same mistake again.

You never EVER forget your mistakes. Best part is mistakes are gratis.
I never realized it as a mistake, I do believe the mistake is on your part, good sir, for assuming I meant to use that article as a reference.

Now that that's out of the way.

Why do we care? Let them marry, it will not effect you in any way. Now, my gramma has lung cancer from smoking, go protest that. Better yet, go start a fundraiser for the cure to cancer. Or, world peace, maybe even go do something productive, like TAKE A WALK or something.

All I'm saying is we could be using our energy for something with a point

[[Spoiler]]

As more things are becoming acceptable, and the abnormal to normal, someday gender will be nothing but a word. You walk down the street and see a man and will be surprised to know he's 2 weeks pregnant. People will fall in love with objects, and even marry themselves. There will be no limits in life, as long as it doesn't physically hurt someone.

[OmegaAlpha]

Uhm, no he's not. If the 99% voted for whatever, but the 1% gets offended, and they do whatever the 1% voted for, than the 99% will be unhappy. Which ones the bigger part of the group/country/whatever?

You don't seem to understand so I will make it very simple for you:

You, and your opinions should not overpower the rights of others. (Even IF you have the majority) The overwhelming issue that you're failing to see is that your OPINION on morality should not be law for everyone else when it comes to civil rights.

Gays being allowed to get married would not effect your civil rights but banning them from getting married does effect their rights. You don't get hurt from it being legal, they DO get hurt from it being illegal. Get it?

If we took a vote during the height of slavery in the US, slavery would stand.
You don't put civil rights to a vote.

I'll admit My 99% examples were probably a bit obtuse for this situation
but the general idea should be simple enough.

Again, it will just be a matter of time until you'll have to deal with gay marriage in every state,
so I suggest you get used to it.

(I think we'll have to just agree to disagree and this will be my last post on this thread because I'm bored of the discussion.)

[Lola Granola]

Just to pick nits, Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a human right. If any religion wants to withhold that ceremony from certain people they have that authority.

I believe marriage, broadly, is a human right. I understand what you're trying to say but I don't think people care (about the religious aspect) as much as you think. I don't mean that in a mean way - maybe its because its difficult to translate the term marriage across cultures - I feel like marriage can be a spiritual embodiment that does not have to include religion. But then again what about religious gays who believe in God?

When I think of marriage I think of a lifetime commitment with the person I love. I don't care if God is involved or not. If it makes his parents happy and brings the family together, sure. But God doesn't have to be there.

Gay couples aside, obviously some straight couples don't have religious ceremonies defined by your standards of marriage. Marriage itself is a broad term, like love, that involves every culture under the sun - religion aside, it is expressed and carried out in various ways, just like its instigator. In technicality it might only relate to religion. In practice everyone uses the term to describe a celebration of a couple's life time together.

I'm pretty sure Chinese marriage has existed since like, 5000 BC. along with other cultural examples. If you want marriage to be exclusively between the couple and God you're going to have to come up with a different word/legal idea for every other culture along with gay couples.

[Eris]

Just to pick nits, Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a human right. If any religion wants to withhold that ceremony from certain people they have that authority.

That is actually quite true. No religion should be forced to perform rituals it doesn't want to perform. BUT! This isn't the case here (if it was, you could simply have the some dude with an ordainment from the Universal Life Church wed you*) The problem is that for some reason, a few religions have gotten the authority to dictate what ceremonies every other religion shall be allowed to perform.

* they ordain anyone who wants to become a minister, no strings attached.

[SigmaSD]

I just don't get why some people have a problem with gay marriage. If your straight, it doesn't affect you so why argue against it. This should be a debate that should be decided by gay people, not straight people.

To be honest I don't see why people care so much about marriage anyway. It's said that nearly half of married couples end up filing for divorce after a year or so after marriage. And studies have shown that people nowadays just live together and have kids, but they do not get married.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

You don't seem to understand so I will make it very simple for you:

You, and your opinions should not overpower the rights of others. (Even IF you have the majority) The overwhelming issue that you're failing to see is that your OPINION on morality should not be law for everyone else when it comes to civil rights.

Gays being allowed to get married would not effect your civil rights but banning them from getting married does effect their rights. You don't get hurt from it being legal, they DO get hurt from it being illegal. Get it?

If we took a vote during the height of slavery in the US, slavery would stand.
You don't put civil rights to a vote.

I'll admit My 99% examples were probably a bit obtuse for this situation
but the general idea should be simple enough.

Again, it will just be a matter of time until you'll have to deal with gay marriage in every state,
so I suggest you get used to it.

(I think we'll have to just agree to disagree and this will be my last post on this thread because I'm bored of the discussion.)
I got it, but as you said, I was just commenting on the 99%.


I just don't get why some people have a problem with gay marriage. If your straight, it doesn't affect you so why argue against it. This should be a debate that should be decided by gay people, not straight people.

To be honest I don't see why people care so much about marriage anyway. It's said that nearly half of married couples end up filing for divorce after a year or so after marriage. And studies have shown that people nowadays just live together and have kids, but they do not get married.

Because marriage is "sacred".

[Cless Alvein]

I believe marriage, broadly, is a human right. I understand what you're trying to say but I don't think people care (about the religious aspect) as much as you think. I don't mean that in a mean way - maybe its because its difficult to translate the term marriage across cultures - I feel like marriage can be a spiritual embodiment that does not have to include religion. But then again what about religious gays who believe in God?

The religious aspect is the only argument that even holds up, albeit feebly, against SSM. What's the secular argument? "Ew, gross."? Some religious people are more open minded than others, but there are also gay couples who are religious and don't get married because they think it would be wrong.*


When I think of marriage I think of a lifetime commitment with the person I love. I don't care if God is involved or not. If it makes his parents happy and brings the family together, sure. But God doesn't have to be there.

This is why I'm sceptical about the overinflated image of marriage, myself. I can hold a lifelong commitment to someone I love without signing a contract declaring my intention to do so, thanks. The rest is just a party that comes later as far as I'm concerned.


Gay couples aside, obviously some straight couples don't have religious ceremonies defined by your standards of marriage. Marriage itself is a broad term, like love, that involves every culture under the sun - religion aside, it is expressed and carried out in various ways, just like its instigator. In technicality it might only relate to religion. In practice everyone uses the term to describe a celebration of a couple's life time together.

People have been asking gods/spirits to bless/protect their spiritual unions since the dawn of both concepts. That's why I characterize it that way. The amount of attention paid to that tradition waxes and wanes depending on the time and place, but secular unions are almost a modern afterthought in comparison.**


I'm pretty sure Chinese marriage has existed since like, 5000 BC. along with other cultural examples. If you want marriage to be exclusively between the couple and God you're going to have to come up with a different word/legal idea for every other culture along with gay couples.

I want any discriminatory, Church sanctioned ceremonies to be between the couple and their God. Government recognized unions that act as gatekeepers to civil rights and benefits shouldn't be able to discriminate.

I think that Lola and I agree in essence, but I enjoy comparing ideas on the role and influence of organized religion in this topic.

* Anecdotally. No link, sorry.

** http://www.pflagsanjose.org/advocacy/hist.html

[SigmaSD]

Because marriage is "sacred".

0_o I'll just take this comment as a non-sequitar.

[Heinekenrana]

In this morning's news: Maine's governor has signed a bill to legalize gay marriage.

[Señor Nobody]

In this morning's news: Maine's governor has signed a bill to legalize gay marriage.

Huzzah!

The movement is gaining momentum! I hope it spreads!

[Heinekenrana]

New Hampshire and Rhode Island are the only two states in New England that haven't passed it yet, and the legislature of New Hampshire is sending the bill to the governor very soon, if what I read is correct.

[Eris]

New Hampshire and Rhode Island are the only two states in New England that haven't passed it yet, and the legislature of New Hampshire is sending the bill to the governor very soon, if what I read is correct.

In the spirit of the New Hampshire state motto: Pass the bill or change your motto.

[Rem Nightfall]

Because marriage is "sacred".

As long as they aren't forcing you to marry a man, I still don't see a problem.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

As long as they aren't forcing you to marry a man, I still don't see a problem.
I was commenting on all marriage. Not gay marriage. And marriage use to actually be sacred, not getting married, getting divorced. I know people who are still traditional. They are married but hate each other. They don't talk to each other or nothing; but still live in the same house. They divide everything into halves. It's ridiculous in my opinion.

[Tetsanosuke]

I was commenting on all marriage. Not gay marriage. And marriage use to actually be sacred, not getting married, getting divorced. I know people who are still traditional. They are married but hate each other. They don't talk to each other or nothing; but still live in the same house. They divide everything into halves. It's ridiculous in my opinion.


Makes you wonder why they got married in the first place. =o

[Rem Nightfall]

I was commenting on all marriage. Not gay marriage. And marriage use to actually be sacred, not getting married, getting divorced. I know people who are still traditional. They are married but hate each other. They don't talk to each other or nothing; but still live in the same house. They divide everything into halves. It's ridiculous in my opinion.

Marriage can be a troublesome thing. Most people who get married are the ones who cannot or haven't fully committed to a relationship. To many people think, it's oh I love them...let's get married. No it isn't that. It something much much much more then that. There is more then, I love him so much let's get married.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

Marriage can be a troublesome thing. Most people who get married are the ones who cannot or haven't fully committed to a relationship. To many people think, it's oh I love them...let's get married. No it isn't that. It something much much much more then that. There is more then, I love him so much let's get married.

This is why people should wait beyond the age of late teens and early twenties to get married instead of jumping the gun and only being married for a year or two.

[Rem Nightfall]

This is why people should wait beyond the age of late teens and early twenties to get married instead of jumping the gun and only being married for a year or two.

No. People should wait till they are fully committed to a relationship and believe they are ready. Not because the world says you have to get married and have a kid. But because you both are responsible emotionally, and physically enough to marry. And where you both know you have committed to your fullest.

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

No. People should wait till they are fully committed to a relationship and believe they are ready. Not because the world says you have to get married and have a kid. But because you both are responsible emotionally, and physically enough to marry. And where you both know you have committed to your fullest.
People have different opinions of a full commitment, and some don't even care.

[Capernicus]

Hurray for Maine! *confetti*

[Memento Mori]

Hurray for Maine! *confetti*

How many more states to go, Cap?

[Capernicus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/maine-gay-marriage-legali_n_197850.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-4106-California-Statehouse-Examiner~y2009m5d6-Maine-makes-five-as-samesex-marriage-legalized-by-lawmakers

45 =D I'm excited for this summer. Governor Baldacci is a smart man imo.

[Capernicus]

Elaborate.

[[Spoiler]]

Elaborate.

Meaning they do it for the sake of it or they think they are in love, when they really need commitment.

[Memento Mori]

Meaning they do it for the sake of it or they think they are in love, when they really need commitment.

I guess the people who really do love each other and do want a sacred commitment and still want all the legal benefits of marriage... well... it's just a fad, right?

[Capernicus]

According to dictionary.com:

fad - (noun) a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., esp. one followed enthusiastically by a group.

Marriage is far from temporary, the evidence supports that the practice of marriage "pre-dates reliable recorded history". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History)

Getting married is not a fad. Getting married young is not even a fad, for centuries people in many cultures got married a lot younger than they do in, say, America. A lot of these cultures continue this tradition of "getting married young".

[[Spoiler]]

According to dictionary.com:

fad - (noun) a temporary fashion, notion, manner of conduct, etc., esp. one followed enthusiastically by a group.

Marriage is far from temporary, the evidence supports that the practice of marriage "pre-dates reliable recorded history". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History)

Getting married is not a fad. Getting married young is not even a fad, for centuries people in many cultures got married a lot younger than they do in, say, America. A lot of these cultures continue this tradition of "getting married young".

Sorry it looks like you guys have misunderstood the way I used that word, or maybe I didn't fully understand the usage of that word before I posted. The real intentions for my message is that some people nowadays don't take marriage seriously, they don't commit to their partner or love, etc. and all that good stuff. I was pretty much agreeing with what most of you were saying towards the end of this thread.

[Eris]

Marriage is a fad for many young adults.

Yah, it's gonna blow over any time now. Like the internet.

[-akichan-]

Yah, it's gonna blow over any time now. Like the internet.

Internet marriage you mean?

[SigmaSD]

Internet marriage you mean?

No, he means that young adults are going to lose interest in marriage just as many people will lose interest in the internet.

And I must say something else in the matter. If gay people want to get married in a church, then I believe it is the right of the church to forbid the marriage if they believe that it's wrong. But if they just want to get married then there shouldn't really be a problem. Anyone else agree?

[Mmmmmmmmmm]

And I must say something else in the matter. If gay people want to get married in a church, then I believe it is the right of the church to forbid the marriage if they believe that it's wrong. But if they just want to get married then there shouldn't really be a problem. Anyone else agree?
I've really opened my eyes due to this thread. And I agree; if the church doesn't want the homosexuals to get married because of the church's religion, then the couple shouldn't get married there.

[Capernicus]

No, he means that young adults are going to lose interest in marriage just as many people will lose interest in the internet.

And I must say something else in the matter. If gay people want to get married in a church, then I believe it is the right of the church to forbid the marriage if they believe that it's wrong. But if they just want to get married then there shouldn't really be a problem. Anyone else agree?

I would be very surprised if anyone disagreed. Religions have the right to refuse to marry couples just because said couple hasn't been a member of said church for x amount of years, so why should they be forced to marry couples that are opposed by their doctrine? It's arse backwards. However, there shouldn't be any uproar if said couple just grabs a judge and does it in the court house.

[Yugure's Goddess]

I KNEW IOWA WOULD LEGALIZE IT! PROOF YOU GUYS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IOWA! HURRAH FOR MY PROGRESSIVE HOME STATE OF AWESOME. WAY TO GO!

*parades through the forums throwing confetti* GO IOWA! GO IOWA! BAH, I consider Iowa one of the more progressive states in the union, quite frankly. Just cause it's mostly farm land doesn't mean they're all a bunch-bible thumping, ignorant nobodies! It just means they have fertile soil. PERIOD!

Anyway, I'm happy to one-up Cali (sorry Capsters). Iowa effin' rocks! YEAH CORN! *singing* Everybody shuck now! XP

love
dani
dude

[Doctor One]

It's legalized in maine now too. And about damn time.

[Grim Scythe]

it took nine pages for those realizations, not sure whether to be impressed or dismayed.

[Scarred DNA]

Finally.

I honestly can't even believe that this is an issue in this day and age. We like to think we are so civilized and enlightened, and yet . . . two people can't even get married?

No, I take that back. In a society where even males and females don't yet stand on the same level, I guess it comes as no surprise how truly backward we really are. Nevermind that certain social institutions (namely CJ) have never been able to keep up with the winds of social change.

Marriage in its current form . . . isn't doing so great. Grasping for straws to keep it out of the hands of certain social groups is not going to save it, if it can even be saved. With the empowerment of women, the (slow) realization that lifetime love is not much more than a social construct, and higher education for all - I really don't see it lasting much longer anyway.

Hats off to the states moving toward the future, instead of stagnating in outdated religious belief and elitism.

[_-Anonymous-_]

At least this is a step in the right direction. People should be able to marry whomever they love. And no law should tell them they can't.

agreed...

[-akichan-]

At least this is a step in the right direction. People should be able to marry whomever they love. And no law should tell them they can't.

The thing is, is it legal to adopt children? I mean those who marries the same sex. Would that be against the law since children health is one of the biggest concerns in the country. I've been asking myself this question.

[Capernicus]

Would that be against the law since children health is one of the biggest concerns in the country. I've been asking myself this question.

Since you're having those thoughts, I assume you are of the opinion that a homosexual household is an unhealthy environment for a child. Is this correct?

[Ollie]

From all I've read and heard, the sexuality of the parents don't really affect the upbringing of the child negatively OR positively, just how good/bad the parents treat the child.

[-akichan-]

From all I've read and heard, the sexuality of the parents don't really affect the upbringing of the child negatively OR positively, just how good/bad the parents treat the child.

Oh ok, that makes sense. But do you think that the law would be standing anywhere when it comes to adoption?

[Capernicus]

Oh ok, that makes sense. But do you think that the law would be standing anywhere when it comes to adoption?
...no, this doesn't make sense.

[Scarred DNA]

Oh ok, that makes sense. But do you think that the law would be standing anywhere when it comes to adoption?

When you say law, do you mean those that make it illegal for two homosexual people to marry, or the laws that now allow two people to get married?

While I think laws allowing same-sex marriage will very likely lead to an increase in adoption among same-sex couples, there are also other institutions and agencies that will continue as they always have. Meaning, they will continue to make it difficult for same-sex couples to adopt, despite evidence that such arrangements can cultivate socially healthy children into productive members of society.

Which is not good, because then black-market adoptions will increase :(

[Cless Alvein]

Meaning, they will continue to make it difficult for same-sex couples to adopt, despite evidence that such arrangements can cultivate socially healthy children into productive members of society.

Unfortunately it's not that simple. While there's certainly no evidence to suggest that being homosexual makes you an unfit parent, there is overwhelming evidence that the majority of violent criminals, chemically-dependents, suicides, teen pregnancies, financially disadvantaged, etc. etc. all come from single-parent homes.*

How much of this is simply because one parent working alone lacks the resources to raise a child as effectively as two, and how much is due to lacking a balanced representation of a traditional male-female parental unit has not been conclusively studied.

* http://www.family-enterprising.org/bof_facts.php

[-akichan-]

When you say law, do you mean those that make it illegal for two homosexual people to marry, or the laws that now allow two people to get married?

Oh yes, I mean both xD


While I think laws allowing same-sex marriage will very likely lead to an increase in adoption among same-sex couples, there are also other institutions and agencies that will continue as they always have. Meaning, they will continue to make it difficult for same-sex couples to adopt, despite evidence that such arrangements can cultivate socially healthy children into productive members of society.

That's what I was thinking about. What I think is similar, both will-marry and married would still be difficult in adoption because of how this country treats children as treasures. Therefore, there will be someone who will get really furious of my opinion.

[Capernicus]

Unfortunately it's not that simple. While there's certainly no evidence to suggest that being homosexual makes you an unfit parent, there is overwhelming evidence that the majority of violent criminals, chemically-dependents, suicides, teen pregnancies, financially disadvantaged, etc. etc. all come from single-parent homes.*

* http://www.family-enterprising.org/bof_facts.php

This doesn't even make sense. Why are you quoting statistics for single parents? If gays are going to get married...then they won't be single parents. I'm confused, perhaps I missed your point.

[Scarred DNA]

Unfortunately it's not that simple. While there's certainly no evidence to suggest that being homosexual makes you an unfit parent, there is overwhelming evidence that the majority of violent criminals, chemically-dependents, suicides, teen pregnancies, financially disadvantaged, etc. etc. all come from single-parent homes.*

How much of this is simply because one parent working alone lacks the resources to raise a child as effectively as two, and how much is due to lacking a balanced representation of a traditional male-female parental unit has not been conclusively studied.

* http://www.family-enterprising.org/bof_facts.php

That's because a significant percentage of those single-parents live in poverty, and possess a low level of education. Low-SES families face social stressors on both the micro and macro level, and this results in difficulties in raising their children. Besides living in violent neighbourhoods, children in such families . . .

1. Have little physical space at home.
2. Attend schools that are overcrowded, underfunded, and sub-par.
3. Have fewer oppportunities for daily stimulation and appropriate play materials.

4. Have poor nutrition, which leads to lower IQ levels, which in turn lead to antisocial and aggressive behavior.

Harsh discipline strategies or none at all result in children who dysfunction not only in school but in the community as older adults.

Single-parents with adequate socio-economic resources tend to not suffer this same kind of stress that low-income parents face, so their children are less-likely to fall into the pitfalls you mentioned above.

Even in two-parent families with a low SES, children are still at a disadvantage and are still more likely to suffer from those same pitfalls because the relationship between the parents can still be strained by social stressors. Only in situations where parents are able to have a close, satisfying, and nurturing relationship with their children does the child benefit.

But this is all assuming that a homosexual parent is going to be a single parent, and there's no direct correlation between being homosexual and being a single-parent.

Bottom line - when homosexual individuals are put in the same social circumstances as heterosexual individuals, their behaviors are very, very similar with only a few minor differences. And the majority of these differences are positive differences, not negative differences.

Curiously enough, homosexual parents tend to be highly educated - Almost half have graduate degrees. High level of education = well-paying job = high SES = more resources with which to raise children.




Therefore, there will be someone who will get really furious of my opinion.[/color]

So what?

Yes, it will still be difficult even for married couples to adopt, if that's what you're saying. And when talking about children already in the system (wards of the state), they aren't treated like treasures. They're treated like commodities. Because agencies receive federal funding based on the number of children they have, these agencies tend to be picky and choosy about who they let adopt the children, or they avoid it altogether just so they can continue to receive those funds.

Many many children are never adopted because of the money they bring in.




* http://www.family-enterprising.org/bof_facts.php

Now that I read it, I'm not sure I have much "faith" in that website. Some of their statistics are almost 2 decades old, and I get the feeling they have an agenda in pushing the "traditional" family unit, given their religious stance. To me, that's really nothing more than a well-veiled attack on cohabitation, which is basically the arch nemesis of marriage.

[Eris]

This doesn't even make sense. Why are you quoting statistics for single parents? If gays are going to get married...then they won't be single parents. I'm confused, perhaps I missed your point.

It is marginally relevant, in that it illustrates how your family home has some degree of effect on your life. It doesn't say anything about whether homosexual parents are better or worse than heterosexual parents, but it gives the question merit.

It should also be noted though, that virtually everyone who is raised by a single parent has been through some sort of trauma related to this, either a break-up or the death of a parent. Besides the bisection of the time spent with the child, the circumstances that led you to have a single parent is also bound to have some sort of effect.

[NorthOfTime]

Hey i was born in Iowa!

[Mitchyru]

This is getting to be a joyous time to be alive. Watching states one by one open their eyes to true love.

[Taikutsu_Remedy]

This is most excellent news! Gay people should not be happy until they have the right to be miserable!

On more serious notes though; this is most definitely a good thing. Viewing this from the perspective of a law student, it is important that gay couples be granted equivalent legal status as married couples, especially in areas of law such as property and inheritance.

Personally, I'm less concerned with whether gay couples are allowed to be married, or if an equivalent term such as Civil Union is created for them. So long as they enjoy equal legal rights as married couples, I'm happy.

[Diocletian]

wowzabunny you don't know anything about anything, so I suggest that you stay out of this debate and not take up post space. So what if they can't breed? What's your point?

[Cless Alvein]

That's because a significant percentage of those single-parents live in poverty, and possess a low level of education. Low-SES families face social stressors on both the micro and macro level, and this results in difficulties in raising their children. Besides living in violent neighbourhoods, children in such families . . .

My personal story is actually one of remarkable success against pretty much all the odds you outlined, with the exception of the fact that I did still have semi-regular contact with my Father after my parents were divorced.

The point is that there's no conclusive evidence one way or the other if a SSM couple's household will tend to produce children with similar or even completely different coping problems since they are both "irregular" ways of raising children.

For example, an obvious prediction would be a disproportionately large number of children with confused, uninformed or heavily biased ideas about one gender due to a lack of- or over- exposure to only one side.

The cynical side of me wants to suggest that homosexual couples are already committed to removing themselves from the gene pool and the responsibilities of raising a family even though I've already stated that I support equal rights and I stand by it. However, it is important to understand that there are legitimate concerns about the adoption issue which go beyond discrimination and anti-homosexual sentiment.

[TheAsterisk!]

Wow. Never expected THAT to happen.
Why, exactly? Enlighten me, but try not to set yourself up for a trap.

It's a little unnerving how it has to go slowly, state by state, rather than federal. A marriage shouldn't be null if you go on vacation to the next state over just because it isn't legal there. *sigh*
It doesn't, and the federal Constitution says as much. (I'll just paraphrase since I don't have a copy handy.) Documents issued in one state are due full faith and credit in all the other states, meaning they're still valid. It's the same reason you don't need a driver's license for each state you travel through. As mundane as that example is, the same holds true for marriage licenses.

By the way, I'm surprised everyone assumed Progressivism is to blame, even though it may well be. Progressivism is one idea of controlling morality through the state, but "gay is good" just happens to be a part of Progressive morality. (They also love PC speech, so I despise them for wanting to suppress my normally crass nature.) Progressives actively promote homosexuality while social conservatives suppress it.
It's philosophically possible (though much less likely- most everyone's a busybody) they're classical liberals, whose approach is more "Who cares?" That's my attitude: unless you're denying others' rights or just going insane, knock yourself out. I don't hate homosexuals any more than I hate the general filthy mass of humanity.
Additionally, why is California supposed to be so Progressive? Is it, really? I know LA and San Francisco are, but what about the rest of the state? Could someone knowledgeable fill me in, please?

By the way, I really liked the OP's insinuation that the Midwest is a cultural wasteland filled with rednecks who look down on those they who live unlike them.


Last time I checked, love doesn't have an asterisk with "limit 1 per customer" at the bottom either.
Wio's right, actually. I applied for the position once, only to be told that the associated wanted ad was a prank.

[Capernicus]

Why, exactly? Enlighten me, but try not to set yourself up for a trap.

It doesn't, and the federal Constitution says as much. (I'll just paraphrase since I don't have a copy handy.) Documents issued in one state are due full faith and credit in all the other states, meaning they're still valid. It's the same reason you don't need a driver's license for each state you travel through. As mundane as that example is, the same holds true for marriage licenses.

By the way, I'm surprised everyone assumed Progressivism is to blame, even though it may well be. Progressivism is one idea of controlling morality through the state, but "gay is good" just happens to be a part of Progressive morality. Progressives actively promote homosexuality while social conservatives suppress it.
It's philosophically possible (though much less likely- most everyone's a busybody) they're classical liberals, whose approach is more "Who cares?" That's my attitude: unless you're denying others' rights or just going insane, knock yourself out. I don't hate homosexuals any more than I hate the general filthy mass of humanity.
Additionally, why is California supposed to be so Progressive? Is it, really? I know LA and San Francisco are, but what about the rest of the state? Could someone knowledgeable fill me in, please?

By the way, I really liked the OP's insinuation that the Midwest is a cultural wasteland filled with rednecks who look down on those they who live unlike them.

I really like how you decide to come into this thread and be a jerk to pretty much everybody.

From what I have heard about the midwest, it is mostly full of farmlands and filled with religious and conservative people. This is why I was so surprised. However, I realize that I know nothing about what it is really like and my post may have been misinformed. You could have only pointed this out without being a huge arse. Why don't you enlighten us, then, on what the midwest is really about, hmm?

[TheAsterisk!]

I really like how you decide to come into this thread and be a jerk to pretty much everybody.
Hello, I'm TheAsterisk! Have we met?

From what I have heard about the midwest, it is mostly full of farmlands and filled with religious and conservative people. This is why I was so surprised. However, I realize that I know nothing about what it is really like and my post may have been misinformed. You could have only pointed this out without being a huge arse. Why don't you enlighten us, then, on what the midwest is really about, hmm?
Uh-huh. Why didn't I explain it in more detail? I apparently gave too much credit to a consistent set of values wherein you make no assumptions based on ill-formed regional stereotypes that I mistakenly assumed, 'til now, most of the intelligent posters here did not cling to. Sorry; I'll be sure not to make that mistake again. From now on, I'll assume everyone has the Jar-Jar Binks Syndrome.
Firstly, I didn't even quote you, and I pointed out plainly that since gay marriage infringes on nobody's rights I do in fact support it.
Secondly, the ignorant farmland described are actually the Great Plains states. Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, the Dakotas- those guys. The Midwest is made up of the old Northwest Territory from really early on in the US's history and a tiny little bit west of the Mississippi River, generally to the north- Illinois, Indiana, Ohio (sort of), Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan (again- sort of), and, sometimes, Missouri. The only truly Bible-crazy piece of the Midwest is southern Indiana. They aren't the same at all, geographically or socially, and yet we are always lumped with the likes of Kansas and their imbecilic school board. As for the claim we're all conservative: dead wrong. Just dead wrong. Illinois reliably votes for Democrats, as does Wisconsin (mainly from Madison and Milwaukee- the rest of the state is pretty evenly split). Michigan ('cept the Upper Peninsula, which acts like northern Wisconsin) is more or less ruled by the UAW- take a wild guess as to their voting habits. Iowa, at least as of late, is reliably Democratic. I don't really know about the rest, but the stereotype has already fallen.
Thirdly, my "Enlighten me..." remark was to point out that I'm sick of it being socially acceptable to take a big doodoo on the Midwest while trumpeting the glory of the coasts. I was hoping someone to respond with an unsubstantiated behavioral stereotype to illustrate my point, so thanks, I guess. "The Midwest is full of rednecks" is as asinine as "Californians all surf and smoke dope." They're both utter bullcrap, and I request that neither be used again unless supporting evidence can be supplied.
Fourthly, Porgressivism is an insane totalitarian ideology that would have the government decide all. Read up on Teddy Roosevelt and, particularly, Woodrow Wilson to see some of the glory of Progressivism. Sedition acts are a popular Progressive policy, for example, wherein those who speak against the government can be jailed indefinitely. Wilson was particularly good at this. I, instead, pointed out another way to deal with the issue of gay marriage, from a classical liberal perspective where one strives to approach but not quite reach anarchy. The most popular way is to protect set rights and not bother with intervention unless those rights are infringed. Sorry if you can't stomach another political ideology. Next time I'll just post, "Yeah! Me too! Go Iowa! LOL! Those other states are evil!"
Fifthly, I think my point about full faith and credit, which everyone else seemed to have forgotten or never known, was undeniably valuable.

Claiming that the Midwest is the Great Plains because they're nearby to each other is analogous to claiming that India and Pakistan must get along just wonderfully because they're close, geographically, to one another.
Moral of the story? Stereotypes are bad, even if they work to your advantage, and (second moral) I do not hold my tongue and you should never expect me to, no matter the topic. If it's a feel-good topic and you don't want dissenters or elaboration, please specify that in the original post, okay everybody?

Man, I wish I'd known everyone was so jumpy.

[Kristen]

Yay. :]

Maine just legalized it, too. Woohoo.

Always good news.

[wowzabunny]

wowzabunny you don't know anything about anything, so I suggest that you stay out of this debate and not take up post space. So what if they can't breed? What's your point?
Well i might not be a pro at bioligy but two males cant produce off spring which is one of the main reasons of marridge yes? to start a family. have you seen two male lions paired? no. its unatural. soz if your gay. i (personal) dont think its right for people to be gay or lesbian (soz again, dont go all bananas) if you feel its right then i respect that , i can beleive in what i want to .

[Heinekenrana]

Well i might not be a pro at bioligy but two males cant produce off spring which is one of the main reasons of marridge yes? to start a family. have you seen two male lions paired? no. its unatural. soz if your gay. i (personal) dont think its right for people to be gay or lesbian (soz again, dont go all bananas) if you feel its right then i respect that , i can beleive in what i want to .

Sure you can, but... since when was one of the main points of marriage to produce children? Not to sound too sarcastic, but I'm pretty sure all of the married couples I know who gladly don't want kids should probably be informed of this, and since I had my first child before my ex-husband and I were legally married, did I do something wrong?

[Señor Nobody]

Well i might not be a pro at bioligy but two males cant produce off spring which is one of the main reasons of marridge yes? to start a family. have you seen two male lions paired? no. its unatural. soz if your gay. i (personal) dont think its right for people to be gay or lesbian (soz again, dont go all bananas) if you feel its right then i respect that , i can beleive in what i want to .

Y-you're being serious aren't you?

First of all, you need to work on your typing. Second, yes it is your opinion and I won't bash you for that. Lastly, marriage is not for procreation.

Marriage (simplified) is a ceremony that unites two people (or a person or an animal or object) because they love each other and chose to only be intimate with said person (animal/object).

[Miss Moonlight]

Well i might not be a pro at bioligy but two males cant produce off spring which is one of the main reasons of marridge yes? to start a family. have you seen two male lions paired? no. its unatural. soz if your gay. i (personal) dont think its right for people to be gay or lesbian (soz again, dont go all bananas) if you feel its right then i respect that , i can beleive in what i want to .
Well, you're not a pro at spelling either. At least use spellcheck so people can take your posts seriously. You can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean it won't be disputed.

The whole thing about gay marriage being unnatural is silly. People don't really decide what is "natural".

[Yugure's Goddess]

Well i might not be a pro at bioligy but two males cant produce off spring which is one of the main reasons of marridge yes? to start a family. have you seen two male lions paired? no. its unatural. soz if your gay. i (personal) dont think its right for people to be gay or lesbian (soz again, dont go all bananas) if you feel its right then i respect that , i can beleive in what i want to .
Well, I don't think you should believe in falsehoods and inaccuracies. If you want to say that you have a right to your opinion, then state an opinion, not a hole in your knowledge. You're stating what you think is a fact. It was not a statement of opinion. The only thing you said that was close to an opinion was that you don't think people should be homosexual and that was backed up by poor logic and solid ignorance.

You say that since you have never seen two male lions together, that it is unnatural.

Guess what?

WRONG!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Check that out, friend, and *gasp* look at that! There HAS been observations of homosexual behavior in lions! Wow! Isn't that funny? Not to mention pretty much every human has homosexual tendencies, anyway. Just go to a football game and watch how the guys slap each other on the behind. What the heck do they do that for? They'll be happy to give you tons of reasons why, but the real reason is because they're releasing pent up homosexual tendencies. They don't want to admit it, but deep down, that's the real reason.

And I bet you can remember the last time you did something 'unnatural' anyway. hah hah! Guess what! You're doing it right now!

Using your same logic, I have never seen two male lions use a computer. EVER. I have, also, never seen two male lions watch anime. EVER. I've never seen two male lions hitch a ride on an airplane OR in a car. EVER. I've never seen two male lions put their food in an oven, or water their garden with a hose hooked up to a fully piped irrigation system, or even plant crops or swing on a swing... and so on and so forth. You get where I'm going? There are MILLIONS of things that humans do on a regular basis that are 'unnatural,' but I don't see you running around on anime forum spouting stupid useless babble about all the OTHER crap that we do that's 'unnatural' and how you don't think people should do these OTHER 'unnatural' things. And why is that? Because that would make you even MORE of an ignorant hypocrite than you already are. Which is actually kind of hard to imagine.

I have met plenty of married couples that stayed together a LONG time, but decided early on that they NEVER wanted children. Marriage is to get recognition, both in the eyes of the government and the eyes of the public, as a whole, of a couple's legitimacy. People just have more respect for a married couple than they do for a normal couple, because there is proof in marriage of a willingness to commit to one another for the rest of their lives. Proof that they're willing to work together and work their hardest to keep the relationship going. Plus, legally and financially, there is a lot more security in marriage than just a couple that lives together.

Oh, and, by the way, many scientist in that field of research believe that, within the next 15-20 years they will have enough scientific knowledge and resources that it will actually be possible for two women to procreate.

Sorry, but your argument is officially null and void. You fail.

love
dani
dude

[Gjallarhorn]

Just go to a football game and watch how the guys slap each other on the behind. What the heck do they do that for? They'll be happy to give you tons of reasons why, but the real reason is because they're releasing pent up homosexual tendencies. They don't want to admit it, but deep down, that's the real reason.

You have to be kidding me...

[Ollie]

edit* Pffhahaha that's great

Why, exactly? Enlighten me, but try not to set yourself up for a trap.
While Iowa is a swing state that lately has leaned towards Democratic, legalizing gay marriage is a fairly left-leaning move (since the difference between that and civil unions is huge to many people). You'd expect that from more from my state, Washington, which is more reliably progressive/liberal in politics.

Mostly I'm surprised it happened so fast. I wonder when Washington will catch up.

[Scarred DNA]

My personal story is actually one of remarkable success against pretty much all the odds you outlined, with the exception of the fact that I did still have semi-regular contact with my Father after my parents were divorced.

The point is that there's no conclusive evidence one way or the other if a SSM couple's household will tend to produce children with similar or even completely different coping problems since they are both "irregular" ways of raising children.

For example, an obvious prediction would be a disproportionately large number of children with confused, uninformed or heavily biased ideas about one gender due to a lack of- or over- exposure to only one side.

The cynical side of me wants to suggest that homosexual couples are already committed to removing themselves from the gene pool and the responsibilities of raising a family even though I've already stated that I support equal rights and I stand by it. However, it is important to understand that there are legitimate concerns about the adoption issue which go beyond discrimination and anti-homosexual sentiment.

Actually, there's a respectable amount of research that concludes that children raised in SS households fare just as well as those raised in OS households. The sexual orientation of the parents doesn't seem to matter much at all - it's the relationship the kids have with their parents that matters.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-20-gay-adoption-foster_x.htm

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3B109/2/339

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/fightforfamily2.html#x2 Ignore the "Religious Community" part.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ambroz27-2009jan27,0,3617286.story

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/whowe/Gay%20and%20Lesbian%20Adoption1.html

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/policy/2006_Expanding_Resources_for_Children.php

It's pretty easy to pick out the parts that deal with those who have a religious "Gay is Evil" agenda.

At this time, secular social science researchers seem to agree that there is no valid evidence or study that concludes children in SS households suffer because their parents are homosexual.

According to the research cited in Marriages and Families by Nijole V. Benokraitis, the children in these households seem to not even think twice about the fact that they have SS parents. Which makes sense when you think about it - if children are raised with a solid foundation that exposes them to homosexuality early on, and if they're taught that a) it's no big deal and b) there's nothing wrong with it, then they completely skip over having to uncondition themselves from the "gay is wrong, gay is immoral" mentality.

And looking toward the future, when homosexuality is even more widely accepted and no longer treated as this huge "OMG" issue, I really can't for the life of me forsee any detrimental affects to children in SS households at all.

But for the present, I'd say the problem is with society, and not with the SS parents themselves. Which, of course, means it's everyone's problem.

As with most things in society, we have to wait for exposure and desensitization.



Well i might not be a pro at bioligy but two males cant produce off spring which is one of the main reasons of marridge yes? to start a family. have you seen two male lions paired? no. its unatural. soz if your gay. i (personal) dont think its right for people to be gay or lesbian (soz again, dont go all bananas) if you feel its right then i respect that , i can beleive in what i want to .

Dang dude. I used to think like you - I actually believed that whole "unnatural" nonsense that conservatives preached. I was young, uneducated, and I didn't know any better.

Then I became an Atheist, I paid attention in Biology and Sociology and Psychology, I did my own research, and I realized how misinformed I was.

As already stated - no, marriage is no longer for procreation. The family is changing pretty rapidly, and what was true 50 years ago is no longer true now.

And yes, homosexuality has been with us since we've walked this planet. In fact, it was once considered common place and taboo NOT to participate in some ancient cultures.

And yes, homosexuality can be found in just about any species of animal on Earth. Since we, too, are animals, I think it's only natural that homosexuality exists in humanity as well.

And yes, you can believe in whatever you wish. But why ignore facts just to do so?

[wowzabunny]

Sure you can, but... since when was one of the main points of marriage to produce children? Not to sound too sarcastic, but I'm pretty sure all of the married couples I know who gladly don't want kids should probably be informed of this, and since I had my first child before my ex-husband and I were legally married, did I do something wrong?
I said it was a main reason why people marry, not people get married to haev kids. if two guys want to live with each other for the rest of their life even when they are 90 then let them be. Im not gay and I wont be rude. i just think its unnatural. (dont go ape please,(i have freedom of thought)) And by the way, is it only gay people or also lesbians aloud to marry?

[Scarred DNA]

I said it was a main reason why people marry, not people get married to haev kids. if two guys want to live with each other for the rest of their life even when they are 90 then let them be. Im not gay and I wont be rude. i just think its unnatural. (dont go ape please,(i have freedom of thought)) And by the way, is it only gay people or also lesbians aloud to marry?

You absolutely have freedom of thought. But I don't think that's what's happening here. No offense, but it comes across as if you're just regurgitating someone else's opinion - like that of your parents or your church. You don't agree with homosexuality and you think it's unnatural, but do you know why you think that?

It applies to all homosexual individuals - both male and female and most likely anything in-between.

[Heinekenrana]

I said it was a main reason why people marry, not people get married to haev kids. if two guys want to live with each other for the rest of their life even when they are 90 then let them be. Im not gay and I wont be rude. i just think its unnatural. (dont go ape please,(i have freedom of thought)) And by the way, is it only gay people or also lesbians aloud to marry?

So far as I know, lesbians fall under the banner of "homosexuals".

Also, just to point this out too, your freedom of thought isn't what's bothering me, it's this idea that one of the main reasons people get married is to have kids. That's simply untrue, at least as far as my experience with married couples go, because almost every married couple I'm friendly with doesn't want kids or is waiting a long while to do so - they got married for love or for legal reasons (insurance, tax cuts, etc.). Maybe the latter of those reasons isn't the best, but I've never come across a couple that got married to have kids, simply because people have been doing that just fine without the benefit of clergy for a long time now.

[-akichan-]

People get marry because they love each other, and would like to live on together with a different identity. Not to have kids. I want to get marry, but not planning to have kids, so we can't get married? Having kids is another optional stage after marriage where the couple want to start a new generation and their own family. It's optional, and it shouldn't be the main reason of marriage.

[Capernicus]

Hello, I'm TheAsterisk! Have we met?

Must be hard getting that thick head through the door to the interwebs. Well, if you're going to be an arrogant arse who thinks condescending remarks made with elitist attitude make you cool, then I pity you.



Firstly, I didn't even quote you, and I pointed out plainly that since gay marriage infringes on nobody's rights I do in fact support it.
Secondly, the ignorant farmland described are actually the Great Plains states. Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, the Dakotas- those guys. The Midwest is made up of the old Northwest Territory from really early on in the US's history and a tiny little bit west of the Mississippi River, generally to the north- Illinois, Indiana, Ohio (sort of), Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan (again- sort of), and, sometimes, Missouri. The only truly Bible-crazy piece of the Midwest is southern Indiana. They aren't the same at all, geographically or socially, and yet we are always lumped with the likes of Kansas and their imbecilic school board. As for the claim we're all conservative: dead wrong. Just dead wrong. Illinois reliably votes for Democrats, as does Wisconsin (mainly from Madison and Milwaukee- the rest of the state is pretty evenly split). Michigan ('cept the Upper Peninsula, which acts like northern Wisconsin) is more or less ruled by the UAW- take a wild guess as to their voting habits. Iowa, at least as of late, is reliably Democratic. I don't really know about the rest, but the stereotype has already fallen.Well, you said "By the way, I really liked the OP's insinuation that the Midwest is...", which I assume is directed at me because, well, I am the OPer. And thank you for the information, I'll be sure not to have Jar Jar Binks Syndrome in the future.



Thirdly, my "Enlighten me..." remark was to point out that I'm sick of it being socially acceptable to take a big doodoo on the Midwest while trumpeting the glory of the coasts.

I wasn't taking a big "doodoo" on the midwest. I congratulated them and called shame on Cali. So I pretty much did the opposite of this.


I was hoping someone to respond with an unsubstantiated behavioral stereotype to illustrate my point, so thanks, I guess. "The Midwest is full of rednecks" is as asinine as "Californians all surf and smoke dope." They're both utter bullcrap, and I request that neither be used again unless supporting evidence can be supplied.Aren't you now stereotyping everyone on this forum as infected with said Jar Jar Binks Syndrome?



Moral of the story? Stereotypes are bad, even if they work to your advantage, and (second moral) I do not hold my tongue and you should never expect me to, no matter the topic. If it's a feel-good topic and you don't want dissenters or elaboration, please specify that in the original post, okay everybody?When did I say I didn't want dissenters or elaboration? And didn't my last post ASK you for more information? Did I not make a post that merely said "Elaborate" to someone else (I forgot who)? Stop being a jerk.


Man, I wish I'd known everyone was so jumpy.It would be a large stretch to consider my last post "jumpy".

[Cless Alvein]

Actually, there's a respectable amount of research that concludes that children raised in SS households fare just as well as those raised in OS households.

Only one of those links actually cites anything that a scientific person could honestly call "research" and even that one admits to being limited and is vague, not providing any actual numbers or comparisons due to the small study sample. All the rest is a few examples, some opinion polls, statistics about adoption overall and more of the "no evidence that they're bad" arguments which I already stated.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love for you to dig up something that actually supports the line I quoted from your post. And so far it's promising. But it's just not there. Quite frankly I don't mind it on a personal level and I would love to see some solutions for our adoption crisis put into place, like expanding the number of qualified adoptive households.


Homosexuality is natural because it exists in nature

The purpose of genetic information is to copy itself and pass on to the next generation so that it can continue to survive. If being homosexual is connected to a gene, and that genetic information gives the carrier a predisposition to not mate in such a way that will pass on their genetic information, wouldn't you say that IS a little unnatural?

More accurately, one could argue that it is "natural" but in the same way that Down Syndrome, Color Blindness or being born with six fingers on one hand is "natural".

[Standartenführer]

I am assuming there are many different ethnicities here right?
If I said "Blacks can't marry it just ain't right" How would you feel?
If I justified it with your reasons would that make it okay? Denying something as stupidly small and simple as marriage is just plain racism. What's next "We don't serve fags" window stickers? How is it any different?