Gay marriage? Agree or disagree?

[ShadowmasterX]

http://inventorspot.com/articles/scientists_discover_genderblind__9113

Research has shown that the gene called "genderblind" makes the person gender.. blind =.= meaning that they don't know what they "should normally" like and should normally not like.

Scientist have been researching this for a while,and haven't found solid evidence, but enough to say so.. but not enough for the government apparently.

heres now the GB gene works:

For guys:
If you see a guy, you look at him, don't really notice or anything.

You see a girl, you look at her, you check her out, look for something that is attractive.

When you see a guy's privates =.=, you get disgusted. When you see a girls privates, you get turned on.

The GB gene works so that the disgusting feeling isnt there, so it seems normal and you judge both sexualities instead of just your opposite one.

 

[Mind-Designers]

i voted for agreed because if they will marria to each other then let them they are yust people.
Gay Lesbian or Straight it does't matter yust let them get marriad.
Stop Discimination

 

[fractalfeline]

http://inventorspot.com/articles/scientists_discover_genderblind__9113

Research has shown that the gene called "genderblind" makes the person gender.. blind =.= meaning that they don't know what they "should normally" like and should normally not like.

Scientist have been researching this for a while,and haven't found solid evidence, but enough to say so.. but not enough for the government apparently.

heres now the GB gene works:

For guys:
If you see a guy, you look at him, don't really notice or anything.

You see a girl, you look at her, you check her out, look for something that is attractive.

When you see a guy's privates =.=, you get disgusted. When you see a girls privates, you get turned on.

The GB gene works so that the disgusting feeling isnt there, so it seems normal and you judge both sexualities instead of just your opposite one.

Ah, fruit fly studies. Next thing you'll tell me that men can inherit sepia eyes and curly wings too. Have they found a human analog for this gene, perhaps?

 

[ShadowmasterX]

Nah not yet, but you never know. Everything is respectfully related to each other.

But back on this topic....... I think its just evolution. Really, it makes sense.

 

[The Real Rebel]

TBH, I don't care what ever gays want to do they should have a right to do it, If they want to marry so be it its up to them,

everyone has different a opinion on the issue but really its nothing to do with them....

I don't care if people are gay..

I'm happy to be straight

 

[leafypiggy]

God created marriage to be between a man and a woman. Not a man, three cows, a pig, another man, and two women. Simple as that.

Also, if you want to take a scientific view: Human's main point on earth is to procreate, homosexuality doesn't create offspring.

 

[The Real Rebel]

God created marriage to be between a man and a woman. Not a man, three cows, a pig, another man, and two women. Simple as that.

Also, if you want to take a scientific view: Human's main point on earth is to procreate, homosexuality doesn't create offsprin

Agreed, I suppose god didn't like the idea of being gay?

 

[leafypiggy]

Agreed, I suppose god didn't like the idea of being gay?

Didn't, and still doesn't.

As a Christian (and Catholic), I was brought up to hate the sin, not the sinner. Gay sex is a sin. I don't hate the people that perform the sin, I hate the sin itself.

 

[angela29]

I agree that gay marriage should be legal or at least a civil union.
I am a married woman of two daughters. My family was a Catholic family.


To quote someone on this thread that reminded of of an issue in Florida.

God created marriage to be between a man and a woman. Not a man, three cows, a pig, another man, and two women. Simple as that.

Also, if you want to take a scientific view: Human's main point on earth is to procreate, homosexuality doesn't create offspring.
__________________
Neil Hanlon
Join me on IRC!
Have a great day! God Bless.
I'm always happy to help. Just ask a question in Free Hosting

There were two gay men in a very long relationship. They chose to be foster parents to babies that had aids, and no one else wanted. They were located in Jeb Bush's state. They had most of them since they were very young. One of the boys, since medicated since birth by the two gay men became aids free at age 16. They wanted to try to adopt him. They had him close to all of his life. The state would not let them adopt him because they were gay because they lacked the "normalcy" of a man woman marriage" They state thought it was fine enough though for those two men who loved their children, yes I said their children, raise them for all of their lives giving them all the medications and love they needed when no other foster families or adoptive famillies wanted those babies. I think it is crap. How much do you want to bet that those two gay males, are taking care of children from heterosexual relationships and people that couldn't.

Being gay and who you love is not a choice . I don"t know who would choose to be beaten when they are 13 years old on their way home from school for being gay(happened to a child hood friend of mine) Or being drug behind a truck. Who would choose to be ridiculed and be made fun of, if it was a choice.

Another note, how many heterosexual couples are promiscuous before marriage, before finding that one special person to spend their life with. That is not a gay thing that is a person thing, so is the want to spend the rest of your life with your best friend.

It is a shame there is still not equal rights.
If one of my daughter's told me she was gay, I would love her no less, and I would want her to have the ability to marry if she so desired.

 

[phazzedout]

I love the Religious firestorm that always comes in these debates.

For one, the Mod or Admin that posted in the beginning, I do not want to get banned or any such thing but you seem to have the same common misconception that a same-sex couple raising children will scar the children or make the children feel like they miss something. That is completely not the case, have you ever seen or been around homosexual (males and females alike) more importantly same sex couples. Curiously the two partners tend to fall into the "mom" or "dad" category. For the males this could include the motherly figure of nurture, compasion, etc. For the females their fatherly figure could be in the same way a male father would express their love and emotion to their children. I have seen many female couples with children and you could automatically decipher which is the "man" in the relationship.

As for those who say, "God don't like that silly homo stuff, so it should be banned." I think you guys can think for yourselves and really come up with a more rational argument.

Homosexuality is also in nature. Just google search homosexual animals or monkeys. I bet many of you seen two male dogs going at it. I sure as hell have.

 

[Linkz0rs]

Agreed, I suppose god didn't like the idea of being gay?

Didn't, and still doesn't.

As a Christian (and Catholic), I was brought up to hate the sin, not the sinner. Gay sex is a sin. I don't hate the people that perform the sin, I hate the sin itself.

I disbelieve that is actually a sin...
I think that was brought up when one of the Bibles editors was homophobic, and simply included that...

 

[monkeymhz]

I said "Disagree" - but I have to qualify that answer.

Why?

Well, first-off, marriage is between a man and woman, husband and wife. That is what marriage is and always has been, around the world for centuries. That is the definition of marriage - period.

Now the qualification of my answer...

Same-sex couples really should have a mechanism to become each-other's spouses and be afforded the same legal rights and benefits afforded to married couples. Some of those being things like joint bank accounts, joint income tax filing, dependent status for insurance, essentially all of the rights and benefits that are associated with marriage - but lets not call it marriage, because it is not.

It is not marriage, because, again, marriage is a male + female thing, but there needs to be a mechanism, call it "Civil Union" or "Spousage" or something else, that provides these equal rights to gay couples that have made a lifetime commitment to one another.

That is my 2 cents.

Well thats my 2 cents too. You summed it up. Guess its 4 cents now.

 

[earthinc]

I said "Disagree" - but I have to qualify that answer.

Why?

Well, first-off, marriage is between a man and woman, husband and wife. That is what marriage is and always has been, around the world for centuries. That is the definition of marriage - period.

Now the qualification of my answer...

Same-sex couples really should have a mechanism to become each-other's spouses and be afforded the same legal rights and benefits afforded to married couples. Some of those being things like joint bank accounts, joint income tax filing, dependent status for insurance, essentially all of the rights and benefits that are associated with marriage - but lets not call it marriage, because it is not.

It is not marriage, because, again, marriage is a male + female thing, but there needs to be a mechanism, call it "Civil Union" or "Spousage" or something else, that provides these equal rights to gay couples that have made a lifetime commitment to one another.

That is my 2 cents.

No offense, but that is utterly ridiculous.
The definition of Marriage:
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union


Unless the definition of a simple word has changed in the last 700 years, your statement is null, and bigoted.

 

[fractalfeline]

No offense, but that is utterly ridiculous.
The definition of Marriage:
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union


Unless the definition of a simple word has changed in the last 700 years, your statement is null, and bigoted.

You believe that #2 there was in the dictionary 700 years ago eh? Used with that meaning in mind colloquially? Really?

The word may be 700 years old, but you can't seriously believe the modern publisher didn't add new definitions as the culture saw fit.

Similarly:
Main Entry: gay
Pronunciation: \ˈgā\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French gai, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German gāhi quick, sudden
Date: 14th century

1 a : happily excited : merry <in a gay mood> b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>
2 a : bright, lively <gay sunny meadows> b : brilliant in color
3 : given to social pleasures; also : licentious
4 a : homosexual <gay men> b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar> synonyms see lively

— gay adverb
— gay·ness noun

So, 700 years ago they were using this word to refer to homosexuals as well? Or were they originally using the word to mean something more akin to "happy" and only recently started using the 4th definition?

 

[David]

I'm going to make my opinion on this matter very simple.

This junior in high school has the right idea.

I said "Disagree" - but I have to qualify that answer.

Why?

Well, first-off, marriage is between a man and woman, husband and wife. That is what marriage is and always has been, around the world for centuries. That is the definition of marriage - period.

Now the qualification of my answer...

Same-sex couples really should have a mechanism to become each-other's spouses and be afforded the same legal rights and benefits afforded to married couples. Some of those being things like joint bank accounts, joint income tax filing, dependent status for insurance, essentially all of the rights and benefits that are associated with marriage - but lets not call it marriage, because it is not.

It is not marriage, because, again, marriage is a male + female thing, but there needs to be a mechanism, call it "Civil Union" or "Spousage" or something else, that provides these equal rights to gay couples that have made a lifetime commitment to one another.

That is my 2 cents.

Another very simple answer:

Disestablishmentarianism: The separation of Church and State.

Marriage is a religious ceremony wherein a man and a woman are joined in holy matrimony. Why then, should the government have any say in who can and cannot marry? If the first amendment is to hold up, then we need to either take marriage out of churches (yay Germany!) or call it something completely different and *still* take it out of churches.

One should not be entitled to something called "Marriage" because they are heterosexual, and something called "Civil Union" because they are homosexual.

"Hello and welcome to the 1800's, coloured people will use the bathroom and fountain on the left or be beaten to death, and white people shall use the fountain and bathroom on the right."

Next we'll have signs over doors "Gay" and "Straight" and armed guards outside making sure everyone is in compliance. God Bless America!

 

[earthinc]

You believe that #2 there was in the dictionary 700 years ago eh? Used with that meaning in mind colloquially? Really?

The word may be 700 years old, but you can't seriously believe the modern publisher didn't add new definitions as the culture saw fit.

Similarly:
Main Entry: gay
Pronunciation: \ˈgā\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French gai, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German gāhi quick, sudden
Date: 14th century

1 a : happily excited : merry <in a gay mood> b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>
2 a : bright, lively <gay sunny meadows> b : brilliant in color
3 : given to social pleasures; also : licentious
4 a : homosexual <gay men> b : of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar> synonyms see lively

— gay adverb
— gay·ness noun

So, 700 years ago they were using this word to refer to homosexuals as well? Or were they originally using the word to mean something more akin to "happy" and only recently started using the 4th definition?

At the time, the term was sodomite.
As for marriage being a religious experience, tell that to those who marry in a courthouse, or are involved in an arranged marriage? Atheists and agnostics can't get married? Why do these (in some opinions) Un-holy marriages get to reap the same benefits, then? Even simple benefits such as visiting a dying partner in a hospital room?

 

[David]

At the time, the term was sodomite.
As for marriage being a religious experience, tell that to those who marry in a courthouse, or are involved in an arranged marriage? Atheists and agnostics can't get married? Why do these (in some opinions) Un-holy marriages get to reap the same benefits, then? Even simple benefits such as visiting a dying partner in a hospital room?

I'm not saying it is entirely religious, the original context of marriage from most of my research (there are other instances in other cultures, I speak and reference mainly European customs and American) is uniting a man and a woman in holy matrimony.

I am in NO way saying only Christians or God-fearing people should be able to marry. I'm say the complete opposite, ANYONE should be able to marry. IF there are going to be legal benefits from getting married, then it needs to have all religious context removed, and in contrast should it remain a religious ceremony then be recognized as such within our government, then all legal benefits from marriage need to be revoked. It's that simple.

Look at some of the elected officials' reasoning for disallowing gay marriage, many say marriage exists as a form of procreation. Okay, then fine. If you can't reproduce then you should no longer be able to marry. Further, some try to say that it is a some sort of unholy sin. Fine, then go become a minister and let someone who is impartial and at least half-competent be elected to fulfill your spot in senate or congress or whatever.

The point is, our very own Unanimous Declaration of Independence reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights that among these include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If marriage isn't part of being happy (or well that's what you think before you say "I do") then what is? Our DOI does not read all heterosexual men, but all men. Back then this really only did apply to men, during this period women were kept barefoot and pregnant essentially, though our founding fathers did intend for this phrase to stretch to all people, period, as our nation evolved (or so my AP Cont. World teacher once said, at least).

Sorry if that is all disorganized or whatever, but it's 7:30 am and I'm tired and I still have a TON of work to do, therefore I'm entitled to a little incoherent thought and tangent and rambling, besides once you know me you get used to it, or you don't and you just stop talking to me.

 

[phazzedout]

Plead the 14th. The 14th Amendment reinforces our rights, any citizen has the same rights as any other person (male or female).

 

[bipbebop]

I disagree because having two parents of the same gender doesn't really suffice. They will always think there is something missing in their lives. If we openly allow same-gender marriages, there will be many children exposed to unconventional ways of life that could result in the slowing psychological development.

I don't understand this point of view. According to this, all single-parent homes are not sufficient, nurturing environments, because both male and female role models are not present. I am a single child who was raised by my mother after she divorced my dad due to his drinking problem. I turned out very well-balanced and have never caused any trouble. Should my mother have stayed with him, despite his alcoholism, just to create a "sufficient family"? Funny thing, many of my acquaintances who DID have both parents ended up rebellious, trying drugs, getting pregnant out of wedlock, etc. What do you have to say about that? Despite the fact that they had both parents, they are more psychologically screwed-up than I am. This trend is something I've personally noticed--single-parent homes can raise children that are more stable than others due to the parent having to pay more attention to them instead of saying things like "go talk to your father, I'm busy" or "shouldn't you ask your mother about that?" Therefore, I don't see how same-sex parents wouldn't be just as loving and "sufficient" as having both sexes, because just having a single parent of one sex doesn't stunt anyone's psychological growth. I would love to see any studies you can dig up that support the idea that "children exposed to unconventional ways of life" are at all "slow in psychological development," because all the studies I have seen show no difference.
Edit:
Also, has anyone here claiming that homosexuality is a sin actually read the Bible? You realize the sin is actually rape, promiscuity and mistreatment of fellow men? Not only that, but that Jesus himself declared Leviticus--the most-quoted book against homosexuality--obsolete?

Mark 7:20-23: "...for from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
Sexual immorality = promiscuity, not homosexuality.

Collosians 2:14: "...having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."

Hebrews 7:18: "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless."

They are no longer applicable.
If you believe they are, you must follow the entirety of Leviticus. No craw fish, pork, polyester, unintentional wet dreams, shaving, as a woman, forgetting to repent for having a monthly period, mule breeding...seriously. No one does that. You can't only pick the passages referring to homosexuality. And, just for clarification, I am saying this as a Christian.