Lovelyish

Your tone kind of irritated me. I mean, I’m straight, in a relationship, and I’m -not- opposed to gay marriage–yet you make it seem like it’s my fault, like it’s every heterosexual person’s fault, that gay marriage isn’t considered equal. Like every straight person is anti-gay marriage. Marriage is “wholly” to me too, you know–the real word is holy, just by the way. This isn’t a new argument. And heterosexual people don’t like to be attacked, either.

Nobody has to let their sexuality define them, you know. It’s a part of you, sure, but it’s not who we are. I understand that we all should be equal, but that’s not going to be very easy if we define ourselves by -one- aspect of who we are.

Gay marriage is important no doubt but I think people need to also focus heavily on the other horrible ways gay people are treated. You have legislation in Russia trying to make it illegal to promote homosexuality (shoving them back in the closet) and you also have mind fucked appointees in WI Gov. Walker’s cabinet saying it is perfectly legal to discriminate against gay people in the work place. The implications of baring marriage are almost worse. No visitation rights. Taxes. Adoption. No shared benefits. It goes on.

What we need it true separation of church and state. If a church does not want to officiate marriages for gay couples, fine. That’s their choice. But the church is supposed to be out of the government so let the STATE marry them since it is a civil right, not a church right. If it was a church-given right then why as an atheist should I be allowed to get married? Because I’m straight? Not a lot of logic there if marriage is a “holy sacrament.”

aww that was a really cute psa! 

why is it any of my business who you chose to be with? who you’re in love with? a little over fifty years ago interracial marriage was illegal, i think that everyone should have the right to do whatever they want to do . life is too short to be anything but happy and if you find someone that adds to that happiness then congratulations because not everyone is that fortunate .

This PSA literally brought me to tears!

I feel there should be full equality. Period, end of story. That said, it’s not straight people you should be going after. It’s the Christards, Muslimtards, etc. that you should be targeting. If it wasn’t for them, we’d have marriage equality worldwide and it wouldn’t even be an issue.

That said, I’m proud to live in a country where gay marriage is legal and people can marry the sex they are truly attracted to, not the sex the law says you have to. 

That video has put me in tears.
I’ve always wanted to hear that marriage is equal everywhere, be it a straight couple, or a gay couple, or whatever, so I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Oh God ALL THE CRIES.

I loved that video!!
Your tone was a bit rude; you made it sound like every heterosexual person should be ashamed of heteros in general for the anti-gay attitude. I’m very much straight and very much pro-gay marriage! I do agree with your points though. It breaks my heart that people can’t see that love knows no boundaries. race, religion, gender…none of it matters. Why can’t we just love who we love and that be the end of it?

@FallenReign@xanga -  I mostly agree with your comment but I think the author was using “wholly” to mean “entirely”, not as a synonym for sacred. >.>;

@FallenReign@xanga - I think the author means “THE SMALL PORTION of straight people WHO ARE ALSO anti-gay”, not “all straight people ARE anti-gay”… I’m also straight, in a relationship, and fully supportive of LGBT rights. and I agree with @x__RainOnHerParade@xanga. “wholly” probably means “entirely”, not “holy”.

@turnyalightsdownlow@xanga - I completely agree! By marrying, these gay couples are not hurting anyone else or depriving others of their rights, so why should their marriages be limited?

@StatelessPilot@revelife - Yes, I’m glad someone voiced my thoughts. There should be equality, period.

@xsakuraphie@xanga - exactly =] !

@xsakuraphie@xanga - Eh, that’s religion for you. Always fucking shit up. Gay marriage was acceptable until Judeo-Christianity came along and fucked it up, and this fuck up was later continued by the Muslims (hell, they execute gay people!).

@StatelessPilot@revelife -  my ex is a proud atheist, yet he feels gay people have no right to marry.. his reasons made me furious! Among other poor excuses he explained that there are more important things to fight for.. like kids starving in Africa. “Gay people should stop whining about things that are not important. They should be glad for what they have (food)”
I think i loved him less after that fight.

Just an example that non-religious people can be unfair/ignorant too.. as long as no right is taken away from them.

There’s more to marriage than just being in love. There’s also the raising of families, which always has to be kept in mind. Gay couples can’t procreate, which is not bias, but a statement of fact. Even though I don’t agree with homosexuality, I believe they do have rights such as having jobs and owning property. However, marriage is the one exception to this. Gay marriage would cause a drastic change to be made as to how marriage is defined and what a husband and wife is. So I don’t believe in gay marriage. Plain and simple.

@zionlover@xanga - Oh really? So I guess that means I shouldn’t be allowed to marry because I have had surgery to enforce my decision to never have kids, and that people who choose not to have children shouldn’t be allowed to either. I suppose infertile people should also not be allowed to get married, huh?

Give me a reason other than religion why it should not be allowed. Why should they not be allowed to file jointly on taxes? To be able to own a joint bank account? To be able to hold an insurance policy together? You can’t! If anything needs to be banned it’s religion, and boy does it ever need to be banned. The sooner we become a purely atheistic society the better.

@SweetNGuilty@xanga - Is/was he military? That seems to be the other group that’s incredibly anti-gay. 

@StatelessPilot@revelife -  lol nope. Computer scientist.

@turnyalightsdownlow@xanga - ikr!! omg i’m so angry right now lol XD

@StatelessPilot@revelife - i agree with you on the sense that anti-gay reasons are MOSTLY religious, but there are other components to their argument as well (not that I agree with them or anything…) so I doubt that banning religion will solve the problem. in fact, freedom of religion exists for a reason. it’s why you and i can be completely atheist without getting in trouble with the government/society. (just like how gays should not be in trouble with society just because they are gay).

i think that we should cease to call the legal part of marriage “marriage.”  call the legal part “civil unions” or whatever FOR EVERYONE, straight, gay, what have you.  if religions want to exclude gay people from “marriage” i guess that’s their right, though i’ve never understood why a good god would create gay people only to encourage their being persecuted.  but i digress.  

basically, i’m saying that “marriage” should be strictly a religious term and each religion can decide what to do about it, whereas “civil unions” or some other legal term should be strictly legal and should be allowed to EVERYONE who wants to commit himself or herself to another person, regardless of sexual orientation.

@zionlover@xanga - people get married when they are well past child-bearing years, barren people marry each other, and plenty of heterosexual married couples use contraception to avoid ever having children.  do you suggest we enforce the “YOU MUST PROCREATE TO GET MARRIED” rule on all these people or just on homosexuals?  considering the planet is actually OVERpopulated, i don’t understand people’s obsession with procreation for all.

@StatelessPilot@revelife - @corporatecrow@xanga - From a purely secular standpoint, which is what I usually hold whenever discussing gay marriage, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that everyone is divided into two distinct genders. This is for a purpose: the perpetuation of the human race. This always has to be considered. Even though it’s true that some heterosexual couples don’t wish to have children, it still has be stressed that someone out there has to do it. The decision to have children is always open anyway for those wishing to reconsider. Gay couples can’t produce children no matter what.

I’m not saying that gay couples can’t file jointly on taxes, have joint bank accounts, or whatnot. I’m saying that because they don’t have the potential to procreate, their union should be labelled as something other than a marriage. A civil union, for example.

@corporatecrow@xanga - Also, just because the world is overpopulated, doesn’t mean we should redefine an institution that’s been used to maintain societies throughout history. People can use contraceptives if they wish to temporarily control population growth as you’ve stated.

@zionlover@xanga - Nobody has to have children. Nobody. If people stopped having children the only thing that would happen is the human race would go extinct. This is NOT an inherently bad thing. That’s the way life works: species evolve, thrive, and then die off. The human species will be no different. 

You are also wrong in that there are two distinct genders. Gender is a sliding scale, much like sexual orientation. Biological sex, there are two biological sexes, however, one can in effect become the opposite sex via sexual reassignment surgery. Doesn’t change their DNA, but it is possible. Further, sex and gender are NOT the same thing. Sex is between your legs, gender is between your ears, and a lot of times one’s biological sex does NOT agree with their gender (hence reassignment surgery). 

What you’re proposing is a “separate but equal” clause. I’m sorry, but separate is NOT equal. If you want that, why not go back to racial segregation? Let’s give blacks their equal rights, but isolate them from whites. That is what Plessy v. Ferguson established. Is that what you want? 

Gay marriage was recognized since the dawning of civilized societies, including in the ancient Greek and Roman societies. It wasn’t until Judeo-Christianity came along and fucked everything up that it was defined solely as a male-female union. So if anything, Judeo-Christianity redefined marriage when it came along. Not the other way around. Chew on that. 

Dude, I’ll give my rights to the nearest gay couple. If someone wants to get married, they should be able to, just like I have the right to decide not to. It seems like common sense!

@x__RainOnHerParade@xanga - I’m heterosexual and I agree with you, but I am not referring to heterosexuals as though they are contemporary nazis, I am simply referring specifically to ANTI-GAY heterosexuals, as was stated in the post.

@x__RainOnHerParade@xanga - right on sista, thanks for clearing that up for me

@xsakuraphie@xanga - Bingo! haha thank you for catching that girl

@FallenReign@xanga - That certainly was not my intention, and I happen to be a heterosexual woman and I most certainly am not persecuting like minded heterosexuals for their sexual preference. And as for a persons sexuality not defining them, I think that the PSA fully illustrates that it shouldn’t and however as a society we’ve imposed sexuality on the gay individual specifically, as the only form of identity they have. which is the root of persecution. You’ve made it clear this is not your opinion and it certainly isn’t mine, but to deny that this is not the mentality of the masses is Irritating to me as well. In addition to that I am referring to anti-gay heterosexuals, not all heterosexuals, as stated in the post.

my uncle is gay and i basically grew up with him around.  i learned at a young age that he was gay, but no one told me, i kind of figured it out on my own.  it hurt me to hear kids my age use words like “faggot” when i knew my uncle was gay…

i don’t understand people who are anti-gay marriage.  they always use the bible excuse and if they have kids they will be confused or get screwed up because they have two moms or two dads. if anything, divorce screws up kids way more than a child who has same gender parents.  i think people who are anti-gay are closed minded and think its “gross”…which is a horrible excuse to not let people who are in love get married.

@zionlover@xanga - yes, and people can have children to keep up the population without getting married.

@xsakuraphie@xanga - why are you irked, what’s going on love?

@zionlover@xanga - slavery was also a pretty crucial institution and economic necessity for most of human history, and yet we’ve evolved beyond the need for it.  why is marriage any more special?  

This video makes me so proud to be Australian. It is definitely time to end marriage discrimination and I think your post was amazing. Love is love, end of story. On ya Aussie!!

@corporatecrow@xanga - So you feel that having illegitimate children is the smart way to raise kids? I don’t think so. Marriage is the only organized way of doing it.

@StatelessPilot@revelife - Exactly. The human species would go extinct if it weren’t for children. Therefore, I don’t want to see it go extinct. So children are a necessity. You and I obviously are in perpetual opposition there.

People are NATURALLY of two distinct genders. Don’t believe me? Think about what’s between a man’s and a woman’s crotch. Reassignment surgery doesn’t change the fact that we are all naturally of two genders. The other factoids you gave me about sex and gender being two separate cases isn’t worth addressing.

Racial segregation is irrelevant here. Gay couples are unequal to heterosexual couples in that they don’t have the potential to procreate. That’s an absolute fact. So two separate institutions for gay and heterosexual unions is the reasonable course to take.

Are the Greek and Roman societies around today? That should tell you where their concept on homosexual relations took them. Judeo-Christianity thought wisely in clearly defining the male-female union, which is why it outlived those ancient “civilized” civilizations. I am chewing on that. It tastes great.

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Because marriage is a moral institution, slavery isn’t.

@zionlover@xanga - Again, the human race dying out is not an inherently bad thing. The reason it perpetuates is people’s SELFISH desires to keep it going. Yes, reproducing is an extremely selfish thing to do. Every reason you give for reproduction is selfish and don’t even say it’s not, because it is. 

You would do well to take a class in human sexuality if you think the “sex vs. gender” thing isn’t even worth addressing. Talk to any psychologist who studies human sexuality and you will see exactly that what I’m saying is true. II dated a M-to-F transsexual for a short time. I will tell you right now she was definitely a woman. She expressed herself as a woman, she had nothing but feminine traits, her personality said woman all the way. It just so happens she was born in the wrong body. You’re just too blinded by your bogus religion to see that. 

The same excuse was given for interracial marriages back in the day, and why they should be illegal. That blacks and whites were different and one was superior to the other. There were even religious arguments given against interracial marriage. It’s the same stuff, and once again, you’re just too blind to see it. As I said, your claim would also extend to childless (those who can’t have children) and childfree (those who choose not to have children). You’re being inconsistent by picking out one type of marriage that doesn’t include children. If you want consistency, you need to go after all three.

The ancient Greek and Roman societies are no longer here today because Jews and Christians brutally murdered them and took over their land, not because they couldn’t sustain their population. Jews, Christians, and Muslims are responsible for more extinctions of societies in the name of their religion than any other cause. THIS is why religion is what needs to be criminalized and why people who practice religion today need to be locked away in mental institutions and medicated. Religion is nothing short of a mental illness. 

I am straight, an athiest and dont want kids. But I am going to get married, so I dont think kids should be an issue when wanting to marry someone as someone has posted earlier apparently. To get to my point, I think everyone should be able to marry whoever they want.. Well, as long as its to people and not animals Thats different though.. Why cant everyone be happy? Alot of people treat LGBTs differently, like not even human and it makes me sick.. That is not right and it shouldnt be illegal for someone to marry someone, it SHOULD be illegal to discriminate. Its not like you choose who you are attracted to. When people tell me its a choice, I ask them. Ok, then be gay right now.. Never can.

My sister posted that PSA on my wall.

“Instead of love being the very simple thread that not only defines marriage…” That bit kind of made me think about how marriage used to be (and still is in some parts of the world) an economic agreement. Maybe marriage is outdated. I’m torn between supporting the legalization of marriage and abolishing state licensing for marriage along with affording the same rights to people in civil unions. The former is probably what’s best at this point in time. People need their institutions.

I also have to wonder if the 50% divorce rate is exclusively a bad thing. Now that women have economic power, they don’t have to stay in unhappy marriages just to survive. And both men and women now have less social pressure to stay married when they are miserable. It’s sad when commitments fall through and life doesn’t turn out the way you expect it to…. but people make mistakes. It’s better to admit the mistake than spend your whole life paying for it.

I feel like I went off topic.

@zionlover@xanga - i think that the best way is different for everyone.  i think anyone should be free to not marry or to marry.   (or technically, to civilly unionize or whatever the government wants to legally call it.)  there are plenty of crappy parents who are married and plenty of wonderful parents who aren’t, including single parents.  

@zionlover@xanga - i don’t see how that makes it any better.  morality is relative, even in the case of marriage.  for most of history, non-virgins weren’t considered marriage material.  families were also encouraged to sell their daughters off to be married so they would have one less mouth to feed.   in many countries, arranged marriages are still considered moral.  

like it or not, childbearing is no longer the central tenet of marriage.  most married couples i know do not plan to have children.  the definition of the institution has already changed.  clinging to your ultra-homophobic views isn’t going to change anything.  and make no mistake, you ARE homophobic.  you see homosexuals as less than human, which is as insane as people who still try to claim that black people are less human than white people.  you’re the poster boy for bigotry.

@zionlover@xanga - Do you really think that by not allowing homosexuals to marry it’s somehow going to convince them to marry someone of the opposite sex and have children?  I don’t want children, I had my tubes tied to ensure I don’t have children, I’m not procreating regardless of who I marry.  Denying homosexuals the right to marry is not going to stop them from being in homosexual relationships.  It’s not going to convince them to procreate if they don’t want to and for those homosexual couples who do want children they will still have them through adoption or surrogacy.  Homosexuals can have children of their own, though not biologically of both parents.  However, many children raised by heterosexual parents today are raised by one parent or a biological parent and stepparent, or adoptive parents.  Are you going to declare all children must be raised by both biological parents?  No?  Then your argument against homosexual marriage fails.

Gay marriage should be illegal. It is wrong and sick.

@corporatecrow@xanga - Not when the State gets involved.

I, like FallenReign@xanga, was kind of offended by the whole tone of this article. I, personally, do not believe in gay marriage, but this article would have in no way won me over. I am always up for a conversation on the matter, but this turned me off from the beginning.

I absolutely believe that everyone has the right to choose who they want to be with and spend their lives with. It’s not affecting me, or harming me, so why wouldn’t I? By all means, be together.
However, I also believe marriage comes from religion (which it does), so I don’t believe in gay marriage. Civil unions, partnerships, etc? Sure. By all means, have the same rights as married couples, however, I don’t believe “marriage” is the right word. Marriage has always referred to a man and a woman, since it was created.
I’m sad that some people decide to tune me out completely and call me close minded, or write articles like the one above that just attacks my view from the very beginning. (“Attention anti-gay, hetero citizens: If you don’t like gay people, then stop making them.”) I am by no means “anti-gay”, and it’s insulting.

@BeautifulOblivion - Separate but equal, right?  I believe they tried that with segregation of African-Americans.  Marriage has been around a lot longer than Christianity and by Christian standards that would mean it is actually a pagan tradition/ritual.  Furthermore, there is quite a bit of controversy over whether or not the early church actually supported and performed gay marriages.  http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

I would be willing to agree with leaving the word marriage alone and having homosexuals united in civil unions, but only on one condition:  Since it is the idea that God is against homosexuality and homosexual marriages, and followers want to keep marriage “holy and sacred”, then marriages should be stripped of all legal benefits granted by the state.  Only civil unions should be legally recognized by the state since that’s one of the biggest pushes for homosexual marriage in the first place.  

@FallenReign@xanga - I didn’t see this as an attack on straight people, but an attack on anti-gay people who think their love and relationship is more valid because they are heterosexual.

@BeautifulOblivion - But marriage is not a Christian invention. Marriage was around before
Christianity, before any religion that specifically condones
homosexuality. I am very VERY tired of people who think Christians somehow own the concept of marriage. By your logic, any marriage that occurs outside a church isn’t a real marriage. Which…maybe that was what you were going for.

@StatelessPilot@revelife - I hate when Christians (or Muslims or Jews, whoever) forget that little gem. Marriage was always a social arrangement, and was made “sacred” in whatever context a religion chose. Hell, in the middle ages, marriage was used for politics among different royalty and nobility and had absolutely NOTHING to do with God.

@turnyalightsdownlow@xanga - … this is how i talk. i like to go “ikr” (“i know right?”) when i agree with someone.

@xsakuraphie@xanga - oops lmaooo i read it “irk” haha!

@Melissa___Dawn - I didn’t mention “separate but equal”, but I do think that if it was valid argument the Supreme Court would have recognized it by now. (They actually discussed it in some of the more famous LGBT cases). I just believe that the term marriage in relation to getting married in the traditional sense cannot extend to the gay community. Marriages did exist before Christianity, however it is Christian views that shaped marriage into what it is now. It is unfair to force the church to condone something that they simply do not condone. If they want legal rights, then the courthouse is fine. I’m not forcing my beliefs down anyone’s throat, and it’s unfair for others to force theirs down the Church’s throat.

@Digital_Angel2  -That is not at all what I mean. When I get married, I plan on a traditional ceremony in a church and a marriage certificate from the state that certifies my marriage is legal. Marriage may have been around before Christianity, but Christian views of marriage shaped it to become what it is now. I am absolutely fine with LGBT couples having the same rights as married couples, but it is not a marriage in the traditional sense.

I generally hate referencing Wikipedia, but they have summaries of some of the major cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Equal_Protection_v._Bruning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_v._Harris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Maryland#Conaway_v._Deane_.26_Polyak
http://www2.huberlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm

@BeautifulOblivion - Well now you say that marriage existed before Christianity, but that it was Christian views that shaped it into what it is now and how it’s not fair to force the church to condone homosexuality.  First, allowing homosexual marriage in no way forces a church to perform the ceremonies.  Second, if marriage has changed over time then tradition isn’t really the issue because traditions change over time, whether you like it or not.  

If you want to hold to the view that Christianity made marriage what it is today and it’s a religious institution, then you need to start fighting any married couple of another faith or no faith as well.  Muslims, pagans, Jews and atheists all get married and call their unions marriages.  The only group being locked out of using the word “marriage” is homosexuals.  Your bigotry is showing.  If you want to define marriage as a Christian institution then you need to fight to ban all non-Christians from using the term marriage.  My parents are atheists and still married, they have all the legal benefits that come with marriage and they don’t call themselves “civilly unioned”.  You say you’re actually fine with homosexual couples having civil unions and being given all the same rights/benefits as marriage, just don’t call it a “marriage”.  Separate but equal didn’t work with segregation and it won’t work with gay marriage either.  

@StatelessPilot@revelife - I am usually 100% against what you think, and I can’t say I haven’t been absolutely disgusted by you a time or two, but your argument here is flawless, and I agree wholeheartedly. Well done.

@Melissa___Dawn – First of all, I’ve never attacked you personally in any of my comments, so I’d appreciate you not attacking me. I am in no way bigoted, I simply have different views than you. Secondly, my stance isn’t that all non-Christians cannot marry. My stance is that marriage has always traditionally meant one man and one woman – always. The courts have overruled laws against biracial marriage, because it is still one man and one woman. The courts have not okayed same sex marriage because it is manifestly against the traditional word “marriage”; the traditional marriage which is shaped by the Christian faith.

@BeautifulOblivion - I provided a link that clearly showed there is controversy to this day about whether or not same-sex marriages were performed by the Catholic (Christian) church.  Same-sex marriages have existed.  DOMA was enacted because the definition of marriage did NOT clearly say “‘between a man and a woman”.  If you want to maintain “marriage” as “traditional Christian faith” then, at the very least, you need to endorse not allowing atheists to refer to their unions as a “marriage”, although I don’t see how it would still be okay for any other non-Christian faith to retain the term “marriage” either.  

In America we have separation of church and state, you cannot pass a law based solely on the convictions of a religion.  The only argument you have here is that same-sex marriage goes against the religious beliefs of Christians.  If you want to retain the word “marriage” as being bound by Christian beliefs then marriage should be stripped of all state and federal benefits and other faiths should not be allowed to use the word “marriage”.  You say you have no problem with same-sex civil unions, just an issue with them using the word “marriage”.  What a lot of wasted effort over a word.  Even if we set up civil unions for same-sex couples do you really think anyone is going to refer to themselves as “civilly unioned”?  No.  Everyone is still going to refer to themselves as “married” and the only place that will be changed is on the marriage license and in legal papers.  The word “marriage” will still be “lost”.  

This entire debate across the entire country over the definition of a word is a complete sham.  The fight isn’t over the definition of marriage, the fight is over preventing same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples because some people believe it to be a sin or just find it “icky”.  Too bad.  We have a constitution that says you don’t get to pass laws based solely on religious conviction or the fact that you are disgusted by something that does not in actuality harm you in any way.  Maybe some people truly do believe that same-sex civil unions with all the same recognized rights of a marriage would be acceptable, but most backing that are only doing so in an attempt to delay the inevitable and when the inevitable happens they will try to find another way to again deny the civil rights of an entire group of people, and that is bigotry.  

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - That’s not true. First, you can show me any links whether or not same-sex marriages were performed or not, unless there’s solid proof (& there isn’t), it doesn’t matter. Next, the debate over the definition over a word is not a complete sham. In fact, the Supreme Court relied heavily on the tradition and meaning of the word “marriage” when deciding issues of same sex marriage. I can send you links to cases, if you’d like. The test to decided fundamental rights is two prong, and it relies heavily on history and tradition. The court held that there is no history or tradition of “marriage” ever applying to same-sex couples. Finally, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the separation of church and state. That was actually mentioned in a letter from Jefferson to pastors in Danbury, Connecticut. And, if you read the letter, it actually intended to keep the government out of church, not vice versa.

@BeautifulOblivion - I happen to study constitutional law, so I’m well aware that the term “separation of church and state” does not literally appear in the constitution.  I’m also well aware of the intent of the first amendment.  The controversy was over whether or not Christian churches performed same-sex marriages – there is no controversy over the fact that same-sex marriages have existed in the past.  

You act as if the supreme court cannot ever be wrong.  Tradition always gives way to progress in the end.  Traditionally, the Christian definition of marriage did not include interracial marriages, and it was a long fight but eventually the supreme court threw out tradition in favor of progress.    

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - I’m glad you study Constitutional law, I do too. I’m in law school, I assume, then, you are too. You said above “We have a constitution that says you don’t get to pass laws based solely on religious conviction”, so I assumed you thought the Constitution actually says that somewhere. Next, it doesn’t matter if there was ever same-sex marriage. In this country, which was founded as a Christian nation, it is only relevant to look at the history and tradition of this nation. The history and tradition of this nation has never acknowledged that “marriage” has applied to same-sex couples. (Look to the Glucksberg test, or Lawrence v. Texas.) Christian tradition didn’t prevent interracial marriages, our country did. I don’t think the Supreme Court is flawless, but they are the highest law of the land & in this matter, I agree with their holdings. I assume, since you study Constitutional law, that you are familiar with the Lemon test. Same sex marriage may pass the first prong, but definitely gets messy around the second prong & conflicts wholly with the third prong. 

Like I said earlier, I do not believe “marriage” is the appropriate word. I support gay rights as far as unions go, but marriage is simply not the word.

@BeautifulOblivion - So where does it state that America was founded on Christianity?  That’s not in the constitution.  In fact, George Washington clearly stated that America was “not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” in the Treaty of Tripoli.  Was America compromised mostly of Christians at the time?  Yes, but that hardly means our constitution was based on Christianity.  If our constitution were founded on the Christian religion I would think our forefathers would have been perfectly clear on that within the constitution.  Thomas Jefferson was a deist and though he believed Jesus existed, he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus.  

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html

This country existed before the white man arrived.  Many Native-American tribes practiced same-sex marriage.  That was their tradition and this was originally their country.  So does tradition only stand if the group holding that tradition has better weapons?  Or should we go back to the first traditions in America since tradition is so important?  

http://news.change.org/stories/gay-native-americans-reclaim-two-spirit-culturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit
Christian tradition didn’t prevent interracial marriage?  

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar14.htm
“In case after case, legislation prohibiting racial inter-marriage was justified as unbending tradition rooting in received natural law.  For example, in 1869 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that:  ”…moral or social equality between the different races…does not in fact exist, and never can.  The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it.  There are gradations and classes throughout the universe.  From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity.” 
Lemon Test:  The Court’s decision in this case established the “Lemon Test” which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion.  It consists of three prongs:

1.  The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;

2.  The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

3. The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

Same-sex marriage passes the first one, which you agreed with that.  Allowing same-sex marriage does not advance any religion, nor do I see it as inhibiting any religion since it has been stated over and over that allowing same-sex marriages would NOT mean forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages, and if that were to occur somewhere it could easily be fought.  As to the third point, I already made this point, if marriage is traditionally a religious institute and the government’s action must not result in an excessive government entanglement, then it’s marriage that needs to be stripped of governmental benefits.  And again it is coming down to one word, marriage.  Even if same-sex unions are legalized same-sex couples are still going to use the words “marriage, married, marry”, so are atheist couples and couples of other faiths.  

Absolutely the most disgusting blog I have seen thus far at Xanga. There should be laws against this crap being shown. There are impressionable children out there, you fucking morons.

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - Sweetie, marriage predates Christianity, hence your arguments are as much a joke as you are. Mwaaaaaahhh.

@FascistCanuck@xanga - I was arguing that very point.  

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - The USA existed before the White man arrived? No, it didn’t. None too bright, are you?

@FascistCanuck@xanga - Sorry, didn’t realize you were so dense that you need everything explained literally.  The continent that is now called America existed and was inhabited by people before the white man arrived here.  You were not a part of this debate and the person I am debating was completely capable of understanding my shortened version.  If you want in on this debate then say something constructive to the debate, otherwise take your trolling elsewhere.

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - Sweetiepie, you said ‘this country existed before the White man arrived’, the ‘country’ in question being the United States of America. It most certainly did NOT exist before the arrival of the White man. It was not even called ‘America’ either.

I learned long ago to ignore the stupidity of women, and just accept it as commonplace in our society.

@FascistCanuck@xanga - Yep, I know what I said and what I implied, the other person understood, you’re a moron.  I learned long ago how to block and ignore trolls, so I’m done with you.

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - Wow, this one was quick to anger over her own mistake. Damn.

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - The Constitution was not founded on Christian beliefs, this country was. Just read the Mayflower Compact:

“IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.”
And as for George Washington, he may not have made his faith public and there is one notable mention of his faith in his Farewell Address, he was a man of faith.
“The father of our nation was quiet about his Christian faith. But there can be no doubt his faith in our Lord Jesus Christ was deep and heartfelt. In his first general order to his troops, General George Washington called on …

Every officer and man…to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.”

http://prophecyteacher.hubpages.com/hub/George-Washington—Follower-of-Jesus-Christ

and in his Farewell Address, he stresses the importance of religion:

“Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in the Courts of Justice?”

Washington firmly believed morality would not exist without religion.

As for Christianity preventing interracial marriage – natural law and Christianity are two separate things. They may be intertwined and often misunderstood, but two separate things. The Courts, and most people at the time, did not accept interracial marriages – not solely Christians or those of faith.

As for the Glucksberg test, I don’t even understand how you can say that it wouldn’t “excessively entangle” with the religion. Already, it has. It will only further entangle the government with religion.

And yes, it does boil down to one word. As my first post stated, which you originally replied to, it is all about the one word “marriage”. It has always referred to one man, one woman. It has nothing to do with atheism, other faiths, etc. This has always been my stance.

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - - Yikes. I think one thing we can both agree on is that FacistCanuck is effing nuts haha

That video has me all teary-eyed. I’m reminded of the couple who got married in DC last June after 60 years together. People who are under the impression that it is all about lust and sex are so misguided. Love is love and it’s all beautiful.

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga -All morality is not relative. If it was, then genocide would be
considered morally justified. I don’t see where you can’t see the moral
difference between slavery and marriage in the US, which is really the type of
marriage this blog refers to. One important factor in marriage is to provide a
foundation by which children can grow and become productive contributors to
society. Slavery, on the other hand, can and has divided families.

The gay rights issue is way too controversial for you to judge people on
whether they’re homophile or homophobic. So your opinion of me is just that: an
opinion. It doesn’t really matter what you think of me anyway. What I’m
concerned about is preserving the natural way of producing children. Gay
couples can’t obviously do that so they have to find alternative ways of having
children. That’s why I wouldn’t consider that a real marriage. It’s only gay
marriage that I take issue with. I don’t have anything against gays contributing
to society in other ways.

I also don’t agree with you about child-rearing no longer being important
in a marriage. I know plenty of people who feel as I do that children are a
vital product in a married union. Like it or not, propagation of the human
species will always be an issue no matter what anyone thinks about what
constitutes a marriage.

@corporatecrow@xanga - Just because some people make their own rules on whether to marry or not doesn’t mean it’s the best approach to take. Replenishment of the human species will always be a concern and an ongoing issue in this debate. Whether a couple are good parents or not is irrelevant as this doesn’t change the necessity to propagate the species.

@zionlover@xanga - Gender is not as simple as ‘man’ or ‘woman’. People think this is a new concept but gender transcends our ability to understand it. Some people are born with both chromosomes, or both types of physical features (man with female breasts, woman with body hair). I saw a woman on tv this afternoon who is a mosaic hermaphrodite; she has both reproductive systems, and they both work. Both are complete and healthy.

You’re also not taking into account a gay or lesbian person who tries to have a heterosexual relationship in order to find acceptance within his/her community or family and a child is born before the relationship ends. Gay people do have biological children. They are not parents any less for loving someone of the same sex.

They can also adopt in many states now, so the whole ‘perpetuation of the species’ argument isn’t as important an issue. The world is heavily overpopulated, if some people didn’t adopt many children would never know what it’s like to have a home or the love of a family. I’d much rather see a child adopted by a gay couple in a stable, loving relationship than born into a straight family that either didn’t want the child or had such issues in their own relationship the child would be virtually ignored unless one or the other of them needed some ammo to use against the other.

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - Who said anything about homosexuals turning heterosexual? If you wish to debate with me, please do me the courtesy of not confronting me over things I’ve never said. All I’m saying is that there should be two separate rules regulating homosexual and heterosexual unions. All the examples you’ve stated in regard to how gay couples need alternative means to raise children proves my point. Your desire to become infertile was your decision and yours alone. That still doesn’t take away the idea that the propagation of the human species is still crucial.

@StatelessPilot@revelife - Again, our views on the perpetuation of the human race are drastically antithetical. I don’t feel that everyone having distinctive genitalia was by chance. It’s like that for a valid purpose. So for you to say it’s selfish to propagate the species goes against nature.

I don’t need a human sexuality class to know that everyone has separate genitalia that naturally produces offspring when coming together. You can go to such a class if you wish. Once again, you’re throwing in random exceptions to prove a fabricated theory. For the most part, everyone is clearly of two distinct sexes that any objective observer can see. That’s not even a religious fact, but a scientific one.

Interracial marriages are quite distinct from gay unions indeed. People from different sexes can reproduce regardless of race. Gay couples clearly can not.

Your knowledge of history seems to be flawed as well. The ancient Greek society was supplanted by Roman society, which means it was one pagan culture replacing another. As for the ancient Romans themselves, they pretty much destroyed their own paganism when some among them willingly converted to Christianity and assimilated all the others. As for your claim that religion has exterminated societies more than any other ideology, I wouldn’t exactly call Communism and Nazism religions and they’ve done just as much damage.

@BeautifulOblivion - Historically, gay marriage was legal and accepted in both ancient Rome (pre-christianity) and in China.

@ZombieMom_Speaks@xanga - While that may be, that’s not what I’m arguing. In this country, same-sex marriage is not in the history or tradition. Other countries laws and traditions have no bearing on our country (unless, of course, it is a treaty or some other kind of mutual decree, etc.) Feel free to read my other comments, I address that all more deeply. 

@zionlover@xanga - I think I pretty much agree with everything you’re saying. (I haven’t read all your posts, though). It’s nice to know I’m not alone  

@ZombieMom_Speaks@xanga - No worries 

@BeautifulOblivion - My bad. I thought you meant in general.

Alrighty then. 

The native americans performed same sex marriages too, though.

@BeautifulOblivion - You know what, I’m going to concede that America was founded on Christianity.  As I stated, I study constitutional law so I get stuck on the constitution and rarely go backwards from there, lol.  There were several settlements before the Plymouth colony, but more likely than not they too were Christian-oriented.  I’m going to have to go back and study more history because I am curious about the contradictions with Washington since he did clearly state in the Treaty of Tripoli that America was not founded on Christianity.  Dirty politicians, I guess, lol.  We are both in agreement though that the Constitution was not founded on Christianity and that the Constitution is the law of the land that we currently live under.  The Constitution endorses separation of church and state through the first amendment, and Thomas Jefferson’s separate writings support separation of church and state.  You state that it was meant to keep government out of religion, I think it was meant to do that as well as keep religion out of government.  

As to interracial marriages, I do know that natural law and Christianity are 2 separate things, however, it is a fact that in a lot of the debates and hearings surrounding the issue of interracial marriage Christianity and the Bible were used to support keeping interracial marriage illegal.

As to the entanglement issue, I think we have a miscommunication here.  I am actually agreeing that there already is entanglement by the fact that the government grants certain legalities to married couples.  In other words, government has gotten involved with religion, and you are the one stating that separation of church and state was designed to keep government out of religion.  By that logic, marriages should be stripped of government-granted legalities and become a purely religious state.  If that were to happen then civil unions could be created with the government-granted legalities since civil unions would not be recognized as a religious state.  

To quote Confucius, who lived before Christ: “Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain.”  Here marriage is not clearly defined as being between a man and a woman.  The only argument you can have here then is that according to Christian tradition it has always been one man, one woman.  If that is the way it is, then Christian marriages should be recognized by Christian churches and not the government because that would be entangling the government with religion.  Ergo, civil unions should be for everyone not a Christian, not just homosexuals.  Only Christians should be recognized as “married”, and since “marriage” would represent only the Christian tradition of “marriage” it should not be touched by government.  

From what I’m understanding, and I may be wrong so feel free to correct me if that’s the case this is just how it’s coming across to me, you believe homosexuality is a sin but you do agree that people have free will to make their own choices.  You’re not against homosexuals forming unions similar to marriage and gaining government benefits from doing so, you are against defiling the word marriage as in your view it is and should always be defined by Christian tradition.  That is why I’m arguing that people of other faiths would have to forego “marriage” for “civil unions”, as would atheists, because even if another faith’s definition is similar it still is not following all the tenets of “Christian marriage” within the heart since there would be conflicts among some as to which God they were even being bound by, or in the case of atheists not being bound by a God.  All I’m trying to say is that this “Christian tradition” makes “marriage” not secular, in which case it fails the first point of the Lemon Test.  

We definitely agree 100% about FascistCanuck.  :)  

@zionlover@xanga - You Said:  ”All the examples you’ve stated in regard to how gay couples need alternative means to raise children proves my point. Your desire to become infertile was your decision and yours alone. That still doesn’t take away the idea that the propagation of the human species is still crucial.”

Then in fact any couple that willfully decides not to have children, regardless of their faith, should not be allowed to marry.  Crucial or not, marriage is not solely for procreation.  If your argument is that marriage is solely for procreation, or even that it is one of the major points of marriage, then any couple not desiring children or capable of having children should not be allowed to be married.  A couple who chooses to adopt should not be able to use the label “marriage” since they did not biologically achieve their children, nor are their children of their bloodline.  A homosexual man can create a biological child using a surrogate mother, then raise that biological child with another man who is not biologically related to the child.  How is that any different whatsoever than a man creating a biological child with a surrogate mother because his wife is infertile?  The only difference there is that it’s a man with a man as the parental unit instead of a man with a woman as the parental unit – so the real issue comes down to the fact that you don’t like homosexuality.  Well, no one is asking you to like it, or do it, or agree with it – but you don’t have the right to deny others their civil liberties based on religious doctrine.  

@zionlover@xanga - but we’re overpopulated and so many kids need families and homes…so maybe we should worry about adopting those kids before we worry that gay marriage is suddenly going to lead to an end of human reproduction.

also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ&feature=channel_video_title

@BeautifulOblivion - I have enjoyed this as well, so thank you.  :)  I will be responding to your last comment, but I’ll have to do it tomorrow, probably in the evening unless we are low on volumes at work.  I barely got any sleep last night so for now I have to head to bed.  As for sifting through the bullshit, it’s the same on both sides.  The sources and information are out there, but the Internet is so big now that sometimes you really have to dig to find accurate information.  Anyway, I wanted to quickly respond and give you this information in case you were planning on waiting for a response tonight, I know how frustrating that can be when someone just disappears so I didn’t want to do that, lol.  

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - haha I appreciate it! Unfortunately I have an assignment due tomorrow, so I’ll be up who knows how long. Have a great night & I look forward to any more debating in store 

@zionlover@xanga - Apparently the lovelyish editorial staff deleted my last comment. Check your email, it’s in there. I guess I’m not allowed to call religion what it is: a mental illness. 

@zionlover@xanga - 

“ That’s why I wouldn’t consider that a real marriage.”
as a society, we’ve already decided that “separate but equal” doesn’t work.  and that’s precisely what you’re arguing for: marital segregation.  furthermore, i doubt you’d say that heterosexual couples who are unable or choose not to have children shouldn’t get married as well.  so, you’re singling out heterosexuals based on their sexuality…. and yes, that makes you a homophobic bigot, just as someone singling out black people makes them a racist bigot.  
“ Like it or not, propagation of the human

species will always be an issue no matter what anyone thinks about what
constitutes a marriage.”

human beings were having sex and making babies long before marriage was invented, and they will continue to do so even if marriage collapses.  either you’re ignorant of the history of human sexuality, or ignore facts that don’t support your POV, but the connection between marriage and procreation was one invented by humankind… and not to preserve procreation, but to preserve inheritance rights by enforcing monogamy.  

Do civil unions and marriages have the same rights? Thats the thing that always got me. A civil union also seems to be given a connotation of being less than marriage.

I can understand religious reasons for keeping the term of “marriage” and prefering gay civil unions, but I would really hate to explain to my mom one day that I am getting a civil union with my boyfriend because I am not religious lol

@BeautifulOblivion - 

“It is unfair to force the church to condone something that they simply do not condone.”
so what of Christian denominations that do support same-sex marriage?  should the marriages they officiate be recognized, since they obviously want them to be?

@BeautifulOblivion - Hmmm, it appears some of your comments disappeared.  I’m not sure if you deleted them or if there is a glitch on the site since someone else pointed out that some of their comments disappeared as well.  I do still have the email notification of your last reply and I did tell you that I would respond to it, so here goes.  I will copy and paste your reply point-by-point so it’s less confusing, lol.

You:  Okay, back to it. I understand what you’re saying about the First Amendment, but I disagree with your interpretation of it. I believe, since it is pretty generally understood (& I’ll include references below) that Jefferson was assuring the Danbury pastors with “separation of church and state” as that the government would stay out of religion, that through that same view, the First Amendment was to keep government out of religion. The founders did not want there to be any federally established national religion. But, states were free to establish state-wide religions if they so felt. If the First Amendment was to keep religion out of government, states would not have been allowed to do so. Many states did establish state-wide religions, or declare that that particular state was for a particular religion. While states don’t have state established religions anymore (obviously), it wouldn’t have been tolerated if it wasn’t Constitutional.

Me:  States are free to make any law they wish, however, any citizen within that state is allowed to file suit against a law they deem unconstitutional.  If the claim is taken to the Federal Supreme Court and judged to be unconstitutional, then the state must strike down the law.  We would not be the “United” States of America if states were allowed to impose unconstitutional laws without recourse to abolishing them.  DOMA is an attempt to ban same-sex marriage on a federal level, thereby effectively making it illegal for all states.  However, it is still an unconstitutional law and should/will be abolished over time.  As for state-wide established religions, the reason there are none any longer is because they were struck down as unconstitutional.  Many unconstitutional laws have been tolerated for long periods of time before finally being struck down as unconstitutional.  Like I mentioned previously, the Federal Supreme Court isn’t always right and does change it’s own rulings.  

Furthermore, marriage is a legally-binding contract recognized and granted benefits by the government.  That being said, the government cannot discriminate and withhold civil liberties from a minority group of people when the discrimination has no secular benefit (such as protecting minors).  It’s why DOMA was started in the first place since the whole “one man, one woman” was not actually a written law, but an implied preference/tradition.  So if the debate comes down to the use of the word marriage, and certain religious groups do not agree with legally recognizing same-sex marriages (not being forced to perform them, but having to accept them as being “marriages”) then by allowing the government to continue legal contracts to married couples is indeed government injecting itself into religion and therefore by your own definition is a violation of state and church.

You:  As for interracial marriage, I will do more research. I have never heard of Christianity stopping interracial marriage, and would welcome any resources you have. It is and was always my understanding that “white supremacy” and beliefs of the like stood in the way, not Christianity. Our country, unfortunately, did have slavery and all that, so interracial marriage wasn’t condoned. However, I doubt Christianity was the root of that belief. In fact, I don’t believe anywhere in the Bible discourages interracial marriage. I know it does discourage believers marrying unbelievers, but I’m sure that’s all the Bible talks about in that manner.

Yes, of course, there are “Christian” extremists who think that things like interracial marriage isn’t okay. But there are tons of secular people who believe the same. Just for example, the Westboro Baptist Church and the hatred and all that they spew makes me just sick. How they can even call themselves a church is disgusting to me. Utterly disgusting. They are a hate group, not Christians even a bit. (I’m not sure their views on interracial marriage, and I hate the way they address same-sex marriage. It’s disgusting. I’m just using them as an example. Trust me, I’d be the first one to get into a screaming match with them.) But I digress.

Me:  Yes, this is a perfect example.  Most white supremacist groups were self-identified as Christians.  Whether or not you and I agree that they were “true Christians” is beside the point.  They professed a belief in Christ, followed Christianity (albeit through their own interpretation, but then that’s what each denomination does) and cited the Bible as a source for keeping interracial marriage illegal.  Of course, it didn’t work because the government cannot deny a minority group the same liberties it grants another group based on a religious text.  When all the arguments were thoroughly examined, there was no secular rationale to support keeping interracial marriage illegal.  And there is no secular rationale to keeping same-sex marriage illegal – if it is in fact simply the term, then it is Christianity/other religions wanting to retain marriage as a purely religious institute – which would be fine and we could then have civil unions for all other groups, except by agreeing to that then the religious communities would have to agree to being stripped of the government benefits currently provided to married couples.  

You:  I think we are having a misunderstanding of government entanglement. There is definitely a difference between civil unions and marriages, and yes, I understand what you’re saying. However, again, this country only looks back at the history and traditions of this country. In this country, marriage has never meant one man, one woman. Never for any religion or denomination, race or otherwise. To say differently would be entangling more with religion. Its not just that the Christian tradition dictates one man, one woman (though it does), its that the American tradition has always been one man & one woman. To pass the Lemon test, it cannot entangle with religion, which this clearly already does. 

Me:  First, I’m assuming that was a typo (marriage has never meant one man, one woman).  :)  I know you meant “In t his country, marriage has always been one man, one woman.”  The issue I have with your above statement is that you clearly acknowledge that to say differently “would be entangling more with religion.”  You clearly acknowledge that there already is government entanglement with marriage, and clearly believe that to pass the Lemon Test government cannot entangle with religion.  Again, this brings us back to stripping marriage of government recognition/benefits.  

You:  I half agree, half disagree with your final paragraph. I am Christian, yes, but I also believe that it’s not hurting me, harming me, or in any way offending me for the LGBT community to have something like marriage. I am not shoving my religion down others throats. However, I do believe marriage has always been, traditionally, one man and one woman. & while I understand how most people do not believe marriage is a religious institution, I believe it is. (Why else would most people marry in churches (or their religious equivalent), in front of a priest (or, again, their religious equivalent)? Even most atheists I know marry in Churches. Marriage has always been one man and one woman in this country. I think that it is sad that the LGBT cannot have spouses and the rights that come with that. However, I do not think marriage is the correct terminology because marriage has always been one man & one woman.

Me:  I’m sorry, but you just clearly stated that you believe marriage is a religious institution.  I have no problem recognizing that if that’s what it takes to sort the issue out and get same-sex couples the same civil liberties they deserve.  However, if that’s the case then marriage, as a strictly religious institute, must be stripped of it’s government-granted benefits to avoid failing the first prong of the Lemon Test.  

Tradition doesn’t always make sense, or entail what is good for society as a whole.  We can just as easily say that “traditionally” interracial marriage was not condoned or recognized in our history until someone stepped up and said “wait a minute, why not?”  Stopping progress of our country based on traditional beliefs alone stagnates our country and our creativity.  

P.S. to your P.S.  I don’t know who David Barton is, but I’m guessing I don’t want to either, lol.  You get no disagreement from me about the crazies out there, lol.

@turnyalightsdownlow@xanga - lol thats ok! i read stuff wrong sometimes as well~~~ perfectly normal hehe

If we all truly obeyed God’s teachings, there would be no need for posts like this.  The New Testament says we shouldn’t judge other people.  Hets have been judging Gays for so long,..it’s about time that it stopped,..I can say that and I’m not GAy!!

@BeautifulOblivion - I’d like to thank you too. Your support helps a lot.

@zionlover@xanga - Because you couldn’t refute the points I made, so you thought BeautifulOblivion had?  You should re-read the last items of the debate, the one they deleted which I copied and pasted from the email notification and addressed point-by-point.  When all was said and done it once again came down to a religious preference, which is unconstitutional.  I gave them the benefit of the doubt about the deleted comment since someone else said their comment had been deleted also, but with that and the lack of response I’m pretty convinced it was a cut and run when shown their argument didn’t have a leg to stand on.

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - Don’t flatter yourself. I’m working on my rebuttal to you. I just have two or three other people I’m rebutting also and prefer to paste my responses all at one time.

@zionlover@xanga - I’ll await your response then, but it seems to me you just keep arguing the same point over and over again, that homosexual couples cannot have biological children the natural way, and it’s been pointed out to you again and again that if that is truly the issue then then you would have to make marriage illegal for heterosexuals who adopt, use IVF or a surrogate mother, etc.  There’s no difference, except maybe your religious belief, and that, too, has been refuted as unconstitutional. 

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - “Separate but equal” was legislated for racial segregation. You can’t possibly compare differences in skin tone with that of sexual orientation. Race has no effect on human propagation. Sexual orientation does because two people of the same sex can’t naturally produce children. Heterosexual couples who don’t desire to have children will still always have that option open for them to reconsider at any time. Infertility with a heterosexual couple is due to causes beyond their control, unlike similarities of genitalia in a gay couple’s case. There is nothing bigoted about pointing those differences out if they’re true.

While it’s true that human beings were making babies before marriage was possibly invented, they still had to be aware that it takes opposite genders to do it. Do you possibly think they believed that gay couples could produce children? Whatever the reasons for marriage through the ages (one of which was because it was believed to be a religious act, not just for inheritance rights), mankind has always believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. I don’t know of any time it was thought otherwise.

@corporatecrow@xanga - I don’t have a problem with adopting kids who’ve been orphaned or whatnot. I just fail to see why we have to redefine a traditionally heterosexual practice in doing so.

As far as the video goes, I seriously question that Wahl’s personal views can longitudinally project how gay marriage would affect our society in the future. In addition, I also question his sincerity, especially when he claims that not one person has ever confronted him about his lesbian parents in all his nineteen years.

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - A heterosexual couple who either decides not to have children or can’t produce any of their own is not the same thing as a couple who are biologically incapable regardless of circumstance. If a heterosexual couple decides not to have children, it is through an act of will that they can change at any time if desired. Gay couples can’t naturally procreate no matter what. And if either partner or both in a heterosexual relationship are infertile, it’s highly unlikely that was from choice. In a gay relationship, not being able to produce children is known in advance.

I’m not exactly in favor of surrogacy in that it’s like having children from an extramarital affair. Not to mention a couple who allows a surrogate to give birth to their child would be like giving that child a stepparent right from the moment of birth. Don’t think that these issues aren’t heavily contested already. As far as adoption goes, that doesn’t determine what a marriage is as foster parents can adopt and don’t have to be married.

You say that I don’t like homosexuality? I’m neither for nor against it. I don’t have a problem with gays getting jobs, owning property, or any other such thing that doesn’t affect the overall functioning of our society. But marriage and child-rearing does majorly impact our society for me to be concerned about gay marriage and, therefore, gives me the right to protest. Civil rights are not a one-way street and applies to heterosexuals as well. So with me, gays have the right to have civil unions, not marriages. As to your claim that religion is the basis for my argument, that is incorrect. Logic dictates that the human species will go extinct unless it is propagated. I don’t need religion to tell me that.

@zionlover@xanga - you’re completely missing my point.  i’m saying there’s absolutely no reason to be concerned about propagating the species, considering we are overpopulated…i just really don’t understand your preoccupation with ensuring that reproduction continues.  it will continue whether gay marriage is allowed or not.  people like having sex and many people like having children.  our narcissistic and survivalist drive to see ourselves recreated in our children will live on and on, no matter who we allow to marry. by allowing gay marriage we aren’t taking the privilege away from straight couples, we’re just being more inclusive.

additionally, i think it’s a good sign that he hasn’t been harassed about his parents’ sexual orientation…you can say that you aren’t anti-gay but by denying them rights and saying you’re doing so because infertile heterosexual couples don’t have a choice in having or not having children, whereas gay couples somehow do, you are implying that being gay is a choice, which it is not.additionally, i don’t understand how civil unions are any better in your eyes than gay marriage, because either way they aren’t going to be able to have children in the conventional manner.

@zionlover@xanga - Again, marriage is not SOLELY for procreation.  If your reason for being against gay marriage is that they cannot procreate naturally and you are scared the human race will die out, as has been pointed out several times already that will not happen.  Allowing gay marriage isn’t going to turn the whole country suddenly gay!  And it isn’t going to effect whatsoever all of the out-of-wedlock pregnancies that occur.  The species will go on with or without gay marriage.  And if your argument is simply that they cannot procreate naturally then you have to include infertile couples and those who choose to remain child-free whether it’s by using protection, sterilization or abortion.  Now you say you’re not really in favor of surrogacy either, but still you’re willing to allow it as long as the couple involved are opposite sex, but not if they are same sex and that’s being hypocritical.  What if they do eventually scientifically prove homosexuality is not a choice?  Are you going to accept homosexual marriage then? 

Logic dictates that allowing homosexuals to marry will not at all cause the human race to go extinct.  Like I said, denying homosexuals the right to marry is not going to convince homosexuals to enter into heterosexual marriages and procreate, so married or not banning same-sex marriage is not going to have any effect whatsoever on the current path of procreation – and the human race will never die out due to lack of procreation.  

Constitutionally, you do not have legal ground to force me to have children just because I’m a fertile female. You can’t legally ban me from having my tubes tied, or getting an abortion or using protection and ensuring I never have children of my own.  If your point is all about procreation then you should be all for forcing everyone of childbearing age who is not infertile to get married and procreate.  And I’ll take a guess here, but I bet you’re not in favor of unwed pregnancies, right?  Even though it still ensures propagating the human race.  And again, if marriage is solely, or even primarily, about having babies then you cannot logically agree to allowing infertile men and women get married.  It doesn’t matter if it’s beyond their control or not, if marriage is about having babies the natural way then infertile couples should not be allowed to get married, toss them on over to your civil unions side.  

You say you’re completely fine with homosexual couples having all the same benefits and liberties as married couples, just don’t call it a marriage.  You seem to think the one and only definition of marriage is babies, and that’s not true.  Should we have a third option to grant all the same rights and benefits to those couples who have babies in unconventional ways such as adoption and surrogacy?  

Furthermore, regarding the Wahl video, he never stated no one confronted him about his lesbian parents.  What he said was that no one, without being told, has ever figured out he was raised by lesbians.  If there’s such a major difference you should be able to look at a person and see these so-called “defects” that would clearly show someone was raised by a homosexual couple instead of a heterosexual couple.  Considering at least 90% of our criminals filling our prisons were created the natural, heterosexual way and raised either in a single parent home or a traditional heterosexual home, your argument fails right there.  If you neglect your child in favor of becoming a meth addict, it hardly matters whether you’re a straight meth addict or a gay meth addict.  

You say it isn’t about religion, but then you do bring religion up as being a primary point in history in a comment to someone else.  If you want to keep marriage as a solely religious institute requiring procreation, I’m fine with that, but then do just that exactly and strip marriage of its civil liberties since it is a religious institute.  As for mankind always believing throughout all of history that marriage was between a man and a woman, that’s not true.  Homosexual marriages have been recognized in cultures throughout the world such as ancient Greeks and Romans and even Native-American tribes.  In fact, technically it wasn’t even written in our American law that marriage is between a man and a woman, if it were already written there then DOMA would not have been started in the first place.  Implied tradition is not a legal standing ground.  Tradition must give way to progress or we stagnate.  

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - Whoops! I don’t know where all my comments went! I didn’t delete them, how obnoxious haha. Thank you for reposting what I said, otherwise I wouldn’t know what you were responding to!! Much thanks

First, states cannot pass any laws they wish. As long as it is not given to the Federal government, then yes I suppose they can. However it is not like they are running rampant passing laws here & there. Just like you said, we are the United States of America, so the Supreme Court generally does try to keep things pretty even. The Supreme Court is much more likely to hear a case when there is a circuit split so as to keep things even. Also, state religions were not struck down as unconstitutional (to my knowledge, nor could I find any support of that). It is widely appreciated that states do not enforce, acknowledge or really promote any statewide religions – but this is not because it is unconstitutional. The government cannot establish a religion on the federal level, but states may. In fact, the Free Exercise of Religion clause supports that.

While many white supremacists may have declared themselves Christians (whether they were actually or not, I’ll push to the side), it is not a Christian belief to stand against interracial marriage. I did just read an article recently where a Church banned a couple because they are interracial – and it broke my heart. However, the backlash they got from the Christian community is overwhelming. (http://www.wlky.com/r/29901119/detail.html). It is not a standard Christian belief, nor is there support of this anywhere in the Bible. However, same-sex marriage is not condoned and is expressly discouraged (to put it lightly) in the Bible.

Ah! Thanks for understanding my typo! I feel like I always am typing these super late or something haha I appreciate it. I understand what you mean about the stripping benefits stance – I truly do. I don’t believe that is what needs to happen. Marriage = one man, one woman. Another word, another definition. No benefits need be stripped, etc.

I do believe marriage is a religious institution, even if others don’t. And that’s okay! I am not trying to force my beliefs down anyone’s throat, just like I don’t want anyone else’s shoved down mine. And I agree, sometimes traditions need to be changed, absolutely. However, the Supreme Court (sorry! You study the Constitution, I study law, haha) looks at the history and tradition when using the Glucksberg test to determine a fundamental right. If marriage is a fundamental right, then the history and tradition is absolutely key. And marriage traditionally has always been one man, one woman – Christianity & all else aside. Stopping progress is never the answer, however neither is throwing out the window history and tradition. Change is okay, but not at the expense of what others believe in.

Ps – Yes, for everyone’s sake, don’t look into or research David Barton. Unless you want to laugh, then by all means.  

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - I think that is up to those Churches; its not my style to force my beliefs down another’s throat.

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - I was just going through the past comments because someone else had replied to me about something, and I noticed this. I’m sorry you thought I had “cut & run”… I think my argument does have “a leg to stand on”, but like I had last said, I had a big assignment due that was taking up my time. I also didn’t realize that you thought my argument was completely without merit, which is a tad insulting as I had thought our conversation had been an informative and well-based one. I guess I’ll let you be then – it’s been fun.

@zionlover@xanga - 

“ Heterosexual couples who don’t desire to have children will still always have that option open for them to reconsider at any time. Infertility with a heterosexual couple is due to causes beyond their control, unlike similarities of genitalia in a gay couple’s case.”
technically, homosexual couples are just as biologically capable of reproduction as a heterosexual couple that chooses not to, and even more biologically capable than a heterosexual couple that is infertile.  being homosexual doesn’t make you infertile, so your argument is moot.  plenty of lesbians in relationships opt for in vitro, and plenty of gay men opt for surrogate pregnancies.  
“Whatever the reasons for marriage through the ages (one of which was because it was believed to be a religious act, not just for inheritance rights), mankind has always believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. I don’t know of any time it was thought otherwise.”
so… what’s your point?  are you just one of those people who thinks it’s more important to go with the status quo than guarantee equal rights under the law?  that’s seriously pathetic.  for most of human history, slavery was considered perfectly moral as well.  imagine what might have happened to emancipation efforts around the world if everyone thought like you.  

@BeautifulOblivion - Actually, yes a state can pass any law it wishes even if it goes against federal law.  A perfect example of that would be medical marijuana.  Marijuana, for any use, is illegal under federal law, however, 6 states have passed ballot initiatives which legalize marijuana for medical use.  http://marijuana-as-medicine.org/Federal%20&%20State%20Law.htm  However, with federal and state laws conflicting the federal laws do override state laws IF they choose to take action, which is why this whole medical marijuana issue is still so murky.  Also, any citizen of a state can challenge a state law as being unconstitutional and have it brought through a chain up to a federal level if no federal ruling has already been made on that type of law.  Roe vs. Wade is an example of a federal ruling where states still go against that ruling and constituents of such states have legal recourse up the chain of command to have the ruling struck down as unconstitutional.

As for state-sponsored religions:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights  So yes, basically state religions were struck down as unconstitutional. 

 
As for racial segregation:  http://books.google.com/books?id=DdCApZN4xjwC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=christians+defended+segregation&source=bl&ots=7E0SbC7LTm&sig=kEGA46BuWFyZPzL-o58T_dOfp7I&hl=en&ei=x8bbToioLsjm2gXn8r22Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=christians%20defended%20segregation&f=false
http://atheism.about.com/od/christianismnationalism/p/ConfederateSout.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_1_34/ai_94160905/pg_3/
It was mostly the Southern Baptist congregation fighting segregation using Biblical defenses to do so, but that hardly negates the issue.  

All that aside, I used the civil rights movement as an example of stepping stones in history to abolishing laws that, when thoroughly examined, had no secular rationale and only religious defenses.  

Again, it was not clearly written in law that the definition of marriage is “one man, one woman”.  DOMA was designed to make explicit that marriage was “one man, one woman” since it was NOT a written law before DOMA.  In other words, since no one had challenged it before it was “traditionally” seen as being “one man, one woman” – just like it was “traditionally” seen that no white person would marry a black person – that is  how the 2 cases are similar.  Now it comes down to explaining why, with a secular rationale, marriage should be recognized as only “one man, one woman”.  Do you have an argument for that other than a religious rationale or “tradition”?  No.  There is no secular rationale to banning same-sex marriage by defining marriage as “one man, one woman”.  

Actually, I study Constitutional Law.  If marriage is a fundamental right then the government cannot ban same-sex marriage without a secular rationale, which I have yet to see you present an argument of that nature other than implied tradition, which is hardly enough to hold it up as law.  If marriage as a fundamental right derives government benefits then it must not discriminate against minority groups.  If marriage is defined solely as a religious institute, then it must be stripped of government benefits to remain a religious institute.  That leaves us with the options of defining marriage as between 2 people regardless of gender and giving benefits to all across the board or defining marriage as a religious institute and stripping it of its benefits and creating civil unions to grant benefits.  

And change is always at the expense of what others believe in, because if it weren’t then there would be no change because there are always groups and individuals resistant to change even if it is detrimental to themselves and/or society as a whole.

As to the cut and run, sorry about that – first your comments disappeared before I even had a chance to respond to them, and then that other guy was really irritating me with his repetitive argument that made no logical sense.  I recently was in a debate where the other poster continually responded so I would get the reply in email and then promptly deleted his comments and accused me of plagiarism when I would copy and paste his replies in my responses.  I’m still a bit stung by that one since I would never stoop to such tactics myself.  I was not trying to be insulting, I thought it was obvious by the fact that we are debating this issue from opposite sides that I felt your argument held no merit, and assumed you felt the same way about my argument.  

@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - 
“technically, homosexual couples are just as biologically capable of reproduction as a heterosexual couple that chooses not to, and even more biologically capable than a heterosexual couple that is infertile.  being homosexual doesn’t make you infertile, so your argument is moot.  plenty of lesbians in relationships opt for in vitro, and plenty of gay men opt for surrogate pregnancies.”

Technically, now you’re being foolish. You know what I meant. Members of a gay couple can’t reproduce WITH EACH OTHER.

“so… what’s your point?  are you just one of those people who thinks it’s more important to go with the status quo than guarantee equal rights under the law?  that’s seriously pathetic.  for most of human history, slavery was considered perfectly moral as well.  imagine what might have happened to emancipation efforts around the world if everyone thought like you.”

My point is that you’re still clinging to the fallacy that marriage in the USA and slavery are moral equivalencies. I’ve already mentioned why that’s not true. With that, I think it’s safe to say that all we’re doing at this point is repeating ourselves. So I think it best we stop here. Thank you for the debate and it’s been nice. No need to reply.

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga -

“Again, marriage is not SOLELY for procreation.”
I never said it was. I said that it was a PRIMARY aspect of marriage.

“If your reason for being against gay marriage is that they cannot procreate naturally and you are scared the human race will die out, as has been pointed out several times already that will not happen.”
You’re right. It won’t happen. That’s because many people like me already see the value that procreation holds for humanity. If everyone in the world thought like you, that procreation is only of slight importance, the human race would surely go extinct. So, based on your logic, you should thank me for taking the time to debate with you over its merits.

“Allowing gay marriage isn’t going to turn the whole country suddenly gay!”
I never said that either.

“And if your argument is simply that they cannot procreate naturally then you have to include infertile couples and those who choose to remain child-free whether it’s by using protection, sterilization or abortion.”
No, I don’t have to. I clearly stated to you that infertility within heterosexual and gay couples are attributed to entirely different causes. To say they’re similar is highly deceptive.

“Now you say you’re not really in favor of surrogacy either, but still you’re willing to allow it as long as the couple involved are opposite sex, but not if they are same sex..”
There you go making false assumptions again. I never said that either. I spoke of surrogacy in only general terms without specifying who should practice it. I’m critical of it being practiced by both gay and heterosexual couples because of the moral dilemmas that could be generated.

“What if they do eventually scientifically prove homosexuality is not a choice?”
It’s already been scientifically proven that it is. They’ve done studies with identical twins and found that the majority cases are that only one of the pairs is gay, meaning that homosexuality is not an inborn trait.

“Like I said, denying homosexuals the right to marry is not going to convince homosexuals to enter into heterosexual marriages and procreate…”
Again, I never said it would nor that I wanted them to.

“Constitutionally, you do not have legal ground to force me to have children just because I’m a fertile female.”
The only thing I said was that your decision to become infertile was your choice alone and doesn’t negate the need for others to have children.

“And I’ll take a guess here, but I bet you’re not in favor of unwed pregnancies, right?”
That’s hardly relevant since the topic of this debate is on the legitimacy of gay marriage.

“Furthermore, regarding the Wahl video, he never stated no one confronted him about his lesbian parents.  What he said was that no one, without being told, has ever figured out he was raised by lesbians.”
Oh, really? Towards the end of the video, he said, “In my nineteen years, not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple” Sounds like he was saying he was never confronted to me. It pays to pay careful attention to all you read or listen to. If not, you’re going to make yourself look awfully foolish.

“You say it isn’t about religion, but then you do bring religion up as being a primary point in history in a comment to someone else.”
I only spoke of religion as a response to someone else. I never initiated it.

“As for mankind always believing throughout all of history that marriage was between a man and a woman, that’s not true.”
Again, if you took the time to carefully read what I wrote, I admitted that I didn’t know of any time when marriage was not between a man and a woman. But I had already found out the facts prior to you even writing it here. Regardless, I don’t consider ancient pagan cultures to be a very worthy basis for morals today. If that were true, then we might as well reinstitute slavery.

“In fact, technically it wasn’t even written in our American law that marriage is between a man and a woman”
It wasn’t written that gay marriage was legal either. In fact, what is the likelihood that the Founding Fathers even favored gay marriage or, better yet, homosexuality in general? So, by my reckoning, the chances of early American law favoring equality for gay marriage are tenuous at best.

As you can see, I had pointed out quite a few errors you had made as to what I had actually written. Not only in this thread, but in others as well. Therefore, I don’t particularly find you to be a very honest debater for me to waste my time on. So I think it’s safe that we end it here. Thank you for your time regardless. Please don’t bother to reply to this. I’m not going to see your responses anyway to retort.

@corporatecrow@xanga - My concern for propagation has to do with keeping the husband and wife roles within a marriage intact. Naturally, it takes a male-female union within a marriage to naturally make a family. Natural childbirth within a gay union doesn’t exist for obvious reasons, and, therefore, no distinctive husband-wife status. While it’s true that some heterosexual couples don’t want children, you just affirmed that other couples will continue having them, thus demonstrating the importance many people do affix to childbearing. Your argument also applies in regards to concern about overpopulation. If people will continue reproducing regardless of whether or not we allow gay marriage, then how is redefining marriage a solution for it?

It’s not a matter of whether Wahls was harassed but rather how many accept the idea that he has lesbian parents. I personally wouldn’t harass him either and am critical of it.

“you can say that you aren’t anti-gay but by denying them rights and saying you’re doing so because infertile heterosexual couples don’t have a choice in having or not having children, whereas gay couples somehow do, you are implying that being gay is a choice, which it is not”
I’m not sure if I follow what you’re saying here, but it has been scientifically shown that homosexuality is a choice. I even know it through personal observation. I had known this woman who was married to a man and had a son by him, but after they had divorced, she began a lesbian relationship with another woman. If that isn’t choice, what is it then?

@zionlover@xanga - Typical, you refuted absolutely nothing and then stick your fingers in your ears and go “la la la, I can’t hear you.”  Well, it doesn’t matter to me if you read or respond to this, but for anyone else stumbling on this debate I will clearly outline where you have (not) addressed my points and your flaws.  

You seem to have 3 points for banning same-sex marriage, none of which have any real merit.

1.  Marriage is primarily for procreation and propagation.  Maybe so, but even you had to finally admit that you cannot force everyone to procreate against their will and that the human race is not going to die out just because some people decide not to, or are incapable of, procreating.  In other words, inability to procreate in a small percentage of human beings will not put an end to the human race so there is no rational argument to banning same-sex marriage based on that point.

2.  Homosexuals cannot procreate naturally.  Neither can any infertile man or woman.  You still have not made an argument as to WHY it is unacceptable for homosexuals to achieve children through alternative means but it is perfectly acceptable for infertile heterosexuals to achieve children through alternative means. The U.S. government cannot discriminate against a minority group by denying them rights given to all other groups based on such a flimsy excuse as not being able to procreate naturally unless they ban every couple from marriage if they cannot naturally achieve procreation.  Furthermore, that implies that a marriage must produce children, otherwise it would be fair to argue that if a homosexual couple agreed to never raising children then they should be allowed to be married.

3.  The definition of marriage means “one man, one woman”.  You did finally admit that wasn’t actually the case and there have been homosexual marriages throughout history.  Your argument now is that the founding fathers wouldn’t have considered gay marriage.  Not an argument.  Early American law wouldn’t have considered a lot of things because certain things just weren’t discussed.  In early American law it was never stated that interracial marriage was legal, and it was the Southern Baptists who fought so hard, using the Bible, to make interracial marriage illegal.  Most of the founding fathers owned slaves themselves, and it was certainly not written back then that slavery was illegal.  Should we go backward now instead of forward?  You don’t want to consider ancient pagan religions because you don’t think they are now worthy?  Well, there is also that link I posted earlier showing clear controversy over whether or not some gay marriages were performed and honored within the Catholic church.  Give it a few more hundred years and Christianity will be considered an ancient pagan religion as well.  And the religion point is moot anyway, whether it be an ancient pagan religion or today’s Christianity, you cannot pass a law in America based solely on a religious belief – it has to have a secular rationale and banning gay marriage has no secular rationale.  

As for the Wahl video, you only made yourself look foolish.  He stated “In my nineteen years, not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple” You said:  ”Sounds like he was saying he was never confronted to me. It pays to pay careful attention to all you read or listen to. If not, you’re going to make yourself look awfully foolish.”  My response:  He clearly stated that without being told (that’s what “realized independently” means) people could not tell he was raised by a gay couple.  Show of hands from anyone else who read that sentence the way you did as opposed to what he actually stated.  What?  No one else read it that way but you?  Go figure.  Oh, you mean no one ever said it to him, but that’s what they were obviously thinking, right?  Suuuuuure, you’ve clearly proven you can read the minds of others, lol.  I’m betting his statement relates more to the surprised reactions of people when they found out that he was indeed raised by a gay couple.

As far as I’m aware this is the only thread I’ve ever come across comments made by you, let alone responded to you, so please feel free to post links to other threads where we have engaged in debate.  Talk about being an honest debater, lol.  I addressed your points one by one and showed you why constitutionally your statements don’t hold up.  All you have done is argued the same the thing over and over without any substance whatsoever.  

BTW, refusing to debate those who actually make valid points and then blocking them from your site shows who the honest debater is.  The fact that the argument comes down to the definition of marriage shows your argument is based on religious convictions, not constitutional civil liberties and not any secular rationale which is what is needed to pass a law in America.  Your username also lends high suspicions to this being about religious convictions, not civil liberties.  Maybe you should practice a little honesty and just come out and say it, you don’t like homosexuality because it goes against your religious beliefs and you will use any underhanded technique you can find to try and make it illegal because you believe it is a sin.  

@zionlover@xanga - 

i’m going to have to see this “scientific evidence” for myself, because as far as i know, science still hasn’t determined conclusively what exactly causes homosexuality.  
as for the woman who was in a heterosexual relationship and then began a homosexual one, that does not prove anything at all.  society is far more accepting of heterosexual relationships, because most people are closed-minded like yourself (i’m sorry that sounds harsh, but it’s true and by saying you’re worried about “keeping the husband and wife roles within a marriage intact” you’re saying you want to stick to the status quo above all else).  therefore, many women (and men) suppress their true sexuality out of fear of deviating from the status quo.  this woman may have always had feelings toward women but repressed them because that’s what society tells people they should do.  
personally, i believe sexual orientation is a spectrum (meaning most people are at least somewhat attracted to both sexes) and that it is fluid (meaning it can change somewhat or even drastically over the course of one’s lifetime).  you don’t have to buy into that, but for you to continue to believe that homosexuality is a choice makes me really sad, because that is the argument that continues to allow people to be considered sinful monsters for loving the people they are meant to love.  
it’s obvious you’re not really willing to listen to my argument, because i never said that gay marriage was a “solution” for overpopulation.  i simply said i don’t understand why you are so worried about reproduction when we are already overpopulated.  gay marriage doesn’t solve overpopulation, but it also won’t lead to our population dying out since heterosexual people will continue to have children.
i think this thread has gone on more than long enough.  people like you are the reason that anyone not 100% what society deems to be “normal” is treated like a monster, for having “chosen” not to belong to the in-crowd.  it’s easier to believe being gay is a choice so you don’t have to face the fact that god made them that way and he loves them that way and expects you to do the same.

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - Hey I just saw this – I will respond to it as soon as I have time

I have a Business Associates final on Thursday, so I’m trying to get as much studying in as I possibly can.

Just as a side note, I definitely do not think your argument has no merit. If an argument had no merit, no one would waste time arguing with that person. If someone went up to someone else and said, “Grass is always red” – no one would give that person the time of day. So I do not think your argument as no merit.

Anyways, talk to you as soon as I have a free minute

@corporatecrow@xanga - To present the view that homosexuality is not by choice would imply that it is genetic. But studies with identical twins have shown that there is a low percentage of cases where both of these turn out homosexual. This would suggest that choice does somehow play a role in the outcome. So don’t blame me for coming to that conclusion. You’ll have to dispute it with the scientists. LINK

It’s amazing how you have it all figured out about this woman with whom my wife had known for over ten years and you’ve never known. I’m sorry, but I have to regard your character analysis of her as highly speculative.

The status quo is that everyone is generally divided into two distinct genders with distinct genitalia that naturally produces children when coming together. I didn’t create it that way. So for you to say I’m closed-minded (no, I wasn’t offended) is an unfair statement because the status quo is what it is. I never said that homosexuality was sinful anyway, just unnatural.

It’s not that I’m unwilling to listen to your argument. I was trying to understand your reasoning. People are continually reproducing because many of them see as I do the value of having children. So my objections to gay marriage shouldn’t be met so harshly as I’m simply expressing as many others are the importance of propagating society. Besides, I recognize that children are our future and are to carry on a legacy. I currently have a son who is now doing just that and no concern for overpopulation can ever change that fact.

As I’ve already said, I can’t see redefining the traditional husband-wife roles in a marriage because of overpopulation. Assigning these roles to same-sex couples would take away the meaning of marriage, the primary purpose of which is the natural raising of families. As gay couples have to rely on donors from outside their union to have children, this amounts similarly to having children out of wedlock. Should this mean we should hold gay couples to a separate set of morals from heterosexual couples? If so, then that would only support my assertion that gay marriages shouldn’t be considered equivalent to heterosexual ones and that they should be called something else. I want to additionally point out that there are some gays who are also opposed to same-sex marriages as well.

As I’ve mentioned in other threads on this blog, I don’t have any objections to gays having equal rights in terms of employment, owning property, etc. It’s only with marriage I take issue. As you’ve said, this thread has gone far enough, so I believe it would be fair for us to stop here. But thank you for sharing your thoughts with me and, most of all, for your civility. It was much appreciated.

@BeautifulOblivion - Well, I sure think her argument without merit. That’s why I stopped arguing. It especially doesn’t pay to argue with someone who persistently twists my words around and attacks me over things I never said.

@zionlover@xanga - You stopped debating because I pointed out the flaws in your argument and you have no good argument to refute the points I made.  You again just responded to someone else again stating the same things over and over – that homosexuality is a choice and cannot create life “naturally” so they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.  Again, remaining childless by choice, those couples should not be allowed to marry then.  Heterosexual couple with one who is infertile, cannot naturally have children, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry either by your argument.  Actually, the more you debate this issue the more your closed-minded bigotry shines through for everyone to see.  

@Melissa___Dawn@xanga - I just happened to have come back to this blog in response to someone else’s comment and couldn’t help but notice that you had left this comment for me. I’m not at all surprised. As I had told you in my last comment to you, I can no longer see any further comments from you to respond to. This is why I terminated our debate. You never read or care to read any of my words carefully. When you have to resort to such tactics as twist someone’s words around into things they’ve never said just to win a debate, there isn’t any point in continuing. Just the use of such tactics alone makes you the loser. With that, I didn’t have to refute your arguments since you had already done it for me. I personally don’t care what you think of me or what anyone else thinks. My position on gay marriage stands. As this is my final comment to you, I would like for you to listen carefully this time. I HAVE BLOCKED YOU. This means that I fixed it where I can no longer see any more comments from you. So save yourself the trouble of typing anything further to me from here on. You’d only be talking to yourself. Have a good day.

@zionlover@xanga - I know you blocked me, it’s what people do when they can’t reasonably respond to a debate and they don’t want to be made to look like the fool they actually are.  I refuted your points.  I read all your words and I did not twist your words at all, they are right there for everyone to see, what you said and what I responded and the fact that you had no response not because I twisted your words but because your argument against same-sex marriage is a fail.  It’s really that simple.  It’s all over the Internet that the way to win a debate you are losing is to either delete the comments of the competition or block them from your site.  Since you can’t delete my comments from an ish site, you decided to block me and stop responding – that’s not a win though, it’s an attempt to run away from the facts.