DescentBB

Don't know why there was never a topic about this before, but to the question:

What do you Descent pilots think about gays and marriage? Should they be allowed to marry, or not?

My opinion is yes, because I don't see anything wrong with it. Besides the fact people think it is grossto some people, I don't know what the problem on this is?

By the way, if by any wierd reason there was a top secret meeting that I didnt know about that makes it so I can't post this kind of topic, sorry, you may delete this thread.

who cares.. doesn't affect me, so why should I care if two gay people wanna get married.

they wanna do it, go for it.

it's been discussed several times already, but what hasn't?

I did a search and found no topic about it.

Good, some people agree with me, like Ferno, who think besides the fact there isnt anything evil or wrong about it, that since we wont be affected by it, to let them marry so they can be happy!

Dakatsu wrote:who think besides the fact there isnt anything evil or wrong about it, that since we wont be affected by it, to let them marry so they can be happy!

I take a slightly different tack here. I don't think you have to believe there is nothing evil or wrong about homosexuality to approve of civil unions.
I actually take it further than that, I want the government out of the marriage business. They've done a LOUSY job of preserving the "sanctity" of marriage. It's not the kind of thing they do well, and, quite frankly, it's none of the governments business.

The government is interested in the legal CONTRACT side of marriage. The side that says a married couple are going to share property. And for that, why should they care if the contract is entered in to by a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and 3 men, or a man and his teddy bear. It's just a legal contract about property and a few other issues on shared rights.

MARRIAGE, in the religious sense, is something that should be decided by churches (or any other institution interested in the topic). If the Baptist church says "This church doesn't recognize Homosexual marriages", then you can't get a Baptist preacher to marry you. DUH! If the Catholics say they won't remarry you after a divorce, then the Catholics won't recognize any such marriage. And if the Episcopalians say that they will happily marry two women, and then appoint one as bishop, well good for them, it's their right to make their own decisions.

All of these marriages will, of course, have the governments legal contract (a "civil union") behind them, because in the eyes of the law they are all nothing more than that, just a contract. But in the eyes of each church, some marriages are valid, others are not, according to the rules of the denomination. Which is as it should be.

Get the government OUT of the marriage business, and everyone can have their own way and all will be happier.

It's none of my business, Dakatsu, and it's none of yours.

Kilarin wrote:Get the government OUT of the marriage business, and everyone can have their own way and all will be happier.

Exactly! And if your representatives can't find something better to do with their time in congress than debate/demagogue gay marriage then they need to leave immediately so vote them out the door!

Kilarin wrote:We are UNBELIEVABLY ill, perhaps ill past the point of recovery

I think it is universaly applicable. I just want to give the author his due credit. Don't want to be accused of plagirism.

Don't want to be accused of plagirism.

Ha! Feel free to take it as your own. I'm not due to say anything profound again for another 40 years so we should get all the use we can out of this one.

I'm with the guys at the top, if that's how you want your live to go, go for it! I'm not going to stop you and nobody should be able to take the right away from them to get married.

Dakatsu wrote:I did a search and found no topic about it.

This is because the search function is FUBAR. The worst part is that it pretends to work, but it only returns about 10% of the results that you should be getting. In other words, it dangerously mixes truths and lies, much akin to [your least favorite political party].

Okay, good then, we are all on the same page. Let them marry, just dont get us involved. I was wondering if anyone would try to argue that it is wrong with a logical reason.

Dakatsu wrote:Don't know why there was never a topic about this before

There have been many. The search function is hosed, though.

-----

I think Kilarin gave a fair representation of my view: as long as we're talking about the contract -- property sharing, hospital visitation, etc. -- I see no reason to limit ourselves to one man, one woman. But I also see no reason to limit ourselves to two people who have a sexual relationship. Two men in a relationship with each other, a man and his 80 year old grandma, a woman and her five kids, etc. should ALL be recognized as "family" and given the right to share property.

But, calling people "married" is something different entirely. IMO, every one of us should have the right to recognize or not recognize whatever marriage relationships we want to recognize. I already think most hollywood "marriages" don't really count. Some people think anybody who lives together should count as married. The Catholic church thinks people shouldn't remarry after divorce. Why not allow this diversity of opinion? Why try to have the government force me or my religion to recognize marriages we don't think are valid? I'd be glad to have the government out of the marriage business entirely.

Now, my wife disagrees with me here. She'd argue that, because marriage is the foundation of building a family (ie, raising children), the government should recognize marriage between a man and a woman as a special thing, and should encourage it. Other people can still raise children, but the government should specifically encourage a one-man, one-woman partnership called "marriage" because it's the ideal* situation for raising children. (I think everybody recognizes, sometimes single parents do a phenomenal job with their children, but they *are* at a disadvantage! So is any family wherein one of the genders is missing entirely.) I take the perspective that it's not the government's job to encourage such things, and that the best way to encourage good family-raising dynamics is for us to model them in our own marriages, but my wife thinks the government should recognize man-woman marriage for the reasons given above.

* to pre-emptively answer the objections I know are coming, Jeff, I'm not saying every one-male, one-female marriage is a perfect place to raise children. I'm not saying every one-male, one-female marriage is better than every single parent, gay couple, or other alternative. I'm not saying people should stay in abusive relationships just so their kids will have a mother and a father. I'm just saying, if you described the ideal situation, it would involve both a mother and a father (who were both wonderful people who loved each other very much.) My wife would argue we should encourage such relationships to exist by giving them legal recognition.

so what about one man and 2 women? or one man and 15 women? or maybe 5 men? or how about adult men and pre-teen girls? or having parental apporval to get married? do we allow all these senarios? what if some weirdo wants to marry his pet dolphin ( which has happened )because if you do allow gay marriage and distort the traditional meaning of marriage, then you must allow all these different meanings. so do we change the laws in this country and allow polygamy or beastiality or the other senarios I mentioned, because currently they are illegal. to not do so and to allow gay marriage would be discrimination. which is also illegal in this country by the way

CUDA wrote:so what about one man and 2 women? or one man and 15 women? or maybe 5 men? or how about adult men and pre-teen girls? or having parental apporval to get married? do we allow all these senarios? what if some weirdo wants to marry his pet dolphin ( which has happened )because if you do allow gay marriage and distort the traditional meaning of marriage, then you must allow all these different meanings. so do we change the laws in this country and allow polygamy or beastiality or the other senarios I mentioned, because currently they are illegal. to not do so and to allow gay marriage would be discrimination. which is also illegal in this country by the way

That's why the government should get out of the defining marriage business! They could stop penalizing us married types with their tax code and they could avoid creating the whole problem you laid out!

As far as \"marriage\" is concerned it should be defined as a legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. It doesn't matter if they choose to have children and become a \"family\" or remain childless. Thats the only definition that should be officially recognized and yes... I find any other combination disgusting.

But... if I had a brother or a sister that was gay, I would want them to have a happy life. They didn't ask to be born gay nor can they correct what life handed them so something must be done. If two females fall in love and want to live together they should be allowed to do so in all states and be protected with some kind of legal agreement for tax, property, etc, purposes.

The big problem is children. I would never allow them to legally have or raise children as a family. I don't know what could be done if, for example, one of the females gets pregnant with a man then returns to the female partner. This is the tough part that I have no answer for but I don't want them raising children... no matter what. That belongs to a man and a women.

I also understand if a family gets divorced and the wife, or husband, now raises the child alone because the chances are still good the parent will remarry. Even if they don't its still a normal relationship. I consider dad and I a normal relationship.

This is a tough question...

Bee

Will Robinson wrote:

CUDA wrote:so what about one man and 2 women? or one man and 15 women? or maybe 5 men? or how about adult men and pre-teen girls? or having parental apporval to get married? do we allow all these senarios? what if some weirdo wants to marry his pet dolphin ( which has happened )because if you do allow gay marriage and distort the traditional meaning of marriage, then you must allow all these different meanings. so do we change the laws in this country and allow polygamy or beastiality or the other senarios I mentioned, because currently they are illegal. to not do so and to allow gay marriage would be discrimination. which is also illegal in this country by the way

That's why the government should get out of the defining marriage business! They could stop penalizing us married types with their tax code and they could avoid creating the whole problem you laid out!

Nice ideal Will, but the truth is that there are too many legal matters that surround marrage.

And irregardless of the arguments, I will not buy into "new morality".

Bettina wrote:As far as "marriage" is concerned it should be defined as a legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. ... Thats the only definition that should be officially recognized and yes... I find any other combination disgusting.

First, let me clarify, this is NOT an attack, you have a right to your own views. I'm just asking questions out of curiosity.

The REASON I'm curious is that this seems a very odd position for an avoid atheist to take. Not unheard of though. There are a few Atheist who insist that Evolution dictates that homosexuality is "a waste of resources" and should therefore be banned (since they feel that Evolution is a self defining system of ethics). But that doesn't touch on the polygamy issue, and besides, your argument doesn't seem to be coming from that direction.

It SOUNDS like you are either saying that any relationship other than one man-one woman should not be recognized because it is WRONG in some cosmic sense, or simply because you find it disgusting. The ick factor is a tricky one to use because it was applied to interracial marriages. Of course, so was the generic cosmic "It's just wrong!" argument.

Again, I'm not attacking your viewpoint, I'm just curious about your reasoning behind it. Have you thought out exactly WHY you believe this way?

Bettina wrote:This is a tough question...

A very wise statement. Indeed it IS a tough question!

Duper wrote:the truth is that there are too many legal matters that surround marrage.

The only one that I see any possible difficulty with is the law that says you can't force someone to testify against their spouse. Which legal matters do you see besides that one that would be difficult to work into a contract?

Duper wrote:I will not buy into "new morality".

Neither do I, which is why I support getting the government OUT of the marriage business. The government has ALREADY redefined marriage to mean something completely different from what I believe in. And that will probably only get worse with time.

In the OLD days, a church marriage and a "Justice Of the Peace" marriage were NOT considered to be synonymous. If you didn't get married in the church, you were LEGALLY married, but your marriage might not be recognized by the church. Lets go with the Catholic example. A Divorced woman might try to get re-married and the priest would refuse, therefore they would go to the Justice of the Peace. They were married in the eyes of the law, yes, but everyone knew that the Church disagreed.

THAT is the model we need to go back to, but even stronger than before. Putting the defense of the sanctity of marriage BACK into the hands of the church is NOT "new morality", its very, very, OLD morality.

The alternative is frightening. Because eventually the liberals will get control again. The pendulum always swings. And when they do, they will probably vote to change the definition of marriage. Separating marriage and government does not attack marriage, it DEFENDS marriage.

Kilarin wrote:The only one that I see any possible difficulty with is the law that says you can't force someone to testify against their spouse. Which legal matters do you see besides that one that would be difficult to work into a contract?

Have you ever been though a divorce? It's amazing the laws that govern sucha thing and the ones that get dredged up just to give a part "the edge". Lothar addressed most of them concerning healthcare and other stuff and that's the card that's being played.

Kilarin wrote:

Bettina wrote:As far as "marriage" is concerned it should be defined as a legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. ... Thats the only definition that should be officially recognized and yes... I find any other combination disgusting.

First, let me clarify, this is NOT an attack, you have a right to your own views. I'm just asking questions out of curiosity.

The REASON I'm curious is that this seems a very odd position for an avoid atheist to take. Not unheard of though. There are a few Atheist who insist that Evolution dictates that homosexuality is "a waste of resources" and should therefore be banned (since they feel that Evolution is a self defining system of ethics). But that doesn't touch on the polygamy issue, and besides, your argument doesn't seem to be coming from that direction.

It SOUNDS like you are either saying that any relationship other than one man-one woman should not be recognized because it is WRONG in some cosmic sense, or simply because you find it disgusting. The ick factor is a tricky one to use because it was applied to interracial marriages. Of course, so was the generic cosmic "It's just wrong!" argument.

Again, I'm not attacking your viewpoint, I'm just curious about your reasoning behind it. Have you thought out exactly WHY you believe this way?

Bettina wrote:This is a tough question...

A very wise statement. Indeed it IS a tough question!

Religion or Atheism has nothing to do with it and should butt out. I am a moral person who knows right from wrong and although I said it was disgusting I also said it SHOULD be allowed. I'm a teenager and the thought of two grown men in bed with each other tends to turn my stomach in the Ewwwwww, gross, degree.

But, as an example, I'm not a lesbian so I don't know how they feel. What I do know is that what they feel is not wrong to them and they should be allowed a union.

And you can feel free to jump on my viewpoint anytime. Your ok.

Bee

Testiculese wrote:It's none of my business, Dakatsu, and it's none of yours.

Unless you, or Dakatsu are gay - in which case it most decidedly IS your business. But yeah - it's true, the government should get the ★■◆● out of private lives, and start governing, coz they sure aren't doing any right now!

Bettina wrote:As far as "marriage" is concerned it should be defined as a legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. ... Thats the only definition that should be officially recognized
I would never allow them to legally have or raise children as a family.

Bettina wrote:what they feel is not wrong to them and they should be allowed a union.
I am a moral person who knows right from wrong
Religion or Atheism has nothing to do with it

I may be misunderstanding, so correct me if I'm wrong, but: You think Homosexuality is not wrong "for them" so they should be allowed to have relationships, but is wrong in some other sense that should stop them from having a marriage or raising children. And this has nothing to do with religion.

Why is it "wrong" then?

Duper wrote:Have you ever been though a divorce? It's amazing the laws that govern sucha thing and the ones that get dredged up just to give a part "the edge".

I'm lucky/blessed enough to have never been through a divorce (mine or my parents) but I know LOTS of people who have, and my sympathy is with them for the nightmare they have been through.

BUT, I don't understand how dealing with this as a legal contract instead of just a "Marriage" would make a divorce more complicated. Seems like if anything it would simplify it.

because \"marrage\" is both a spiritual and legal joining.

It BECAME a legal joining so that in the case of death or divorce or whatever, material possesions could be placed with \"rightful\" owners. Here in Oregon, if you live with each other for something like 7 years, something called community property comes into play. And the same laws apply. In mnost states this is not the case.

things like Health insurance and other insurance have since fallen into the same hole. It's not a matter of \"government\" but more a matter of liablity and ownership, and which finacial institution pays whom.

With the advent of of social security, these legalities doubled in complexity. I would venture a guess that's when this whole matter of \"governement being in marrage\". started. Or at least coagulated.

Personally, I believe that marrage is more and was never ment to be such a legal furball. It is the joining of a man and woman (notice the pronouns there) to form one being. It was created and ordained by God as a symbolic relationship between Himself and Man (not male, as in the human race)

This is why I have to disagree with your statement bet that \"Religion or Atheism has nothing to do with it and should butt out.\" \"Religion\" has everything to do with it.

Duper wrote:It is the joining of a man and woman (notice the pronouns there) to form one being. It was created and ordained by God as a symbolic relationship between Himself and Man (not male, as in the human race)

I agree with you! And thats why I want to get the government out of the marriage business and the Church back in to it.

I think the 'legal requirements problem' can be solved without the government being the keeper of the definition of marriage. We already have government recognizing people as living together unmarried and upon their seperation they can be involved in a palimony suit...
So as far as the governments needs are concerned they can replace the marriage certificate requirement with the same test used in a palimony suit.

I can't think of any other situation that isn't also covered.

We could also get the government out of the definition and let the church define what is marriage and then the government use that as their criteria, each church's definition would have to follow a constitutional test so if the laws against polygamy are constitutional then the churches definition would have to exclude polygamy to qualify as marriage....same with beastiality and if the government isn't willing to try and make homosexuality illegal then they can't require churches to exclude that behavior from the approved for marriage criteria.

Coffee hasn't kicked in yet so I'm wondering if I'm missing something but I think that will cover it..

Random wierd thought:
If a man marries a siamese twin is he guilty of polygamy? If one of the twins has an affair can he file for divorce....

Duper wrote:... when this whole matter of "governement being in marrage". started. Or at least coagulated.

LOL. Now that's a spot-on metaphor if ever I heard one.

Ronald Reagan - divorced, but apparently against his desire.
Bob Dole--divorced
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced.
Governor John Engler of Michigan - divorced.
Governor Pete Wilson of California - divorced.
George Will - divorced.
Senator Lauch Faircloth - divorced.
Rush Limbaugh - and his current wife, Marta, have six marriages and four divorces between them. Soon to divorce Marta, I think.
Senator Bob Barr of Georgia - not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. He had the audacity to author and push the \"Defense of Marriage Act.\" The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is \"Bob Barr - WHICH marriage are you defending?!?)
Senator Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced.
Senator John Warner of Virginia - divorced Elizabeth Taylor.
Governor George Allen of Virginia - divorced.
Representative Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced.
Senator John McCain of Arizona - divorced.
Representative John Kasich of Ohio - divorced.
Representative Susan Molinari of New York (Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker) - divorced.
Nelson Rockefeller -- may have lost a presidential nomination because of his divorce.

What if they don't believe in God? You know, not everyone believes in God in this country so why would they have to abide by YOUR idea or morality? Why don't they get a chance to be happy? I'd be willing to bet that homosexual marriages stand a far better chance of surviving then heterosexual ones.

If a church does not want to marry them, that's fine. It's the church's decision, BUT the court is supposed to be devoid of religious scruples...henceforth...they should be allowed to marry. What are you people afraid of?


*note = old list above...but divorces don't expire.

Kilarin wrote:

Bettina wrote:As far as "marriage" is concerned it should be defined as a legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. ... Thats the only definition that should be officially recognized
I would never allow them to legally have or raise children as a family.

Bettina wrote:what they feel is not wrong to them and they should be allowed a union.
I am a moral person who knows right from wrong
Religion or Atheism has nothing to do with it

I may be misunderstanding, so correct me if I'm wrong, but: You think Homosexuality is not wrong "for them" so they should be allowed to have relationships, but is wrong in some other sense that should stop them from having a marriage or raising children. And this has nothing to do with religion.

Why is it "wrong" then?

God!.. your like my teachers...

First, you have to determine what is right and wrong. Scientifically, sex between a man and a women must be right or you, I, and everyone else would not be here. Any other combination would not have produced the human race so it has to be "wrong" and since there are so many of us, its "normal" too. The term "marriage" then, should apply to the combination that is "right" The legal union of a man and women which have the capability of reproducing whether they choose to or not.

Gays/Lesbians cannot reproduce so the combination is not normal or "wrong" but since life gave them a bad hand they should not go through life with the agony of being unloved. They are human beings with the same wants and desires as anyone else and they should be allowed a "legal union" which has all the legal benefits of a marriage...accept one. Children.

No adoption or raising children will make the combination "right" because the children see it as "wrong" compared to what they see in other normal families. I CAN imagine the psychological nightmare these children would go thru just in school alone. Kids can be cruel.

A teacher can spot physical abuse and they report it to the police but what do you do with mental trauma. I would never allow that to happen to them.. ever. I don't know what else to say....

Bee

Z, isn't the word 'marriage' reserved only for the church? So they should not be allowed to marry, because marriage is a sole function of the church, and the church will not do it.

Which is fine, who cares.

They can, however, live together for the rest of their lives and love each other. A 'marriage' is not necessary in the slightest.

Zuruck - Toady who can't discuss anything unless he can find a way to make it democrat-good republican-bad....

Bet51987 wrote:Scientifically, sex between a man and a women must be right or you, I, and everyone else would not be here.

You are making the mistake of taking a matter of fact about physical reality (like only heterosexual partners can procreate) and converting it into an ethical fact (like one ought to only partner heterosexually). There is a fundamental difference between descriptive (the former) and prescriptive (the latter) statements. Another way of describing it is you are trying to turn an "is" into an "ought," which is why this is typically known as the is-ought problem.

Although I shouldn't jump the gun too quickly. It's entirely possible that you're just secretly presuming that one ought to procreate or that one's species ought to survive. But you'd still be in the same quandary but now trying to justify those ethical propositions instead.

Duper wrote:And irregardless of the arguments, I will not buy into "new morality".

Would you consider ethical systems older than Christianity?

Lothar wrote:I'm just saying, if you described the ideal situation, it would involve both a mother and a father (who were both wonderful people who loved each other very much.)

How do you argue that the ideal heterosexual couple is more effective at raising children than the ideal homosexual couple? I mean, isn't it built in to the definition of "ideal" that the homosexual couple would be able to overcome any homosexual-related obstacles concerning raising children? Is this not so dissimilar to how you already explained that the ideal heterosexual couple would have to overcome any obstacle, be wonderfully loving, etc.? How do you choose which infeasible ideal you want to cling to?

Bettina wrote:your like my teachers...

I'll take that as a compliment.

Bettina wrote:Scientifically, sex between a man and a women must be right or you, I, and everyone else would not be here.

Your assuming that it's good that we are here, but lets just grant that one for now.

Bettina wrote:Any other combination would not have produced the human race so it has to be "wrong"

But by this reasoning, we have made a virtue of population growth. And that means that ANY non-fertile union is a waste of resources that could be going into producing people. We have to declare contraception to be wrong (the Catholics would agree), and forbid a fertile person to marry an infertile one (since that takes a potentially productive breeder out of the gene pool) If the reason a male-male marriage is wrong is that it can't produce offspring, then a fertile male-infertile female marriage is wrong in exactly the same way.

Bettina wrote:No adoption or raising children will make the combination "right" because the children see it as "wrong" compared to what they see in other normal families. I CAN imagine the psychological nightmare these children would go thru just in school alone. Kids can be cruel.

My difficulty with this argument is that I've heard EXACTLY the same argument used against interracial marriages.

Testiculese wrote:So they should not be allowed to marry, because marriage is a sole function of the church, and the church will not do it.

Religions are very diverse, even within the bounds of Christianity.

The Episcopal Church approves of homosexual marriage and has an openly homosexual bishop. Big controversy about it, one local Episcopal church has already voted to split off from the main organization over this issue, but the leadership of the church is adamant.

The Presbyterian church has a provision for "blessing" same sex unions, as long as it isn't called a "marriage", but some Presbyterian ministers have been performing gay marriages and the church has decided not to discipline them.

There is an offshoot of my own church called "SDA Kinship" that was founded specifically as "a support organization devoted to the spiritual, emotional, social and physical well-being of current and former Seventh-day Adventists who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered" They got into a big clash with the official church over the name of their organization. (My cousin-in-law belongs to this group)

I have a friend who thought she was lesbian for a while and attended a big "rainbow" homosexual friendly church down near Austin Texas.

While yes, the majority of Christian churches would not perform gay marriages, homosexuals would have NO difficulty finding churches that would be more than willing to bless their union with a marriage.

The main thing of why I want gays or lesbians to marry is the fact of the legal stuff. Being married is better than being girlfriend and boyfriend, (or GF&GF or BF&BF). I dont care if only man and woman can get married, but gay and lesbian couples need a legal contract that allows them the married rights.

As for allowing the church to choose the terms of marriage, I guess I am fine with that. As long as I CAN get a contract equivelant to marriage, without the religious thing, as being athiest, I am not the greatest person to be in a church, and I am for sure as hell not holy. If my girlfriend turns athiest as I am hoping she is after realising her 9000 priers (whatever) are not answered, actually whatever she prays for, the opposite happens (grandmother live = she died, boyfriend safe = boyfriend w/ 6 broken ribs, etc.). If that happens, and it is for the church, we cant get married, unless it is a government contract form.

I don't know about rights for children & gay marriage. Although a gay person can raise a kid as easily as a straight person, the taunting of the kids at school wouldn't be good, although ironically 1 out of every 5 people are gay, and 1 out of 10 are bisexual.

Thats my thoughts at least.

EDIT: The one thing I HATE about gays and lesbians, is they stole rainbows. Rainbows own!

Dakatsu wrote:...although ironically 1 out of every 5 people are gay, and 1 out of 10 are bisexual.

source?

I froget where I first found the figures, but I think it may of been wikipedia.

Okay, I was off, it was about 10% and 5%. Still a large amount.

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

Some modern surveys report about 2%-6% of modern western populations as bisexual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Beh ... Human_Male

Probably the most widely cited findings of the Kinsey Reports regard the prevalence of different sexual orientations — especially to support a claim that 10% of the population are gay

Kilarin wrote:

Bettina wrote:your like my teachers...

I'll take that as a compliment.

It was...

Kilarin wrote:

Bettina wrote:Any other combination would not have produced the human race so it has to be "wrong"

But by this reasoning, we have made a virtue of population growth. And that means that ANY non-fertile union is a waste of resources that could be going into producing people. We have to declare contraception to be wrong (the Catholics would agree), and forbid a fertile person to marry an infertile one (since that takes a potentially productive breeder out of the gene pool) If the reason a male-male marriage is wrong is that it can't produce offspring, then a fertile male-infertile female marriage is wrong in exactly the same way.

Nope.... I only used that as an example of what was right and wrong scientifically. If male/male could always produce offspring then it would be considered "right" today.

Kilarin wrote:

Bettina wrote:No adoption or raising children will make the combination "right" because the children see it as "wrong" compared to what they see in other normal families. I CAN imagine the psychological nightmare these children would go thru just in school alone. Kids can be cruel.

My difficulty with this argument is that I've heard EXACTLY the same argument used against interracial marriages.

Yes you did but since you were interested in MY point of view you didn't hear that from me. I have no problem with interracial marriage and I don't think their offspring are as tormented today as Gay/Lesbian would be all the time. Interracial marriage is "right".

Bettina

Interestingly enough, I didn't even look at which party those names are affiliated with, or say anything at all about it. I'm sure you could find a \"democrat only\" list Will, so do that, then it'd be equal right?


with respect to BD

The Republicans Will Turn You Into A Fag

Zuruck wrote:...I'm sure you could find a "democrat only" list Will, so do that, then it'd be equal right?...

I have no desire to be equally troll like...

Wow, good. I am glad most people, democrat and republican, support gay rights, even if it is just marriage, or getting the government to get out of the churches deals.

Ironically Bettina is the only one who seems to have a problem with this, and she doesn't hate gays. (No offense, just kinda wierd, I expected a Republican with a Bible in his hand to say the first thing against anything)

That is really all I wanted to know, if this was just another democrat v .republican \"F**K YOU AND YOUR PARTY\" thing (Banning gays from getting married is way harder to defend than Iraq War or Bush). But at least MOST of this forum can agree on the same basic thing (for once).

------Dakatsu