Why not?

I could still be swayed. So far we've only heard arguments of gay marriages not being moral, or not being 'marriages' by one or another definition of the word. No one has argued what harm will befall existing or future marriages and why.

And there's always the chance that some will move from the anti gay marriage side to the pro gay marriage side. Or at least to the I'm not sure side.

Dan

PS: I'm not really concerned about having the longest thread. *Getting out before this post gets deleted for 'size does/doesn't matter' jokes.

.
you have a very good question there. Wish I had the ability with words to give you a good answer. I will admit that what I think about it is very much colored by my religious upbringing however there are reasons against gay marriages that has nothing to do with religion.

Our religious teachings (even mine, surprised?) are a very basic part of who we are. Examining ideas that bring those teachings into question can be difficult regardless of the results of the examination. Some things we've been taught turn out not to have been true in the first place. Others are true but we must learn how to apply them to our lives and decide if we must make others conform to our beliefs.

These are complicated questions and these are not simple times.

Dan

It's something that's immoral just like homosexuality, but in America it has become tolerated even though it leads to passage of diseases, destruction of marriages, rending of children from one or the other parent. Should Adultery be elevated from a tolerated existence into a state approved construct, furthermore given some approving term to describe it? This is what the Gay Agenda hopes to accomplish with Homosexual Coitus.

What does adultery have to do with anything?

So there's a secret agenda in the gay community to make adultery acceptable? Really, James.

he simply compared social acceptance of one immoral behavior to another.

The casual acceptance of adultry has led to numerous problems, not the least of which was acceptance of Billy Clinton's behavior and conduct while discussing military matters on the phone while engrossed in other activies.

Did the General really think "Yes, YES!" really meant to go ahead and bobm the Chinese consulate?

.

Every organization, no matter how large or small has to have rules or you have utter chaos. True rules change over time for good reason. There is no good reason here. If you say it's for shared benefits that can be arranged without marriage. They want the right to be different Then they should not try to make their lifestyle seem the same. It's not.

.

I would like Dan to explain the benefits of Gay marriage. What good comes from sin Dan? I think we have all given valid reasons why Gay marriage is wrong and no matter what any one comes up with he will not accept it as valid!

Glenda

It's being wrong is not a sufficient reason to pass a law. There must be some benefit derived or some harm avoided to support an act of overbearing government intrusion.

Dan

apply that to murder theft rape or abortion and that is a ******** statement!!

Hi, Jonah.

Absent abortion, the other actions on your list are universally accepted as being wrong. The problem with criminalizing homosexual behavior, abortion, (Supreme Court decisions) or civil unions (to avoid the religious connotations of the word "marriage") is that it imposes on groups value system on another when the country is far from unanimous as to whether the imposed system is right. That makes the governmental action a severe imposition on individual rights -- and contrary to the Tenth Amendement, by-the-bye.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

as law! You obviously won't accept any one's reason for being against it! So come on Dan WHAT is your reason for wanting it passed and WHY should it be a law that Gay's can be married????
No more pussyfootin' around Give an answer or drop it!
Glenda

If there is an activity that people wish to engage in they should not require the permission of the government. If the government decides to restrict people's behavior there must be a very good reason. Gays want to marry and I don't see any reason why big brother should stop them.

Dan

... why should big brother stop him?

.

why shouldn't he be able to tax people in order to finance the country? This can go on and on with this argument Evie. The question isn't about underaged kids being induced to do things that they don't understand. It's about two grown up persons that love each other and have made a decision together. So let's stick to that instead of getting Jacko's possible crime activity in this!

... so if you want to marry your sister that should be OK too I guess? Consenting adults and all.

Personally I have a libertarian approach to prostitution, but there are many laws on the books governing this consensual transaction between adults. Or how about gambling?

Any man or woman is free to marry if they want. They don't get to redefine an institution to fit their own definition.

Homosexuals and marriage, right? That's what I wanted to discuss whe I posted my reply and obviously Dan too since he initiated the thread.

But ok. It is scientifically proven that children that come from two close relatives, like brother and sister, mom and son or whatever, run a very big risk of being mentally disabled in one way or the other. So there is a reason why that shouldn't be allowed. The same cannot be said about homosexual couples! IF they are approved to adopt a child, there is no studies (objective) that prove that the child will be mentally disabled in any way.

When it comes to prostitution I don't know if you have a liberal view of the prostitution per se or the buying of sexual services. Personally, I think the prostitutes are victims of a situation that they can't handle for one reason or the other (there are exceptions, but a 95% do the street because of the need for money and I doubt they like it!). But I do think that the BUYERS should be punished very hard! In that way we can make sure that the prostitutes go downtown to the Sheriff's office to report abuse for example! If you illegalize the prostitutes you will never be able to get rid of the a**holes who abuse them!

Now, let's talk about the homosexual's right to get married. I think that even if you happen to be in love with a man, being a man..... Let's continue from here!

... that homosexuality was indeed classified by secular psychologists as deviant and abnormal behavior.

It is unnatural. The scientific purpose for sex and sexual urges is procreation. Now humans engage in such for recreation, but that does not change the underlying purpose for the act or the "hardwired" desires for such between the opposite genders of a species.

Two men or two women can't have children naturally.

Interesting about your feelings on prostitution. That too is a consensual exchange between consenting adults. I'm not talking about the practice that has grown from emmigration scams from former communist countries, I'm talking about if I want to have sex with my neighbor and he agrees to pay me x$, who is big brother to object? BTW, I said libertarian not liberal. Within reasonable community standards ordinances, I see no reason why consenting adults cannot sell their bodies. People make money for their intellectual and athletic abilities, and even for their God given physical attributes. Why not then for their sexual prowess?

Why shouldn't a man marry a man? Because that's not what marriage is. If a man wants to be with a man, live with a man, commit legally to a man, be my guest!

Hi, Evie.

>>that homosexuality was indeed classified by secular psychologists as deviant and abnormal behavior.<<
It also wasn't all that long ago that in some European countries, people of certain ethnic groups weren't considered human, less than a century ago that women weren't allowed to vote or own property in much of this country, and less than 150 years ago that Blacks didn't have any rights at all in much of this country. Just because wrong-headed policies used to prevail has no bearing on the present-day situation.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Hi Dave,

The one big difference is that we aren't talking race or gender here, we are talking behavior and actions.

It wasn't so long ago when people married first before having sex. As to Dan's why not question. Why not have sex at 16? Why not have sex with 5 men/women in a week? Why not commit adultery?

All of this laxing has led to the rising illegitimacy rates which is a major contributor to a whole host of societal problems. There wouldn't be so many forgotten kids that supposedly only gays would adopt if there was any good old fashioned shame in having anonymous sex whenever one feels like it, intentionally having kids out of wedlock, etc.

I still can't pin you down. Do I understand correctly that you believe in civil unions but oppose calling it marriage?

Evie

Hi, Evie.

>>The one big difference is that we aren't talking race or gender here, we are talking behavior and actions.<<
But if, as many scietnists now believe, sexual orientation is pretty much predetermined and not chosen, then that's not a real difference. And don't forget that many thousands of homosexuals went to the German death camps just for that reasons, alongside the better-known groups. They were burned at the stake by the Inquisition -- the root of one of the perjoratives frequently used against them. We should have learned as a species and a nation by now that intolerance is not acceptable, regardless of the "us vs. them" justification.-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... sexuality is still behavior, not an identity.

And homosexuality is still abnormal -- defining the norm as what 98% of adult humans do.

I don't forget Dave. And I don't subscribe to the views expressed by at least one other here that gays should be jailed, punished, persecuted or killed for the practice. But just like zoning laws usually don't allow strip clubs across the street from elementary schools, I see no reason to validate and promote (and it IS promotion at this point) a deviant lifestyle.

Evie

Hi, Evie.

>> defining the norm as what 98% of adult humans do. <<
That's almost certainly an overestimate. Social studies say 5-10%; zoological observations show a similar level of homosexual behavior in many animal species.

BTW, if we automatically condemn everything that only a very small percentage of humans engage in, the world would be a much starker place, without most of its arts, and until recently, sciences.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Not so Dave, that 10% was the figure batted around in the 80's by those seeking to legitimize the lifestyle. Probably gotten by classifying any thought or isolated incident a person may have had at any time towards/with a member of their own sex as being homosexual. The most recent studies put the percentage of adults actively engaged in homosexual activities/relationships to be around the 2%.

Zoological studies, schmoological studies. There are species in which the mothers eat their young, where the female devours the male after mating, etc. and certainly where siblings and even parent/child relations and reproduction are not at all uncommon. Irrelevant!

Evie