What is your view on homosexual rights and why?

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

:3 Lul, and what is that?

Except a five second google shows it's not always been the case. Marriage was also more about property and makin' dem wimminz have kids than love. :3

[The Greater Aryan Race]

While I consider homosexuality to be a strange concept and while I personally am against such things, I believe that discrimination against them in their work and life based on their sexual oreintation is pretty lame. Besides, who wants another civil rights march?

[Muffin Button]

Now none of this is to hurt anyone, You asked the question and i am answering it, but I am stongly angainst them and i shall prove to you with two scripture verses why homosexualality is a bad thing, now these are toned way down from other verses i could have used.

Romans 1:27 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

[Noiian]

The forming of families is the key function of marriage, and extending the scope of marriage to those who are biologically unable to procreate makes marriage itself redundant.

I'm assuming that anyone who believes in this would support restricting marriage to forbid proven sterile couples from marrying? Why are gay couples and the children they may have, through various means (some entirely old fashioned), not families? Is not the 'marriage' a support system for the formation and growth of families? I struggle to think of what else it may be.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Now none of this is to hurt anyone, You asked the question and i am answering it, but I am stongly angainst them and i shall prove to you with two scripture verses why homosexualality is a bad thing, now these are toned way down from other verses i could have used.

Romans 1:27 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Because the BIBLE is the LAAAW OF THE LAAAND am I right?

:] Bible also teaches many things you probably conveniently ignore.

[Aestalis]

Except a five second google shows it's not always been the case. Marriage was also more about property and makin' dem wimminz have kids than love. :3

If you had read properly what I wrote, you would see that I agree, marriage has never been about love, more about as you say, procreation.
Concerning that article, it says that it is impossible to prove whether those relationships were sexual. The sexuality of marriage is inherent in the historical notion of marriage. Those affrèrements probably weren't marriage, but a convenient financial situation for two men to be in. Tulchin tacks on love at the end there, when there is no proper or even credible implied evidence that this is the case.

[Noiian]

Now none of this is to hurt anyone, You asked the question and i am answering it, but I am stongly angainst them and i shall prove to you with two scripture verses why homosexualality is a bad thing, now these are toned way down from other verses i could have used.

Romans 1:27 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Yes, but we don't seem to listen to the rest of Leviticus, not today anyway:

Any person who curseth his father or mother must be killed
~Leviticus 20:9

People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God
~Leviticus 21:17-18

The eating of fat is prohibited forever
~Leviticus 3:17

Entrance into the assembly of the Lord was granted only to those with complete testicles
~Deuteronomy 23:1

Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents
~Deuteronomy 21:18-21

What makes the laws on homosexuality any more pertinent today than those above? That's before I even get into all the slavery stuff in the Bible, not to mention the polygamy.

[Daircoill]

Now none of this is to hurt anyone, You asked the question and i am answering it, but I am stongly angainst them and i shall prove to you with two scripture verses why homosexualality is a bad thing, now these are toned way down from other verses i could have used.

Romans 1:27 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

WOW! This has really opened my eyes to the reality of the world and my pla.... nah fuck that! Your God is not my God, and your ways are not my ways. Quote all you want, but all it shows me is that some people hold a 2000 year old, heavily edited piece of literature to be the divine word of a hateful God.

[Tekania]

Marriage is the bedrock of our society. Our population has grown and flourished around the family unit, and our societies have developed around the family unit, reinforced by the institution of marriage. The institution was conceived to, and has been maintained to, regulate procreation and the continuation of the human species. It has existed for centuries to facilitate families and kinship. The forming of families is the key function of marriage, and extending the scope of marriage to those who are biologically unable to procreate makes marriage itself redundant. The upholding marriage between man and woman simply recognises important and inherent differences between the two sexes. There is nothing unequal about recognising difference.

The government does not and should not regulate or concern itself with love, and if you argue that those who love each other should be able to be married to announce that love, then I seriously wonder about their notion of love that needs paper, formal ceremony, or nomenclature to justify itself.

which is an excellent argument for why it MUST be available to gay couples also. denying them marriage makes society LESS stable.

except the "important and inherent differences" part. that doesnt make any sense.

And besides, as we already extend marriage to the infertile and those past child-bearing age, I fail to see why extending to other classes of those who are "biologically unable to reproduce" seem like such an issue. As we don't have it as a pre-requsite at other times, I fail to see why it becomes an issue when people of the same-sex wish to marry. Or maybe (And I'm just going out on a limb here) the "reproduction issue" only becomes relevant when "those people" want to marry.

[Aestalis]

The forming of families is the key function of marriage, and extending the scope of marriage to those who are biologically unable to procreate makes marriage itself redundant.

I'm assuming that anyone who believes in this would support restricting marriage to forbid proven sterile couples from marrying? Why are gay couples and the children they may have, through various means (some entirely old fashioned), not families? Is not the 'marriage' a support system for the formation and growth of families? I struggle to think of what else it may be.

And besides, as we already extend marriage to the infertile and those past child-bearing age, I fail to see why extending to other classes of those who are "biologically unable to reproduce" seem like such an issue. As we don't have it as a pre-requsite at other times, I fail to see why it becomes an issue when people of the same-sex wish to marry. Or maybe (And I'm just going out on a limb here) the "reproduction issue" only becomes relevant when "those people" want to marry.

True, sterile couples would ideally be banned from marrying. They can still live in the same house and declare their love as much as they want, and even have limited de facto relationship rights (eg hospital visitation rights), but they would receive no marital benefits and have no marital responsibilities placed on them by the government as their procreative ability is just not there.

[Davids Conglomerates]

The fact that they have to be refered to as "homosexual rights" shows how botched humanity have gotten it. The right to marry, to be with the one you love, they should be human rights. Your sexuality shouldn't come into it.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Except a five second google shows it's not always been the case. Marriage was also more about property and makin' dem wimminz have kids than love. :3

If you had read properly what I wrote, you would see that I agree, marriage has never been about love, more about as you say, procreation.
Concerning that article, it says that it is impossible to prove whether those relationships were sexual. The sexuality of marriage is inherent in the historical notion of marriage. Those affrèrements probably weren't marriage, but a convenient financial situation for two men to be in. Tulchin tacks on love at the end there, when there is no proper or even credible implied evidence that this is the case.

:3 Oops. In any case though...
As I said, a five second google. :] I'm sure I could pop up much more in depth stuff about gay marriage in ancient society if I dug just a little.

[Tekania]

Now none of this is to hurt anyone, You asked the question and i am answering it, but I am stongly angainst them and i shall prove to you with two scripture verses why homosexualality is a bad thing, now these are toned way down from other verses i could have used.

Romans 1:27 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Luckily I am a complete proponent of the separation of Church and State, as I do not believe that the civil government should have power over religious belief, so I will safely disregard your opinion is irrelevant within the context of civil law.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

I'm assuming that anyone who believes in this would support restricting marriage to forbid proven sterile couples from marrying? Why are gay couples and the children they may have, through various means (some entirely old fashioned), not families? Is not the 'marriage' a support system for the formation and growth of families? I struggle to think of what else it may be.

And besides, as we already extend marriage to the infertile and those past child-bearing age, I fail to see why extending to other classes of those who are "biologically unable to reproduce" seem like such an issue. As we don't have it as a pre-requsite at other times, I fail to see why it becomes an issue when people of the same-sex wish to marry. Or maybe (And I'm just going out on a limb here) the "reproduction issue" only becomes relevant when "those people" want to marry.

True, sterile couples would ideally be banned from marrying. They can still live in the same house and declare their love as much as they want, and even have limited de facto relationship rights (eg hospital visitation rights), but they would receive no marital benefits and have no marital responsibilities placed on them by the government as their procreative ability is just not there.

at least you're consistent.

[The cold ice]

What makes them different then the next person when it comes to basic rights? None. They should get all the rights of heterosexuals. However for marriage rights, churches should also have the right to deny marrying them. which is fine as a church isn't needed to marry.

^this

[Andaricus]

What ever happens in the bedroom should happen. Let's just leave it at that. Besides if gays want to marry and be miserable like the rest of us then I say let um. It's their lives to waste.

[Aestalis]

If you had read properly what I wrote, you would see that I agree, marriage has never been about love, more about as you say, procreation.
Concerning that article, it says that it is impossible to prove whether those relationships were sexual. The sexuality of marriage is inherent in the historical notion of marriage. Those affrèrements probably weren't marriage, but a convenient financial situation for two men to be in. Tulchin tacks on love at the end there, when there is no proper or even credible implied evidence that this is the case.

:3 Oops. In any case though...
As I said, a five second google. :] I'm sure I could pop up much more in depth stuff about gay marriage in ancient society if a dug just a little.

A five second google proves nothing. You will probably find many examples of Roman and Greek homosexuality recognised under law, but these wouldn't be marriages, and I doubt that would be the case even in their historical contexts.

[Noiian]

Your God is not my God, and your ways are not my ways.

Very true. The vast majority of nations on Earth have some form of separation between church and state. New World nations such as the US or Australia accept immigrants of all faiths - where exactly does Christianity (or any other specific religion) come between me and my supposedly secular multicultural homeland?

[Tekania]

True, sterile couples would ideally be banned from marrying. They can still live in the same house and declare their love as much as they want, and even have limited de facto relationship rights (eg hospital visitation rights), but they would receive no marital benefits and have no marital responsibilities placed on them by the government as their procreative ability is just not there.

We already allow them to marry, thus there is more precedent to extend these same rights further to same-sex couples, than there is to deny them; as marriage rights are primarily focused around familial property xfer, and not procreation in our soceity. You don't need legal documentation to fuck, but you do for property xfers.

[Bottle]

:3 Oops. In any case though...
As I said, a five second google. :] I'm sure I could pop up much more in depth stuff about gay marriage in ancient society if a dug just a little.

A five second google proves nothing. You will probably find many examples of Roman and Greek homosexuality recognised under law, but these wouldn't be marriages, and I doubt that would be the case even in their historical contexts.

You also won't find examples of Roman and Greek internet providers. Guess we shouldn't have those, huh?

[Der Teutoniker]

The key function of marriage has not changed.

Yeah, gay people make up what, 5% of the population? For the majority of people, legalizing same-sex marriage won't change anything.

[Lunarion]

Why?

Marriage is the bedrock of our society. Our population has grown and flourished around the family unit, and our societies have developed around the family unit, reinforced by the institution of marriage. The institution was conceived to, and has been maintained to, regulate procreation and the continuation of the human species.

Oh, come on. Let's be realistic here. First off, let's not hang too much on what the institution of marriage was "conceived" to do--the actually reasons are only theorized, and are as varied as there are cultures that recognize it. By the way, no theory I've ever read suggests that regulating procreation in the sense that you mean it was the goal; at best it was to make sure access to the woman was restricted, and at worst, to ensure smooth inheritance of property. And if you believe that marriage still serves that purpose, then you're living in a fairy tale world. It doesn't regulate procreation in any way, shape, or form. People have children before marriage, or with people outside of their marriage, all the time. Some children are born and raised in non-married families, and they are no less loved, no less valid, no less valuable members of society for it.

And as far as the "family unit" goes, adoption--which you are also so strongly against for the gays; is that like the subsoil of our society or something?--helps with that too. It may not expand the human race, per se, but considering how fast our population is growing, I think we're doing a pretty fine job of that. It does ensure our continued survival by providing orphans with those silly little things like food and clothing. Oh, and love and family, which can do nothing but help them to become better-adjusted members of society.

But yeah, EVIL. How dare the queer agenda seek to destroy our society through these insidious means!

[Noiian]

True, sterile couples would ideally be banned from marrying. They can still live in the same house and declare their love as much as they want, and even have limited de facto relationship rights (eg hospital visitation rights), but they would receive no marital benefits and have no marital responsibilities placed on them by the government as their procreative ability is just not there.

Now who's redefining marriage?

[Der Teutoniker]

Bible also teaches many things you probably conveniently ignore.

That's probably not true. I'm sure he stones (to death) all Wiccans on sight. He never does anything that could remotely be considered work on a Sunday, and, in accordance with the most reasonable Biblical law (I'm not joking) he must have a furious beard (as it is in direct violation of Biblical law to "trim the side" of ones beard.)

[Der Teutoniker]

You also won't find examples of Roman and Greek internet providers. Guess we shouldn't have those, huh?

Of course not. They something something interfere with the fabric of community or whatever

Duh.