Hawaii has legalized same sex marriage

[The Orson Empire]

Though I view homosexuality as disgusting and immoral, it is good that they are finally granting equal marriage rights to everyone.

How are they disgusting?

I honestly hate to talk about this, but all I'm going to say is that kids having two dads or two moms is really not fun. I have nothing against gay people, but kids who have gone through a gay divorce are not 'not affected'.

Not all homosexuals get divorces, and divorces, gay or straight, can be really hard on the children.

Not the homosexuals themselves, but homosexuality as a whole.

[Lithosano]

Divorces of straight couples also affect children, often quite horribly. If this is your argument against same-sex marriage, it's a really crappy one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/healt ... .html?_r=0

"Young adults from broken homes in which a parent had had a same-sex relationship reported modestly more psychological and social problems in their current lives than peers from other families that had experienced divorce and other disruptions, a new study has found, stirring bitter debate among partisans on gay marriage."

New evidence? ... nope, it's the thoroughly discredited and fatally flawed study by Regnerus.

[Caladaria]

All of you here appear to support this aberration. I cannot see reason with any of you. Only one person agreed with me on the issue. There are people who are able to go against your arguments: they would brilliantly craft a argument which would blast all of your presumptions out of the water. All of you are wrongly equating the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement. And in particular, African-American rights are still ignored. "In the midst of women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, veteran's rights, Indian rights, Asian rights, Hispanic rights, and immigrant rights, black rights remain invisible." (Dirty Little Secrets About Black History, Its Heroes, and Other Troublemakers, pg. 28). You will march and debate for gay rights, but claim that the civil rights of African-Americans are a separate issue. In this way, you are waving it off.......And this concept of multitasking should mean that this country should also be paying attention to the concerns of minorities and of other groups equally, not in a disproportionate manner. The quote should be taken as meaning that the rights of one group, the most oppressed group in the history of the United States, are considered merely "one of many" that can be "handled by a multitasking society". It is erroneous to claim that gay rights are the same as civil rights.

[Rocopurr]

How are they disgusting?


Not all homosexuals get divorces, and divorces, gay or straight, can be really hard on the children.

Not the homosexuals themselves, but homosexuality as a whole.

What about homosexuality is disgusting?

[Mavorpen]

How are they disgusting?


Not all homosexuals get divorces, and divorces, gay or straight, can be really hard on the children.

Not the homosexuals themselves, but homosexuality as a whole.

...What?

This is like saying black people aren't disgusting, but being black is.

[Valendia]

All of you here appear to support this aberration. I cannot see reason with any of you. Only one person agreed with me on the issue. There are people who are able to go against your arguments: they would brilliantly craft a argument which would blast all of your presumptions out of the water. All of you are wrongly equating the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement. And in particular, African-American rights are still ignored. "In the midst of women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, veteran's rights, Indian rights, Asian rights, Hispanic rights, and immigrant rights, black rights remain invisible." (Dirty Little Secrets About Black History, Its Heroes, and Other Troublemakers, pg. 28). You will march and debate for gay rights, but claim that the civil rights of African-Americans are a separate issue. In this way, you are waving it off.......And this concept of multitasking should mean that this country should also be paying attention to the concerns of minorities and of other groups equally, not in a disproportionate manner. The quote should be taken as meaning that the rights of one group, the most oppressed group in the history of the United States, are considered merely "one of many" that can be "handled by a multitasking society". It is erroneous to claim that gay rights are the same as civil rights.

[Caladaria]

How are they disgusting?


Not all homosexuals get divorces, and divorces, gay or straight, can be really hard on the children.

Not the homosexuals themselves, but homosexuality as a whole.

Yes! One who agrees with me.....at least to the point that homosexual unions are not biologically compatible.

[Mavorpen]

You will march and debate for gay rights, but claim that the civil rights of African-Americans are a separate issue.

I'm black, and I support gay rights.

Surprise surprise, looks like your straw man is bullshit.

1) Gay marriage would upset the whole definition of marriage For thousands of years, ever since Man first gained consciousness of himself as a being, the relationship that has been established is between men and women.

This is a lie. Marriage has had varying meanings throughout history including:

1) Selling your daughter to another family in exchange for a gift.
2) Polygamy.
3) A woman being bought by a man into marriage after having sex with her if she was not a virgin.
4) Same sex unions in places such as in ancient Native American societies, Ancient Egypt, and Ancient Mesopotamia.
etc. etc.

There has never been a set established relationship where there is only one type of marriage.

Men and women are biologically and psychologically compatible to each other: the means by which they procreate and the means by which they fall in love with each other thus shows that there is a natural background thus, to the formation of the institution of marriage.

That's not how the institution of marriage formed. A primitive form of marriage was formed in order to better protect offspring and have more stability within one group. Homosexuals can still be a part of this because they directly contribute to society and ergo help protect offspring and help reach stability within a group.

Over time, this was formalized: every society, since the dawn of civilization, has acknowledged marriage between men and women. Now, of course homosexuality has existed throughout history, and it was a practice in the societies of Greece and Rome: but in the end, heterosexual marriage was confirmed in its position, especially during the Middle Ages and in fact, all the way up into the twentieth century.

This is an oversimplified view of history.

Same sex marriage most definitely occurred during the Middle Ages. Same sex unions were also available in medieval France through "affrèrement."

Historical considerations provide great support for the logic that argues for why gay marriage is wrong. If you legalized it, you would be upsetting the established balance: that is, the way would be opened to absurd relationships, such as bestiality, and eventually, even to polygamy. Gay marriage cannot be allowed. Marriage is for one man and one woman.

This is odd, because for the vast majority of history, this hasn't been the case. As I said above, the vast majority of human history involved women being sold and bought into marriage, polygamy, etc.

2) Marriage denies a child proper parents For some strange reason, it seems as if homosexual couples adopt varying roles: for example, the one acts "feminine" while the other acts "masculine". However, even with this, the child raised by that couple will not be raised in the proper manner. He or she will not have a true, proper father, and (in the case of male homosexual couples) a true, proper mother. This has a psychological impact upon their development, as they do not have the counterbalancing male and female influences in their lives (at least from their parents). The child is left in conflict with himself and is left wondering about his "parents". This will eventually impact the course of their own relationships.

Except, the research has shown this is bullshit.

3)Gay rights are not the same as civil rights Gay rights advocates claim that their movement for the legalization of gay marriage is the same as civil rights. This is false. Sexual orientation and race are of two completely different planes. African-Americans, for example, were enslaved and put under Jim Crowism for a very long time in the United States. Jews, for example, were persecuted on the basis of their race and religion.

...What?

You're completely missing the point of the comparison. The point of the comparison isn't to say that the two are exactly to same. Furthermore, the civil rights movement wasn't to end slavery. No one is comparing homosexuals not having the right to marry to slavery. No one is comparing it to Jim Crow.

In my view, slavery, racial discrimination, and genocide are of a far more serious nature then of merely denying homosexuals the right to marriage.

Except, not being able to be married isn't the only problem homosexuals have faced. Homosexuals have been slaughtered in genocides as well (I guess you have never heard of a man named Hitler). Homosexuals have been lynched by the KKK along with African Americans. Homosexuals are often bullied to the point of suicide.

Besides this, people of varying races, and different genders can marry, without being in contradiction to the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

Not according to white Americans before the civil rights era.

Tell me, why is your argument any better than theirs?

Homosexual couples, however, would not follow this, as they are unable to procreate and have children of their own (unless if they use artificial techniques, in the case of female couples, or adopt) and have never been the norm of relationships.

Except, the elderly can get married. Sterile individuals can get married. Clearly marriage has utterly nothing to do with your imaginary "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God."

Thus, I would march, with all of my being, for justice for those who have been lynched or shut out of a store because of a sign saying "No Coloreds allowed". I would never march for something which is against the laws of society and against common sense.

And yet, homosexuals have faced both of those discriminatory events.

Homosexuals HAVE been lynched, and in many placed in the world, they're downright hunted down to be put to death. Homosexuals HAVE been refused access to stores.

4) The BIOLOGICAL aspect! My fourth and final major reason for why gay marriage is wrong results from common sense. As stated in my first reason, marriage between men and women developed because it was universally recognized that men and women were biologically and psychologically compatible to each other. This is not the case for homosexual couples: two homosexual men or two homosexual women cannot procreate a child. This in itself argues against gay marriage! If they cannot have children, then why should they be in a legally recognized union?

If old people cannot have children, then why should they be in a legally recognized union?
If sterile people cannot have children, then why should they be in a legally recognized union?

[Blasveck]

Not the homosexuals themselves, but homosexuality as a whole.

Yes! One who agrees with me.....at least to the point that homosexual unions are not biologically compatible.

The purpose of Marriage is not for reproduction, as has been established.

[The Orson Empire]

Not the homosexuals themselves, but homosexuality as a whole.

...What?

This is like saying black people aren't disgusting, but being black is.

How?

[Mavorpen]

Yes! One who agrees with me.....at least to the point that homosexual unions are not biologically compatible.

The purpose of Marriage is not for reproduction, as has been established.

Of course it is. Haven't you seen all of those old people having their marriage terminated because they can't reproduce?

Oh wait.

[The Orson Empire]

Yes! One who agrees with me.....at least to the point that homosexual unions are not biologically compatible.

The purpose of Marriage is not for reproduction, as has been established.

...Is this sarcasm? I can't tell.

[Menassa]

Not the homosexuals themselves, but homosexuality as a whole.

Yes! One who agrees with me.....at least to the point that homosexual unions are not biologically compatible.

If it is your religion that has you believe this, then present it as your religion.

[Beta Test]

...What?

This is like saying black people aren't disgusting, but being black is.

How?

Because homosexuality, like being black, is something that occurs naturally to them.

[Geilinor]

...What?

This is like saying black people aren't disgusting, but being black is.

How?

You said that homosexuals aren't disgusting, but being homosexual is, did you not?

[Mavorpen]

...What?

This is like saying black people aren't disgusting, but being black is.

How?

...How is it not?

In both cases, you'd be claiming that you hate a fundamental and integral part of the person while not hating the person itself. No matter what, it's silly.

[New Frenco Empire]

...What?

This is like saying black people aren't disgusting, but being black is.

How?

They're both something that can't be helped. Might as well be the same.

[The Orson Empire]

How?

Because homosexuality, like being black, is something that occurs naturally to them.

Is there evidence for this? I need sources.

[Blasveck]

The purpose of Marriage is not for reproduction, as has been established.

...Is this sarcasm? I can't tell.

It's demonstrably true that marriage is not primarily for reproduction.

Otherwise, sterile folks and older folks wouldn't be able to get married.

[Caladaria]

You will march and debate for gay rights, but claim that the civil rights of African-Americans are a separate issue.

I'm black, and I support gay rights.

Surprise surprise, looks like your straw man is bullshit.

This is a lie. Marriage has had varying meanings throughout history including:

1) Selling your daughter to another family in exchange for a gift.
2) Polygamy.
3) A woman being bought by a man into marriage after having sex with her if she was not a virgin.
4) Same sex unions in places such as in ancient Native American societies, Ancient Egypt, and Ancient Mesopotamia.
etc. etc.

There has never been a set established relationship where there is only one type of marriage.

That's not how the institution of marriage formed. A primitive form of marriage was formed in order to better protect offspring and have more stability within one group. Homosexuals can still be a part of this because they directly contribute to society and ergo help protect offspring and help reach stability within a group.

This is an oversimplified view of history.

Same sex marriage most definitely occurred during the Middle Ages. Same sex unions were also available in medieval France through "affrèrement."

This is odd, because for the vast majority of history, this hasn't been the case. As I said above, the vast majority of human history involved women being sold and bought into marriage, polygamy, etc.

Except, the research has shown this is bullshit.



...What?

You're completely missing the point of the comparison. The point of the comparison isn't to say that the two are exactly to same. Furthermore, the civil rights movement wasn't to end slavery. No one is comparing homosexuals not having the right to marry to slavery. No one is comparing it to Jim Crow.

Except, not being able to be married isn't the only problem homosexuals have faced. Homosexuals have been slaughtered in genocides as well (I guess you have never heard of a man named Hitler). Homosexuals have been lynched by the KKK along with African Americans. Homosexuals are often bullied to the point of suicide.

Not according to white Americans before the civil rights era.

Tell me, why is your argument any better than theirs?

Except, the elderly can get married. Sterile individuals can get married. Clearly marriage has utterly nothing to do with your imaginary "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God."

And yet, homosexuals have faced both of those discriminatory events.

Homosexuals HAVE been lynched, and in many placed in the world, they're downright hunted down to be put to death. Homosexuals HAVE been refused access to stores.

If old people cannot have children, then why should they be in a legally recognized union?
If sterile people cannot have children, then why should they be in a legally recognized union?

I have said time and time again: I bear no prejudice against homosexuals! I only oppose the institution of gay marriage. People here seem not to be able to understand that. And I was talking about African-American and other minority civil rights in general, compared to gay rights: that the one is more immediate than the other. I did not mean to say that there weren't any blacks who supported gay marriage. I know that there are. Misinterpretation of my comments by all the people here: causing a great amount of confusion.

[Urmanian]

All of you here appear to support this aberration. I cannot see reason with any of you. Only one person agreed with me on the issue. There are people who are able to go against your arguments: they would brilliantly craft a argument which would blast all of your presumptions out of the water. All of you are wrongly equating the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement. And in particular, African-American rights are still ignored. "In the midst of women's rights, gay rights, minority rights, veteran's rights, Indian rights, Asian rights, Hispanic rights, and immigrant rights, black rights remain invisible." (Dirty Little Secrets About Black History, Its Heroes, and Other Troublemakers, pg. 28). You will march and debate for gay rights, but claim that the civil rights of African-Americans are a separate issue. In this way, you are waving it off.......And this concept of multitasking should mean that this country should also be paying attention to the concerns of minorities and of other groups equally, not in a disproportionate manner. The quote should be taken as meaning that the rights of one group, the most oppressed group in the history of the United States, are considered merely "one of many" that can be "handled by a multitasking society". It is erroneous to claim that gay rights are the same as civil rights.

CIVIL RIGHTS: the nonpolitical rights of a citizen

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

When people say "gay marriage is a civil right" they are not equating gay marriage to the African-American Civil Rights Movement of the 50's. They are saying that it's a civil right in the greater sense. And it is.

[The Orson Empire]

How?

...How is it not?

In both cases, you'd be claiming that you hate a fundamental and integral part of the person while not hating the person itself. No matter what, it's silly.

Well, I am entitled to my own opinion, and I still view homosexuality as disgusting.

[Furious Grandmothers]

The purpose of Marriage is not for reproduction, as has been established.

...Is this sarcasm? I can't tell.

If you've been in an abortion debate where people explain that the purpose of sex is not solely for reproduction but can also be for improving a relationship, you may be better able to understand the point.

[Rocopurr]

Not the homosexuals themselves, but homosexuality as a whole.

What about homosexuality is disgusting?

So... I'm guessing you're just going to ignore my post? A+ debating skills right there.

[Valendia]

I have said time and time again: I bear no prejudice against homosexuals! I only oppose the institution of gay marriage. People here seem not to be able to understand that. And I was talking about African-American and other minority civil rights in general, compared to gay rights: that the one is more immediate than the other. I did not mean to say that there weren't any blacks who supported gay marriage. I know that there are. Misinterpretation of my comments by all the people here: causing a great amount of confusion.

You bear no prejudice against them but then go on to oppose an institution which would present them with legal and social equality. Right.

"I bear no prejudice against women, I only oppose the institution of female suffrage."