So, what are your opinions on Gay marriage? Screw Gays? Leave it to the states? Should be made legal everywhere? What do you guys think?

I don't think they should be necessarily married, such as in churches, but should be allowed governmental benefits the same as married couples. My reasoning: the same as you guys said religion shouldn't interfere in government, and it should not; absolutely government should not interfere with religion and force any church to marry if they wish not to. If the government wants to give benefits, which they supply anyway, to gays, let them. Likewise, if any church wants to, let them. But the church is a private instutution, and should not have to if they do not want to. What are your thoughts?

Yeah, I agree, if gay marriage is made legal then it should not be considered marriage seeing as the definition of marriage doesn't fit in that sense, but equal rights should be given out, it only seems natural. Wonder how much states will follow that approach.

It should be up to the states to decide, due to wildly varying opinions on the matter that correspond fairly closely to the red state/blue state divide.

Personally, I think that they should be able to have civil unions with the same legal status as marriage.

I will fourth this motion. It should be up to individual states to grant them the rights of married couples, but once again, the government should have no right to make a Catholic church change its religion to incorporate gay marriage at all.

Homosexuality is evil in itself. I guess that is my muslim side speaking. Well, not really. It is evil in Christianity too. Christians just ignore the bible =D.

I dont feel they should obtain the staus of marriage. Civil Unions and Life Partner i am fine with, but its not marriage.

Gay marriage should be allowed in every state. There is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. People get the wrong impression. They think that all gay men do is contract AIDS from having too many partners and go out at night to dress up in your local gay clubs. This isn't true. Sure, there are some who do that, but it is a very small minority. Gay love is the same thing as straight love. There is no difference but what sex you're falling in love with. Who are we to deny those who love eachother the sacred code of marriage?

Unfortunately, gays would never be allowed to marry in churches because of biblical code. This is a sad truth. But that doesn't mean that they cannot recite vows to eachother and be considered "married" by state law. Gay men and women are just as capable at bringing up children as straight couples. Have you ever seen the movie "The Birdcage"? Van, the son, turned out to be a sensitive, hard-working, yet still manly, man- even though both his parents were gay. One could argue that its just a movie, but that movie is not far from the truth at all. I know many gay men. They are all nurturing, hysterical (as in funny), hard-working, compassionate, individuals. To deny two men of that stature the right to become one body is a disgrace. The same goes for homosexual women.

Does the constitution not extend equal rights to all? It may not mention gays specifically, but gays living in America are AMERICANS. Henceforth, gays are included in all rights of the consitution. They are people too. Why do we insist on keeping this issue up in the air? Why must we add one more problem to our plate? If we just give them the right of marriage, they would be happy and the Americans who oppose it would just have to get over it, like they get over all the other decisions government makes. You can never make EVERYONE happy.

How much of an impact would something like gay marriage actually make on a straight man's life? In retrospect, nothing at all. "So there's gay marriage? Who cares?" would ultimately be his/her reaction over time. Just because gay marriage is suddenly instated, doesn't mean that all men and women are going to turn gay and run off with their lovers and then destroy the earth because no more babies will be born. That is a sick and twisted view. And an ignorant one to say the least.

There's absolutely no problem with gay marriage. They're not going to take away or lessen the amount of married couple benefits. There would be a staggering amount of marriages overall (gay and straight) in the first 2-3 years of this law being instated. But afterwards, marriage rates would average out and benefits, divorces, separations, would all be at an average (if not the same rate as before).

Gays are people who love too. We can't deny them the next step in social equality.

Pedophiles love too.

So do those people who have sex with animals.

Do they get equal rights? It's the fact that homosexuality is not normal. Only recently has it been made out to be by the media and the government. However, I would never condone mistreatment of Gays. They still are humans and thus should be respected.

However, I will always stick by my case that homosexuality should not be encouraged. I don't believe it spreads disease...but I don't believe it does anything good for society either.

However don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of STRAIGHT promiscuity either.

I dont see the validity of your statements Falangist. No one is encouraging homosexuality. Its just become another common way of life. DOn't you think there were always gays? They just weren't accpeted. Now in these times gays are actually allowed to be free and accepted. Its liberating for them. How is homosexuality doing no good for the society? Are that many people gay? Why can't you just accept the fact that homosexuality is another way of life? It really isn't that hard. No one is pressuring YOU to be gay. No one is encouraging you to go have sex with a man. Gays are not premiscuous human beings in general. Your views are obviously ignorant and uneducated. Go to NYC and delve into the villgae and its culture. And you'll see a world of beauty and happiness and love that would never even touch the idea of "hurting society."

Pedophilia is illegal by the constitution and is a vulgar idea to bring into this topic. And beastiality is also illegal. And you can't marry an animal, Falangist- don't be superficial. That was an invalid point.

The country has become accostomed to telling people that "If you feel gay, come out of the closet." Now having gone through puberty, I can honestly say that myself and many other boys and probably girls who go through puberty sometimes get curious of the same sex. The problem is most people simply pass through that akward phase unphased. However it is the few who hear "If you think you are gay, come out of the closet" that honestly begin to believe they are gay because of those feelings, and may remain that way. I am not an advocate of believing that homosexuality is begun at birth.

And to a less intellectual point, it is "against my religion" as Bahra said. It is against Christianity to be Gay. But when you take religion out of it, other arguments are hard to come up with because alot of people don't listen to my opinion, calling me a "bad person" and a "homophobe." So, before we debate about this, AverageJoe, are you willing to listen to my arguments as I am willing to listen to yours without being called either of these things? Can we have a civilized debate about homosexuality and I not have to be called a "terrible preson?" If so, let's debate ;). I doubt you would do that. You seem very intellectual.

I would never insult you based on your views. Thats immature. But I do want you to listen to me and accept my views as well (which I think you will). I don't accept your puberty point. I agree with the fact that all boys and girls, including myself, have had curiosity about the same sex upon hitting puberty. But to say that those who hear "If you think you're gay, come out of the closet," honestly think they are and do come out is pretty radical. I mean really, put yourself in that position. You have thoughts about the same sex and they're really strong so you think you're gay. One night you hear "If you think you're gay, come out." So you decide to. Now imagine actually getting to the phase of dating that same sex person and even performing intercourse. Hormones wouldn't do that. Anyone would have enough sense to say "Wait a second. This isn't for me. What am I thinking?" and walk away from it. And therefore we can accept it as "just a phase." And, as you well know, phases are only temporary. They would return to leading a straight life, but knowing that homosexuality is not the road for them. To me, it is unfathomable to conceive that there are some who are that affected by the media that they change there complete lifestyle (but I do know what you're trying to say). But your account for this may be 1 in every 500,000 teenagers. A very miniscule number in the large picture. (And if they're that affected by the media, let them be.) Personally, I believe that people are born gay.

(Please keep religion out of any argument. It is much too touchy and quite frankly unnecessary to talk about because we can't change doctrine.)

p.s. I agreed with you on the "return to sender topic" if you want to go look at it.

I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Constitution about that. There are better (and not blatantly wrong) reasons to outlaw pedophilia. Find them.

You're correct. But we can assume that pedophilia is illegal. And we're discussing gay marriage, not pedophilia. I need not search for other sources.

I'm curious, Joe, as to how you would presume that homosexuality could be a gene that arrives with birth. Perhaps a hormone? I would like for you to expand on that, so that I may more easily debate on that note.

Agreed about religion, as I don't feel like quoting sources from the Bible. However we cannot ignore that for many people religion is what makes them against homosexuality. For alot of people for homosexuality, religion does not cut it because they simply aren't religious. SO thus, let us take religion out of the topic.

Agreed.

I believe that homosexuality is a hormone defect. I don't think it has to do with genes because once we get into that, it becomes to molecular and technical. So I will say its more hormone. The reason I say this (or at least one) is as follows:

A homosexual friend of mine, who we'll call Ron, believes he was born gay. He knows this because of his first "homosexual experience" in his middle school. I assume that you too changed for gym when you entered middle school. And like all the other students, it was his first time stepping into a locker room to get changed with other men. You know how a locker room smells? The boys at least. Like piss, fecies, too much "Axe" and colognes, and a funk that can only be achieved by sweat glands that secrete salty liquids. The girls is much nicer. Smelling like of that of roses, perfumes, and pleasurable smells. Almost asking yourself "Do girls even sweat?" This is what it smells like from a straight man's point of view (for both). But when Ron stepped into the boys room, the Axe and cologne stimulated him and hid the sweat and piss (much like the girls do for us). He enjoyed the smell (even sexually). And we know that this smell is not one you "enjoy". Not even one you "like." Then Ron went over to the girl's locker room to call for the teacher. Upon stepping just over the doorway, he smelled the piss, fecies, sweat, and horrible smells one would think to come from a boys' locker room. He didn't even smell the perfumes or lotions that a straight man would smell. It was at this point he knew he was gay. Male pheremones attracted him and stimulated him sexually.

I found this very interesting because it really gives some substance to being "born gay" (and i think you can agree). It is a 100% true story. I would never lie. So this tells me that there might just be too little testosterone and too much estrogen cycling in the body (there is some estrogen in males i believe). So its more of a hormone phenomena than it is a mutant gene. And as for explaining why some men turn gay at later times in their life is beyond me. But I'm assuming that this hormone imbalance can be triggered at any point in one's life, just like depression (when dopamine, the hormone that creates happiness, stops producing).

(I'm not much of a scientist. So if you plan on using technical biological terms, please include some sort of explanation. Thank you.)

Well who are we to assume anything? Pedophilia, by society’s standards is deemed to be immoral, that being said, then who is to say that homosexuality is moral? In laymen’s terms you think pedophilia is bad because you think it’s disgusting, your present mindset comes from society agreeing that the concept of pedophilia is wrong regardless of the individuals feelings. Also people have the right to bring in anything they want into this topic to try to prove their points, by not allowing this you diminish the overall affect of the whole opposing side, kind of unfair if you ask me. But I do back up your choice about not searching for other sources.

Well who are we to assume anything? Pedophilia, by society’s standards is deemed to be immoral, that being said, then who is to say that homosexuality is moral? In laymen’s terms you think pedophilia is bad because you think it’s disgusting, your present mindset comes from society agreeing that the concept of pedophilia is wrong regardless of the individuals feelings. Also people have the right to bring in anything they want into this topic to try to prove their points, by not allowing this you diminish the overall affect of the whole opposing side, kind of unfair if you ask me.

You guys are kinding of getting off topic.

The new members have not even answered the original question of what to do about gay marriage (state or federal issue). And who the heck brought up beastiality?

I am starting to see Orborde's point about debating "everything under the sun" under one topic.

Hey Nemo- if you want me to understand your points and accept your arguement, please talk to me in a mature and calm way. I don't need to be harrased because I stated something invalid. Lets be mature.

I couldnt agree more.

For me, it's simple. I think that individuals should be able to marry whomever they please. The relationship is not mine, therefore, I have no right to regulate it. I do not believe in the flaunting of "gay" OR "straight" affection in public. Beyond that, it doesn't concern me.

I don't understand why people feel the need to "regulate" others, then claim that they have no right to be "regulated". The world is not black and white. Marriage is marriage is marriage. I do not support anyone denying someone that right. As to state vs. fed's --- I'm at a gridlock. What do you think?

Federal Essyne. Why should a gay have to travel clear across the country just to get married. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to go to Alaska just to get across the street. Make it LEGAL in all states. It's only fair that way, for straights and gays.

I agree. After giving it further thought, I understand where the "state" supporters are coming from; however, a federal law is (in my newfound opinion) the only way to go. I would wish that marriage and taxes could be the same : ONE rule for EVERYONE, regardless of what "bracket" you fall under. :)

It kind of falls under both. The 14th Amendment states that states must protect the rights of all Americans. Therefore, it is up to the states to make the laws allowing gay marriage; meanwhile the federal government must enforce the amendment should there be states resisting, as there are.

Of course this entire argument is invalid if one does not believe marriage is a basic human right (gays are humans). It is much like one who thinks using scripture to back up his argument is valid, when religion is not fact or law.

I would give an argument as to why gays deserve this right, but this is not the correct topic, and we have already strayed off course once.


Also Facist, do you truly believe that the sacred love between two men or two women is the same thing as loving an animal? Do you truly believe a man or woman to be no better than animals? They are just as intelligent, compassionate, and resourceful as your average human being. They are not mindless creatures driven by instinct alone.

Edit: WOW I just said I wouldn't go off topic and there I went off topic on my last paragraph. I apologize, but I am going to leave it up anyway. Guess I'm an ass.

The problem with your argument, cloaked, is that many pro-homosexuality people argue that the animal kingdom has many cases of homosexuality and that it is a "natural occurence."

As such, my argument is extremely valid in this context. I, however, feel humans to be more advanced than animals, and as such, to be held to a higher standard.

After reviewing your relation between the two, I find it reasonably appropriate. You were not claiming it to be a slippery slope; you were just saying that loving alone is not proof of being right.

Am I correct in this understanding of what you are saying?

That's basically the gist of it. I would never compare homosexuality to bestiality. I was referring to this line:

Animals, as we know, are driven by instinct alone. Now, many pro-homosexual people argue that animals exhibit homosexual behavior, and claim that somehow this is grounds for claiming why homosexuality is right/natural.

I was making the point that since we are human, I would hope that we do NOT exhibit similar behavior as animals (as you said, not simply act off of instincts) and instead be held to a higher standard than that.

I think that people who argue that are not looking at it as a base behavior of animals, but rather they argue it is proof that, being mindless animals, homosexuality is something encoded in a being's DNA and hormone levels, and it is not a choice.

They (we) believe it may not be what is "supposed" to happen genetically, but it is something that happens genetically, and it is not a disease. In order to support this claim, the relation to animals committing the same acts is brought up.

The only problem I can think of with the States deciding if it should be legal or not is the issue of 'what if a gay couple marries in a State where it is legal, but moves to a state where it's illegal?' There may be some sort of legal solution already established here, but I'm unaware of it. Does this remind anyone else of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 or the Dred Scott case / "once free, always free" debate on slavery?

In any case, I agree with Essyne when he says: