Gay marriage, should it be outlawed?

[Hermy]

more, i think the acceptance of homosexuallity into our culture is probably just another step in an overall trend of moral decline that will probably do a 180 when people start trying to making pedelophilia or necrophelia acceptable to the mainstream.

I feel the first step is banning sex not for the purpose of reproduction. Stem the flow there and we're all safe from snuff porn.

[Black Dynamite]

more, i think the acceptance of homosexuallity into our culture is probably just another step in an overall trend of moral decline that will probably do a 180 when people start trying to making pedelophilia or necrophelia acceptable to the mainstream.

yes, the homos are to blame for pedophelia, as is sheed.

Once again homos are homos, they have been around since ancient times. Alexander the great took it up the ass for hobby as did cesaer at parties. The idea that things like this effect the morals of society in a negative way is retarded. I'd be much quicker to say killing a a muthafucka for being gay(which was accepted in many cultures and still is in some) is a fucked up set of morals. The only thing that has changed is the freedom for them closet hiding fruitcakes to not have to hide.

IMO its better that they are allowed to be free in their lifestyle choice. So they dont repress it by getting married or becoming a priest. then unload it one day on catholic choir boys and/or a group boy scouts.

Save the kids from bottled up homos taking in youths at big brothers of america clubs just to get some action.

[b-diddy]

i think you guys are misinterpreting that point. prior to the late 1800's there was homosexual behavior--dudes would do other dudes for whatever reason--but no one was classified as a "homosexual" before that.

[Black Dynamite]

i think you guys are misinterpreting that point. prior to the late 1800's there was homosexual behavior--dudes would do other dudes for whatever reason--but no one was classified as a "homosexual" before that.

meaning? men were fucking men. so if we dont label it as gay like the roman fudgepacking aritocrats its cool? what kinda shit are you on man? maybe i'm still misinterpreting your statement. but that isnt all that clear if your trying to say something else.

My point is that it was there from the jump accepting in some dominant societies of the past more than it is today. So i dont see how you make it the gateway moral dilema to pedophilia and other problems in society. but if thats how you feel fair enough. no need to debate the topic of fruitcakes too long. Cowology may make an appearence for a first hand point of view.

[Uncle Mxy]

im against banning gay marriage, because there are huge advantageous to being married as far as insurance, taxes, and the law go. and like glenn said, the gov should stay out of our personal business (this would be an obvious blending of church and state).

Should there be huge advantages to being married as far as taxes and the law? To what extent should the law factor "marriage" into account for any purpose, and why? How is the government staying out of our personal business when it's making and executing huge amounts of laws, money decisions, etc. based on marriage as a state of being? If two people grant power of attorney to each other, why is that not marriage from a legal standpoint? Why are single people subsidizing married ones? Is it all "for the children"... what about those married folks who don't have children, then?

[Unibomber]

This isn't an issue of discrimination. The neocons are bringing this up now to energize their hill billy base. Republicans know they are going to get their asses handed to them if the 06 elections are based on real issues. They put out this fake issue to piss off rednecks and to get them out to the polls. After the elections this issue will die.

You have a valid point, WOD. But the people who are forcibly using this issue to promote "sanctity of marriage" are discriminating. Of course, it does make for a nice little prop.

[Taymelo]

Here's a quote from a new Yahoo article that I found to be dead on.

"The reason for this debate is to divide our society, to pit one against another," Reid said in remarks prepared for delivery on the Senate floor. "This is another one of the presidents efforts to frighten, to distort, to distract, and to confuse America. It is this administration's way of avoiding the tough, real problems that American citizens are confronted with each and every day."

If you agree with this statement, as I do, then aren't you part of the problem by creating this thread, instead of a thread about the real problems facing America? (I'm being serious here, not sarcastic as usual.)

Glenn = divider. He wants to drive a wedge between us WTFers.

He wants us to tear each other to pieces over a non-issue.

Sick bastard. (OK, that part was kidding)

[Taymelo]

infact, in the mid 1800's, there was no homosexuallity. its a biproduct of changing living conditions where a person could live outside the basic familly structure). more, i think the acceptance of homosexuallity into our culture is probably just another step in an overall trend of moral decline that will probably do a 180 when people start trying to making pedelophilia or necrophelia acceptable to the mainstream.

LMFAO.

Can I have a link to a credible source that can prove there was no homosexuality in the 1800's?

Shit, there was homosexuality before the time of Jesus, so you're at LEAST 1,800 years off (and I'd say millions of years off if you accept that the world is more than 6,000 years old).

PS: The divorce rate is much HIGHER in conservative states, such as Texas, that don't allow gay marriage, than it is in liberal states that do allow gay marriage.

So, if you use the logic of conservative republicans, the only way to save the institution of straight marriage is for every state to permit gay marriage.

[Glenn]

If you agree with this statement, as I do, then aren't you part of the problem by creating this thread, instead of a thread about the real problems facing America? (I'm being serious here, not sarcastic as usual.)

Glenn = divider. He wants to drive a wedge between us WTFers.

He wants us to tear each other to pieces over a non-issue.

Sick bastard. (OK, that part was kidding)

Just taking the pulse my good man, just taking the pulse.

I've got a comprehensive database about every poster and his political beliefs.

[Gecko]

infact, in the mid 1800's, there was no homosexuallity. its a biproduct of changing living conditions where a person could live outside the basic familly structure). more, i think the acceptance of homosexuallity into our culture is probably just another step in an overall trend of moral decline that will probably do a 180 when people start trying to making pedelophilia or necrophelia acceptable to the mainstream.

LMFAO.

Can I have a link to a credible source that can prove there was no homosexuality in the 1800's?

Shit, there was homosexuality before the time of Jesus, so you're at LEAST 1,800 years off (and I'd say millions of years off if you accept that the world is more than 6,000 years old).

PS: The divorce rate is much HIGHER in conservative states, such as Texas, that don't allow gay marriage, than it is in liberal states that do allow gay marriage.

So, if you use the logic of conservative republicans, the only way to save the institution of straight marriage is for every state to permit gay marriage.

I have kept my personal beliefs out of this one and will continue to but It's too bad that some in here want to spin this issue in such a way to make you believe that banning gay marriage is a neocon, republican or conservative crusade. Nothing is further from the truth unless most of America is conservative.

leaving my personal feelings out of this I firmly believe this is a states rights issue that should be decided by the voter and the American public has spoken on this issue time and again. Sorry, but the views expressed on this forum, on this matter are in the minority.

ABC News Poll. May 31-June 4, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

.

"Do you think homosexual couples should or should not be allowed to form legally recognized civil unions, giving them the legal rights of married couples in areas such as health insurance, inheritance and pension coverage?

Should 45%
Should Not 48%
Unsure 7%

Do you think it should be legal or illegal for homosexual couples to get married?"

Legal 36%
Illegal 58%
Unsure 5%

Gallup Poll. May 8-11, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults

Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" N=515, MoE ± 5 (Form A)

Should be Valid 39%
Should not Be valid 58%
Unsure 4%

"Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples?"

Favor 50%
Oppose 47%
Unsure 3%

There are several other polls I could post and you may want to check how liberal California and Oregon voted on the voter referendum to allow gay marriage.