'Yes' to civil unions, 'no' to same-sex marriage -- Marriage, L...

[YoMaMa]

PutBackupBeepersOnFags wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me know when you can carry a baby to term from conception in your womb, not your tonsils or elsewhere, then you might have a point.

This guy has done just that:

http://www.nbc5i.com/health/15702121/detail.h...

Point Made.

[Bill Hubbard III]

Brian wrote:

This thousand year argument. How many African, Native American, Eastern Indian, and tribal European cultures from the last 10,000 years have you studied? Are you sure that in every single instance of matrimony there was one man and one woman. Not, perhaps, two men and one woman. How about two women and one man? Or one woman for an entire village? There is archaeological evidence of all these combinations. There is also evidence of same-sex marriages throughout history.
You may be right that gays and lesbians haven't been welcomed into mainstream Christian matrimony. But I'm not a Christian. My partner's not a Christian. And most importantly, my country is not Christian. I am free to be who I am without the approval of the church because this, friend, is America. You can't appeal to God like you and Him kick it on weekends and tell me what's right and wrong. If that's what you're looking for, get out of my country and move to the Vatican.

No, Brian, I am not an anthropologist. I haven't studied the cultures you mentioned. All the instances of "matrimony" you listed, though, be they monogamous, polygamous or polyandrous involved men & woman. You did mention there's evidence of same-sex marriage throughout history. Were they legal marriages or civil unions? How prevalent were they?

All I'm saying is marriage, for the past 2000 years, has, for the most part, been monogamous and between a man and a woman. I think you would have to agree, marriage is the cornerstone on which society has been built. Don't get me wrong, but I believe nature or God (depending on your beliefs) intended it that way.

Finally, you're right. I can't tell you what you do is right or wrong. I can only tell you what I believe is right. You can then choose to accept or ignore my advise. I might add, that works both ways. Thanks for listening.

Finally, you're right. I can

-

[Cruisin thru]

YoMaMa wrote:

<quoted text>
This guy has done just that:
http://www.nbc5i.com/health/15702121/detail.h...
Point Made.

Not so fast, YoMaMa. I'm not sure this person qualifies as a guy or a gal.
Sounds more like Cousin It of Addams Family fame. Even he/she/it said this has raised all kind of legal, ethical and medical quandaries. The jury is still out on this one.

[Pagan and Proud]

PutBackupBeepersOnFags wrote:

<quoted text>
Marriage has never changed at all at any time in the last 1000 years, fool. You must be watching Animal Planet again.
Your past will pass before you eyes one day and it won't be a pretty sight. There is a place for you though, and it'll be warm, but no beach or water.

Liar Liar... Marriage has changed from women being traded as property or as a reward for a good service done for her father. later on it was defined as being applicable as to only the members of a specific race, and it continues to change as recognized in Canada and Spain among other places...
Your mythology isn't frightening in the least for anyone outside of your little reading group, bigot, stick to frightening children with your fairy tales.

[ACLU-Tom]

Bill, which of your civil rights are you willing to have put up to a popular vote?

Bill Hubbard III wrote:

JBF wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should YOUR religious views control this matter?
What about the relgious views of people who support marrige equality?
Do you really believe the state should be requiring everone to live by your religious beliefs?
<quoted text>
No, John K. That's not how my mind works. It sounds more like how yours does. But I don't know you so I won't jump to that conclusion.
The Marriage Protection Amendment would require the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ratify it, not my or anyone else's religious beliefs. Most everyone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) would certainly play a part in each of our votes for or against the amendment. That's what the constitution of the U.S. and the Commonwealth of Pa. are all about. The freedom to vote as we see fit.

[Anathema]

Bill Hubbard III wrote:

<quoted text>
All I'm saying is marriage, for the past 2000 years, has, for the most part, been monogamous and between a man and a woman. I think you would have to agree, marriage is the cornerstone on which society has been built. Don't get me wrong, but I believe nature or God (depending on your beliefs) intended it that way.
-

PFFFT!
That last sentence says, "I'm being so magnanimous that I'm willing to concede that you might have a different label for my invisible puppeteer"
Please.

Bill Hubbard III wrote:

<quoted text>
Finally, you're right. I can't tell you what you do is right or wrong. I can only tell you what I believe is right. You can then choose to accept or ignore my advise. I might add, that works both ways. Thanks for listening.
-

If all you were proposing were advise, that would be fine.
But you want to go further than advice. You want to enshrine your religious rules into the state constitution.
Your fears for the safety of the institution of marriage are misplaced.
Allowing the small percentage of gays that want marriage to achieve the legal rights of a married couple will not endanger the overwhelming majority of hetero marriages.
And have you seen the statistics on divorce?
If you REALLY want to protect marriage, I suggest you devote your energy to getting involved with counseling couples, especially those that are thinking of marriage but are not ready for it.

[Nephilim]

ACLU-Tom wrote:

Bill, which of your civil rights are you willing to have put up to a popular vote?
<quoted text>

Oh no, an ACLU idiot! We are all doomed.

[man and woman]

Pagan and Proud wrote:

<quoted text>Liar Liar... Marriage has changed from women being traded as property or as a reward for a good service done for her father. later on it was defined as being applicable as to only the members of a specific race, and it continues to change as recognized in Canada and Spain among other places...
Your mythology isn't frightening in the least for anyone outside of your little reading group, bigot, stick to frightening children with your fairy tales.

marriage has and always will be viewed as between a man and woman. Just because a minority of mentally ill gays want it their way doesn't make it right.

[Pagan and Proud]

man and woman wrote:

<quoted text>
marriage has and always will be viewed as between a man and woman. Just because a minority of mentally ill gays want it their way doesn't make it right.

Nope, sorry, it is judged as to be between individuals regardless of gender and Legal recognition in the United States is inevitable despite what a minority of Bigots claim.

[ACLU-Tom]

Homosexuality isn't a mental illness, and hasn't been recognized as one for over 30 years; it simply doesn't meet the criteria.

man and woman wrote:

<quoted text>
marriage has and always will be viewed as between a man and woman. Just because a minority of mentally ill gays want it their way doesn't make it right.

[ACLU-Tom]

Of course you're doomed, your own ignorance will see to that.

Nephilim wrote:

<quoted text>Oh no, an ACLU idiot! We are all doomed.

[steve-2304]

man and woman wrote:

Just because a minority of mentally ill gays want it their way doesn't make it right.

Guess you missed this excellent post earlier in the thread?

"But by 1973, over 40 years of mental health research had shown no evidence of associated mental illnesses among homosexuals, so the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from their list of mental illnesses. However, the extreme societal stigma from that designation has persisted into today into Bills opinion.

Now with over 75 years of research reviewed, The American Psychiatric Association confirmed that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, and has no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships, to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.

Because civil marriage strengthens the mental and physical health and the longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents, and seniors, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the and the American Psychiatric Association have all endorsed access to civil marriage by same sex couples. This means that there is no ethical reason in the world to discriminate against homosexuals."

Come, join us in the 21st century.

[John_K]

PutBackupBeepersOnFags wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me know when you can carry a baby to term from conception in your womb, not your tonsils or elsewhere, then you might have a point. And not too wise to do what all bad debaters do, they use the case of 1% of all who make up the participants that make up a norm, and try to juxtaposition the exception as an example of the failure of a rule.
You're a jerk, and also an example of someone who's depravity has convoluted their own mind. Your poor sexual practices are a health risk as well, depending on where all you put things. Ugh!

You can continue to call me names and insult me (also something bad debaters do); I've heard it all before.

As for your 1% argument, the point is that if society really cared about protecting your definition of marriage (the sine qua non of which is procreation), then we must root out ALL who cannot procreate. We test for diseases before we hand out marriag licenses, why not test for fertility? Even if it is only 1%.

[John_K]

Bill Hubbard III wrote:

JBF wrote:
<quoted text>
Why should YOUR religious views control this matter?
What about the relgious views of people who support marrige equality?
Do you really believe the state should be requiring everone to live by your religious beliefs?
<quoted text>
No, John K. That's not how my mind works. It sounds more like how yours does. But I don't know you so I won't jump to that conclusion.
The Marriage Protection Amendment would require the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ratify it, not my or anyone else's religious beliefs. Most everyone's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) would certainly play a part in each of our votes for or against the amendment. That's what the constitution of the U.S. and the Commonwealth of Pa. are all about. The freedom to vote as we see fit.

There are things that are simply none of the majorities business to vote on. This is one of them. The fact is that the only argument against recognizing gay people's right to marry is a religious one, and the Constitution says the majority cannot establish a religion. That's exactly what you are doing when you (the majority) force your religious beliefs down the throats of gay people by refusing to treat them equally.

[Nephilim]

steve-2304 wrote:

<quoted text>
This means that there is no ethical reason in the world to discriminate against homosexuals."
Come, join us in the 21st century.

I am sure we can gather an impressive list as well. It means nothing.

[John_K]

Nephilim wrote:

<quoted text>Oh no, an ACLU idiot! We are all doomed.

Wait until the government screws with you. You'll come crying to the ACLU.

[John_K]

man and woman wrote:

<quoted text>
marriage has and always will be viewed as between a man and woman. Just because a minority of mentally ill gays want it their way doesn't make it right.

Ok Mr. psychologist. Go check with the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, the American Pychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and then get back to us.

I suppose they are all just puppets of the liberal elite though.

[John_K]

PutBackupBeepersOnFags wrote:

<quoted text>
No, they just did what business people have done for decades...
if you can't eliminate a problem person, promote them and the problem isn't a problem anymore.
If you can't fix homosexuals with a false set of values of a false science, then change your appraisal of them. Christianity has a real set of values and is having a healthy experience in recovering homosexuals from that lifestyle. I know of many who went thru that hell and are straight family men now as christians. Thankfully.

Check their computer history for Craig's list and you will probably find that you are sorely mistaken. The only thing your sham "therapy" does is ruin lives, not only those of the men and women themselves who are put through this psychological torture, but also those of the spouses and children that come from the sham marriages these people are forced (read brainwashed) into.

[John_K]

PutBackupBeepersOnFags wrote:

<quoted text>
No, they just did what business people have done for decades...
if you can't eliminate a problem person, promote them and the problem isn't a problem anymore.
If you can't fix homosexuals with a false set of values of a false science, then change your appraisal of them. Christianity has a real set of values and is having a healthy experience in recovering homosexuals from that lifestyle. I know of many who went thru that hell and are straight family men now as christians. Thankfully.

Your "fix" is misguided because it assumes something is broken.

[John_K]

PutBackupBeepersOnFags wrote:

<quoted text>
No, they just did what business people have done for decades...
if you can't eliminate a problem person, promote them and the problem isn't a problem anymore.
If you can't fix homosexuals with a false set of values of a false science, then change your appraisal of them. Christianity has a real set of values and is having a healthy experience in recovering homosexuals from that lifestyle. I know of many who went thru that hell and are straight family men now as christians. Thankfully.

Now, far be it from me to say that no one has ever suppressed their same-sex attractions for whatever reason. It obviously happens. This doesn't mean they are not gay. The only reason these "Ex-gays" feel that they need to change in the first place is because people like you tell them they need to. It just comes down to a matter of wills, and it's hard for people to stand up to the institutionalized hatred that is religion. People give in and become self-loathing.
It's really a shame that anti-gay bigotry is what Christianity has become synonymous with in the United States. You're losing young people from your fold because they get it. They don't have years of their own self-loathing (for whatever reason) keeping them from thinking critically. Your kind is slowly dying off, and I'm enjoying every second of it.