Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 9,751-9,800 of 12,463

[Mary]

Maria
Without people standing up and saying this needs to be changed, we'd have no civil rights laws at all.All the civil rights protection we now have came about by action just like we are seeing now.
I'm sure there were people such as yourself who told civil rights advocates that they were not being denied any rights under the law as well. Only legal rights. SO then they changed the law.
So if you want to split hairs and say this is a legal marriage definition issue not a civil rights discrimination issue, you go ahead.
All I know is that in order to have a law, someone must demand the need for it. Now same sex marriage advocates are demanding the need for a law stating same sex marriage is equal under the law.

And there remains no good reason to deny one group a right that another group has.

[Mary]

Maria wrote: "Children are our future, whether their parents are legally married or not.

Just because a couple is a legally married man and woman does not guarantee them a well adjusted child, ready to take o..."

Or the other option, instead of moving, is to fight to make sure all states allow same sex marriage.

[Maria]

Totally agreed on both counts, Mary.

But until the law is changed, which it definitely should be - people can't be jumping up and down saying their civil rights have been violated.

Or trying to do the things you outlined in your post that they can't legally do YET.

You can't ignore or violate a law or expect exceptions to be made for you, just because you think it shouldn't apply in your case.

[Michael]

Chris wrote: "I bet those is favour of gay marriage can't wait to have you march with them."

Be a hell of a day out, wouldn't it? Not sure I'd fit in really, but my thoughts would be with them all the way.

Thing is, I have the same general schema of thought toward this as I do toward any similar type of view. I automatically punch and kick against a purely subjective outlook limiting people's legitimate choices. You can, for instance, slap censorship into the same list for comparison. Hate something if you like, tell me I'm deranged for liking or supporting it, look at me funny and tell other people I'm a dick, but whoever has that opinion will be told to bite me if they seek to ban it or overturn it or limit my options on anything just because they, gee, don't like it. Diddums frankly. Tough crackers. You think there are things I wouldn't like to see banned or not permitted? But I don't pap on about them because they're pretty much: a) frivolous things that don't really deserve such attention in the end, or b)none of my freaking business.

Same with this really - I'm not directly affected by the gay marriage issue, but I know people who might be. And they're people I like, fancy that. To imagine that a load of meaningless drivel could stop them doing something that harms nobody else in any way that matters a damn - well, that's what I mean by bollocks.

[cHriS]

Hazel wrote: "cHriS wrote: "I see the word marriage as meaning a man and a woman making a commitment together to create a family unit in which to have and raise children."

so should infertile people, or people ..."

....simple, if you want or think you want children, make a commitment first. If it turns out that for whatever reason you can't, but with medical intervention you could, then maybe that help should be given to you. If you still can't, that should not effect your being married.

If an eighty year old woman wants to marry a nineteen year old lad, or the couple you know in which the woman deliberately had herself sterilised; that is the same as me saying not all gay couples agree with marriage. There are always going to be the exception to the rule.

[Maria]

I personally think that the government has enought to do that really needs attention - like finding and stopping terrorists, dealing with illegal immigrants, etc.

They should concentrate on things that will truly help our country and leave the sex lives of their constituents alone.

[cHriS]

Michael wrote: I'm not directly affected by the gay marriage issue, but I know people who might be.

Yes, we are all effected by something or know someone who is, but we can't fight every-ones corner for them, especially when they are quite able and capable of doing that themselves.

[Maria]

I'm sure there are plenty of gay couples who don't want to get married, for whatever reason.

My neighbors, a man and a woman in their early 40s or so, have lived together for years, have several great kids, don't believe in marriage.

Why? Who knows or cares? We assumed they were married, simply because their lifestyle made it appear so, but just because they are not, what difference does that make to anyone but them?

They may not be entitled to some legal things that a married couple might be, but that is their choice.

[Mary]

cHriS wrote: "Hazel wrote: "cHriS wrote: "I see the word marriage as meaning a man and a woman making a commitment together to create a family unit in which to have and raise children."

so should infertile peop..."


But only hetero sexual marriages get to chose whether to have kids or not? Only hetero marriages are granted the flexibility to have kids or not? What does that do to your definition of one man one women for the purpose of procreation? If the rule is procreation must be accomplished for it to be a real marriage, then all the marriages without kids would be null and void under the law?
Seems a double standard

[Michael]

Chris wrote: "but we can't fight every-ones corner for them, especially when they are quite able and capable of doing that themselves."

Or obviously we could just let people fend for themselves in the face of total nonsense. Say nothing and say it's got shaft-all to do with us, jog on, what could I get out of it? Et-bloody-cetera, yadada.

Or better yet, how about this? We could offer support and encouragement to people whose views and issues deserve proper justifiable validation. Or, as I like to call it, the civilised approach. And in a parenthetical type of way I do get something out of it - I get the nice feeling that I haven't unnecessarily let someone piss up a hill with no shoes on.

[Mary]

Maria wrote: "Totally agreed on both counts, Mary.

But until the law is changed, which it definitely should be - people can't be jumping up and down saying their civil rights have been violated.

Or trying ..."

How do you change a law if no one stands up and says, this law is wrong and it violates my rights, civil or otherwise? You cannot say "You can't complain until its fixed" and then not allow the discussion about fixing it. So civil, legal or inalienable, the rights are being denied.

[Maria]

Yes, the answer is to stand up and try to get the laws changed. No arguments here.

My issue, albeit a small one, is the people who want the rights associated with a certain group (like legally married people) who don't fit the criteria of the group, and have no intention of trying to.

Example (applies to same sex or not) - "No, we're not married, don't want to get married, but since married people get to do XYZ, we should get to do the same thing."

[Mary]

Maria wrote: "Yes, the answer is to stand up and try to get the laws changed. No arguments here.

My issue, albeit a small one, is the people who want the rights associated with a certain group (like legally ..."

Okay.... But that's not what's being said. People who want to be married under the law are saying, why can we not marry? The only answer is, because you are the wrong sex.

[Maria]

Totally wrong, I agree.

What do you all think about where the marriages should take place once they are legal? Should it be in church, if the church condemns the lifestyle?

Just throwing this out there.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: But only hetero sexual marriages get to chose whether to have kids or not? Only hetero marriages are granted the flexibility to have kids or not? What does that do to your definition of one man one women for the purpose of procreation? If the rule is procreation must be accomplished for it to be a real marriage, then all the marriages without kids would be null and void under the law?
Seems a double standard
."

You are reading to much into what is a straight forward issue. I'm sure you know what I mean.

If a couple want children they should get married first. They don't have to, but if the governments made if favourable to couples who want children, to be married, then more couple would get married. They would have a commitment something legal.

Again I am speaking from the UK and that was how marriage use to be.

We have a stupid situation here that because gay couples have been given 'civil partnerships', straight couples feel hard done by because they are not allowed to have a 'civil partnership' and the rights that go with it.

What about two sisters who have lived together all their lives, A daughter and her mother. Two brothers. Two best friends who are not gay, companions, What about their rights?

It is not just gay rights. How can you give so called rights to one section and not all, unless the are not automatic rights.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/co...

[Mary]

Maria wrote: "Totally wrong, I agree.

What do you all think about where the marriages should take place once they are legal? Should it be in church, if the church condemns the lifestyle?

Just throwing thi..."


I think everyone should have a certificate of civil union issued by state granting same rights to all. Marriage should be a religious ceremony of what ever type the couple chooses but has no legal implications, just religious rite.
The church can marry who they like, but that ceremony has no bearing on rights under the law.

[Kilburn]

Michael Crichton summed up this argument the best: “God creates dinosaurs, God kills dinosaurs, God creates man, man kills God, man brings back dinosaurs.”
― Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "I agree that it's splitting hairs, but that's what the legal system does, unfortunately.

They are not being denied civil rights on the basis of sex. That would mean individually being denied th..."

Why do people always go to the 'what about if a ferret, a mime and a fire hydrant want to get married...?' scenarios always come out when talking about gay marriage?

Did interracial couples get asked these questions back in the 60's?

It's like some kind of weird ADD.

[Travis]

Dena wrote: "Travis wrote: "Dena wrote: "Im an athiest but i didnt recently"jump on the "gay marriage bandwagon". Some people ,like myself have always known that "we hold these truths-that all men are created e..."

It's nice.
Shame more people don't know about it.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: If there are those that wish to impose their point of view on others..."

....those who want to alter the meaning of marriage?

Shanna wrote: icky why not just say what you mean?

Sh..."

It's all about the children, then why deny rights to families and make it harder for those that want/have children?

Rings a bit hollow.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Michael wrote: I'm not directly affected by the gay marriage issue, but I know people who might be.

Yes, we are all effected by something or know someone who is, but we can't fight every-ones corn..."

Right, why stand up for other people, it's not your problem.

It was jesus who said that, wasn't it?

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Totally wrong, I agree.

What do you all think about where the marriages should take place once they are legal? Should it be in church, if the church condemns the lifestyle?

Just throwing thi..."

But no one is talking about forcing a church to marry them.
Gay couples want the same legal rights as other married couples.

Churches can continue to preach whatever hate their loving god told them it was okay to cherry pick from their book of choice.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Mary wrote: But only hetero sexual marriages get to chose whether to have kids or not? Only hetero marriages are granted the flexibility to have kids or not? What does that do to your definition of..."

What extra rights do you get in a civil partnership?

[R.J.]

cHriS wrote: "The rules in a democracy are not about what is right and what is wrong, they are about what the majority think is right.
..."

Anarchy amongst gentlemen is better government than democracy amongst thieves.

This discussion has degenerated from the topic of science and religion to pages-and-pages of childish name-calling and mud-slinging. I'm not here to bash people over the head with the gay marriage issue. The point I am making encompasses multiple issues. It’s bigger than gay marriage. I must admit that I’m having fun arguing with your small-minded come-backs, but having to scroll through the same, lame come-backs for three pages is getting old. If this was an issue about civil rights, why has nobody brought up the twenty-to-thirty-thousand victims of human trafficking in this world, or the twenty-to-thirty-million refugees, or the countless (or just uncounted) latch-key kids being raised by their grandparents or the neighbors (something I’ve been dealing with the last few days)? I notice that there are a lot of “real” civil and human rights issues that religions tend to recognize and discuss that are not even on the radar by those who are arguing here because they think religion is “icky”. (Tit for tat—okay, I’ll grow up now.)

The concept of an ideal protocol is one that has been around since the Hammurabi Code (which I understand pre-dates the Ten Commandments by a few hundred years). It may not be something individuals like to think about, but every society that hasn’t burnt itself to cinders, or been caught with its pants down by marauders and conquerors has worked to establish a protocol that works. Call me crazy, but when I look at the way atoms and molecules interact, I see the same kind of protocol. Electron clouds may not be defined by a precise orbital pattern, but they generally follow a predictable behavior. Their relationships with the nucleus and the outside world is established, and its discovery by science is what allows us to use our computers and cell phones and chat on the internet. Scientists did not look at that protocol and say “I think it should be this way,” they accepted how it was and moved on.

I’m not trying to say atoms are just like people, but there are similarities when it comes to the ways an entity—any entity of any size—interacts with other entities and its larger environment. I suppose if we were to be around for a few hundred thousand years (or however long or short we believe atoms have been around) we’d figure out a way to smoothly interact with each other and the greater world around us too. At least, I’d hope so. However, as I’ve said, progress is best measured in hindsight. Don’t insist that your opinion is better if you haven’t fully explored where your opinion is going to lead you.

Another point I’ve been trying to make is that we, as human beings, cannot really perceive truth or true reality (what I call common reality). This is not my own idea; search for “Plato’s Cave” in Wikipedia (or anywhere else, for that matter) and you will find a very, very famous illustration of the flaws of human perception that has been around for 2500 years. Now we have touched on this issue here in this thread, pointing out that science is an attempt to accurately measure this “truth” or reality that none of us can ever really see for ourselves. I’d like to point out that this pursuit of truth, however, is one of the basic fundamentals of much of the Eastern philosophies and religions. People of many different religions have discovered that, once they acknowledge the fact that they don’t know the truth (and that nobody else does, either), they are free to begin a personal search for truth that, if undertaken with due honesty (and not just embracing the first comfortable delusion they encounter), their lives and the lives of those around them are transformed for the better.

However, this search for truth is not for the immature. It is not the act of embracing the inner three-year-old demanding “don’t tell me what to do…but change my diaper when I make a mess.” It is not allowing the legalistic two-year-old to use his words to twist definitions and quotes until he gets what he wants from what was once the truth. It requires self-control and discipline. It requires acceptance of inconvenient truths when they are discovered. Without this kind of discipline, science as it once was is doomed. I have more to say on the issue. However, if this thread is going to progress another three pages full of hate speech in the time it takes for me to get back to my computer, I think I’m going to call it a Summer and just go outside.

[Shanna]

Shanna wrote: If there are those that wish to impose their point of view on others..."

....those who want to alter the meaning of marriage?

Marriage has a meaning? or do you mean definition? Permitting gay marriage forces nothing on anyone, nothing at all.

Shanna wrote: icky why not just say what you mean?

What do you think I mean?

Shanna wrote: how homosexuals getting married prevents anything and vice versa.

In the UK and I can only refer to the UK, family values are at an all time low. This has been acknowledge by the Prime Minster and other politicians as well as others of standing in the country.

It goes back to the days when political correctness was ripe. We had gay couples who wanted equal rights, (quite rightly) and we had more couples living together who did not get the same rights as married couples. We also had married couples. In a nutshell the way the Tony Blair government went about creating a more equal society was by devaluing marriage, rather than the other way round.

How does it devalue marriage?

This devaluing has had a knock on effect on society, which would take more time than I have to go into details but is easy enough to Google.

You still haven't explained how homosexual marriage devalues the civil institution of marriage let alone attribute it knock on causality.


We in the UK can either try and get marriage and family values back to how it was 20 plus years ago or we can carry on hacking away at it until it is worthless. If you do not live in the UK then maybe you are not aware of what I am talking about.
You still haven't explained how it devalues marriage and brings down family values you have only asserted it does.
Canada has had gay marriage legalised for some time now and clearly it is in anarchy and chaos.

Marriage 'has' to be about the children who are our future, and not about couples living together.
So you endorse mandatory fertility testing before couples can marry? A ban on elderly marrying ect, ect..
Marriage doesn't "have" to be about any such thing.

If a couple in the Uk want to live together fine, if they want to live together and have children then society has a problem. No commitment. That's fine until the honeymoon period wears off.

So marriages don't end divorce?

You can't buy a car or a house, with out some sort of commitment so why should you have a child.

Maybe things are rosy in Oz, but they are not over here.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/3827...

The link didn't come up for me, missing page.

Never claimed things were rosy, I just don't see how preventing gay marriage will stop anything

[Mary]

So Robert, if you believe no one knows the truth, then how are you so sure you are right?

[cerebus]

Robert, all the waffling in the world does not avoid the fact that your comments were homophobic, your analogies random and irrelevant at best, and your attempts to bring science into your rumblings hamfisted. Enjoy your summer.

[cerebus]

Btw Robert after some of your comments it's interesting that you are the one to use the expression 'hate speech'.

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: Marriage has a meaning? or do you mean definition? Permitting gay marriage forces nothing on anyone, nothing at all.
"

Either meaning or definition. If you think that any couple should be allowed to marry, that's fine, it's your opinion and that has to be respected. But those that feel that marriage (the word, not the ceremony) should be kept to define a union between a male and female, should also have their view respected.

Shanna wrote: What do you think I mean?.

I think you are using it, because you would rather not say, what you mean.

Shanna wrote: How does it devalue marriage?

NOT, let me stress by including gay people, if that's what you may be thinking. It should stay between a man and a woman, and that’s it.

As I said before I speak about the UK, not Canada.

I have copies the next bit as you may not be able access the link…….

“Single-parent families are now so common that couples living with their children are the minority in some parts of the country.
Data shows there are seven Parliamentary constituencies where single-parent families make up the majority of households.
There are close to 2million single-parent families in the UK and we have the highest proportion of children brought up in one-parent families of any major European country.
The figures, from a Freedom of Information request to the Office for National Statistics, were greeted with concern yesterday.
Jill Kirby, a social policy expert and former director of the Centre for Policy Studies, said: ‘Children need input from both parents in order to thrive.
Research shows children growing up in fatherless homes are much less likely to do well at school and are at twice the risk of getting into problems with drink or drugs, or involved in crime. The UK welfare system has been partly to blame, by providing a substitute breadwinner rather than encouraging parents to stick together.”

…… marriage is only one part of the problem and things go much deeper. Kids today will leave school have a baby, move in together and expect the state to pay for everything, then the father walks away. No commitment.

Shanna wrote: So you endorse mandatory fertility testing before couples can marry?

Come on Shanna, stick to the script, you are now adding words I have not said.

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: What extra rights do you get in a civil partnership? ."

None.

You get the ‘same’ rights as a married couple.

If a couple walked out of a registry office or church after being married and a gay couple walked out of a civil partnership ceremony, both coupled would have exactly the same rights.

……….and both couples will have more rights than any other couple living together, because a man and a woman who don’t want to get married but would like a civil partnership, are not allowed one.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: What extra rights do you get in a civil partnership? ."

None.

You get the ‘same’ rights as a married couple.

If a couple walked out of a registry office or church after being marri..."

So, if they get the same rights as marriage, why not just let them get married?

You eliminate that civil union thing that seems to bug you, you add to the people who want to make a commitment to each other, you give gay families the things they need to take care of those families and then you can move on to dealing with all those free loading, bad straight people who are really causing all the trouble.

Weird that you don't want gay people getting married, but all your bad examples involve straight people.
Seems like you are going after the wrong group.

[Sarwar]

religion is a treasure , and science is the guidance to brighten the way
to find out this treasure ..

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Marriage has a meaning? or do you mean definition? Permitting gay marriage forces nothing on anyone, nothing at all.
"

Either meaning or definition. If you think that any couple should also have their view respected.
Rights to have opinions are and should be respected, the opinion itself, no.


Shanna wrote: What do you think I mean?.

I think you are using it, because you would rather not say, what you mean.
Are you being a smartarse here? I was paraphrasing arguments presented... "Icky" is not my word

Shanna wrote: How does it devalue marriage?

NOT, let me stress by including gay people, if that's what you may be thinking. It should stay between a man and a woman, and that’s it.

As I said before I speak about the UK, not Canada.

I have copies the next bit as you may not be able access the link…….

“Single-parent families are now so common that couples living with their children are the minority in some parts of the country.
Data shows there are seven Parliamentary constituencies where single-parent families make up the majority of households.
There are close to 2million single-parent families in the UK and we have the highest proportion of children brought up in one-parent families of any major European country.
The figures, from a Freedom of Information request to the Office for National Statistics, were greeted with concern yesterday.
Jill Kirby, a social policy expert and former director of the Centre for Policy Studies, said: ‘Children need input from both parents in order to thrive.
Research shows children growing up in fatherless homes are much less likely to do well at school and are at twice the risk of getting into problems with drink or drugs, or involved in crime. The UK welfare system has been partly to blame, by providing a substitute breadwinner rather than encouraging parents to stick together.”

…… marriage is only one part of the problem and things go much deeper. Kids today will leave school have a baby, move in together and expect the state to pay for everything, then the father walks away. No commitment.

What on earth has this got to with gay marriage? especially as none of this can be laid at gay marriage's doorstep because they are not allowed to get married...

Shanna wrote: So you endorse mandatory fertility testing before couples can marry?

Come on Shanna, stick to the script, you are now adding words I have not said.
"
No? the logical extension, though it maybe taking it to extremes is, that if marriage has to be about the children and if no children are likely to result from the union then marriage is invalidated, or then marriage is not only about the children...

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: Are you being a smartarse here? I was paraphrasing arguments presented... "Icky" is not my word

Shanna wrote:#9915 "It's icky" Don't you do it

Paraphrasing is not relevant. Either you knew the meaning you attached to the word or you did not.

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Are you being a smartarse here? I was paraphrasing arguments presented... "Icky" is not my word

Shanna wrote:#9915 "It's icky" Don't you do it

Paraphrasing is not relevant. Either ..."

Your point is?

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote:Your point is?
..."

Simple.......... explain what meaning you attach to that word and in what context.

[Shanna]

Icky, an adjective describing a feeling of disgust, revulsion, distaste.

I don't have a personal context in relation to Homosexual anything.
It was what someone had proposed another posters stance against homosexuality stemmed from.
Happy now?

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: Happy now? ..."

No I'm not happy, but nor am I unhappy with your telling me that Icky, is an adjective describing a feeling of disgust, revulsion, distaste. Unless you are telling that is what you meant by using the word, since it formed part of your list in post #9915.

Or are you doing a Steve, when he said that 90% of Americans agree with gay marriage, then he said he made it up.

[Shanna]

cHriS wrote: "Shanna wrote: Happy now? ..."

No I'm not happy, but nor am I unhappy with your telling me that Icky, is an adjective describing a feeling of disgust, revulsion, distaste. Unless you are telling th..."
Ok cHriS I just did... I don't know what else it is you want.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "Unless you are telling that is what you meant by using the word, since it formed part of your list in post #9915.

Or are you doing a Steve, when he said that 90% of Americans agree with gay marriage, then he said he made it up."

Ahahahahahahahaha....! I get it. Oops. Is that me responding?

No one, who is against gay marriage here, has made an argument that it's icky. Right? People who are pro-gay marriage have said, "Ah, come on. Say it. You just think it's icky. You can say it. Say it's just icky." But, no one has actually used that as an actual argument against it.

Whereas, in the post you're referring to, it was stated that people have made that argument.

Took me a bit to figure that one out ....

Personally, as some of you are aware, I'm pro-gay marriage. However, I can wrap my brain around the fact that some are against gay marriage without being homophobic and thinking it's icky. I don't agree with their stance, in fact, I strongly disagree, but I realize they're not necessarily homophobic.

Wonder if that's what cHriS is getting at?

[Shanna]

Then let cHriS put on his big boy pants and use his words to tell me himself.

[[deleted user]]

Shanna wrote: "Then let cHriS put on his big boy pants and use his words to tell me himself."

Live in America where we have something called freedom of speech. Guess I'll exercise it when and where I choose.

Though, if we'd like ...

Here is a race I have a horse in, therefore, why go away?

I finally figured out, since no one here would answer my question, why very intelligent non-believers who value intellectual honesty and evidence would believe religion causes all or most wars. I think, at least. I mean, it's hard to know, given the fact that people won't answer the question. Just making an educated guess, to be honest.

Certain big names within atheism promoted the idea. Right? Wrote papers and books and promoted it.

At this point, my question is .... Why wouldn't readers and followers verify that information? Like so many, believer and non-believer alike, if a respected person says it then it must be so ... is that it? Adopt it as a belief without thought? Why, when faced with someone on a thread who argues, logically, against such false belief, would people continue to argue, based on belief rather than fact? Why, when someone nicely says, ... Not all ... would people take issue and say ... "Stop talking about it!" ... Why would they rather it went away, like a phantom in the night ... as if it never existed ... this belief and the fact that one once believed?

What comes next is not my race and I don't have a horse though, actually, I'm wearing pants, ....

Wonder if "big boy pants" involves emotive language?

[Shanna]

Wonder if "big boy pants" involves emotive language?

Probably, a bit like playing the race card don't you think?

[cHriS]

Shanna wrote: "Then let cHriS put on his big boy pants and use his words to tell me himself."

Shanna ALSO wrote: The arguments so far
"My book says so/it's against my religious beliefs" So what!
"It is problematic" Really, so is "traditional" marriage
"It's for having children" then we need to start fertility testing, and deny post menopausal people marriage.
"It's icky" Don't you do it
"It degrades the validity of marriage as an instition" How?

You listed five points, four seemed to be statements and the last one a question.

You are attributing these five points to those who oppose gay marriage. Since I am one of those, and your reply was to me, I wanted you to clarify point 4.

I am constantly being told that my reasons for not wanting gay marriage are not valid reasons. I want you to explain reason 4. Or at least, like Steve has done, tell me you don't know why you said that.

[Mary]

As someone who has put forth the "icky" argument, let me explain, no there is too much, let me sum up.

The arguments against gay marriage have fallen into several categories ( watch out Chris, I'm about to paraphrase)

1. It's against the bible/religion. SO then the argument goes to the logical...many things are forbidden in the bible that are common practice today such as working on the Sabbath (which was punishable by death in bible), I believe that's one of the Big Ten, commandments or something? Marriage in the bible included polygymy, child brides, and infidelity. So then out come the "oh that soo Old Testament" argument and the accusations of cherry picking then ensues. And the anti-gay argument switches to

2. Marriage is sacred/for procreation/devalued by gay marriage
When faced with the rebuttal question of how exactly gay marriage devalues hetero marriage, or what about couples who don't procreate,the argument usually contains multiple examples of how badly heteros behave and how the children suffer, but no real examples of how gay marriage harms anyone. So on to

3. The separate but legal argument. "Gays can have civil unions but not marriage, they're the same...blah blah blah" This argument demands the logical question, if civil unions are the same as marriage, then who cares if they marry or not? Of course the answer is that they are not the same or no one would care.

4. My personal favorite, Robert's nod to "A Few Good Men" and his "You can't handle the truth argument." After failing to rebut the above arguments, he resorted to the "You can't know the truth because there is no truth" argument.Which was supposed to prove? that only he knows that no one knows what he knows.....ya know? He also threw in a splash of grade school "you're all big fat weenies for challenging me" for garnish.

So, after each argument against gay marriage is put forth, and the people have asked for proof it harms, or clarification on what the bible means, or separate is not equal,the poster then changes the argument to something else.

All the while, I get the feeling they just want to scream, "I hate the idea because it's icky". But for some reason, when I ask them that it seems to hit a nerve and they get very defensive. In truth, the argument can be made that the act of sex, any kind, is icky. I mean really, sex is a weird thing to do.But the fact that some hetero couples can and do engage in the exact, yes, exact same sex acts as gay couples and no one wants to make them divorce, or forbid them from marrying, or even asks them what goes on in their bedrooms seems a little hypocritical to me.
Therefore I can only conclude that in our culture,homosexuality has been a deeply ingrained taboo and therefore causes some to feel it is icky, and they spend all their time trying to find other reasons against it to validate that icky feeling.

[Mary]

Shannon,
I do not believe religion causes all or most wars. I believe greed, lust, power and revenge does. But the fact that even 1 person would die or 1 war would be fought in the name of a god bothers me.It seems extremely hypocritical and smacks of human faults, not divine guidance.
Almost without exception, world religions preach love, charity, understanding, brotherhood etc. SO that even one war, like the Crusades, or one terrible chapter in history, like the Spanish Inquisition, or bombings, or ANYTHING would result in so many deaths in the name of god is inexcusable. Unless religion is just a man made construct to try to assert authority over a group of people? Why would a god who cared about his creations allow so much death and suffering? My answer, there is no white haired guy sitting on a throne, just us humans being human to each other.
SO, there is my answer. You said you'd had none. Now you have one.

[Shanna]

It is a list of arguments used here at one point or another, when the conversation has drifted to gay marriage, to argue against gay marriage, I used the word "icky" because it had been used recently and sums up the distaste component (often in the subtext) of the argument. Yes I was responding to you but I was listing all arguments I could remember. I was not attributing the arguments exclusively to you and I think you know that.
So now that's been addressed would like to explain how the copy pasted article supports the argument against gay marriage, I don't see it.

[Travis]

Mary wrote: "As someone who has put forth the "icky" argument, let me explain, no there is too much, let me sum up.

The arguments against gay marriage have fallen into several categories ( watch out Chris, I'm..."

My list has only three:

1) the bible says...!
B) But, think of the children....!
3) gays are icky and make me uncomfortable/homophobia.

All the anti arguments fall into one of the three.
and really 1) is just a way to say gays are icky, while giving the sayer an out, as it's not them saying it but rather the holy instruction manual.

[cHriS]

Shannon wrote: Personally, as some of you are aware, I'm pro-gay marriage. However, I can wrap my brain around the fact that some are against gay marriage without being homophobic and thinking it's icky. I don't agree with their stance, in fact, I strongly disagree, but I realize they're not necessarily homophobic.

Wonder if that's what cHriS is getting at?
."

Hi Shannon nice to see you,

I think what is happening here, and it only 'clicked' with me a few days ago, is that everyone here is viewing the gay marriage thing from their own country/state's perspective.

Gay rights and gay marriage are to separate issues. Not everyone (gay/straight) who wants gay rights wants gay marriage. In the UK we have gay rights.

It is the use of the word marriage that many object to, me included.

Already we refer to it as 'gay' marriage, we all separate it from marriage, like diet coke, because it's not the same, it's not marriage, so why not stick with Civil ceremony. The words homophobic, racist etc. are used to much as a 'put down' by those frustrated by views that don't align with their own.

Shannon, If two people of either sex, the same or different want to live together indefinitely as companions to each other, they have no rights.

Should we not be campaigning for them, are their rights not just a valid as any other rights.

Or are we all going to far? Are we not happy with equal rights and to be happy that we are all different, or is this equal rights thing getting clouded a bit by trying to make us all the same?

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Shannon wrote: Personally, as some of you are aware, I'm pro-gay marriage. However, I can wrap my brain around the fact that some are against gay marriage without being homophobic and thinking it's..."

making us all the same by giving us equal rights is a bad thing?
Why is this an argument you only hear from the people with all the rights?

People who live together actually do have rights.
There's common law marriage, unmarried couples with kids have parental rights, power of attorney and I think a couple others I'm missing.
There's a bit of extra paperwork involved, but they do have them.

and if we are discussing gay rights, why do people keep bringing up all these other groups.
you have at least not done the 'well, what if a woman wants to marry a ferret...?' nonsense, but you seem obsessed with championing for unmarried straight couples.

Nice, if you have a cause, but why answer the question about one group being denied rights by bringing in something else?
Why fight everyone's corner when umarrried couples are perfectly capable of doing it for themselves...?