Kris: I'm not ignoring your arguement completely, I'm just not in the mood of arguing right now. I'm taking your opinions to mind for future arguements so I can adjust mine.

Thank you. I'm sure many of us appreciate it. I apologize for how rough and angry I was in the debate.

Thats fine no hard feelings, I'm not completely close-minded and I wasn't innocent myself so I apologize for being a jerk.

Your behavior is completely up to you. It is not controlled by anyone else under any circumstances or so you claim in that topic we both withdrew from a while ago in the rape category. With that being said, nothing Beliar does is going to technically control your behavior. Will the idea that Beliar has against gay marriage have a major, if at all minor significant influence on a gay marriage rights? Most likely not so I would refrain from personally attacking. Belial is simply stating their opinion and is not doing any harm in doing so. After all this wouldn't be a legit debate if there weren't people who were on both sides. Besides, learn the arguments, learn how to fight them, and use it to your advantage in politics somehow to get what you want if you feel like being active enough.

America was majorly founded on Christianity, a religion that was heavily against a homosexuality lifestyle. These are the traditions Belial is referring to. They are not myths, they are actuality and still affect the country to this day whether you choose to believe so or not. Whether or not Belial is Christian, Christianity fills the pores of American soil and many ideals come from it. Public schools to the FCC to the abstinence only program initiated by the Bush administration. Give yourself a title, and give yourself rights. In order to do so, you will have to undermine the Christian authority that runs America and promotes many conservative points of view. If you are active and good enough, then you will accomplish it whether there are people who resist the idea like Belial does. If the African American slaves were able to gain citizenship, I'm sure it will be possible with the right leaders to bring civil rights for homosexuality.

The term natural, in my own opinion I believe to mean, the physically natural way of intercourse which is inserting a penis into a vagina. The butthole is a tool to dispel waste and was not created for any other purpose than to expel waste. For proof of this, we can look to any of our other mammal friends who also mate penis with vagina rather than penis with butthole. If it was natural for penis and butthole to merge, then the species would either die out from lack of reproduction or through some kind of evolution the ovary would migrate inside the anus. Though this would lead to the question of how to dispel waste properly without damaging the Ovary with all the disease that waste carries from the system. In the case of two lesbians, sorry, but a dildo is not a natural function of a human and is man made. A dildo cannot replace the function of a penis regardless of what you claim, and artificial insemination is also not natural since it is also done through science and not natural animalistic methods. The problem with determining natural nowadays is everyone assumes the "norm" is natural. While this may be true in most cases, the natural thing is actually to be an animal, since that is what humans are. We just like to disassociate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom and pretend we are better than all the other animals.

So...inactivity is now a crime?

Whether someone decides to vote or not, it matters not. The electoral college is what matters. We decide our senators and HoRs through our votes. Then, the electoral college (comprised of HoR and Senate) vote for their whole state. You, as an individual have no power in what changes majorly in the country except to vote for the right people. And even then, your vote doesn't amount to much unless you can get the majority of the state to vote with you. So the one little vote on gay marriage that Belial will probably never get since they will probably rely on the electoral college for this, is not going to count worth squat and gives you no reason to attack Belial personally for the inactivity he/she displays just because he/she has a differing opinion than yourself.

While your statement for the most part is true, I would have to argue that disagreeing with an idea is not necessarily harmful in and of itself. Now, if Beliar would start protesting homosexuality like Fred Phelps, then yes, he could be held somewhat accountable for preventing homosexuals from having rights. As it stands, these are only thoughts and feelings and no one should be held accountable for thinking things indivdually. Beliar, from what I assume loosely, is not taking away the rights of homosexuals, but rather disagreeing and not lending a hand in helping them gain them. Like I mentioned above, inactivity is not a crime and should not be attacked so harshly. There is nothing wrong with being the "bat" in the war of "birds" against "beasts" in certain situations like this one.

Although I was not asserting that disagreeing with an idea is harmful. I was simply challenging the following assertion.

To this end I drew on the role that culture and society plays in assigning identities to its people (in this case sexuality). Furthermore how as it is only a result of these identities being assigned that some people are allowed to marry their partner, while others can't, it is a case of their rights being taken away.

While this was not a point I covered in my post, I will address it here. I would somewhat agree with you here. As it is more important to look at the context, rather than the act of disagreeing with an unspecified idea. However it is important to look at the function that said idea is serving in society, as well as the political and social consequences which come as a result of someone's disagreement.

In some situations it will have a negative effect, in others it will have a positive and in yet others it will have a more neutral effect.

I apologize, I mistook your post as an additional added attack on Beliar. Forgive me?

Regarding society in general as you state, then yes I agree fully it is taking away the rights as society as a whole actively prevents those rights from being granted and not individuals in question.

To your second statement, when arguing logistically and respectfully without attacking you are more likely to at least gain the respect of your fellow debater and not have him/her go out of their way to harm other person's cause completely out of spite. If Philomel, say, didn't personally attack with "you are taking away my rights by disagreeing...end of story" then it may encourage Beliar in this case to look at said situation with...Hey! Homosexual people are nice, polite, respectful people too. Attacking a narrow minded straight person and their ideals is by no means an effective way to gain a resolution Philomel desires to promote homosexuality and marriage in this particular example and would therefore have a more negative effect overall on average.

Looking back, I can see where you got that idea. As I specifically name dropped both Kris and Philomel.

It is worth noting however that Philomel acknowledges they have been emotional in this debate. I would not be so certain that being emotional is detrimental in itself to cause, although that is another debate. The points which she has raised, are views that I largely agree with myself.

It is not Beliar who is going to personally have an effect on whether or not someone wishing to enter a gay marriage is able to enjoy the full rights of citizenship. It is their ideals and values themselves which are going to have this impact. Time and time again throughout history we can see examples where populations have suffered greatly because certain ideals and values have enjoyed popular support and/or legitimacy. In many instances it was only through the direct opposition of these ideas that change was able to happen.

Some quick examples include Kate Shepherd (as well as others), thanks to her dedication, amazing strength and willpower, New Zealand became the first country to allow females to vote. Or Nelson Mandela and his fight against the apartheid in South Africa.

As for nature, our understandings of what is and isn't natural are socially conditioned. It is a result of our cultural view, that we see 'nature' in the way we do. This applies equally to observations of animal behaviour, as well as to our understandings of our bodies.

Pardon? I believe I said quite clearly that I didn't care how she thought, as long as she didn't vote to keep my rights from me or, as in the case in Maine and California a few other places, take them away once I have them. And how have I personally attacked her? Cite examples if you're going to accuse me.

No, if you'd actually read her post, that isn't the tradition Belial's talking about. She admitted that she was talking about within her family and circle of friends, nothing more.

Furthermore, I find your argument that because that's what they believed, that's what is tradition, completely absurd. You might have an argument if you said Christianity is a tradition, but to say that how they understood Christianity and their personal beliefs besides are now our tradition is going too far. Is slavery our tradition because they used Christianity to support it? What about civil rights for women? Or basic human rights for children? Or religious persecution? Christianity in and of itself does not preach against gay marriage, something Christians in many other countries have already realized.

Ah, I see what the problem is now: you're ignoring Beliar's posts and reading my responses to her out of context. I'm not going to address anything in this paragraph because the part of my post it is responding to was talking specifically about invitro fertilization.

How is anything I mentioned inactive? If she's spreading falsehoods about gay marriage and marriage in general, that's active. If she votes to keep gay marriage illegal or, once it has been legalized, to make it illegal again, that's active. Never once have I said that her having an opinion is hurting me; in fact, I said quite the opposite, which you graciously skipped over. If the anti-marriage lot were truly inactive, we wouldn't have a problem.

Again, show me where I've attacked her. Please. Because if I can't find it and she never felt attacked (or at least, never mentioned it, and no one else has either), I really think you're just trying to find a way to invalidate my points without addressing them.

And I'm fairly certain few people think the way you do. Votes add up. Votes do matter. Why did Prop 8 pass in CA? Votes. Why is gay marriage now illegal again in Maine? Votes. Why is it now illegal for same sex couples (and possibly everyone else) to get anything even resembling marriage ever, including civil unions and domestic partnerships, in Texas? Votes. Votes do matter, and if she votes to keep it illegal or to re-criminalize it, she is taking an active step toward denying a group of people a fairly basic right that even people with a history of spousal abuse aren't denied, even if it doesn't come down to just her vote.

By saying 'you', 'your fault' and other accusing terms to make her feel like she is being attacked as she constantly (between you and Kris) had to keep saying "I'm not saying this or I'm not doing this, etc" I'm sure I'm not the only one that viewed it as an attack on her personally. you can attack her ideas but you shouldn't target her directly with your arguments. You shouldn't make her personally responsible for something she, herself has a minimal effect at best. It was most likely the way you and Kris argued your points. Full of emotion and not so much straight out logic. I sensed a lot of feelings in the words both of you typed directed at her, and I felt it just wasn't necessary. If I mistook your intentions in your writing, I ask that I am forgiven. Words can often be misleading when you cannot hear them being spoken.

She may be talking about her own family traditions, which are in essence, personal opinion that really can't be debated against one way or another. Opinions themselves, and people's way of lives are not something you should target. Just as you want the freedom and rights that heterosexual couples enjoy, people against it should have the rights to be opposed to your views without being maliciously targeted as well. It works both ways. Granted, you didn't do it as awfully bad as Kris did, and I chose to argue with you, as Kris stated herself, you are more articulate and less emotional when discussing this. However you have admitted you are emotional nonetheless and this unfortunately turns your post into something that looks like it is attacking Beliar for her own personal beliefs which isn't the right thing to do.

Regardless of what Beliar personally believes I did bring an establishment of tradition that has basically been the cornerstone of American thinking for the last few centuries that America has been founded. I was basically saying that Christianity is the tradition that America bases their important decisions off of. Why? Probably because of the WASPs which are the influential people in this country we call America. For those who don't know, WASPs stand for White Anglo-Saxxon Protestant. WASP's are the upper class rich fellows we hear about all the time. The ones who get the tax cuts, etc. The ones the working class/middle class grow to hate with a passion. To go against the cornerstone of America, regardless of whether or not it is "right" or "wrong", is simply asking for trouble and is going to be a difficult journey regardless.

You mention slavery, and that Christianity supports this and ask why we no longer have slavery. I would like to point out, that Christianity does not endow slavery like you claim, and that the southern states had slaves because they could. It was free labor and benefited them monetarily. I find it highly resentful that you would claim a religion would endow the enslaving of other human beings as animals. I don't think any religion out there endows that, though I may be wrong as I am not aware of all religions out there. However, the reason why Africans became slaves was because they were viewed as uncivilized, unintelligent animals to the "highly educated" Europeans. Being viewed as animals, they were treated as animals and thus, the slave trade was initiated. This was not because of religion per se, but may have been slightly influenced by it, again this is all speculation and cannot be theoretically proven.

Even using your example of slavery, though, just for arguments sake. It was a long and hard road that they had to take in order to gain the the ability to be human, let alone have rights. You comparing homosexuality discrimination versus Slavery and what they had to fight is like the difference between eating a Double cheeseburger and eating a Porterhouse steak. Both come from the same animal (discrimination) but they are completely different nonetheless. Slaves had to trek a long journey to the north and hope they weren't caught and sent back. They were treated as less than animals, and the whole country went to war with itself over the ideal that they should be free humans, let alone have any rights at all as a now declared human being.

After slaves were given human being status, they then had to contend with the major discrimination cases in which we see the efforts of Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, among many other African American civil rights leaders. We also had Brown versus Board of Education, as well as the separate but equal clause as segregation being argued against as well. The list goes on and on. Even Then, after all those fights were won by the African Americans to gain rights in America, they were still highly prejudiced in the South. Hence we see the Ku Klux Klan and neo-nazism take rise as well as the Jim Crow laws. Were these groups and laws and ways of living fair or just? No. Did many African Americans die because of these laws? Yes. Fighting for civil rights is not a pretty thing when you try to undermine the cornerstones and beliefs that were ingrained into America when it was founded.

People don't like change, and because of this they refuse to accept it, even if to you, it seems blatantly obvious that they should. Even if the change will benefit them they will still be wary and not accept it openly. We feel secure and stable when living by certain standards already preset. This is human nature. If you try taking away a religion from someone, what do they do? They go to war, they secede from the persecutors, they go to extraordinary lengths to keep that which keeps them sane. This is a flaw of humanity and it is the same with homosexuality. Regardless of whether or not homosexual relationships existed before the existence of Christianity as we can clearly see from the Spartans. The fact of the matter is, America is a country based off the mainstream religion of Christianity. Because of this, you are undermining what people believe about homosexuality and you will gain a natural strong opposition by the people that practice this religion. Especially the ones that are labeled as WASPs. It is inevitable, unfortunate, but nonetheless true.

You absolutely cannot fault the individuals for this, but rather the institutions that make us humans so stable and afraid of insecurity and unwilling to change in the first place. However be prepared to have the extremely close minded people attack you for being what you are. You are challenging their own insecurity and stableness with your actions of marriage and that, to them, is an intrusion on their pursuit of happiness. You are, to them, infringing on that right, and they, unfortunately will most likely punish you for it. Whether it is by voting, beating, or even killing. Homosexuals will face an inevitable hatred as they are challenging what has been set in stone for centuries due to the institution of the abrahamic religions and the misinterpretations of them by the different societies in this world. It is true that other countries are coming to realize their mistakes, however it has taken around 2000 years to get most to accept the idea of homosexuality as being Christian. the United States is slow on this end as they are slow on an awful lot of other things. Some examples would be customary versus metric, government regulated health insurance versus private health insurance, etc.

You are correct in saying I misjudged your argument here and so I apologize. I went back and read the entire argument rather than the most recent arguments and see where you are coming from now.

It is as inactive as you debating this online rather than standing in front of the white house and protesting against the anti-gay-marriage group. You will inevitably have a hard time, again, changing the stones that America as a whole sits upon. Attacking personal beliefs in not the right way to address things in a beneficial manner. You have to give the people who are opposed the same respect you expect to get from them in order to gain any ground. To win people over, you have to get them on the same side. Not by attacking, not by nitpicking their religion or the cornerstones they thrive upon so heavily, but rather offering different points of view that are difficult to argue with based on an empathetic and logical level and not a strictly emotional level.

She mentioned it through her arguments of "I didn't say this, I didn't imply this, etc." Her words demonstrated to me, as an outsider reading the way the words were written by both you, Kris, and her, that she was being somewhat attacked on a personal level and was trying to defend herself against both of you.

Are you talking about equal national right or equal states rights? I was assuming, based off the arguments you portrayed that you want this ensured on a federal level to guarantee it. Possibly have it ruled by the Supreme Court so it will be nearly impossible to repeal and so it will have to be acknowledged by all states regardless of what the state's occupants feel. To do that a homosexual like yourself would have to bring a case all the way up to the supreme court and have them rule in your favor. the only other way to get it ensured nationally is to have both (I believe, 2/3 of senate and 2/3 of HoR to rule in your favor). A mere individual's anti-vote is not going to change what the passing of a bill or supreme court decides.

If you are indeed talking about states having independent marriage clauses, then yes a vote would count, but then true equality for homosexuality will not exist and would not be universal throughout the states until all of them voted in favor of it. This can take much longer than one decision made on the national level either by the passing of a bill or the Supreme Court, and therefore your most effective way of getting it changed permanently would be to get it through them instead of the millions of people who are opposed individually.

I am a little confused as to what you are asserting here (and in much of your post). This line of argument as well as much of this post, seems to have a very loose connection with the topic which is at debate here. Namely whether or not homosexuals marriages should be allowed. I would even assert that your argument seems to be built upon a red herring. Instead of actually addressing the issue of whether or not homosexual marriages, it would seem you have been content to try and change the topic to Philomel and her debating style.

I would thus ask of you, what is your stance in regards to whether or not gay marriages should be legal?

I was simply responding to her post that asked me how she was personally attacking Beliar in the previous arguments and so I explained where I was coming from. Didn't mean to be confusing lol.

I had no intention of changing the topic but rather pointing out certain things that just didn't make sense in the argument as attacking one's opinion gains nothing in a debate except hurt feelings and discontentment between said debaters.

As for your question about my own particular stance:
I, objectively/logically, would have to reluctantly agree that yes, homosexuals should deserve the same happiness and privileges of marriage that other people of the same society grant themselves who are not in fact, homosexual. Marriage is about humans uniting and is an idea/institution created by humans to be used for humans, and there is no logical reason why two males/two females cannot be connected in a beneficial unity to better their overall status as a human being if others have that same privilege.

NOTE: I have nothing against homosexuality as an institution, however, every homosexual male I have come in contact with has been a very bad experience for me, so, unfortunately, I am personally biased against homosexual males for that reason. Yes, I know it is wrong to judge a whole faction of homosexuality based off personal experience, but when it comes to my emotions, I have no sympathy/empathy for homosexual males or the rights they fight for. This, again is my personal opinion and is also a flaw with me being human and not being able to forgive as easily as I would like to, however, this is also why I try to argue logically/objectively rather than emotionally in most debates.

So because I responded to her directly instead of in plural form, it's an attack? Well, by gods, every person in this debate, including you, has been attacking one another! Sound the alarms! This hostility must be stopped!

Seriously, though, you're grasping. I was arguing with her. If she doesn't like it, she shouldn't come to a debate forum. Using "you" instead of whatever it is you want me to use is not an attack.

"Maliciously targetted"? I responded to her damned post. That's it. If that's "maliciously targetting" someone, this whole forum needs to be shut down because everyone is "maliciously targetting" everyone else with every single post.

And I didn't say I was being emotional. I was referring to The_Good_Kid13 accusing me of being emotional because I didn't agree with her definition of marriage. But of course, you didn't read that post. Come to think of it, you haven't read any of the posts I've responded to, just mine, taken completely out of context to the point it's a wonder you know what's going on at all. Who's "maliciously targetting" people now?

Way to entirely miss my argument yet again. It is not Christianity that I am arguing against, it is a way of thinking justified by connecting it to Christianity by our forefathers. And yes, they did believe Christianity supported slavery. The Bible says quite clearly how slaves are to be treated, and how a slave is supposed to act. This, in their minds, justified slavery. Furthermore, you have the people who believed those with darker skin were descendants of Cain, and thus enemies of mankind, which in their minds further justified slavery.

According to your logic, slavery is a tradition because our ancestors supported it through their faith, just as they supported their homophobia. And according to this whole argument, "tradition" must not be changed; not is hard to change, or takes awhile to change, but must not change -- again, if you'd read her arguments, you would realize this is what she was saying and why "traditional marriage" was brought into this argument at all.

Lolwut.

So, let me get this straight. The things I'm arguing against -- voting against the legalization of gay marriage, the spreading of propaganda, etc. -- are suddenly inactive because we are not, at this moment in time, on opposing sides of a protest? Well, it's a damned good thing I didn't bring up physical means of oppression, as I guess by your definition, gaybashing isn't active, either!

I am not attacking, and have not attacked, anyone. I have pointed out that her logic is faulty. Apparently, that isn't good enough. I must agree with them that my love is worth less than theirs, that "traditional marriage" is this sweet little romantic bonding experience between two people who are of opposite sexes even with the entirety of human history saying they're wrong, that they have a right to vote to oppress a minority, that they're correct in all these things that they're absolutely wrong in, and hopefully, if I bow before them and lick their shoes long enough, they'll take pity on me and grant me this right and hopefully wait a few months before taking it away from me again. I'm sorry, but that ain't the way I roll.

Oh, okay, so me pointing out when she said something she later admitted was a silly thing to say is attacking her.

I'm not sure what kind of debates you get into, but from my experience, when someone says "I didn't say ____" or "I didn't imply ____", they're not feeling attacked, they're clarifying what they said. If she thought she was being attacked, she'd probably have said, oh, I dunno, "Stop attacking me" or something of that nature, rather than something which, even completely out of context like you're taking it, does not even hint at her feeling threatened.

Well, I'd certainly like for a federal law to be passed, but as Obama has lied about everything else involving the gay community thus far, I don't have my hopes up. Individual states passing laws legalizing it is better than what we have now, which is nothing.

Like I said, mostly it was Kris doing the attacking, but you joined in the argument with Kris. I chose to argue the point with you, since you seemed less emotional about it than Kris did. Read quote below for an example of attacking Beliar. Again, you didn't literally start the attack, but you joined in and did not help finish it.

Just because she chose to shrug it off does not mean we should automatically treat her as "less than human" for her views or a doormat in essence. Everyone is entitled to their own personal opinions and they should simply not be attacked.

If you didn't mean it as an attack, then as I said before, I apologize.

Once Beliar said "I find it hard to respect yours when all you have done is shoved my view in my face" it seemed like an attack to me as an outsider looking in.

You claimed you were less emotional or something to that effect after Kris thanked you for backing her up articulately. Regardless, the argument of whether you are emotional or not about this is irrelevant and I will drop it here. Continue this part if you wish but I see no point as there will be no gain. Also, I did initially read the posts you responded to as you quoted them and then responded below. The previous ones, as I admitted before, I did not read, as I did not know how long the debate went. I was just perturbed by the whole quote I posted above which led me to comment in the first place. It just seemed like you, Kris, and a few others were ganging up on the one user and I didn't feel it was right.
As far as you insinuating me maliciously targeting people, I have not once attacked you or Kris personally about your specific views or opinions. I have attacked both of your actions and your defense of those actions as I do not agree with them when it seems you are attacking other users unjustly. However, as far as your personal views and opinions I happen to agree with you as you will see if you read my post in regards to reddeath26. Even though I agree with you though, I do not target the disagreeing people with biased judgmental comments. In my opinion that makes the one who is being prejudiced against just as bad as the who does the prejudicing.

I'm not entirely educated on the theories you have presented with people thinking darker skinned was descendants of Cain. So unless you can provide a legitimate historical source stating said people believed this, I am going to assume it is speculation at best and not valid until proven otherwise.

Yes, I am saying that slavery was indeed a "tradition" in a sense. To overcome that tradition it was inevitable for a lot of violence to happen. My whole statement regarding Christianity/Cornerstone/Human Security/Slavery/Homosexual Marriage rights was to show that yes, with a lot of activists and motivation, possibly a lot of hurt/death/sorrow, etc, you may eventually gain your rights as a homosexual as equally as a heterosexual is granted theirs. If homosexuals gain their rights without the consequences, more power to them. But referring to historical movements of "rebellion" they have not been peaceful for the most part. There have been exceptions, but not many heated issues, especially when breaking the cornerstone a society stands on for support, have been able to be handled without violence of some kind from one or even both sides. With this being said, it is illogical to assume you are going to get your rights by declaring you deserve them "just like that." So, you cannot just simply shoulder tradition aside and be guaranteed to be unmarked. Society doesn't work that way.

Gaybashing is not right nor is it effective unless encountering a naive bunch of people who don't know anything about said debate in the first place and just agree to "jump on the bandwagon". Homosexuals that decide to attack straight people for their views are also not right or effective either. The golden rule is not Do unto others as they have done unto you and thus you should not treat straight people as the enemy, especially the straight people who are not like some of the previous posters that you actually reported or asked to be reported earlier in this thread for making the sexist slurs. Attack the assholes all you want, but when it comes to polite disagreeing people, do not become an asshole yourself in essence. It does not help your argument any and leads to furthering the straight person's cause since then they get a personal view of what a homosexual acts and thinks like.

Also, I am not saying you are completely inactive, rather that what is said here is going to have a minimal effect overall in the actual issue at hand and thusly there is no reason to make someone feel bad because of their own personal views.

This post was completely unnecessary and a fail attempt at sarcasm. Your arguments are valid, just as hers are in certain areas, but that gives neither the right to be assholish to each other. Let's just enjoy the forum debate and look at each other's points objectively, rather than trying to make the other person feel bad and recant what they say. After all a personal opinion is a personal opinion and according to humans, is a right that all humans have and attacking that personal opinion is indeed a intrusion on their "pursuit of happiness" right as you are now trying to force them to believe in something they do not wish to believe in. Regardless of their reasons, it is wrong to do that. Now, if they claim something as fact, then feel free to discredit it if you feel it is invalid, but personal opinion absolutely cannot be proven or disproven, so why try? Provide the facts and your own opinions, from there it is their choice whether they choose to engage in your belief or not. They should not be forced to join a side they are not comfortable with.

The paragraph I quoted does show that she feels she is being personally targeted. Granted you didn't write it, but you joined in later without rebuking it, and I chose to quote you instead of Kris since I usually gain more perspective with you and less walling as Kris and I tend to misunderstand each other a lot.

That much is true, and is a start, but I think the main goal would be to make it happen on a national level.

NOTE: I hope you don't hate me for calling you and Kris and a few others out on attacking someone in this debate, I did not mean it to target only you, but I hope you can understand where I am coming from.
I don't look at you as any less of a person, and you are quite entertaining to debate with as well as quite knowledgeable and I respect your opinions just as I respect Kris's. Sure, I don't agree with the two of you on certain stuff, but that doesn't make any of us bad people. We just have differing views. I hope that makes sense to you and I apologize if I caused you personally, any hurt, anger, or insult as that was not my intention.

P.S. Good luck with your marriage campaign :)

Sorry for being a week late on this, but I'd still like to address the "traditional marriage" comments.

If any of you have studied anything about geishas in Japanese culture, I'd like to point out the wedding ceremony they go through. It's between a maiko and her new older sister--the wedding makes them related.

A woman and another woman. And it's been done for hundreds of years.

Just thought I'd throw that into the open.

Carry on.

Unfortunately, American traditions can't really be traced back to Geisha weddings. Japanese people were not Christians, nor did they know of the Christian intolerance.

Good point though ^^

I think gay marriage should be allowed, personally i've always thought that the church should not get invovled with the government. Most people who don't believe in gay marriage don't believe in it because it againist their religon which is fine, but getting the government involved and even getting it banned is over the top.

i totally agree with demoncat.

i think gay marriages should be encouraged to the gays. so they feel 'in' with society. etc...

Gay marriages are just like any other marriage, one person loves another person so much they want to marry and devote their life to each, in this case it is a man with a man or woman with woman which is completely fine.

Some people are grossed out by the fact tht same gender kiss those people i call homophobes, i really dont like homophobes cuz theyre just insane and usually they are strong believers so again as demoncat says they are just against it because of their religion.

my view is tht really religious people have not as much freewill as another non-religious person cuz they chose their own beliefs. anyway back to topic i am totally for gay mariages.

i don't get why people are against gay marriage... i mean, there's nothing that we're doing that's illegal or anything, we're citizens just like every other member.

we should be recieving the same treatment, so yes to gay marriage.

maybe some day i'll marry another lovely guy, so why would you object to happiness?

PRO GAY MARRIAGE <3

Several states classify gay sex as "sodomy" and said states have anti-sodomy laws that can (technically) land you in jail.

So, depending on where you live, yes, what you do within your marriage as a gay can be illegal.

I'm not saying that it's right, I'm just laying it out how it is at the moment.

I agree with your love is love point. Marriage is a union of two as life partners. There are many economical benefits to marriage and that is the main thing that homosexuals want. They do allow "Unions" but those unions do not have the same rights. If we could at least get to unions having the same benefits, that would be better than what we have now. In my opinion though we should call it marriage because it's just insulting to be "seperate but equal". I also agree with the fact that religious institutions have way too much power and that is why our country is so closed minded.

Love is love no matter what, if you want to be with someone of the same sex your whole life and be acknowledged with the same rights as opposite sex couples who are they to stop you seriously, no one should have the right to say someone can't get married with someone else no matter who they are, i have lots of gay friends and if they're rights were taken away in every state to get married i would be very upset, my ex boyfriend is getting married in a few months in new york, him and his fiance are so cute together, and so happy, no one should be able to take that away from them.

I agree with the gays being allowed to marry...not only because i am gay, but because of all of the reasons stated above.

However, i do know of one argument that i find valid. And my dad, a preacher, came up with it, and it really isn't what i see as religious.

How far will it go? I know you guys have touched on this a bit, but there is a group called the Blue boys. They want to have sex with little boys, ages 7 to 13, as long as their parents consent. I personally say they have no right to that at all. NONE. So, my dad said that if gays were to be given the right to be married, as they most likely will be, will pedophilia then become legal? Will men and women be allowed to have sex with minors so long as said minor's mommy and daddy say it is okay and get paid the right price?

The problem with allowing it is control. Certain groups, mainly religious groups, will see themselves losing control and hope, while others, the child molesters and rapists and people that think harems should be completely legal and useful...I digress...those will see it their chance to grab the control and further deplete the morals America never had.

So yes, it should be legal, but the government is going to have to learn to take control of what they do and don't allow in this country. If it goes too far down the freedom road, we are going to have people killing each other over their personal views. Finding the right balance is tough, but hey, we all have opinions, right? We all have buttholes too, and we all know what tends to come out of both...

My two cents has now been given. For someone who advocates it i sure do contradict myself a lot...

Simple answer Daemon: Homosexuality and Pedophilia are not related, and one is not criteria for the other. Just because one is legal (or illegal) doesn't mean the other will, can, or should be.

The law should not restrict relationships between consenting human adults. This automatically rules out bestiality and pedophilia. Homosexuality simply is not a "gateway" or stepping stone to other types of sexual activity.

Animals cannot consent, and (as SEVERAL areas of law have demonstrated, not just sex and marriage laws) children cannot consent. Your preacher dad is making up issues that don't even exist.