Oh man, stop trolling. That "argument" has been discredited at least two hundred times in this forum alone, you're a bit late to the party.

Why should it have a different name? Marriage is no longer a strictly religious thing. If the bible says this or the whatever-religious-book says that, they no longer deserve a word in, because people who are not religious decide to marry as well. Do we name it a "non-religious marriage"? Not as far as I know. So why is that any different from two gay people deciding to marry? And if they absolutely want a religious wedding, there are religious leaders who are more open for gay marriages (there are even gay priests...)

Marriage is (usuallly) when two people decide they want to go through a ceremony because they want to spend the rest of their lives together. This ceremony also gives legal rights of various kinds to the couple. Sometimes the marriage does not work, and then it's called divorce. It's as simple as that. You don't call a divorce between two people a "gay divorce" or even a "straight divorce", so why would it in any way be right to call it a "gay marriage" or a "straight marriage"?

"But the bible says..." is no longer a valid argument. The bible says a lot of things we should no longer need to believe. We're in 2014. About time to wake up and realize the world really has changed (even if the bible, or religious text of choice, has not).

Well, I agree with the bolded words.

Also, why is it that people say "Adam and Steve" but leave out the lesbians? Wait, in the Christian mythos, it was Adam, Eve, and LILITH! So, your god didn't make "Adam and Steve" but DID make "Eve and Lilith"! LESBIANISM FOR THE WIN!



No, I think you're weird because you're making stupid arguments and are also homophobic. Also, you apparently think that the forums are text messages.



So what? If I can't have a child period, what does that mean for me? Is that evidence that I'm not meant to be heterosexual, because I can't have a baby with a man? After menopause, do all women stop being heterosexual, because they can't "legitimately" have babies?

Also, fuck you. Adopting a child is a perfectly "legitimate" way to have a child.



Oh, so nice to know that I have your permission. You know what? I don't believe that your god "made" me, so how about no, I don't keep that in the back of my head? And also, keeping the "fact" that you're a freak of nature in your head is the leading cause of suicide. Nice recommendation, there.



Uh, try ALL THROUGH HISTORY. In Greece and Rome, homosexuality was not just allowed, but encouraged. If you read the Kama Sutra, it instructs men in how to give blowjobs (just ignore the part with the teeth). In some Native American tribes, you could be "Two-Spirit", which meant that you were allowed to MARRY the same sex. In Victorian England, the most sexually repressed period of the world? Oscar Wilde. Also, Sherlock Holmes and John Watson were coded gay. Those are only the examples I've read up on. I'm sure someone will enlighten us on the Singing Gay Chorus of Nigeria, 68 AD or something like that.



If you think that what you're saying sounds mean, and that you don't want to, that's usually a good indication that you shouldn't say anything.

Also, you don't sound mean, you sound like you have opinions on a subject you know nothing about, so come off like an idiot.



Right, except you're claiming things that are factually incorrect.



Congratulations on taking rights away from your people because you think they're icky! You must be so proud.

Non-human animals can be gay as well (there's scientific proof on this, if you believe in science, that is...). They don't marry, of course (since marriage is a human thing), but the straight animals don't care, as they don't marry, either.

So if this god of yours doesn't like gay humans, does that mean the same god also doesn't like gay animals? There's also scientific proof that being gay is not necessarily a personal choice, but can be a part of a person's genetics (and here I could go on with a rant on why the god bothered to create "gayness" in the first place, particularly if he hated it so much, but because I'm pretty sure gods are figments of the imagination of humans, I'll leave it be, because it would be far too long a rant, and would pobably be delivered to mostly deaf ears).

The bible supposedly promotes love as a beautiful thing, so why should it matter who loves who, as long as they love each other? If you say "god hates this and that" then it's not exactly the best adverticement of a religion, and certainly not for tolerance.

Wasn't it so that the god of the bible created humans "in his image"? One might wonder what that meant...

Puts up hand. I'm one of those who doesn't think there should be state-regulated gay marriage. But I'm one of those weird-USA-libertarian types that doesn't think that governments should have anything to do with marriage, no matter who's involved. A government that can say "Yes, you two can get married" is also one with the power to say "No, you two can't get married" and I don't trust government that much. Why do you want government to have the power to regulate sexuality that way? I can see age-of-consent laws, under the theory that children are not yet capable of making legally binding decisions (and since sex leads to babies and having a baby is a legally binding thing--baby needs care) but I don't see any need for state marriage laws.
I'd like to see a wide variety of co-habitation contracts. A single mom who wants to form a household with her brother to raise her kids, have them on his health insurance plan, and have him be the default guardian if something happens to her, household to end when the youngest turns eighteen? Why on earth not? Traditional to-death-do-us-part-except-in-case-of-adultery/abuse/whatever contract, contract breaking side looses all child custody and pays support? Go for it. One year renewable, no sexual exclusivity, with a clause that any children conceived within the relationship will be given up for adoption through adoption agency xyz? What's the problem?

Now, do I think those are all morally correct options? No, I do not. I also don't see that I need to have laws enforcing much of my morality on the rest of the world. (I do think we need property, murder/assault, and contract laws: in other words laws to protect the weaker among us.) If my behavior is not persuasive to you that the way I have chosen to live is the right way, then obviously I am not an effective missionary. That's not your failure, that's mine. Maybe someone else will be. Maybe no one. Force does not make a willing convert. (And could my fellow Christians please get on board with this idea? It's not like force is going to get you to convert to someone else's beliefs, is it now? We're the group with 2000 years of history of laying down our lives rather than conforming to others' beliefs, aren't we? Let us give others the same courtesy we'd wish to receive if we were on the other side.)

According to the Bible, when God made humans they were meant to spend all their time running around in a nice garden naked, having no concept of good and evil. We've made a little progress since then.



If anything should be illegal, it's trotting out this ancient, tired, and idiotic statement.

Moving on, I'm a fan of the term "Equal marriage" because it carries the meaning that all marriages are equal, whether straight/straight, gay/gay, straight/bisexual, gay/bisexual, asexual/transgender, etc. blah you get the idea. "Gay marriage", besides being a needless distinction, implies everyone who marries a person of the same gender is gay.

Yes, I agree on that last part, Cmar (well, and the parts before that, also, if god created everyone then god has created many more Steves than Eves). Gay marriage isn't a different sort of marriage, it's just regular marriage available on an equal basis.

Since I'm bored... I'll entertain this crap of a debate for your sake.



Okay, girl. Just started your argument and already pulled out the big guns, I see. Well, here's the thing, though. There's a few things wrong with just this (run on) sentence alone. First of all, there's a separation of Church and State in the U.S. so everything you say is already wrong on the basis of using any religion as an argument, but I'll ignore that for the sake of debate. Secondly, how do you know that when "God made humans" millions years ago (thousands to you, since I'm assuming you're a creationist) that he didn't want the same-sex to marry? Really, how do you know that? What makes you think that "God didn't make" gay people? Do you honestly believe they just created it themselves out of the blue a decade ago after other living organisms have been gay since there's been, well, other living organisms have existed. That makes no sense, explain how homosexuality can be found in so many different species that have sex but, not "be meant" exclusively for humans. Why is it that homosexuality is evil only in humans out of every single homosexual organism on earth. Furthermore, if you believe God makes all people then why would he make gay people gay if it's so evil? He wouldn't because according to every single church I've ever been to, "God loves all his children." Not, "all his children except non-straights and non-whites."

Continuing on to the next part of your sentence, you are fundamentally wrong. Homosexuality is not a choice, and is a normal expression of human sexuality and that has been proven time and time again. Also, who the hell cares if he made "Adam and Eve" and not "Adam and Steve." A lot of designers make white wedding dresses, does that mean that all non-white wedding dresses are evil and ought to burn in hell. I mean, where in the hell did you get the conception that if somebody makes one thing one way this one time, every other thing that can be created is evil and wrong. That makes zero sense to me, or any logically thinking person.



Well, listen, I'm telling you straight up, I do disagree with you, and the fact that you are so arrogant and content with the fact that people could logically disagree with you, just really shows how ignorant and closed minded you are, which also reflects on the case you're trying to prove.

Also, explain to me how the fact that gay couples can't conceive children mean they're not "meant to be gay" and not receive equal marriage rights. That logic is so wrong and well... stupid, if you think about it for more than five seconds. By the exact same logic you used, women (or men) who are incapable of reproducing for any reason (age, infertility, vasectomy, tubes tied, etc.) are wrong to be sexually active. Well, excuse me. I'm so sorry that not everyone is as blessed as you are to be able to give the miracle, known as the gift of life. Not everyone fits into your little cookie cutter family mold, and shaming people for things they can't even change is just downright, cruel and intolerant. I hope you realize how close minded your argument is.



I really, really have a hard time believing that. I'm sorry, but if you're so intolerant, bigoted, close minded, selfish, and ignorant about this particular subject, what's stopping you from being the exact same way about the next. I pray to god that you don't know any gay people in real life, they'll need a lot of luck.



Oh, good god. It's stuff like this that makes me sick. How dare you spew all this hateful intolerant crap and pull some shit out of your ass at the end that makes everyone else look like the villain. Shame on you!



Surprisingly, (not) some people find what you just said to be extremely rude, and offensive. If I have any last words for you they would be to open up your mind just a little bit because you might accidentally manage to open up your heart a little bit while you're at it.

Apparently, God is also against punctuation. Why the hate? Periods, commas, and question marks have just as much right to be used as any other written form of communication. Here, I'll even lend you a few:
...............
?????????
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Use them with care, and love, and they will do wonderful things for your communication skills. Otherwise, it's hard to take anything you have to say about the subject seriously.

On a more serious note, it is entirely possible to be both gay and christian. In fact, there are many churches out there that not only accept GLBT people, but also actively minister to them. So, your tired, worn out arguments are flawed from the beginning, and the only thing they prove is that you parrot back whatever garbage someone tells you to think, as opposed to actually using the brain that God, allegedly, gave you.
You say you are not trying to be rude, so I will leave you with a quote from another Gay man, Albus Dumbledore : "yet, sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often. Best to say nothing at all, my dear man."


Now, as for Sunbee's post, I get what you are saying, and I understand where you are coming from, however, I feel I must point out a flaw in your argument as well. You ask why we would want government to regulate sexuality in that way. Well, I would point out that marriage and the government do not regulate sexuality at all. Sexuality cannot be regulated, as it is part of a person's being, and no amount of government intrusion can alter that, no matter how much people try to. For example, Nysha and I could legally get married, but as I am a gay man, and she is, well, not, our respective sexualities would not be altered. What marriage does, from a purely legal standpoint, is enable two people to automatically have over 1200 legally binding rights that they would not have otherwise, automatically. If a wife gets sick, her husband can visit her in the hospital, make medical decisions for her if necessary, have her on his insurance plan, etc. If my other half gets sick, I would not even be able to visit him in the hospital. His family could, at any time, bar me from having any further contact, cutting me off completely. (They wouldn't do that, as they like and accept me, but it is a legitimate fear of many couples, especially those whose families have disowned them). This is one of the reasons why gay marriage is important. I understand your libertarian politics (believe me, I have several friends who are also of that political party, and have had numerous conversations about it), but would respectfully point out that the chances of what you have suggested happening are rather slim, though that's a discussion for the politics forum.

You'd think Christians would pick up their Bible and actually read it. Some of their "religious values" in context are pretty clearly mired more in the Catholic church's investment in Medieval inheritance laws rather than that missing psalm of the New Testament they imagine where Jesus walks around beating up homosexuals, snickering at poor people while hanging out with the wealthy Jews and Romans, and explaining to people why God meant for the First Commandment to be The Right to Bear Arms.

Hello? You know what it's not? It's not the Gospel of Steve: The Bible has a lot lovely bits in it, even for an atheist. What it doesn't have is anti-gay agenda. No, that's all on you assholes. You and this Steve guy you're all interested in who he's banging.

Ok. Ignoring the rest of your nonsense, especially because others have done a fine job shooting down your opinion on the matter...

Not "liking" something is not an acceptable reason to make something illegal. You know what I don't like? Mustard. I hate it. But do you see me faffing about on the streets in a sandwich board that says "MUSTARD IS SIN!" every other day? Nope. Do you see me barging into restaurants and smashing all their bottles of mustard? Nope. Do you see me shaming people at baseball games who put mustard on their hot dogs? Nope.

Grow up and recognize that not everyone shares your worldview, and that basic human dignity is something that we are all entitled to. If you don't "like" equality, you've got some serious things to work out in your life priorities.

To be quite technical, according to Christian mythos, we do not use the brains God gave us. They were altered by the eating of the fruit of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". The phrase is an example of the type of figure of speech known as merism. This literary device pairs opposite terms together, in order to create a general meaning; so that the phrase "good and evil" would imply "everything". This led to the "fall of man(kind)", the fall brought sin into the world corrupting the entire natural world, including human nature, causing all humans to be born into original sin. Which is how ..."gayness"... got introduced. (Corrupted nature, not original sin.)

Of course the continued deliberate corruption occurring in Bible translation and teaching has absolutely no bearing on Christian perception of the modern world. I've always wondered why in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, one of the classic anti-homosexual passages, if Lot believed that the mob was interested in sex, why on earth would he offer his daughters to a mob of homosexuals rather than his sons-in-law?(Provided they were actually gay. Interestingly enough the Greek word translated in the bible as ‘strange’ was heteros, which is to say that the immorality was heterosexual.)


Who was in the mob?
(Hmmm...only men are "people" Sorry ladies! But wait! [i]Are they?![i]) The phrase “the men of the city” in the original Hebrew is the word enowsh, which basically means ‘mortals.’ In spite of the suggestion of sexual interaction, it is pretty clear that what is meant here is the majority of the population of the city, both male and female. This obviously excludes a homosexual orgy, to which you wouldn’t invite the wife and kids. Joshua himself singled out only Sodom’s inhospitality (Matthew 10:15, Matthew 11:23, and Luke 10:12). Rejecting his disciples, or refusing to show them hospitality, he said, was a worse sin than anything that went on in Sodom (Matthew 10:15). The sin here, according to the Bible itself, had nothing to do with homosexuality.

What did these people want to do?

The key verb here, transliterated ya,da (or yadha’ ) , is usually translated as “know.” This verb appears 943 times elsewhere in scripture, where it generally means “to know a fact” or “to know a person well.” It has an obvious sexual connotation in only ten of these cases, all of which involve heterosexual relationships.

Where the Bible itself mentions the sin of Sodom (Amos 4:11; Isaiah 1:9-10 & 16-17; Lamentations 4:3-6; Ezekiel 16:48-50; Zephaniah 2:8-10; Deuteronomy 29:22-28 & 32:32-33; Matthew 10:12-13; Luke 10:10-12, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 16:8; Wisdom 19:13-14) ,except in Deuteronomy, where unfaithfulness to the Lord is cited, and in Jude, where “sexual immorality” is mentioned, it specifies lack of hospitality, pride, idolatry, greed, and gluttony – primarily inhospitality and greed. In none of these is there a word about gay behavior.


Interesting on how much of the "proof" of the evil of homosexuals vanishes when proper translations are made. And, this is only one example; if you really want, I can get into Leviticus "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." (more mis-translation there) and the other 635 Biblical laws and regulations that Christians always seem to ignore.

Only those who, under Christian mythos, are direct descendants of Adam and Eve were affected by the Fall, i.e. "eating of the fruit of knowledge", would have have their brains altered in such a way. I like to think some of us must therefore be the Other People, that is, those who are not direct descendants of Adam and Eve. Of course, the argument could also be made that if God is omnipotent, he knew what the eventual outcome would be regarding the tree, the serpent, and Eve, and thus planned it that way, thereby giving us the brains we were meant to have in the first place.

It wasn't the apple in the tree that caused all the trouble, but the pair on the ground.

Yeah, I don't understand why someone who doesn't like people who can't make babies would hate periods so much.

In fact maybe periods should only be used by heterosexual people. Sure there could be gay punctuation if THEY want it, but the bible didn't say anything about gay punctuation so I think it's wrong, and it definitely shouldn't be called punctuation.

Period.

Not to mention the fact that even if you do interpret them as wanting to have sex with the angels, the bigger problem is that they're trying to rape the angels. Which is kind of bad regardless of the genders involved.

Do you mean that it was mistranslated from "Thou shalt not perform pagan rituals involving sex with men"? I don't know the exact Hebrew wording, but I, personally, would love to hear you dissect them.

From what I've read, the literal translation of the passages in Leviticus is something like "A man shall not lie down with a man in the beds of a woman; it is an abomination." Exactly what that means is open to interpretation, but if you want to take the Bible literally it's only a sin for two men to lie down together in a bed belonging to a woman. Translating it as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality has more to do with the prejudices of the translators than with the original text.

Maybe it's really forbidding threesomes???

And of course since there's no mention of two women, lesbianism is golden.

Given how utterly consumed with inheritance issues a lot of the Bible (and history in general) is, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there was a generic prohibition against threesomes in the Bible - it confuses who might be the potential father of a child might be. And a specific sort of threesomes, because misogyny: two chicks at the same time is still awesome.

of duh, I mean look at the amount of hateful bigots sitting and twisting the bible up to fit their views. This is why we can't have nice things! Someone comin' along and be sittin here twisting that shit up to fit what they want to believe :P

I request a devine exception for those who, like me, live with kittens! Any roll of toilet paper hung facing me will soon be facing the floor, which is clearly an abomination.

Rule #6, my man. No exceptions.

For the sake of simplicity and the dreaded teal deer syindrome, I will tell you this:

The meaning of marriage is conceiving children. If you definition of marriage does not include that, then it is not a marriage.

If I have a cat, I have a cat. No matter how I choose to call it, is is not an elephant, a rhino or a mouse. It is a cat and I can't change that.

Now, for adressing the dislikes gays will be giving to me: If you can't tolerate a disagreement in the internet, then there is something wrong with you.

I'll be sure to tell my infertile married friends that theirs isn't a real marriage because they can't conceive children. I'm sure they'll be delighted to know.

My parents had a short-lived marriage that created me. It ended in divorce. They were miserable enough to want to call it off in the first few months, but it took almost five years for them to separate because of me. It nearly escalated to physical violence. Are you saying that their marriage is more legitimate than two people who love each other, who last til death, just because they spawned me?

Marriage has been redefined many, many times. Not all of it was about babies. Are you going by the bible here? Because I can show you MANY examples to contradict that.

Also, what do you care? If two infertile people get married and don't have kids, how does that affect you? Do you need to police every marriage to ensure that they all have kids within an acceptable period of time?



A cat is not an abstract social construct. If you look at a cat, it's a cat. If you look at a marriage, it's either a piece of paper, a ceremony, or two people in love who've pledged to spend their lives together. None of that is about conceiving children, none of it precludes same-sex couples.



*eyes wording* Is this one of those "if you're so tolerant, why aren't you tolerant of my intolerance?" idiocies?

You're the one who's coming on here and declaring that your opinion and ONLY yours is valid. And you're complaining in advance that people will disagree with you. If you can't tolerate a disagreement...well, I guess you know the rest of the argument, since you made it.

Again, the whole notion of "marriage is about children" is a historical artifact of inheritance laws. You want to do the whole loveless marriage-as-merger thing these days? Feel free, but for most people it's about a whole lot more than just kids and if they want to enact a business deal there's contracts for that.

Beyond that, the whole "cat is not a dog" argument is just lazy: If everyone calls my cat a dog it's a dog even if I think it's a cat, because language and definitions don't work the way you think they do. That's a terrible and frightening fact about cats and dogs, but it is a fact. Language is a social construct. It is as relative and adjustable as any other social construct, including but not limited to marriage.

*fixed the Grammar and spelling*

For one, your implication that everyone who dislikes your post is gay is at most pretty fucked up. Two, There is something wrong with you if you try to use a blanket implication on everyone who disagrees with you.

Marriage is not just for spawning kids, Last I checked Marriage was more than just fucking, but I guess your twisted views won't let you see past the fucking bit.