I thought there have been far more valid reasons for than against posted on this thread.[/quote]
You would think that.
Sorry, I’m only one guy and there is only so much time. I’m not all that interested in living my life on a message board…
I will say we are seeing a response not unlike what we see nationally. While about 70% are against gay marriage pretty much all we see in the media are the people who are “for” gay marriage. Hmm, why is that you ask? I think there are many factors.
First, no one wants to be called names for speaking their belief. Secondly, the 70% or so who are against it don’t really have an agenda, or platform to speak out against it.
Most T-Nation members while a poor representation of America for obvious reasons, not the least of which is that they are young, are against gay marriage. However, to read this one thread you would think that it is about 4 to 1 in favor.
People for change are always more vocal. However, that still does not change opinions when there are no hard facts to back it up (as in this case). In fact, interestingly enough less people were against gay marriage 5 years ago than they are today!
Ask yourself why that is? Do you have any idea?
If you are stating someone can be right about something but not argue the point well, I agree. We have seen plenty of passion for gay marriage on this thread, no question about it. However, objectively how many really good arguments has anyone seen?
Is “it make my gay friends so happy if gay marriage were recognized” a good argument?
Get the idea?
You would think that someone would put forth a cogent argument in favor of gay marriage which would indeed make sense. You would think that they could put forth solid reasons why making such a monumental change to our society is a good thing to do for our country.
When someone debates with you and all you read are things like “it’s only fair.” They pepper you with immature insults, accuse you of being biased, call you homophobic etc. That’s not winning a debate. That’s having a tantrum on a message board! Furthemore, it alienates anyone who might have a desire to listen to their point of view.
It gives the opposition (me in this case) the feeling that you are low on facts and out of ideas.
And you are not paying attention to the thread! I just posted a legitimate poll which indicates that 68% of all Americans are against gay marriage. Are they all “bible thumping right extremists?”
I wasn’t polled. How can you be sure that 68% of “ALL AMERICANS” are against gay marriage?
I can see that number being accurate if the surveys were being held at churches.[/quote]
That argument is always a winner on Internet debates. point of view, and ask for facts. When facts are presented that you don’t like you then attack the facts themselves by attacking the source. After that if things continue to go badly for your side you attack the person.
I have been through the entire cycle several times.
(If you want to question this poll, or any poll, I suggest that you contact the people who provide it. In this case: CNN, USA Today and the Gallup organization. Good Luck!)
And you are not paying attention to the thread! I just posted a legitimate poll which indicates that 68% of all Americans are against gay marriage. Are they all “bible thumping right extremists?”
I wasn’t polled. How can you be sure that 68% of “ALL AMERICANS” are against gay marriage?
I can see that number being accurate if the surveys were being held at churches.[/quote]
He’s right that this is a bad argument. I have no doubt that 68% of people are against gay marriage. But that leaves 32% of people that are for it. Further, the question asked in the poll was about gay MARRIAGE, which implies a religious ceremonoy. I’m not sure that I myself support this. If the question had been about civil unions, I think the number would’ve been different. Zeb doesn’t understand the difference. Nor has hs stated what he thinks gay marriage actually entails or what rights he thinks he it will grant that should be denied.
He’s right that this is a bad argument. I have no doubt that 68% of people are against gay marriage. But that leaves 32% of people that are for it.[/quote]
The statistic was quoted to make a point that the people of this country do not want gay marriage sanctioned! It does not however prove the point that gay marriage is wrong. The onus is no you (or whomever takes up the challenge) to prove that the institution of marriage should be changed and is somehow a good thing.
Then we probably agree.
We agree.
I understand the obvious difference, no need to goad.
[quote]Nor has hs stated what he thinks gay marriage actually entails or what rights he thinks he it will grant that should be denied.
[/quote]
The name of the thread is “Proof Gay Marriage is wrong.” I ask for proof that it is right and no one can give it. Now you want to change the subject.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
But there is no moral precedence for denying these people equal rights in the eyes of the law.
Only several thousand years of “precedence.” Oh my…
Jesus I have had it with you and that stupid Bible thumping propaganda. Think for yourself instead of letting the goddamn church do it for you.
The same moral precedence that led to the witch trials in Salem, the oppression of science everywhere in the history of the world, and every other progressive measure the world has tried.
Christian precedence has condemned everyone who doesn’t agree with them. You know Zeb, the fucking Earth revolves around the sun. If the Church told you it didn’t, would you believe it?
More hate speech from the “open minded” liberals.
[/quote]
please explain how youve been “open minded” on this issue? fucking hypocrite
zeb, if you have no qualms with allowing civil unions, but argue against gay marriage, it seems to me you’re just arguing over the trademark of a name…though you’ll probably say it’s for the sanctity of the insitution of marriage(I’m not trying to put words in your mouth so feel free to correct me as you probably will,) but it also seems to me that the form of marriage that most churches recognize have been changed in such drastic terms from their initial conception to keep up with the practices of the times.
Might it not be time for another change, or are you just saying this is your line in the sand?
Well, yeah. Considering that gay civil unions are what many supporters are for, including Democrat politicians. And not ‘gay marriage’ as you would put it. The thread originally started as a joke. Once it became a legitimate discussion, civil unions are exactly what many of us habe been discussing…for many pages now.
[quote]slimjim wrote:
zeb, if you have no qualms with allowing civil unions, but argue against gay marriage, it seems to me you’re just arguing over the trademark of a name…though you’ll probably say it’s for the sanctity of the insitution of marriage(I’m not trying to put words in your mouth so feel free to correct me as you probably will,) but it also seems to me that the form of marriage that most churches recognize have been changed in such drastic terms from their initial conception to keep up with the practices of the times.
Might it not be time for another change, or are you just saying this is your line in the sand?[/quote]
I don’t think it’s just semantics. I think gay people should have all the legal rights of straight married couples. But it’s not the place of the government or the people at large to tell the different relgious denominations what they should view as marriage under god. And there should be no religious obligation whatsoever to perform such marriages unless religious leaders choose to do so.
Irregardless of the gay marriage issue I am always amazed that people think that homosexuality is a choice. They were born gay. There has been and continues to be a lot of research done on this issue. Do a google search on recent science and studies. We get many science journals/mags (wifes a scientist) There have been several articles in those about this topic. All suporting the born-gay argument.
Besides that, who would voluntarily choose to be homosexual? Nobody. The people who have problems with gays seem to fall into two camps:
They weren’t born gay, it’s a choice. (I’m sorry for being rude but I think anybody thinking that is ignorant or very close-minded)
Yeah maybe they are born gay but they should resist their impulses…because those acts are evil or sinful. (I totally disagree with it being either of those things and if there is a god (hope so, i’d love for all my loved ones to live on) I’m sure He/she/it doesn’t have a problem with it either. Bible was written by men so don’t quote me anything from that.
The only argument that I can find that holds some water would be the argument of “marriage is between a man and a woman because that is how we reproduce, and they’re supposedly going to stay together to raise the child together.”
Only, that would raise the question: Should people be allowed to get married if they are unable to reproduce?
If you’re going to argue that it’s immoral, well it’s immoral for people to get married without even knowing each other for more than a day, yet that is legal, as long as it’s between a man and a woman.
If you’re arguing that marriage is ONLY a holy, religious thing, then nobody would be able to get married outside of the church and it wouldn’t be recognized by the govt. because of separation of church and state.
If you’re arguing that it’s just gross, or most people don’t like to look at it, or they don’t agree with it, well, most people don’t agree with or like to look at 350lb obese men and women getting married or showing affection either, but it should be and is legal.
If you’re arguing that children will get picked on or won’t get raised right because they need a man and a woman to raise the child, then it should be illegal for a feminine, passive guy to marry a feminine woman, or for a masculine woman to marry a man. It should also be illegal for a couple to have children if the parents are going to be any sort of possible embarrassment to the child (referring to the child getting picked on).
Yet we all know that those things are and should be legal in a free society under our US Government.
I think the problem is in the definition of ‘marriage’ under our law.
Yes it obviously means many different things to a lot of people. It means more tax breaks for some, it means not being alone for some, it means actually being in love with the other person and wanting to spend the rest of one’s life with him/her, it means it’s the only way to nail the chick, it means getting housing allowance while in the military…
But under our law, what does it mean and why?
It definitley doesn’t mean anything about love or being with the other person for life. Just look at the divorce rate.
If “between a man and a woman” is in the definition, why is that. I already explained that it’s not for procreation.
[quote]fingolfin wrote:
Irregardless of the gay marriage issue I am always amazed that people think that homosexuality is a choice. They were born gay. There has been and continues to be a lot of research done on this issue. Do a google search on recent science and studies. We get many science journals/mags (wifes a scientist) There have been several articles in those about this topic. All suporting the born-gay argument.
Besides that, who would voluntarily choose to be homosexual? Nobody. The people who have problems with gays seem to fall into two camps:
They weren’t born gay, it’s a choice. (I’m sorry for being rude but I think anybody thinking that is ignorant or very close-minded)
Yeah maybe they are born gay but they should resist their impulses…because those acts are evil or sinful. (I totally disagree with it being either of those things and if there is a god (hope so, i’d love for all my loved ones to live on) I’m sure He/she/it doesn’t have a problem with it either. Bible was written by men so don’t quote me anything from that.
[/quote]
Good post. I’d basically agree with all of that. The evidence does actually suggest that homosexuality results from an intersection between biology and environment. Identical twins can have different sexual orientations. But that doesn’t mean there’s anymore choice in it. The prenatal and postnatl environment is not something that can be controlled to prevent homosexuality in any way that we’re currently aware of.
I’m a little creeped out by your obsession with me, though. Don’t you have a wife?
I’m merely responding to your posts on this one thread. That you take that as some sort of personal interest in you on my part is…well sort of pathetic. Stop posting and I assure you I will stop talking to you.
First, let me be clear that I do not accept your interpretation of scripture. You have no facility with the languages and you have proven that your self-declared expertise on scripture is pretty much fraudulent. You didn’t even know about the many passages condoning slavery; it took me about five minutes to find the ones I posted.
[quote]
Wrong again. You don’t accept every credible Bible interpretaion that has ever been written! You would rather embrace the modern day homosexual distortion of th scriptures. The fact that I won’t let you do that on this thread really bothers you. [/quote]
You won’t let me? Because you are somehow magically in control of me? I can read the original language for myself and I don’t need anyone else to tell me what to think. I reject your interpretation and all the poor translations that have gone before. Why don’t you just try to stop me with your magic powers.
[quote]
I was and am well aware of the passages of slavery in the Bible. No where on this thread or any other did you correct my position on the topic. Who is the fraud here?[/quote]
Of course you were, just like you always knew what the LSJ was. You just couldn’t come up with any when FightinIrish pointed out they existed. That’s why you demanded someone point them out. So I did. Took me five minutes of research. Fraud’s on you again.
Your claim that there are many passages in the Bible condemning homosexuality is likewise fraudulent. The passages used to support you assertion amount to about six out of thousands and if read in context (not that you would understand the importance of context) are about prostitution, rape and exploitation.
[quote]
Wrong again oh hateful wonder!
Let’s let the readers read this for themselves:
Rom 1:26
“Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their woemn exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations wwith women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Looks to me like homosexual activity is being condemned. Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where homosexual activity is praised? No guess not…
I’ll let you look up the others for yourself. Each is just as solid as the passage above.
1 Cor 6:9, 1 Cor 6:9, Col 3:5,
1 Tim 1:10, 2 Tim 3:3
Read the passages above one by one and get back to me [/quote]
First, the winky emoticons are just grotesque in our exchanges. It’s like you’re trying to flirt with me and that is just foul.
What you think is so straightforward in English is not so much in the original languages. Again, I rejct your interpretation. So feel free to quote Paul out of context all you want. Not to mention Paul had real issues with homosexuality that do not represent the stance of Jesus or God. Why don’t you try something else?
Your ability to miss a point is unequaled by anyone on these boards.
[quote]
Perhaps it’s your lack of ability to put forth a cogent argument which has frustrated you?[/quote]
No, I’m pretty sure it’s your ability to miss a point.
I am quite aware that people in this country are voting down homosexual marriage. As my daddy used to say, alot of people would eat shit and bark at the moon. Doesn’t mean I should go along with them.
[quote]
Your Daddy is a smart man. I agree with him and strongly suggest that you do not eat shit and bark at the moon.[/quote]
He WAS a smart man. He’s dead now. But I have found this to be one of his better bits of advice to me. That’s why I learned to read Greek and Hebrew (and Latin and French and Italian and German), so I wouldn’t make the same mistakes and wander down the same primrose path as everybody else. I believe the metaphor meant to not do the same stupid shit everybody else does.
The country’s founding documents made this into a republic; the idea was that while the majority gets its way much of the time, it doesn’t mean the minorities are screwed. Otherwise, blacks would never have been freed and women would not be able to vote or take abusive husbands to court. The point is in a secular country like this one, what one persons religious beliefs are should only affect them. Therefore, I don’t give a shit what you believe because it’s not my problem. Or at least it should not.
[quote]
We finally agree!
However, with the two examples which you give (blacks and women) there was great benefit to the country as a whole. Keeping women away from the voting booth did not serve the “whole.” In fact, it harmed it! Half the population were unable to express their rights and participate in the political process. When this was broken the country took a giant leap forward.
Keeping blacks from freedom was not only immoral it also did not serve the “whole.” As we can all see from an historical perspective there have been many great black leaders, inventors, business people etc. who have added to the greatness of this country.
Now please tell me how changing the institution of marraige for a tiny fraction of people adds to the country? How does it benefit the “whole?”[/quote]
You keep babbling about the benefit to the whole. Americans were pretty divided on the subjects of black and female suffrage, many making arguments how it would be detrimental to the nation for women or blacks to treated as equal in the political process with white men. This prejudice exists even today. Nobody proved there would be a benefit to the whole, they did it because it was the right thing to do. Just as in this case.
I particularly enjoy how your gay population percentage changes. First it was less than 10%, then 1-2% and now in this thread it’s half a percentage point. You sure seem to have your finger on the pulse of gay America. A very clever way to marginalize people, though. You don’t even need a shred of evidence if you just make the numbers up as you go. Nice work. Dubya would be proud.
[quote]
Actually, I never once said that they were 10%. Hence you are making this up! If you are not lying about this then please point out the post where I said this. You cannot as It was never said! Does this make you a fraud and a liar? Well, maybe you are just mistaken.[/quote]
Look closer and practice reading for comprehension. I said “less than 10%”.
[quote]
My assumption based upon my own reading is that somewhere between 2% to 4% of the population calls themselves “Gay or bisexual.” I have not posted those stats on this thread. On this thread I talked mainly about the smaller percentage of gays who expressed a desire to “marry.”
The figures I quoted on this thread are between .05% and a full 1%. And I think you know that, or you just didn’t pay attention. Either way, you are wrong AGAIN. [/quote]
Nice backpedal. NFL d-backs got nothin’ on you.
I believe in absolutes like justice, honor, fairness and even truth, when it can be discerned. Sometimes we have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. Most Americans were against black and female suffrage, so the government had to force the issue. Most Americans supported the separate but equal doctrine. In other words if all we ever did was what most people want to do, there would be no progress. Humans dislike change, especially if it involves something they don’t understand or makes them feel uncomfortable.
[quote]
Thy typical liberal response is to alway equate homosexual marriage with the rights of black people. I wonder how most black people feel about that one? I bet they don’t feel very good.[/quote] I bet most white Americans were unhappy when blacks and women were suddenly equated with them. Wah.
[quote[One more time:
African Americans are a race of people There is no decision making on their part. They are born black, end of story. Whereas, it has not been proven (or even any solid evidence pointed out) that gay people are in fact born that way. If that is the case it is indeed a decision. And even if they were born that way it is still a decision, right?
Otherwise, if you are trying to give everyone who is “different” the right to marry whomever and whatever they like I would suggest that you are opening a large can of worms (something liberals love to do). [/quote]
You make no sense. How can they be born that way but it still be a decision? There is plenty of evidence being gathered that indicates being homosexual is something that has everything to do with natural biological processes. It’s your problem if you choose to ignore it.
And please give me a break about how this would do any harm to the “institution” of marriage or the social fabric of the country. No one has ever presented a rational argument as to how this is the case. Mostly it’s just about a desire to exclude a particular group from the rest of society, based on a knee jerk emotional reaction and ignorance.
Who are these other minorities clamoring for rights to marry? You just keep making stuff up. I have no problem with polygamy as long as everone is of the age of consent and has given that consent. We’re talking about the freedom two (or more) adults have to enter into marriage with each other. Not children, dogs, box turtles or lampshades. That is the reductio ad absurdem to which you like to resort. It is foolish and irrelevant. You also seem to think that minorities should have no rights in this country unless dictated to them by the majority. Not so much. I’m sorry you need so much validation for your points of view. Maybe you’d like to stop eating shit and barking at the mooon with everybody else.
The reason you don’t get that is because you have no regard for justice or fairness.
I have written replies to this thread over and over again, only to delete every one. I finally realized that it is impossible to truly argue with someone when god is brought into the mix. If someone truly beleive in their god, there are no words that can convince them otherwise on any issue. “My god said so” will always be the final answer, and I wonder how many peoples rights will be stripped away becaue of it. Whether they beleive in your god or not does not seem to matter. Seperation of church and state has no meaning it seems.
Have fun guys, this is truly one messed up thread. It always surprises me that in the year 2005 the world is still so incredibly close minded and hateful.
please explain how youve been “open minded” on this issue? fucking hypocrite
More hateful accusations from “open minded” liberals…gotta love it
Please explain why you or any of my opponents have been “open minded?”
If you have a certain belief and no one offers any proof to the contrary should you then change that belief to appear “open minded?”
Not one person on this thread has changed their mind on the topic from what I can tell.
[/quote]
What evidence are you looking for?The plethora of scientific and psychological studies that says homsexuality is an intersection betrween biology and environment and not a choice. And the lack of any evidence against this beyond some heterosecuals with no subjective experience and no way of knowing merely stating that it’s not true. Or the arguments for civil unions to grant legal rights that are totatlly divorced from relgion and any conception of recognizing gay marriage as under God?
You make no sense. How can they be born that way but it still be a decision? There is plenty of evidence being gathered that indicates being homosexual is something that has everything to do with natural biological processes. It’s your problem if you choose to ignore it.[/quote]
What I stated was that even if someone were born that way the act of sex is still a decision. I think I was using it in the context of how it is different than a race etc.
There is zero proof at this point in time whether it is nurture, nature or a combination of both. The best experts in the field have no idea. However, you know more than them (and everyone else…on every issue…lol)
If you choose to believe that it is nature at this early stage you are only fooling yourself.
Again, it is really up to your and your pro gay marriage cohorts to give eveidence as to why this dramtic move would not harm our societal fabric. And in fact help it. Why would the overwhelming majority want to make such a drastic change until there is good reason given?
There is that word again “ignorance.” The radical left loves to use that word whenever anyone disagrees with their agenda. “You are ignorant if you don’t agree with us, (pick the topic) in this case, that gay marriage should be accepted.”
There can be no honest difference of opinion. It has to be a hate fest because the left has no real argument.
As far as being emotional, it is you who are the emotional one. Do you ever reread your posts before sending them?
Then by virtue of your own methodology the next time about 1% of the population wants to make a dramtic change in our very culture all they have to do is declare it to be “the right thing to do.” No other evidence is needed, simply a strong declaration. What a foolish emotional reaction!
They have all the rights that every free citizen of the US currently has. you want extra rights for them yet give no good reasons why this should be.
You just don’t pay attention do you?
"NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)–Late last year, months after the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, two Utah polygamists filed suit in state court, asking that their relationships with multiple wives be validated by the government.
Laws against polygamy, they said, are unconstitutional.
‘Everyone should be free unless there?s a compelling state interest that you shouldn?t be,’ John Bucher, one of the lawyers, told The Salt Lake Tribune. 'The state is not able to show that there?s such an evil to polygamy that it should be prohibited."
Well, now that you have declared your desire to push the envelop even further by urging the the acceptance of Polygamy, tell me your feelings on an adult brother and sister marrying. Do you think it’s appropriate and should be sanctioned by the state? You did say two or more adults in your long winded paragraph.
Please show me in my many posts where I stated that “no minority groups should have any rights unless dictated to them by the majority.”
Again, you are either not paying attention or this is deliberate fabrication on your part. Which is it?
Yes wmd the country is wrong and the left wing radicals have it all exactly right
The Queen of mean always ends her illogical rants with at least one insult. Again the radical left is always on the attack. If you disagree with their radical agenda you are “unfair and unjust.”
You know I’m starting to feel badly for all of those Polygamist who want to marry and according to you should be able to…LOL
[/quote]Again with not being able to speak for yourself.[/quote]
[/quote]