Miss California?

[AFPheonix]

I don't condone physical abuse within a marriage but I think people split nowadays over many insignificant things that never would have been grounds for divorce in the past.

So better marriage counselling both before and during the marriage would be wise. However, that has no bearing on allowing gay marriage.

As I said (sorry, I'm repeating stuff again). I don't think gays should marry straights, unless they're bisexual. However they have the same right to do so as anyone else, therefore they're not denied any rights that other people have.

But they are. They are being denied the right to marry the PERSON they wish to marry, despite the fact that the PERSON they wish to marry is of age and able to give consent. That is the right that you and I have partaken of, I would like to see others be able to as well.

You can certainly treat someone as if they were family and that's usually a good thing, not a bad thing. I just don't like the idea of redefining the word "family" to fit this.

I don't think people are trying to codify these types of family into law, and frankly it is a stupid tangent that has little to do with the topic. However, people feel strongly about others not related to them.

Not any more than gays are being persecuted anyway. lol

The day that Christian is as bad an insult as faggot will be the day that Christians in the modern US feel the persecution gays do. When pretending to carry a bible is as insulting as pretending to mince about in a feminine manner, then you'll feel some persecution.
The day when a Christian is hung on a fence to die after being beaten with a pistol in the modern US simply for being Christian, then you will have the same level of persecution.
The day you are not allowed to marry another Christian, despite being 2 adults able to give consent, will be the day you are persecuted.
Christians in the US, being a majority to be pandered to, are not persecuted, despite the group think you take part in at church. Believe me, I know, I've been there, I bought into it too.

They have a right to advocate for those things even though I'd be against most of it.

But you feel safe from it because they are the minority. What if they were the majority and were able to enact their moral laws that would inhibit you? The point is, you cannot deny other people rights that are not harmful to society simply because you don't agree with them because of the religion you grew up in. Doing so opens the door to do the same to you.

The gay community along with drug users caused AIDS to spread through the USA so yes that did harm other people.

Early Christian missionaries and explorers just about wiped out the indians with smallpox and syphilis. Are you saying the Spanish and missionaries should not have the right to marry because they introduced a plague they didn't entirely understand?

[Rubystars]

I really REALLY want to hear your stats on the gay community spreading AIDS. Especially considering the contraction rate in African American heterosexual couples.

It's true it was originally thought of as a "gay" disease... but if it's a gay disease, how do so many heterosexual couples contract it?

Heterosexuals get it from drug use (sharing needles). Also they can get it from blood products in hospitals, other blood exposure, and if a spouse is cheating on them. They would also have it if their mother had HIV infection and they were born with HIV themselves. It's the gays that keep saying HIV had something to do with them. A few months ago pieces of the AIDS quilt were on display in the public library and a bunch of rainbow flags were around it.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Not really, most people are far from monogamous.

Extra-marital relationships, divorce and re-marriage are all non monogamous actions, and they're incredibly common. Coupled with the fact that most human societies (treating Western civilization as a single society) have never been monogamous unless forced by the onset of another civilization.

Also, you're argument, Ruby, that the fact everyone has the right to marry women is bullshit, plain and simple. Heterosexuals can marry the person they love deeply, Homosexuals can't. To say otherwise is to say that Homosexual love isn't love, but that's not up to you to decide. Maybe it's not your kind of love, but it's love nonetheless.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are also important to remember. If Homosexuals can't marry those that they love, they are deprived not only of liberty, but also the pursuit of happiness.

EDIT: Sorry Ruby, but the fact that people who like to announce their sexual orientation also want to raise awareness of AIDS doesn't in any way mean they are connected. It was the longstanding belief among the Heterosexual community that AIDS is a 'gay' disease that the two got connected. There is no scientific basis for any connection, nor is there any social precedent for AIDS awareness compared between sexualities.

[Rubystars]

http://encarta.msn.com/media_4615469.../Monogamy.html

"Monogamy is the most common form of marriage. In a monogamous marriage, two people are married to each other and to no one else. This Jordanian family consists of a monogamous couple with their children."

[BroomJockey]

Heterosexuals get it from drug use (sharing needles). Also they can get it from blood products in hospitals, other blood exposure, and if a spouse is cheating on them. They would also have it if their mother had HIV infection and they were born with HIV themselves. It's the gays that keep saying HIV had something to do with them. A few months ago pieces of the AIDS quilt were on display in the public library and a bunch of rainbow flags were around it.

You seem to be making a bad assumption. Heterosexuals aren't magically immune from AIDS unless it's from a needle or a cheating spouse. The word you're looking for is monogamous couples aren't at risk for AIDS except for those couples. Anyone who has sex with more than one partner in their entire lives (and it's common for heterosexual college students to fuck anything that moves, after all) is at risk that someone in the chain has AIDS. And any couple can be monogamous, including gays.

[Fenrus]

Heterosexuals get it from drug use (sharing needles). Also they can get it from blood products in hospitals, other blood exposure, and if a spouse is cheating on them. They would also have it if their mother had HIV infection and they were born with HIV themselves. It's the gays that keep saying HIV had something to do with them. A few months ago pieces of the AIDS quilt were on display in the public library and a bunch of rainbow flags were around it.

All those "heterosexual" contractions are the same for homosexual relationships. The LGBT community sees AIDS in their community simply because it's a part of EVERYONE's life, not just LGBT people. Heterosexual people contract AIDS as well, which explains many of the OTHER patches on the freaking quilt. The rainbow flag is just more easily identified.

[BroomJockey]

"Monogamy is the most common form of marriage.

Whoops! What about the relationships not thought of as marriage? Just because it's the most common form of marriage doesn't take in to account unmarried relationships. Further, they're talking about strictly one-man/one-woman, which is fine, but then they don't go on to talk about how many of those "monogamous" couples cheat. Which is a non-monogamous action. They're talking strictly about marriages which are on the books as being between two people. That sorta shoots your "hetero marriages are better," since it doesn't address any of those issues. Maybe there's less cheating in a polyamourous marriage?

[Rubystars]

But they are. They are being denied the right to marry the PERSON they wish to marry, despite the fact that the PERSON they wish to marry is of age and able to give consent. That is the right that you and I have partaken of, I would like to see others be able to as well.

That's only if you see that as being a marriage. If two guys get together they're not married anyway. To call that a marriage is absurd in my opinion. I know other people here feel that it's just the same as a hetero marriage, but I don't.

I don't think people are trying to codify these types of family into law, and frankly it is a stupid tangent that has little to do with the topic. However, people feel strongly about others not related to them.

They're trying to force "family law" to acknowledge gays as being married.

The day that Christian is as bad an insult as faggot will be the day that Christians in the modern US feel the persecution gays do. When pretending to carry a bible is as insulting as pretending to mince about in a feminine manner, then you'll feel some persecution.

I feel really grossed out when I see men walking around acting feminine. I don't like certain religions (such as Islam), but if I were to see someone carrying a Qu'ran around I wouldn't be grossed out in the same way I would to see a man giggling and acting like a woman. I also feel yucky when I see women who go out of their way to be butch.

The day when a Christian is hung on a fence to die after being beaten with a pistol in the modern US simply for being Christian, then you will have the same level of persecution.

It might not be that far off. Apparently basic Christian values are being maligned as hateful and bigoted.

The day you are not allowed to marry another Christian, despite being 2 adults able to give consent, will be the day you are persecuted.
Christians in the US, being a majority to be pandered to, are not persecuted, despite the group think you take part in at church. Believe me, I know, I've been there, I bought into it too.

This probably isn't too relevant to the conversation but I'm really not a church type of person.

But you feel safe from it because they are the minority. What if they were the majority and were able to enact their moral laws that would inhibit you?

The left wing has already tried to do this by trying to ban public prayer, etc.

The point is, you cannot deny other people rights that are not harmful to society simply because you don't agree with them because of the religion you grew up in. Doing so opens the door to do the same to you.

I do think that dissolving the defiitions of marriage and family will be harmful to society in the long term.

Early Christian missionaries and explorers just about wiped out the indians with smallpox and syphilis. Are you saying the Spanish and missionaries should not have the right to marry because they introduced a plague they didn't entirely understand?

I'm not sure if that was deliberately done or done completely by accident. But anyway whatever Spanish were involved in that are already dead, so it's really a moot point.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

One could definitely say that there is no cheating in polygamous relationships because any need is done away with. Besides which, we're talking about monogamous people and relationships in our little aside... not just marriage.

Furthermore, you keep skirting around the fact that you're depriving rights. We're not saying you should like it, we're saying they have a right you just happen not to like.

That said, Ruby, I would like to see you PROVE that it's harmful. Otherwise making a law based on it would not only be stupid, but incredibly harmful.

[Rubystars]

Whoops! What about the relationships not thought of as marriage? Just because it's the most common form of marriage doesn't take in to account unmarried relationships.
Further, they're talking about strictly one-man/one-woman, which is fine, but then they don't go on to talk about how many of those "monogamous" couples cheat. Which is a non-monogamous action. They're talking strictly about marriages which are on the books as being between two people. That sorta shoots your "hetero marriages are better," since it doesn't address any of those issues. Maybe there's less cheating in a polyamourous marriage?

I'm also against cheating.

[BroomJockey]

I'm also against cheating.

Don't mix up your terms, though. State what you actually mean. You're muddying the waters. Don't interchange "heterosexual" for "monogamous," if you mean "straight people who don't cheat on each other," then say it. You're implying that "heterosexual" = "monogamous." And that's not true.

[Rubystars]

You're right BroomJockey. I'm assuming a lot of things as being understood when I really need to be more specific. For example when I said that a man and a woman who are married and have children is the ideal situation, I did not mean for this to include things like abusive relationships, child abuse, cheating, etc.

[smileyeagle1021]

It might not be that far off. Apparently basic Christian values are being maligned as hateful and bigoted.

at one point or another many churches have said/done the following
*god hates fags
*homosexuals should be put to death
*beatings of homosexuals that aren't condemned and in some cases condoned by church leaders
*state legislatures, who claim to be legislating based on their church's views, who take pride in insuring that it is legal to fire someone for being homosexual.
*same state legislatures who have fought to disallow hospital visitation right for homosexuals
*women can't hold the priesthood
*the mormon church, finally this year, had a black man join the quorum of 70... he's the most junior member in the lowest portion of the central leadership, there's also a token Japanese guy in there, but all the other higher ups are white men.

from where I'm sitting, quite a few christian churches are bigoted and hateful.

[BroomJockey]

It might not be that far off. Apparently basic Christian values are being maligned as hateful and bigoted.

Uh... No. Basic Christian Values are the 10 commandments, or "Love your neighbour as you love yourself and God." Anything past that isn't basic, as it isn't universally agreed upon by all Christian sects. If you can provide a *universally held Christian belief* that people are denouncing as hateful, then I'll concede on that point. But I doubt you can. And I'm talking about all but fringe groups, ones that would be considered "fundamentalist." Just to make it a bit easier on you. Since there's Christian churches that allow gay marriage, that's not one. What else you got?

[Rubystars]

Uh... No. Basic Christian Values are the 10 commandments, or "Love your neighbour as you love yourself and God." Anything past that isn't basic, as it isn't universally agreed upon by all Christian sects. If you can provide a *universally held Christian belief* that people are denouncing as hateful, then I'll concede on that point. But I doubt you can. And I'm talking about all but fringe groups, ones that would be considered "fundamentalist." Just to make it a bit easier on you. Since there's Christian churches that allow gay marriage, that's not one. What else you got?

There are a lot of left-wing, liberal churches nowadays so most traditional Christian beliefs will not be represented in all modern churches. Even the idea that Jesus is essential for salvation is not accepted by all so-called Christian churches.