Your Opinion on Same Sex Marriages?

I agree, well said. And it's great to see somebody standing up for equal rights even when they are opposed to what those rights allow.

And now we're all agreeing with each other which dimishes the point of this thread...

Edited by reifidom

Clark Kent wrote: ^^^^^^   wow - well said. *applauds*

Hallelujah!!!! There are still some open minds out there.

Clark Kent wrote: duckncover21 wrote: All you have to say is do they have the ability to make a child. No they dont. Disregarding religion this reason alone should tell them that they shouldnt be together! If you cant reproduce together and you're not A-sexual then you arent supposed to be screwing each other! But I guess it dosent matter that if we were all **edited**s the world would end. Since we would have no way to continue our family tree without artificially implanting sperm (and this is only the women what about the men? Will we be carrying babies too?) the world would die out. I think we should put all the **edited**s on an island together and see how long it takes them to die. I'd say at most 100 years. (That's if they took their adopted children with them!!) Wait - so are you just against **edited** marriage or homosexuality alltogether?  Your post is a bit garbled...  And is the children bit in regards to sex or marriage? Me confused...

I think he's against having an IQ higher than that of the single celled organisms you normally find in pond scum

Wow. Was this really necessary? Haven't we beaten this thing to death?

I am opposed to it, but I'm not going to bother giving reasons why - so far, almost every time I try to, either everyone minimizes what I say, ignores it, or (deliberately?) misunderstands. But this isn't a debate anyway...

As for the sanctity of marriage, there's something you guys need to realize. Couples divorcing doesn't show that marriage is no longer meant to be compared with the traditional definition, it means that there is more than one thing cheapening marriage. Just because one thing has happened against a group's wishes doesn't mean that they should stop trying to prevent the next thing from happening, simply because the first did. That would have been like us saying "Oh well, too late, Japan wins World War II because we didn't prevent them from attacking us". Bad comparison, but I think you guys get the point.

And yes, I do believe that most people could choose to become homosexual (and vice versa). They wouldn't, and it might not be the easiest thing in the world, but it's possible, definitely.

I'd also like to point out that having an open mind does not necessarily mean supporting every choice that a person can make. Conservative does not mean closed-minded.

Yes, there are many couples that cannot have children for some reason or other. However, there is no possibility of a society where everyone is homosexual to survive (before someone tries to make a smartass remark, please note that I'm not so stupid as to think America will suddenly turn into a pro-homosexuality nation if that side wins, nor do I think it ever will. Just making a point, so don't bother going 'Wow, you're dumb. Nobody said the country would do such-and-such'. I've been in too many of these debates not to know that some of you were thinking of doing that before you read this far).

Also, people show that animals in the wild have been known to demonstrate homosexual tendencies, but I'd like you all to keep in mind that humans are considered 'intelligent' as compared to the other animals, and so just because some species do something, it doesn't mean we should. I just found an interesting site that explains that apparent homosexual behavior in animals is usually totally unrelated to sex (establishment of power, mixed chemical messages, etc) and confined to isolated incidents, with very few individuals showing a continued 'preference' towards homosexual behavior. I got this from here.

Anyway, if someone wants to debate this, let's start a new thread. I'm afraid I may have just hijacked this one, so prove me wrong.

For it. Ever heard of seperation of church and state? If everyone is equal, how come homosexual people can't get married?

AdmiralSenn wrote: Wow. Was this really necessary? Haven't we beaten this thing to death? I am opposed to it, but I'm not going to bother giving reasons why - so far, almost every time I try to, either everyone minimizes what I say, ignores it, or (deliberately?) misunderstands. But this isn't a debate anyway... As for the sanctity of marriage, there's something you guys need to realize. Couples divorcing doesn't show that marriage is no longer meant to be compared with the traditional definition, it means that there is more than one thing cheapening marriage. Just because one thing has happened against a group's wishes doesn't mean that they should stop trying to prevent the next thing from happening, simply because the first did. That would have been like us saying "Oh well, too late, Japan wins World War II because we didn't prevent them from attacking us". Bad comparison, but I think you guys get the point. And yes, I do believe that most people could choose to become homosexual (and vice versa). They wouldn't, and it might not be the easiest thing in the world, but it's possible, definitely. I'd also like to point out that having an open mind does not necessarily mean supporting every choice that a person can make. Conservative does not mean closed-minded. Yes, there are many couples that cannot have children for some reason or other. However, there is no possibility of a society where everyone is homosexual to survive (before someone tries to make a smartass remark, please note that I'm not so stupid as to think America will suddenly turn into a pro-homosexuality nation if that side wins, nor do I think it ever will. Just making a point, so don't bother going 'Wow, you're dumb. Nobody said the country would do such-and-such'. I've been in too many of these debates not to know that some of you were thinking of doing that before you read this far). Also, people show that animals in the wild have been known to demonstrate homosexual tendencies, but I'd like you all to keep in mind that humans are considered 'intelligent' as compared to the other animals, and so just because some species do something, it doesn't mean we should. I just found an interesting site that explains that apparent homosexual behavior in animals is usually totally unrelated to sex (establishment of power, mixed chemical messages, etc) and confined to isolated incidents, with very few individuals showing a continued 'preference' towards homosexual behavior. I got this from here. Anyway, if someone wants to debate this, let's start a new thread. I'm afraid I may have just hijacked this one, so prove me wrong.

    So they might choose to be homosexual. And that should keep them from getting married why?

im fine with it as long as they arent  making out in public, and thats not just because theyre **edited**, i wouldnt want to see a straight couple making out either

No problem with them.  Let people live how they want.  Homosexuals are the least of this countrie's problems.


Edited by Glassjaw

hwayhzrd wrote: Glassjaw wrote: No problem with them.  Let people live how they want.  Homosexuals are the least of this countrie's problems. I'll second that. What ever happened to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

The church wanted a piece of action too.