Should Same Sex Marriage Be Allowed?

[toms]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Animals have gay sex to show family love, or they are just plain ol' horny. (Excuse the crude language.) We have no idea whether animals can actually have gay relationships, such as two "married" male animals.

 

im fairly sure i saw a documentary about 2 gay ducks (or it might have been swans) that returned to the same place year after year.

Can't provide a reference though, so maybe i was imagining it. (can't think why i would do that though )

 

I agree with others that i still can't see how it affects anyone else. I get the distinct impression (especially with all the talk of the left's agenda) that a lot of people somehow believe that allowing gays to marry will somehow devalue their marriage. It's not something i understand, but there definately seems to be some fear there somewhere.

 

sorry to pick on keralys, who seems to be badly outnumbered, but you say

If you think that Christianity is capable of being interpreted relativistically, then you're not reading the same Bible I am. It's either true or it's not;

 

and then go on to immediately say that the rule on fish is "for health reasons". Surely this is you interpretting the bible's meaning??? Maybe god had a specific reason not to want people to eat fish? It doesn't seem at all likely, and so people have discounted it as no longer being relevant. However this is still an interpretation of the original message and could still be incorrect.

 

As for interpreting the bible, im fairly sure it says do not kill, but i would bet you support the death penalty. There are also numerous instances where the bible contradicts itself completely.

 

You have to take into account that the new testament of the bible is not, like some other religions, considered to be the "direct word of god". It is the thoughts and recollections of a number of people who met jesus and was put together a lot of years after his death. As such it is already subject ot their interpretations of what he actually meant, as well as the subtle influences of their inbuilt preconceptions and prejudices. Then you have to take into account the numerous translations and revisions, all of which will have slightly altered and interpreted the meanings yet again. Heck, if the bible somehow managed to miss out a couple of jesus disciples and his wife, i think they may have altered the meaning of a few things in a few places.

[Master_Keralys]

As far as other societies having it - yes, I acknowledged that. I thought I pointed out though, that they only accepted it in the decadence of their culture.

 

Skin, I'll see if I can find those studies for you, but I really don't have time right now... something about HS and lots of hard classes...

 

The Bible actually says, Do not murder in the original translation. It actually supports the death penalty for a plethora of crimes.

 

Unfortunately, guys, the thing is that their are liberals with an agenda that goes against the family as we know it. Just as their are extremists on the right... anyone ever hear of the KKK? It's just that the liberals tend to have more influence for the simple reason that they haven't already been discredited.

 

I don't have a problem with gay people chosing that lifestyle. But like it or not, most do choose it - because they can choose to move away from it. While there are certainly a lot of factors that may incline someone to be gay, there is nothing that empirically shows that they have no choice in it - far from it: if it was predestined, people couldn't turn away from it.

 

The Bible's warning on fish is not "my opinion" - and it's not relativistic. Some research into the original text and whatnot clearly shows that most of the provisions regarding what could be eaten and what could not was simply on animals that often carried (and still carry) disease. As there weren't many ways of sanitization back then, the provisions were provided for safety. It's also not really relevant - except that homosexuality is also a health issue.

 

I don't live in a tiny box. I live in a Christian box... And I believe the Bible is true. I also go ahead and look for other evidence; to do otherwise is irrational, and - to be honest - stupid. I still come to the same conclusions.

 

Skin, you're right about the dichotomy. But only to a certain point - most of our culture doesn't think critically. It's sad, but people don't know how... so they follow the crowd, whichever crowd that happens to be.

 

A "cure" - okay, how about the large numbers of people who have been rehabilitated in Christian programs. Try looking up focus on the Family's programs on it, and you'll see a lot there. Sure, there have been relapses - but's that true of any temptation, including extramarital sex, so...

 

The evidence is in programs like those. Just look for it and you'll find it. Seriously. I'd get the link, but I have to go to my next class in about 1 minute, so, to finish quickly... Or not. Must go. but try those...

[CloseTheBlastDo]

MK,

 

While I would never accuse you of being the type of person who keeps themselves in a 'box' intelleactually (I know for a fact that isn't true), I'm afraid your conclusion regarding homosexuality is not taking modern evidence into account - at all.

 

But like it or not, most do choose it - because they can choose to move away from it.

 

Modern studies show that, in fact, it is the other way round. The evidence would suggest that most homosexuals don't choose to be homosexual, rather it is an inborn trait.

 

There were two seperate studies I referenced in another thread regarding homosexuaity. (It seems to have dropped off the bottom, but when I get more time I'll track that thread down).

 

The first study inspected the brains of people who claimed to be homosexuals, and found that a very particular part of the brain was physically different - consistantly, and IN EVERY SINGLE CASE when compared to hetrosexual brains.

 

The second study (independantly) reproduced homosexual behaviour in female rats by introducing unusually high levels of testosterone into the parent rat's womb.

The brains of the rats were studied and shows very similar differences to the human brains.

 

The conclusion? Unless you can specifically dispute the methods of the study (which hasn't been done yet to my knowledge), the evidence is clear. It shows that in all the cases tested, the people involved didn't choose to be gay, it was part of their inherent make-up.

 

 

My second problem is with this branch of your argument:

 

A "cure" - okay, how about the large numbers of people who have been rehabilitated in Christian programs. Try looking up focus on the Family's programs on it, and you'll see a lot there. Sure, there have been relapses - but's that true of any temptation, including extramarital sex, so...

 

So does this mean that every young person who thinks they are a little overweight should fight their natural urge to eat and force themselves not to? When is the ability to fight natrual urges justified, and when is it not?

...are you saying you don't follow any of your natural ugres? I'm assuming you do. Do I have the right to tell you which ones you should or shouldn't be following?

 

 

And one final point - to even try and draw any kind of parallel between those who want the equal rights of homosexuals recognised and the KKK - well - to be honest it's a little amusing really.

I know your not trying to actually make a direct comparison, just trying to show 'extremes' of things. Well, if you see equal rights as extreme, well - I guess you have a point.

 

...I mean, when the rights of women to recieve equal pay to men were being discussed by the American goverment in the 80's, many Christian and Jewish bodies voiced protest.

 

...why? Because it threatened to undermine the 'family unit' - where the man is the breadwinner and the woman is the home-maker

[ShockV1.89]

Go on, keep ignoring my question... just prove what I already know.

 

[edit] The above statement is directed at MK

[Datheus]

Assuming we are talking about the Christian faith: No, sorry, but same sex marriage should not be allowed. Just no.

 

If any person walked into my church, a church they have the option to not to enter and an option not to be affiliated with and tells me I have the change my religion because of his religious views, I'd kick his ass.

 

You're telling me that it's ok to force one group of people to change their lifestyle in favor of anothers. Something most of you so strongly detest.

 

If a gay person wants to get married, I strongly suggest they go find a religion that accepts them. One person is not going to change the views of a church with roots 2000 years deep. Don't even try to.

 

This has nothing to do with the Goverment. In fact, it has nothing to do with anyone outside of your church! Religion is a personal choice. Much like you can't force a gay person to stop being gay, you cannot force a religious man to stop being his own flavor of religious.

 

Should the state recognize a civil union between a homosexual couple the way it recognizes a civil union between a heterosexual union? Yes. Should gay marriages be allowed? That depends on what religion you are talking about. But it should not be forced upon any religion who doesn't want it.

[ShockV1.89]

But we're not talking about the Christian faith. We're talking about marriages in general. People can be married without being religious. But nobody is saying that gay marriage needs to be forced on anyone.

 

As it stands now, same sex marriages are not recognized by the government. This should change, as, aside from it being the culmination of a couples love for each other, there are signifigant legal and financial benefits that come from a recognized union.

[Datheus]

Then yes. Like I said. The government should acknowledge civil unions between gay couples in just the same way they acknowledge them between straight couples. Apparently, Vermont and Mass. are the only states that do this.

[Druid_Allanon]

Personally I don't see what's so bad about homosexuals getting married. What's wrong with homosexuals? How does it affect you if they want to marry? Before critisizing homosexuals, put yourselves in their shoes. How would you feel if you are a homosexual, and are being ridiculed almost everyday?

[C'jais]

Without doing more piling on MK, I'll say that this really sounds more like a religious issue for the people who are against it. As it is now, I doubt you'd be able to find many people "against" homosexuality who aren't religious in one way or the other.

 

And oh yes, homosexuality is a health issue, same as any garden variety heterosexual relationship

 

Don't know if we can't get any homosexuals into this debate, but it'd certainly be interesting to hear how it's like from their side of the fence.

[Darklighter]

I don't want to go about trying to insult people's religious beliefs here, but I feel obliged to say one or two words. I understand that from a religious point of view, people can see homosexuality as a wrong and sinful act. Why is this? Because it has been commanded by God, or whatever all-powerful being may exist? It's been set into concrete rules established over the last however many thousand years?

 

Now, try to abdecate the effect of religious beliefs on this subject. Just for one teeny tiny second. Don't look at this issue from a common opinion set by those in your religion...look at what you believe, each of you personally. Why is homosexuality wrong? What about the issue that men and women were "designed" (no doubt by God, eh?) to reproduce...that a relationship between two men could not exist because it goes against the "laws" set by nature.

 

I know a lot of people have pointed out that we are not here simply to reproduce over and over again. We have grown as a species over the last thousands of years into superior, intelligent and emotional beings. Relationships do not exist for the sole pupose of reproduction, to think that would be so demeaning to us as human beings. Relationships exist on many different levels, with both men and women and same sex...what reason can be given to pronounce that a union such as marriage can only exist between a man and a woman? With all the advancement and evolution that has taken place, mentally and socially, in the history of our species, should we really condemn ourselves to be so narrow-minded and afraid of change?

 

So, what about rehabilition then? What about curing the homosexual population of this "anomoly" by trying to change them back to "normal"? So we're saying that homosexuality is like a disease, a stray or emotional mutation away from normalility (assuming that we're defining "normal" as being heterosexual)? Homosexuality is not something wrong with the human body; it is a different opinion on the subject of sexuality, an alternative view. How can you cure on opinion or emotional feeling? That in itself is taking away our very individuality, something that separates us from each other, taking away our right to express our views and opinions, taking away our freedom. How can you say that we are "individuals" if certain people think everybody should be the same, to think the same way? Well, if some people want to look at rehabilitation as a solution, then they have quite a large population to cure...

 

I believe we're all entitled to our own views and opinions, and to express ourselves as we see fit. I don't see why gay marriages should be viewed as so "abnormal" and "wrong"...I spose a lot of people who are gay would think that heterosexuality is wrong...how can we say who is more right? My point is, why should we be so narrow-minded towards a subject that so many people are in favour of. As most people have said in this thread, those arguements against gay marriages are mostly religious-based. Disallowing same sex marriages is also causing more controversy for the gay population, and as has been proved (in this thread, anyway), that many heterosexual people are even in favour. I think you'll find that the benefits of allowing same sex marriages will be much greater than the disadvantages. That's all from me for now

[Master_Keralys]

Okay...

 

First off, Shock - you got me. I did miss your question... so now I'll answer it. Does it hurt me?

 

Directly? NO.

Indirectly? It can.

 

Now before everyone jumps on me, here's what I mean: I don't have a problem with their choice. I may disagree with it and feel its sin, but it's their decision. It does affect me when it affects family structure. The one father, one mother family is a tried and true structure that's been embraced for most cultures for millenia. Deviation from it can have disastrous effects on the culture. Moreover, in looking at gay/lesbian couples (I think I said this earlier), most of them don't want marriage. Actually, most of their relationships only last a few months, and I think it's less than ten percent that say they were actually entirely faithful to their partner for two years or more - if not that, then it's close. Now, if that's true, why is there such a huge movement to legalize marriage for them?

 

I've been criticized for this before, and I'll probably take flak here, but I'll say it again: certain segments of the left - by which I mean certain liberal groups, not the "left as a whole" - have an anti-family agenda. Don't ask me why, but these are the people that have pushed for an absolute removal of Christianity from every aspect of life. Christians try to present a certain perspective and are called bigots. Christians try to call for morality and are called "old-fashioned" or "behind the times". The people I'm talking about have a greater interest in eradicating Christian morality than in advancing others' rights. Here's what I mean: it's the same people that espouse radical feminism (don't get me wrong, I think women's rights are awesome and absolutely essential - just not some of the extremist agendas), the homosexual agenda, and incredible degrees of moral relativism. These don't seem all that related - except that they all contradict tradition Judeo-Christian (and even Muslim and other religions) morality.

 

It's no more a conspiracy than the KKK - not a great comparison, but it makes the point. It's just that the KKK's rhetoric is clearly ridiculous, and even their "Biblical" standpoint is idiotic - something that the authors of the scriptures they quote would never have agreed with. It's just that these liberal groups couch their ideas in rhetoric of "tolerance" and appeal to the past history of wrongs against other groups. However, there's a distinct moral difference (and like it or not, it is a moral issue, at least from the public's perspective) between slavery or oppression of blacks or hispanics or women and homosexuality. Even from a Biblical perspective...

 

The biggest problem with our culture is that we have this idea that all viewpoints and lifestyles are equally "right" - the only definition of right is "if it works for you". Now, this will be an extreme example, but try to see beyond that to my point, okay? If the "tolerance" of today - that is, we can't offend anyone and their viewpoint is right as long as it works for them - then Hitler was a great man. He not only followed his own morality, but he achieved it in a great way. Moreover, the terrorists behind 9/11 are also incredible heroes.

 

That's a bit extreme, I'll admit. But it's the logical conclusion of the moral relativism espoused by many liberals (and all too many conservatives, unfortunately). But they won't tell you that, either...

 

My point is, where's the line? Where do we get the prerogative to throw out not centuries, but literally many millennia of morality?

[Lathain Valtiel]

There's something I have to say by the way.

 

Another thing about the pro-gay party I hate is how you are automatically branded a bigot if you try to exercise your right to not see that kind of cavorting in public, gay parades, and so on.

 

I don't know about you, but if it is allowed to be anti-American, then it should sure as all eternal heck be allowed to be openly anti-gay, with no insults and namecalling going to either side.

 

And gays use the political correctness to their advantage. One Catholic group in a college declined to elect a gay person to be their group leader and were penalized for it, because supposedly not electing a gay person to a position AUTOMATICALLY makes you anti gay. I forgot what college campus this was. But either way, it is a crock. I will thusly also not support gay marriage until the politically correct crap is abolished.

[ShockV1.89]

It does affect me when it affects family structure. The one father, one mother family is a tried and true structure that's been embraced for most cultures for millenia. Deviation from it can have disastrous effects on the culture.

 

But it does not affect your own family structure. Homosexual marriages are within their own circle. Allowing homosexuals does not restrict you from living within the traditional family unit.

 

Evidence, please, for the idea that deviation can have "disastrous" effects on the culture.

 

Moreover, in looking at gay/lesbian couples (I think I said this earlier), most of them don't want marriage. Actually, most of their relationships only last a few months, and I think it's less than ten percent that say they were actually entirely faithful to their partner for two years or more - if not that, then it's close. Now, if that's true, why is there such a huge movement to legalize marriage for them?

 

We already asked you for credible evidence for this. We've seen none so far...

 

Furthermore, there is a movement to legalize it because, even if you are right and very few actually do want to marry, they still should have that right if they choose. They are harming nobody, and by marrying they gain access to signifigant marital benefits, that they should have a right to.

 

Don't ask me why, but these are the people that have pushed for an absolute removal of Christianity from every aspect of life.

It's not the Christianity that a lot of people have a problem with. It's the intolerance that affects others. That intolerance may have some place within a religious group or religion. But it should have no dominion over people who do not subscribe to it, or do not believe that certain portion of it.

 

If the "tolerance" of today - that is, we can't offend anyone and their viewpoint is right as long as it works for them - then Hitler was a great man. He not only followed his own morality, but he achieved it in a great way. Moreover, the terrorists behind 9/11 are also incredible heroes.

 

Your analysis fails, as the situations are completely different. Both the 9/11 terrorists and Hitler were having signifigant negative impacts on groups of people who did not want it. Homosexual marriages, as I have said before, do not affect anyone except the two consenting adults within the marriage. The analysis would be better applied to right-wing Christian groups than to leftist radicals, although it's too extreme for either one.

[Tyrion]

Just as a note, I do believe it is in every human's rights to have a choice to watch a gay parade, or to partake in pro-gay activities, or even believe homosexuality is wrong. However, I also do believe that it is also in the homosexual person's right to express thier homosexuality freely, with the same benefits from nuptial laws as heterosexuals would.

 

Now, Master_Keralys

 

Please, as others before me have requested, show us some actual credible surveys on the average span of a gay relationship.

 

As well, I understand that homosexuality is against your cultural beliefs. But what right do you have to force your cultural beliefs onto homosexuals, arguing that the majority do not accept homosexuality, and thusly it shouldnt be legal.

 

I could say, hypothetically, that it is against my culture for you to be heterosexual. Please turn homosexual, or else you are infringing on my cultural beliefs. Who's right? Niether. Niether are wrong, either.

 

As for your Hitler scenario, you are missing one important detail. That Hitler forced his views on the masses. Namely, Jews. He condemned Jews in a horrible holocaust. He didnt let everyone just follow thier own cultures, he forced others to become Christian, often even doing mass genocides on races that didnt want to change thier beliefs.

 

Again, I think that it would be wrong for homosexuals to parade into your house, demanding that you accept gays. However, I also think that it is wrong for you to do the same to them.

[Darklighter]

This isn't about abolishing the Christian religion, but it's ideals should not be forced onto those who do not believe in the Christian faith (as I'm sure there are many) i.e. same sex marriages should not be banned because the religion these public leaders believe in dictates it.

 

However, this issue is still being looked at from a religious point of view only. What about the moral aspects of it. MK, the example scenarios you gave did make me think...though, there is a distinct difference between them and the issue of homosexuality if you look at them in a moral context. The two examples you gave involved brutal, deliberate murder of fellow human beings. Are you saying homosexual marriages fall into that same category?

 

I do not think gay marriages should be viewed as a crime. I'm sure it will not affect you if you do not probe, and that's exactly what is being done. People are treating it as such a big deal, thus further separating and labelling homosexuals away from the so-called "norm" (whatever that may mean). Homosexuals are as much humans as heterosexuals, and no matter how much they are singled out and ridiculed, should be given the same equal rights that they deserve.

[SpecialForces]

same sex marriage should be allowed, but they shouldnt get the benefits a normal married couple gets.

 

I thing being gay is a mental illness because whatever created the world abviously made us to have sex with the opposite sex.

Hormons, ect. make us want the opposite sex and they are atractive to you. If thats not the case and you like your own sex, you must have been abused, raped, or have grown up in some way that damaged the way you think and behave. Weather its good or bad is a different matter, but I think it is an illness.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Wow now that's a very narrow-minded explanation for homosexuality. It's been proven that homosexuality is NOT an illness at all.

Most people getting raped, abused, etc. don,t end up being gay or anything. That's a very dumb argument. I've know people who were abused and they did not change their sexual orientation or anything.

 

Now there's a difference between not being pro-gay and calling homosexuals mentally ill people.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

The one father, one mother family is a tried and true structure that's been embraced for most cultures for millenia.

 

Really? The so-called nuclear family with a mother, father and 2.5 children is actually a product of Western consumer capitalism of the last 50 or so years. Most families in most of the world's cultures throughout history have depended upon familial extensions: i.e. grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles, in-laws, etc. The ideal type family with one mother, one father is definately not "tried and true" or "embraced for most cultures for millenia."

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Deviation from it can have disastrous effects on the culture.

 

The evidence doesn't bear this out one way or the other.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Moreover, in looking at gay/lesbian couples (I think I said this earlier), most of them don't want marriage. Actually, most of their relationships only last a few months, and I think it's less than ten percent that say they were actually entirely faithful to their partner for two years or more - if not that, then it's close. Now, if that's true, why is there such a huge movement to legalize marriage for them?

 

It probably isn't true. You've quoted this set of statistics before but without citation. In fact, it's starting to look as though you are quoting "facts" that you want to be true that might fit your model.

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

Don't ask me why, but these are the people that have pushed for an absolute removal of Christianity from every aspect of life. Christians try to present a certain perspective and are called bigots. Christians try to call for morality and are called "old-fashioned" or "behind the times". The people I'm talking about have a greater interest in eradicating Christian morality than in advancing others' rights.

 

Perhaps this is progress of human culture. As we become a more enlightened and technologically advanced species, our reliance on cults like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. might come to an end. Many people are simply finding religion to be useless as a means for creating rules for society, particularly those cults that are unyielding and counter-progressive. People should, of course, be free to practice whatever religion they feel is appropriate, if any, but these religions should be prohibited from being involved with matters of state, government or national policy.

 

 

Originally posted by Master_Keralys

My point is, where's the line? Where do we get the prerogative to throw out not centuries, but literally many millennia of morality?

 

Why not continue to stone adulterers to death then?

[SpecialForces]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Wow now that's a very narrow-minded explanation for homosexuality. It's been proven that homosexuality is NOT an illness at all.

Most people getting raped, abused, etc. don,t end up being gay or anything. That's a very dumb argument. I've know people who were abused and they did not change their sexual orientation or anything.

 

Now there's a difference between not being pro-gay and calling homosexuals mentally ill people.

 

Ok, ill be strait up..

 

I HATE [homosexuals]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

and if its not an illness then why would you want to have sex with your own gender!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

 

 

* SpecialF., please tone down the slurs. -- SkinWalker

[Lathain Valtiel]

Originally posted by Tyrion

Just as a note, I do believe it is in every human's rights to have a choice to watch a gay parade, or to partake in pro-gay activities, or even believe homosexuality is wrong. However, I also do believe that it is also in the homosexual person's right to express thier homosexuality freely, with the same benefits from nuptial laws as heterosexuals would.

 

Ah, but it should also work in reverse. However, if we had a straight parade today, how many cries of bigotry and anti-gay would you hear? It's a double standard, and one I am not very pleased with for one...

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by SpecialForces

1.I HATE [homosexuals]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

2.and if its not an illness then why would you want to have sex with your own gender!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????

 

1.hmmm...

 

2. I don't get it myself, I have no real idea of what must go through their heads. But then again, it's all different for everyone.

Could you call an atheist a guy with a mental illness because he doesn't believe it God? Or a jew a crazy maniac? It's the same thing.

[SpecialForces]

We are not desined(sp?) to believe in God but we are to have sex with the opposite sex..

they are different things.

and believing in God doesnt require you to get married

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by SpecialForces

and if its not an illness then why would you want to have sex with your own gender!?

 

You call it an illness, but I call it a variation. Perhaps it's a genetic variation, perhaps not. But it is certainly occuring and has been for all of recorded history.

 

In fact, why would you want to have sex with someone of an opposite gender? You only need to reproduce a few times in your life, but I would hazard a guess that you might consider "mating" more times than that, perhaps even after you've had all the offspring you want.

 

The answer, quite simply is pleasure.

 

As to whether same genders are "designed" to have sex with each other, that's really not a valid argument. Particularly since the male reproductive organ fits well in at least two orafices in other males and females can achieve sexual gratification quite well without penetration.

 

I call that efficiency of "design."

 

 

* SpecialF., please tone down the slurs. -- SkinWalker

[Darklighter]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

The answer, quite simply is pleasure.

 

And before anyone says "pleasure is no good reason for a relationship to form", well, just take a look around. Many people around the world are together simply for pleasure, with no intention of having children, which deems the "perfect design" for men and women as useless.

 

Homosexuality is a difference of opinion, not a disease. And the only way you can "cure" an opinion is to enforce a set of rules against it (in this case, from a religious stand point).

 

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

2. I don't get it myself, I have no real idea of what must go through their heads. But then again, it's all different for everyone.

 

I don't like it that you're referring to them as if they are completely different people. We are all human beings, we all have different views and thoughts on certain subject...this one just happens to be sexuality. Well, what about someone who was asexual. Would you condemn them as "abnormal" because they didn't conform to the stereotype that they must be attracted to the oppositw sex?

 

I find it amazing that we've become a society that can advance forward in so many ways, yet we're so afraid of harmless change such as this.

[Elijah]

Originally posted by SpecialForces

Ok, ill be strait up..

 

I HATE [homosexuals]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good job being straight up, but just because you believe somthing is wrong, does not give you the right to disrepect somone... Homosexuals are people, and every person has thier own right to be respected. Simply because you dont agree with them doesnt mean you have to hate them

 

Here is one thing I believe, Homophobia is an illness.

 

Originally posted by Lathain Valtiel

Ah, but it should also work in reverse. However, if we had a straight parade today, how many cries of bigotry and anti-gay would you hear? It's a double standard, and one I am not very pleased with for one...

To True... To True...

 

Now, I think that marriage should remain as a thing between a man and a woman... but If homosexuals want thier unity, let them have (as arnold suggested) a mutual relation ship.