Do you support gay marriage?

I'll bet your children WILL be "within eyesight of it."

Maybe it'll be their pediatrician. Maybe it'll be one (or more) of their teachers. Maybe it'll be your postal carrier. Maybe it'll be the supermarket checker. Maybe it'll be your auto mechanic. Maybe it'll be one (or more) of your neighbors. Hey, even while they're being born, perhaps the obstetrician will be "it."

Uh-oh.......... I just thought of one MORE "maybe." Are you ready? Isn't it possible that one of your own future children will be LGBT?

I would absolutely hate it if my son or daughter was LGBT. No parent would wish that on their child and you all know it; but if it came to that I would have to accept it, hopefully my fiance can speed up the process lol.

As long as they don't parade their sexuality I wouldn't care either way but I would never allow a LGBT teach my child. I would withdraw my kid so fast he/she would have whiplash.

"The levels of violence and discrimination simply aren't the same, however, not in frequency of occurrence, systematic suppression, extent of the violence, etc. The extent of violence against gays never reach anywhere near the regularity or visibility of violence against African Americans throughout all US history, up to the 1960s and later."

Because it's easier to hide the fact that you are gay than the fact that you are black.

To quote someone else I saw make a comment against you:
"Is it your heterosexual mom and dad that loved and cared for you, the ones who taught you to hate people that are different from you?"

ok so you have obviously missed the point completly, why would we let a father marry a daughter, or a brother a sister, its not in those cases about morality its about the children, what happens between two consenting adults is nobody elses buisness, so leave us in peace we just want legal equality. and how can you compare achoholism to homosexuality, whom praytell does being gay hurt. Am i hurting you right now in any way have i caused you pain? please tell me does my being gay hurt anyone.

There are a great many example of homosexuality in nature so right off the bat you are wrong. Homosexuality does NOT go against nature.

I grew up to be a nice normal human being and I was raised by two gay parents. I obey the law, pay taxes, had my childern with one man and raised them without any help.

Alcoholics act out without anyones encouragement, so again you don't know what you are talking about.

"marriage" goes against natural law while we're at it. oh is there some book on natural law? I'd really like to know.

you just copied this from your other post. think of something original

I don't hate you.
I just pity you, and everyone who has to interact with you.

You have the exact same feelings on this as me.

You have the exact same views on this topic as me.

I don't call denial of rights and civil liberty's minor

but hey to each their own

OMG, you totally focus on the wrong points of everyone's replies to you:

"I was pointing out obvious differences that aren't minor between race and gays."

Why? What are you helping or solving by doing this?

"you can't mistake a non white person for a white person."

This is awfully racist. So by making that statement you are saying that white people don't ever face discrimination? From the beginning you are stating that you can't compare "gay rights" to the struggle that black (or dark skinned) people have because they can't hide their skin color? So what does that mean, that the gay struggle is somehow "less" or different? Do you have to be visibly identifiable to be discriminated against in the same way that blacks were discriminated against? Are you serious? Nobody said they are exactly the same, but there ARE similarities. These are two groups that are discriminated against sometimes because of the way they look, sometimes because of the way they live their life, sometimes because of physical characteristics that they cannot hide or change. So blind people are not prejudice because they cannot see?

I think you are the one who is delusional.

And you never responded to MY POINT> If you quit focusing so much on differences, maybe you will be able to focus on a solution.

So you wanna be a Doctor huh?
Tell me, since you "WannaBeaDoctor" Is being gay a choice, or are you born that way?
Have you ever taken time to think about how inconsiderate you are towards people of your own species? You promote peoples health, yet you deny their wishes to get married? Has it occurred to you that happiness and health are directly related? You want to be a doctor, yet you see males and females as two different species with completely different standards?

Yeah, sorry, you wouldn't make it as a doctor, and if by some miracle you do become one, STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM SUNSET KAISER PERMANENTE IN HOLLYWOOD.
I don't want some bigot doctor operating on me, even if I'm not gay, thank you very much.

There is so much you don't know, it would take so very long to explain it all to you.

FIrst, there are black people who can "pass" for white. That's what it called- "passing". No one would know they are black unless you asked them, so yes you CAN mistake a non-white person for a white person.

There are effeminate men who cannot pass for straight. It is like asking a left-handed person to write with their right hand. Everyone knows they are gay as soon as they see them.

And those people suffer a GREAT deal of discrimination, including physical assault.

The answer to your annoying question is nature. Nature because of a genetic mutation that causes a chemical imbalance in the brain. There is in fact a "cure" if you will, if you don't believe me look it up. Ha, IDGAF what you think, I'm closer to medical school than you would ever get and I WILL be a doctor, I only have 6 years left and if I got the chance I'd go Kevorkian on your ass. Lol jk I wouldn't risk my lucrative career on an unimportant person's comment. However, I do promote people's health and If I was a doctor right now I would be impartial to any patient and do my best whether or not I agree with their choices in life. That's what a doctor is about and I would live and die by it.

In all good conscience, I would never select you to be my physician, in whatever capacity. [And please don't go into medical research.]

You're getting a pretty lousy medical education if you think there's a "cure" for being born gay. BUT, I may be totally wrong, since you also wrote that "There is in FACT a 'cure'...", so I'm going to ask you to cite your papers here, please. I think that's only fair. And if you can prove to me that I'm wrong, I'll publicly admit it, to be sure. I have many gay friends who are still young enough that, if they had the chance, would rather be straight (although I love them BECAUSE of who they are this very second).

Why i put "cure" in quotations is because it only works prenatal and it's experimental (naturally). I did extensive research on it as this was the topic for my chemistry II paper. The key is dex (dexamethasone) which can be used to prevent the development of ambiguous genitalia in girls with higher levels of CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia) excess androgens which leads to masculinizing of female genitals (hermaphrodites).

These experiments spawned a seperate research in where a group of scientists believe that prenatal dex can also PREVENT homo and bi sexuality in women (males are inconclusive for now). Now sexual orientation is indeed nature and nurture do not get it twisted but Women with lower levels of CAH reportedly have more frequent dreams of 'motherhood' (dreams of pregnancies and such) and have expressed the wish of pregnancy more frequently than women with higher levels of CAH. To fully test the effect of dex though the babies that were altered with this drug will have to reach sexual maturity before this research can reach a definitive conclusion. So it's more of a prevention than a cure and it's only been tested on women with CAH it's far from perfect but like all experiments it will advance and if it ever meets requirements then I will label it a 'prevention-cure'.

I seriously wish I didn't delete the paper or I would have copy and pasted the whole thing instead of this gross summary. =/ The scientist that completed this study last name is New if you want to research but her name escapes me but I can tell you she works at FIU. Now is the question of ethics. I don't have a personal answer on that, but it's an interesting subject from a chemistry major perspective.

That's your choice if you wouldn't 'choose' me as your physician but you sure as hell would 'choose' me if your life was time sensitive and I was the nearest physician. Thankfully for you though Doctors have an oath and I would work tirelessly to save any life in front of me whether straight, gay, white, black, nazi, jew whatever. A life is a life and If someone wants to be saved and I have the power to do so, I will.

That is the biggest fallacy that I have seen on this thread so far, it doesn't even deserve a response. By the way, you're talking to a history teacher. Let me guess, you are a Sunday school teacher.

what religous language, the constitution refers to god as a deist, which the founding fathers were, refers to god, as in the he might be up there but if he is he doesnt care. Equal rights is not a question of religion it is a question of respect, and one thing we can be sure of is alot of people who call themselves christian dont know what it is to respect someone else.

So because the specific language "creator" we are to take that as instruction that all citizens of this country are to be religious, and a specific religion at that? aka christianity? This country was founded on the backs of slaves, on stolen land that we murdered to possess. The people that founded this country before us were not always right, as I'm sure you know.

But I believe that our core government was formed to be as non-intrusive as possible, which means that they left many things to the states to decide. Many of the laws we have now are based on colonial model and different religions dominated in different regions. So is that what I want to base my law or my rights on? Probably not. And in your vast reading, I'm sure you have come across just as many founding fathers and documents that warn of allowing religion to influence government. If not try reading objectively. For example: the First Amendment? The many writings of Ben Franklin? I'm sure you have, because you wouldn't want to blindly only see on side of the argument would you? You mentioned Paine, he himself said;

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

So what now? What if you are not religious or you don't believe that you were created by the same god that I believe I was created by? Your logic is flawed and one-sided. I don't know about you, but when I studied history, I found out that religion has had an influence for thousands of years. So which ideas from which religion are you going to pick and choose? Christianity? Islam? Judaism? They all have roots in religions even older than they are, so which "ideas" are you going to claim? If YOU had studied anything about religion you would know what I am talking about. Ever heard of Gilgamesh? Probably not. Sigmund Freud did not believe there was a god, we teach his theories in school!! Your argument is childish. "because that's the way it has always been" is not a good reason.

But you can put your blinders back on now. Wouldn't want the truth to hurt your eyes.

religion implies an organized institution, also i went ahead and reviewed the constitution, school was a while ago, and ya know i dont really see anything even refering to god in the consitution, nothing religious other than congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, only time its mentioned. Also I dont think most of the founding fathers would really have had a problem with it, most were not fond of established religion, franklin himself said, "Lighthouses are more usefull than churches" and Jefferson said " I do not find in christianity one redeeming feature. It has made half the world fools and the other half hypocrites." but i digress the point is the founding fathers are not here today it is time for us to determine our nation and it is time for our nation to abandon the trappings of an archaic and barbaric relgion.

right. whatever. blah blah blah

kinda, even today it is only kinda, the belif structure is extremly loose, but i still dont see the religous refrences in the constitution, now it was a speed read so perhaps you could point them out? Otherwise im really not seeing them

Wow, you know nothing about the history of this country.

The Constitution and the BIll of Rights are not in ANY WAY based on religion.

Equal RIghts come from Natural Law, which is a Humanist concept from the Enlightenment.

LOL!!!

You have never studied history- unless it was in a Christian school!

If Jefferson or Paine heard you call them Christians, they would kick your lilly white ass from here to next Tuesday.

They would have also considered equal rights for women ludicrous, and freeing the slaves ludicrous.

Luckily, we are not limited to their beliefs, instead we have the purely secular government they created for us, and the concept of human rights within it.

From that CONCEPT, we grew.

We learned that blacks and whites should be treated equal under the law.
We learned that women and men should be treated equal under the law.
And now, we are learning that gays and straights should be treated equal under the law.

Well, some of us have already learned these things- others are a bit slow on the uptake.

LOL!!!
Unitarianism and Deism are NOT the same thing!
You are hilarious, one stupid comment after another!

Wow, your ignorance is astounding.

No, laws against murder and theft are NOT based on religion.
They are based on the secular concept of Human Rights, based on Natural Law.

The fact that they are also in your religion is coincidental at best.

You will notice your religion does not see anything wrong with slavery or rape.

You definitely went to a Christian school.

And there is also discrimination being a women (something I can not hide). I hate to break it to you, because I know there are racial prejudices is this country, but slavery has gone on since the beginning of time, to EVERY race all over the world and it is still happening. I wish people were as concerned with the slavery that is still present in the world today as they were with the slavery that has been abolished in this country. Yes, some people in this country are racist. And some are sexist, and some are homophobic. Gays are persecuted in the Bible, I don't recall it saying anything about blacks. Atheists have been persecuted since the dawn of time, so what now? We all have our "crosses to bare" (pardon the pun coming from an atheist). Maybe if you spent more of your time focusing on our similarities instead of our differences, you might move in the right direction. Just because your skin is dark doesn't mean you are the only one who has obstacles to overcome, and it doesn't make your "plight" any worse or better than the rest of us. Am I saying that being black is easy in this country? Maybe not as easy as in some, and easier than in others, just like being a woman, just like being gay. Try being focused on a solution instead of complaining about how much worse your situation is than everyone else, it takes away from your argument.

ahh ok I get your point, we should make gay's suffer for the same amount of time as blacks right?

And a lot of people look at people and assume gay or straight, based on dress, speech and what not.

lol i read your whole post hoping that there would be some kind of valid point at the end and there wasn't. gays are bad becaue they aren't as easily identifiable as black people? Huh?

how about the fact that we can go to prision or even be killed for who we are? or how about some countries have laws on the books ordering execution, how about thousands of years of hiding and opression because we could be killed or tourtured for who we are. or the fact that even our own family could turn against us for who we are. Do not demean our sturuggle we have know pain, much pain.

I by no means wish to demean the human rights crisis that is going on in china. I actually have a freind from my mothers church who is from china and he goes there often to teach and preach, and every time he goes i get nots in my stomach, i dont beleive as he does but i do respect him as a man. i respect him as a campaigner for freedom of religion in china. I just think that religion should stay our of politics and politics should stay out of religion.

really? So the question of who we help and how the governemnt spends money is a question of religion, or gun rights thats a question of religion? The war in Iraq is that religious or how about the war in against the taliban is that religious on our part, becuase if it is we need to take ten steps back. Religion inserts itself into politics as a desperate attempt to maintain some level of power, the only reason that religion is part of politics is power, and if we have learned anything as a society the more the line is blurred between religion and politics the bigger of a problem we have. Unless of course you think its a good idea to bring back the spanish inqusition, the crusades, burning of "hertics at the stake." Leave religion out of politics and politics out of religion and the world will be a better place.

theft, murder, rape, these are all basic respect of one human to another adopted by religions as a base precept to validate the other moral claims, what came first, reason or religion is irrelavant, religion has had and will continue to have its purpose in society however we cannot allow religion to define out law, unless of course you want shira law, wouldnt that be fun say no to pork and women seeing the light of day! That is exactly the point religion will abuse some minority it is what makes it work, but christ redifined religion when he came, the world was obviously not ready for that because his disciples and future genrations took the few basic rules he left behind, and convaluted them into thousands of codes and strictures that they then follow only when they feel like it. obviosly because you dont stone your children when they disobey now do you. Or execute prosttutes or people who cheat on their spouses, or people who eat bacon. We dont exile women from society for 7 days till they stop bleeding. Leave your religion out of politics, whatever is already there fine, if it works for society then society will keep it, when it no longer works it will be removed. gay hate doesnt work anymore so just let it go.

Are you really reducing people's moral choices down to the existence of religion?

What about compassion and empathy, putting oneself in another's shoes? These emotions, a result of our sentient human nature and not religious beliefs (which many people don't believe in), cause us to think critically, relate to each other and work for the peace and prosperity of all.

What about our own experiences that we suffer through and learn from? We certainly don't get all our human experiences from the "good" book. If anything, the experiences in religious narratives are based on the real experiences of people in the past.

Religion has obviously impacted the morality of certain groups, but morality is by no means the result of religion. Religious morality is not much more than shallow me-too altruism to a set of standards which are continuously changed and manipulated by religious institutions. Religions are not perfect--hence everyone disagreeing about them--and thus basing one's morals on religion alone is dangerous (e.g., terrorists). It is much better to think for yourself. How else would atheists and agnostics be functional members of society without stealing, murdering, raping, lying, etc.?

home schooled much?

If we were murderous savages before religion, all religion taught us is how to be murderous savages as a group, against other groups.

If you want to call that "cooperation" fine.

I'm glad I've outgrown such things.

ya know it would probably be great for the economy, we have seen the weddings gay men have designed for others, imagine the weddings we would design for ourselves.

"Try to make yourself appear larger, as to intimidate the gays."

Bahaha. I love satire. :)

that was my favorite part also

Maybe just because not all Gay's are black but let me see

Denial of rights, discrimination, unfair employment, unfair representation in the government and military, discriminatory names, and unconstitutional laws banning marriage amongst other things

I don't see any similarities to blacks and their suffrage for civil rights

It is a genetic difference, just how being African American is genetic,

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071107170741.htm

Did prop 8 get overturned?

Why did I get voted down? I'm not trying to make some kind of smart ass comment. I lost track of how it was going quite a while ago, I didn't bother to catch up to what had happened, so I'm asking a question about it.

It should be a fair world, but unfortunately it hasn't been in the past and it isn't now.

Yes! I find it ludicrious that there is still today so much relectance to just accept LGBT people! It makes me so angry at the amount of articles/stories/instances there are of people hating them! Although I am not gay, bi, or transgender myself I just can not understand how people can be so stupid and cruel!

"no one questions the marriage of two atheists"

Never even thought of that... thanks for that.

We would just be giving them the option to marry like the rest of us, that is what is fair.
That is the right you have, and that is the right they deserve

It's pretty obvious that you do care how people live their lives. If you didn't, things like this wouldn't be upsetting for you.

I never said you wanted their homes invaded. But, you do want their rights to be controlled and invaded. By not allowing homosexual marriage, you're restraining their personal freedoms and rights.

Well, I'm glad you have a really good idea on what a homosexual couple needs. EQUALITY is what we're after here. Your marriage and the marriage of two men or women should be put on the same level and be created EQUAL.

It's sad to say, but with attitudes like yours, we're not a country of equality. At all.

I don't care about freedom? Bahahaha. You're hilarious. :)

I don't care about freedom, but I want two consenting adults to be FREE to marry? Yes, I disagree with your points, because I have the FREEDOM to do so. You say that I don't care about freedom because I'm not "tolerating" a different opinion from my own, but you aren't "tolerating" my opinion either. I never said people of opposing opinions should be gunned down, or anything of the sort.

You can disagree with this topic all day long. FREEDOM and EQUALITY are rights every human being deserves. By not allowing homosexual marriage, you not only are taking away their equality, but you are also taking away their freedom.

Okay, whatever.

e·qual·i·ty–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

Didn't you say earlier that we are all created equal because we were all created by God? So, what kind of equality is that?

I disagree on your point that:
"by demanding the legalization of gay marriage, you are asking -me-, as a member of this polis, to validate their union."

Really, advocating gay marriage does not do this at all. Instead, this advocacy asks the government to calidate their union. You and I and everyone do not have to accept this marriage as valid (no more than the local lemonade stands have to accept 100 dollar bills), that rejection is moot if the government accepts it.

And you later say "gays do not need legal marriages in order to live any way that they want.... Their freedoms are not being inhibited."

Marriage is a right, and you know it. If it wasn't, then congress could immediately declare ALL marriage invalid, leaving all previously married people with lower insurance benefits, no social security checks for spouses, as well as transferring all custody of all children to only their mothers, because they were never married.
It is a right. Don't be foolish.

But that isn't the point here. The point isn't accepting the gay lifestyle as an individual, but accepting on a national (in other words: legal under the law) scale the validity of gay marriage. You can reject it as much as you want, but in the end the national acceptance holds the only power.

Bottom line: You seem to be a strong advocate of the Constitution, and from your posts elsewhere (I have seen them before) show that you also advocate amending the Constitution. That is what we are discussing here. Many (Unofficially, most) believe that gay marriage should be legally recognized as legitimate. This would most likely mean AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION (At least that is what I am supporting).

(also, you's trollin')

you talk about gays as if theyre animals, not humans. cohabitate? wtf kind of monster are you?

Not a single parson is asking you to validate anything.
The topic is same-sex marriage, as a legal document.
It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with you.

Except, of course, that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
Marriage IS a right.

Why should mixed-race marriages be considered equal to same-race marriages?
FOR THE SAME REASON.
Yes, the only guaranteed equality is status under the law.
THAT IS THE TOPIC UNDER DISCUSSION.

Beautiful!!!

This is sarcastic right?

It's meant to be satirical. It's trying to take some of the major points for why homosexuality is viewed as wrong, and show why the statement is ridiculous.

In no way was this supposed to be serious and against gay marriage.

Sorry for any confusion!

It's ok I thought so...I've seen so many of those...it just made sense. Thanks for compiling a list...it makes the explanations look even worse when you look at all them together.