Are Gay relationships morally acceptable?

[Cire]

Undoubtedly they will be granted these rights in a majority of states some day.  Then we can laugh and call dirty sanchez a bigot.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

[Dirty Sanchez]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

Bingo

[Dirty Sanchez]

Undoubtedly they will be granted these rights in a majority of states some day.  Then we can laugh and call dirty sanchez a bigot.

Definition of "bigot": someone who wins an argument with a lib.

[Saulbadguy]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha. 

[CHONGS]

lol at 'the gays'.   who uses 'the blank' when describing a group and is not a full-on bigot

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha. 

Only to the GLBT crowd. They won't settle for anything less than marriage, even if a civil union is the same thing. On the other side, it is a religious belief. You figure out who is being uncompromising.

[michigancat]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha. 

Only to the GLBT crowd. They won't settle for anything less than marriage, even if a civil union is the same thing. On the other side, it is a religious belief. You figure out who is being uncompromising.

So the Christianists would be fine with government doing away with "marriages" between heterosexuals and only allow civil unions for everyone?  I'm guessing not.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

lol at 'the gays'.   who uses 'the blank' when describing a group and is not a full-on bigot

 , you just made a fool of yourself.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha. 

Only to the GLBT crowd. They won't settle for anything less than marriage, even if a civil union is the same thing. On the other side, it is a religious belief. You figure out who is being uncompromising.

So the Christianists would be fine with government doing away with "marriages" between heterosexuals and only allow civil unions for everyone?  I'm guessing not.

I am all for the government treating all human unions the same, including marriage. But I don't believe all unions should be mandated as a marriage simply because it is a religious ceremony.

[Saulbadguy]

Eh, just easier to call them all marriages.  Marriage is hardly a religious institution. 

[Sugar Dick]

The reason "the gays" aren't getting their way is because they're trying to force everyone into saying that being "the gay" is totally okay(gay guy voice).  If they'd just take the equal legal rights and call it "civil union" they'd have the same rights as "the straights" today. 

IMO, this isn't what "the gays" really want.  What they really want is the government to say that being "the gay" is normal and the same as being "the straight".  In a bassackwards way what "the gays" are trying to do is legislate that their "lifestyle" (for lack of a better word) is no different than anyone else's.  Obviously a lot of people have a problem with this as it is in complete contradiction to the majority of "the straights" religion, morals, and/or ability to stomach the thought of two dudes ass ramming each other.  What they're doing is dragging religion into the argument when they need it as far away as possible.

My take:  nobody likes being told what to do, and they certainly don't like being told what to believe.  Stop trying to force people to believe something they don't.  If equal rights is really what you want, take the equal rights.


Sidebar:  I've read, "only god can give you rights" a lot in these asinine political threads.  I was watching "America:  The Story of Us" on History and they read the declaration of independence and noticed that's basically what it says in the preamble.  I finally get it  , never understood how that always got dropped in these things.

Question:  Can you be an "evolutionist" and believe people are born "the gay"?  Seems like they'd of been extinct awhile ago.

Also, why do people drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?

Sincerely,

The Sweetest tasting Dick this side of the Miss'ippi

[SkinnyBenny]

The reason "the gays" aren't getting their way is because they're trying to force everyone into saying that being "the gay" is totally okay(gay guy voice).  If they'd just take the equal legal rights and call it "civil union" they'd have the same rights as "the straights" today. 

IMO, this isn't what "the gays" really want.  What they really want is the government to say that being "the gay" is normal and the same as being "the straight".  In a bassackwards way what "the gays" are trying to do is legislate that their "lifestyle" (for lack of a better word) is no different than anyone else's.  Obviously a lot of people have a problem with this as it is in complete contradiction to the majority of "the straights" religion, morals, and/or ability to stomach the thought of two dudes ass ramming each other.  What they're doing is dragging religion into the argument when they need it as far away as possible.

My take:  nobody likes being told what to do, and they certainly don't like being told what to believe.  Stop trying to force people to believe something they don't.  If equal rights is really what you want, take the equal rights.


Sidebar:  I've read, "only god can give you rights" a lot in these asinine political threads.  I was watching "America:  The Story of Us" on History and they read the declaration of independence and noticed that's basically what it says in the preamble.  I finally get it  , never understood how that always got dropped in these things.

Question:  Can you be an "evolutionist" and believe people are born "the gay"?  Seems like they'd of have been extinct awhile ago.

Also, why do people drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?

Sincerely,

The Sweetest tasting Dick this side of the Miss'ippi

   FYP, bro!   

[Dirty Sanchez]

Sidebar:  I've read, "only god can give you rights" a lot in these asinine political threads.  I was watching "America:  The Story of Us" on History and they read the declaration of independence and noticed that's basically what it says in the preamble.  I finally get it  , never understood how that always got dropped in these things.

How old are you?  Pretty sad if you didn't know this and you are older than 12.

[michigancat]

sugar dick, lots of gays have hetero sex.  Probably because society has told them homosexuality is icky.

[Tannoudji]

No.  The issue is in black and white.

Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death

Romans 1:26-27:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions: for their women exchanged the natural use for that which is against nature.  And in the same way also the men abandoned the natural use of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error."

I Corinthians 6:9:
"The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God. So do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the realm of God."

I Timothy 1:9-10:
"Law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and fornicators and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound (healthy) teaching."

[Pete]

Question:  Can you be an "evolutionist" and believe people are born "the gay"?  Seems like they'd of been extinct awhile ago.

Not sure what you mean by "evolution," because the term has evolved a great deal from it's early days as a hypothesis through later 20th century days as a viable to theory, to current day as an empirically proven fact.

Homosexuality is frequent in animals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/7735232/Can-animals-be-gay.html

If anything, the lower natural rate of homosexual occurrence in species versus heterosexual is evidence of evolution at work.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Question:  Can you be an "evolutionist" and believe people are born "the gay"?  Seems like they'd of been extinct awhile ago.

I have posed this question to all of my gay friends, and got the same answer from all of them. They all new from the first sexual feeling they had that they were "the gay", but all of them have also had hetero relationships. So I do believe you are born "the gay".

[Festus the Purple Swan]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha. 

Only to the GLBT crowd. They won't settle for anything less than marriage, even if a civil union is the same thing. On the other side, it is a religious belief. You figure out who is being uncompromising.

In most places a civil union NOT the same thing legally.  The entire legal system is based on words having meaning.  If A means the same thing as B (legally speaking) then why have two different words?  Its simply an attempt to create something which is like a marriage but lesser in legal value.  If you don't think gay people should enjoy the same legal rights (simply because of how they were born) as straight people then have a weak heart and mind. 

If it is called a "marriage" who does it hurt?  How does it make anyone else's marriage less meaningful?

[Festus the Purple Swan]

The reason "the gays" aren't getting their way is because they're trying to force everyone into saying that being "the gay" is totally okay(gay guy voice).  If they'd just take the equal legal rights and call it "civil union" they'd have the same rights as "the straights" today. 

IMO, this isn't what "the gays" really want.  What they really want is the government to say that being "the gay" is normal and the same as being "the straight".  In a bassackwards way what "the gays" are trying to do is legislate that their "lifestyle" (for lack of a better word) is no different than anyone else's.  Obviously a lot of people have a problem with this as it is in complete contradiction to the majority of "the straights" religion, morals, and/or ability to stomach the thought of two dudes ass ramming each other.  What they're doing is dragging religion into the argument when they need it as far away as possible.

My take:  nobody likes being told what to do, and they certainly don't like being told what to believe.  Stop trying to force people to believe something they don't.  If equal rights is really what you want, take the equal rights.


Sidebar:  I've read, "only god can give you rights" a lot in these asinine political threads.  I was watching "America:  The Story of Us" on History and they read the declaration of independence and noticed that's basically what it says in the preamble.  I finally get it  , never understood how that always got dropped in these things.

Question:  Can you be an "evolutionist" and believe people are born "the gay"?  Seems like they'd of been extinct awhile ago.

Also, why do people drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?

Sincerely,

The Sweetest tasting Dick this side of the Miss'ippi

Being gay is 100% natural.  It IS ok to be gay.

Basically you don't think gay people should have the same rights as straight people because you find it icky?

Also, you don't understand evolution at all.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha. 

Only to the GLBT crowd. They won't settle for anything less than marriage, even if a civil union is the same thing. On the other side, it is a religious belief. You figure out who is being uncompromising.

In most places a civil union NOT the same thing legally.  The entire legal system is based on words having meaning.  If A means the same thing as B (legally speaking) then why have two different words?  Its simply an attempt to create something which is like a marriage but lesser in legal value.  If you don't think gay people should enjoy the same legal rights (simply because of how they were born) as straight people then have a weak heart and mind. 

If it is called a "marriage" who does it hurt?  How does it make anyone else's marriage less meaningful?

My argument is that civil unions could be the same legally if they were willing to compromise on the nomenclature.  If they would just say "we want civil unions that are equal to marriage", they would probably have them already. They are not going to change peoples religious beliefs about marriage being between a man and a woman.

[Saulbadguy]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha. 

Only to the GLBT crowd. They won't settle for anything less than marriage, even if a civil union is the same thing. On the other side, it is a religious belief. You figure out who is being uncompromising.

In most places a civil union NOT the same thing legally.  The entire legal system is based on words having meaning.  If A means the same thing as B (legally speaking) then why have two different words?  Its simply an attempt to create something which is like a marriage but lesser in legal value.  If you don't think gay people should enjoy the same legal rights (simply because of how they were born) as straight people then have a weak heart and mind. 

If it is called a "marriage" who does it hurt?  How does it make anyone else's marriage less meaningful?

My argument is that civil unions could be the same legally if they were willing to compromise on the nomenclature.  If they would just say "we want civil unions that are equal to marriage", they would probably have them already. They are not going to change peoples religious beliefs about marriage being between a man and a woman.

Again, marriage isn't a religious entity.  You can get married at a courthouse.  I got married outside, not in a church, and did not have a religious ceremony.

Am I married, or just unionized?

[SkinnyBenny]

I think if the gays would agree to call their unions something other than marriage, they would get much further, much quicker. Even in a state as liberal as California, the majority of people believe the word "marriage" indicates a religious union between a man and a woman.


They also need to stop with the "hate" speech. Every time they don't get their way, it's because everyone who disagrees with  their agenda "hates" gays, which is a fallacy.

So it's basically semantics. Gotcha.  

Only to the GLBT crowd. They won't settle for anything less than marriage, even if a civil union is the same thing. On the other side, it is a religious belief. You figure out who is being uncompromising.

In most places a civil union NOT the same thing legally.  The entire legal system is based on words having meaning.  If A means the same thing as B (legally speaking) then why have two different words?  Its simply an attempt to create something which is like a marriage but lesser in legal value.  If you don't think gay people should enjoy the same legal rights (simply because of how they were born) as straight people then have a weak heart and mind.  

If it is called a "marriage" who does it hurt?  How does it make anyone else's marriage less meaningful?

My argument is that civil unions could be the same legally if they were willing to compromise on the nomenclature.  If they would just say "we want civil unions that are equal to marriage", they would probably have them already. They are not going to change peoples religious beliefs about marriage being between a man and a woman.

They shouldn't have to compromise.  First of all, many religions believe it is okay to be gay.  Do those religions have less validity?  Secondly, if the nomenclature "marriage" is used in completely non-religious courthouse ceremonies, that makes it not necessarily a religious term.

Sorry, bro!   

[Goldbrick]

The nature versus nurture question of homosexuality is still very much up in the air.

[SkinnyBenny]

Yes, because straight parents only raise straight children.