Homosexuality

[windovervocalcords]

your right allows you to marry the person of your choice. we do not have that option to marry who we choice. the government is telling us who we have to select from. but you knew that and think it is a joke. it isn't a joke. so this statement i respond to is infantile.

katie--

The poster is playing games and doesn't support marriage equality legislation. IMO it's not worth talking to this fellow.

 

[katiegrrl0]

“we do not have the right to marry who we choose.” - katiegrrl0

And you still have the exact same rights to marry as heterosexuals.

“i don't think heterosexuals are told who they can choice to marry.” - katiegrrl0

Of course we are. We may not marry family members, children or someone who is already married. Nor may we marry someone of the same-sex. These laws apply equally to everyone.

“homosexuals in the US are second class citizens as they pay taxes but because of the marriage laws stacked against them they can not have the same tax benefits as heterosexual married people.” - katiegrrl0

This may be a great reason to change tax laws but is not an appropriate justification for bastardizing marriage laws.

“i would say that homosexuals are told in many ways everyday that they are less. so yes i would say that only recently are we as a group being treated better.” - katiegrrl0

I would say that you are probably right.

“i am married to my wife but was married outside of the US.” - katiegrrl0

Then you are not married.

yes i am married anywhere i go. your marriage in your country is accepted in my country. my marriage in my country is accepted in the US as well.

some heterosexuals think it is a joke and they twist words to make is sound as if we have rights. we do not. you would understand if tomorrow the state told you that you needed to be married to a man to have marriage rights.

i read childish statements all the time from heterosexual couple who are just afraid of homosexuals. it is fear of change that makes so many straight people afraid to share the human rights. in the end even in the puritanical US homosexuals will marry in same sex relationships.

 

[The Baron]

"The poster is playing games and doesn't support marriage equality legislation. IMO it's not worth talking to this fellow." - windovervocalcords

Don't you think this undermines the whole purpose of participating on a debate site?

 

[katiegrrl0]

katie--

The poster is playing games and doesn't support marriage equality legislation. IMO it's not worth talking to this fellow.

i know. many like to play with words and think it is a joke. it's okay in the end you have won as i have won. the rest will be made legal soon enough.

 

[katiegrrl0]

"The poster is playing games and doesn't support marriage equality legislation. IMO it's not worth talking to this fellow." - windovervocalcords

Don't you think this undermines the whole purpose of participating on a debate site?

a debate is about issues not about semantics. you choose not to debate you choose to play word game. you know what the nuances are. you know what we are saying yet you hang onto this word game. this is not debate it is an experience in mental masturbation, going back and forth to no end.

 

[winston53660]

heterosexuals think it is a joke. they twist words to make is sound as if we have rights. we do not. you would understand if tomorrow the state told you that you needed to be married to a man to have marriage rights.


.

Aheeeemmm I'm heterosexual and I fully support gay marriage.

 

[Singularity]

“That would be incorrect, as not all marriages are recognized by every country, nor is recognition on such a scale a defining attribute of marriage.” – Singularity

Do tell.

“If you decide to marry someone of the opposite sex, it's marriage.” – Singularity

Correct.

“If a homosexual couple decides to get married, it's still marriage.” – Singularity

Incorrect.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont (beginning September 1, 2009) and Maine (beginning mid-September 2009), and New Hampshire are states that either legally recognize gay marriage everywhere or are in the process of legalization. New York and Washington, DC recognize marriages by same-sex couples legally performed elsewhere. Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and South Africa recognize as equivalent marriage between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples. This number is sure to increase as time goes on.

So, the next time someone makes the argument that homosexuals have both legal marriages and those currently not recognized as legal, now you know that they do. I can provide links if you wish to read more about which states and countries recognize same sex marriage. Or you can google them yourself.

You're welcome.

 

[katiegrrl0]

Aheeeemmm I'm heterosexual and I fully support gay marriage.

i have corrected my very wrong statement. all heterosexuals are not cut from the same cloth. many in fact do support same sex marriage and it is with that support that one day we will over come this difficult issue. Thanks winston for pointing that out.

 

[The Baron]

“yes i am married anywhere i go. your marriage in your country is accepted in my country. my marriage in my country is accepted in the US as well.” - katiegrrl0

In some states, yes. Outside of those and you would not be considered married (and there are some in those states that would not consider you married).

“heterosexuals think it is a joke. they twist words to make is sound as if we have rights. we do not. you would understand if tomorrow the state told you that you needed to be married to a man to have marriage rights.” - katiegrrl0

No joke. Citizens of this country all have the exact same rights.

“i read childish statements all the time from heterosexual couple who are just afraid of homosexuals.” - katiegrrl0

I don’t know who you’re hanging-out with, but I personally don’t know anyone whose afraid of a homosexual person.

So you’ll have to come up with something better than some imagined, unreasonable phobia as a reason why most people don’t share your opinion.

“it is fear of change that makes so many straight people afraid to share the human rights.” – katiegrrl0

See above.

And exactly what human rights of yours are being denied? The last I heard human rights included such things as the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality under the law, etc.
I don’t recall homosexual marriage ever being defined as a “human right” (or even heterosexual marriage for that matter).

“in the end even in the puritanical US homosexuals will marry in same sex relationships.” - katiegrrl0

I’m afraid you’re right.

“a debate is about issues not about semantics. you choose not to debate you choose to play word game. you know what the nuances are. you know what we are saying yet you hang onto this word game.” - katiegrrl0

Pointing out the obvious is far from a “nuanced word game”.

On the other hand, I’ve yet to see you justify your position. Exactly why do you think marriage should be changed into something it has never been before regardless of country, religion, culture, background, geography, etc.

Marriage is a sacred and has been instituted by God.

What makes you think you have the right to change it?

 

[The Baron]

“So, the next time someone makes the argument that homosexuals have both legal marriages and those currently not recognized as legal, now you know that they do. I can provide links if you wish to read more about which states and countries recognize same sex marriage.” – Singularity

Perhaps I misunderstood your original comment. When you said that not all “marriages are recognized by every country, nor is recognition on such a scale a defining attribute of marriage”, I thought you only meant heterosexual marriages as that is what my comments were referring to.

To the very best of my knowledge I know that my own marriage is recognized everywhere in the world just as every other heterosexual marriage is.

That is not true for homosexual marriages as your own post so aptly demonstrates.

Thank you.

 

[Singularity]

And exactly what human rights of yours are being denied? The last I heard human rights included such things as the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality under the law, etc.
I don’t recall homosexual marriage ever being defined as a “human right” (or even heterosexual marriage for that matter).

Human right? Debatable. Civil right? Most definitely.

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Earl Warren, LOVING v. VIRGINIA

On the other hand, I’ve yet to see you justify your position. Exactly why do you think marriage should be changed into something it has never been before regardless of country, religion, culture, background, geography, etc.

This would be incorrect. Different forms of marriage - including homosexual marriage - has been recognized in certain civilizations. Your bible tells of one, too, correct?

Marriage is a sacred and has been instituted by God.

What makes you think you have the right to change it?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Marriage is not solely an "institution of God" (read: the Christian god), as many other cultures throughout history who did not believe in your particular god engaged in marriage. The same holds true today. Marriage is not and has never been the exclusive property of Christianity.

We have the right to change it because we disagree with the current definition. Marriage may mean "one woman and one man" to you. But to me and millions of others, it means something different. And since marriage is not the exclusive property of the religious, we seek to eliminate such wording and advance the cause of others who wish to participate in it.

 

[Singularity]

“So, the next time someone makes the argument that homosexuals have both legal marriages and those currently not recognized as legal, now you know that they do. I can provide links if you wish to read more about which states and countries recognize same sex marriage.” – Singularity

Perhaps I misunderstood your original comment. When you said that not all “marriages are recognized by every country, nor is recognition on such a scale a defining attribute of marriage”, I thought you only meant heterosexual marriages as that is what my comments were referring to.

To the very best of my knowledge I know that my own marriage is recognized everywhere in the world just as every other heterosexual marriage is.

That is not true for homosexual marriages as your own post so aptly demonstrates.

Thank you.

And yet, those homosexuals who are married are indeed married. Legal recognition is all good, but two homosexuals who have the ceremony are just as married as any heterosexual couple.

I understand that you may be against homosexual marriage. That's fine, your opinion is your own. But I disagree with your assessment that homosexual marriage is not marriage, because it most certainly is. And I think that I suffienciently showed you why.

 

[katiegrrl0]

“yes i am married anywhere i go. your marriage in your country is accepted in my country. my marriage in my country is accepted in the US as well.” - katiegrrl0

In some states, yes. Outside of those and you would not be considered married (and there are some in those states that would not consider you married).

“heterosexuals think it is a joke. they twist words to make is sound as if we have rights. we do not. you would understand if tomorrow the state told you that you needed to be married to a man to have marriage rights.” - katiegrrl0

No joke. Citizens of this country all have the exact same rights.

“i read childish statements all the time from heterosexual couple who are just afraid of homosexuals.” - katiegrrl0

I don’t know who you’re hanging-out with, but I personally don’t know anyone whose afraid of a homosexual person.

So you’ll have to come up with something better than some imagined, unreasonable phobia as a reason why most people don’t share your opinion.

“it is fear of change that makes so many straight people afraid to share the human rights.” – katiegrrl0

See above.

And exactly what human rights of yours are being denied? The last I heard human rights included such things as the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equality under the law, etc.
I don’t recall homosexual marriage ever being defined as a “human right” (or even heterosexual marriage for that matter).

“in the end even in the puritanical US homosexuals will marry in same sex relationships.” - katiegrrl0

I’m afraid you’re right.

“a debate is about issues not about semantics. you choose not to debate you choose to play word game. you know what the nuances are. you know what we are saying yet you hang onto this word game.” - katiegrrl0

Pointing out the obvious is far from a “nuanced word game”.

On the other hand, I’ve yet to see you justify your position. Exactly why do you think marriage should be changed into something it has never been before regardless of country, religion, culture, background, geography, etc.

Marriage is a sacred and has been instituted by God.

What makes you think you have the right to change it?

in the US i do care that marriage should include same sex. it will happen soon enough. as for me i am now from another country and am no longer subject to the puritanical doctrine of a nation that seems to think it wants to be a theocracy. a nation that in many ways cringes at the very thought of sexuality. i am out from under the thumb of this so to me it matters not.

but as a homosexual it matters. it matters as much as the treatment of woman in Islam. it matters as much as fighting for equal pay for equal pay for equal work for woman. it matters as much as keeping abortion a safe option for woman. it matters as much as man and women being held and tortured in places as political prisoners. it all matters.

you still play word games and that is not debate. i thank you for your attempt at debate but i am done with word games with you. debate issues or do a crossword puzzle. one or the other because both at the same time seems not to be working for you.

 

[windovervocalcords]

in the US i do care that marriage should include same sex. it will happen soon enough. as for me i am now from another country and am no longer subject to the puritanical doctrine of a nation that seems to think it wants to be a theocracy. a nation that in many ways cringes at the very thought of sexuality. i am out from under the thumb of this so to me it matters not.

but as a homosexual it matters. it matters as much as the treatment of woman in Islam. it matters as much as fighting for equal pay for equal pay for equal work for woman. it matters as much as keeping abortion a safe option for woman. it matters as much as man and women being held and tortured in places as political prisoners. it all matters.

you still play word games and that is not debate. i thank you for your attempt at debate but i am done with word games with you. debate issues or do a crossword puzzle. one or the other because both at the same time seems not to be working for you.

Katie--

Marshall Rosenberg claims to be able to resolve a dispute among any two people or any two groups in 20 minutes the moment that both sides are able to communicate their needs and the needs of the other side.

Most of us are not trained in needs literacy. That makes discussions and debates on politics extremely limited.

 

[The Baron]

“’The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.’ - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Earl Warren, LOVING v. VIRGINIA” – Singularity

And Loving vs. Virginia dealt with heterosexual marriage exclusively and in no way pertained to homosexual marriage.

Context, please.

“This would be incorrect. Different forms of marriage - including homosexual marriage - has been recognized in certain civilizations. Your bible tells of one, too, correct?” – Singularity

Please enlighten us.

“Marriage is not solely an ‘institution of God’” – Singularity

I didn’t say that. I said it was “instituted by God”.

“…as many other cultures throughout history who did not believe in your particular god engaged in marriage. The same holds true today. Marriage is and has never been the exclusive property of Christianity.” – Singularity

Which is the exact same point I made in an earlier post. Marriage has always existed between men and women regardless of country, culture, religion, time, geography, etc.

“We have the right to change it because we disagree with the current definition.” – Singularity

I couldn’t disagree more that you have the “right”. Whether or not is will be changed remains to be seen but it will be changed only at the expense of marriage as an institution.

“Marriage may mean 'one woman and one man' to you. But to me and millions of others, it means something different.” – Singularity

Then you are not talking about a “marriage”.

“And since marriage is not the exclusive property of the religious, we seek to eliminate such wording and advance the cause of others who wish to participate in it.” – Singularity

So marriage in now sufficiently the property of the irreligious that it may be changed to support the whims of cultural movement du jour?

“And yet, those homosexuals who are married are indeed married. Legal recognition is all good, but two homosexuals who have the ceremony are just as married as any heterosexual couple.” – Singularity

That is a very debatable matter and you are simply sharing a personal opinion.

“I understand that you may be against homosexual marriage. That's fine, your opinion is your own. But I disagree with your assessment that homosexual marriage is not marriage, because it most certainly is. And I think that I suffienciently showed you why.” - Singularity

I will politely disagree.

 

[katiegrrl0]

“’The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.’ - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Earl Warren, LOVING v. VIRGINIA” – Singularity

And Loving vs. Virginia dealt with heterosexual marriage exclusively and in no way pertained to homosexual marriage.

Context, please.

“This would be incorrect. Different forms of marriage - including homosexual marriage - has been recognized in certain civilizations. Your bible tells of one, too, correct?” – Singularity

Please enlighten us.

“Marriage is not solely an ‘institution of God’” – Singularity

I didn’t say that. I said it was “instituted by God”.

“…as many other cultures throughout history who did not believe in your particular god engaged in marriage. The same holds true today. Marriage is and has never been the exclusive property of Christianity.” – Singularity

Which is the exact same point I made in an earlier post. Marriage has always existed between men and women regardless of country, culture, religion, time, geography, etc.

“We have the right to change it because we disagree with the current definition.” – Singularity

I couldn’t disagree more that you have the “right”. Whether or not is will be changed remains to be seen but it will be changed only at the expense of marriage as an institution.

“Marriage may mean 'one woman and one man' to you. But to me and millions of others, it means something different.” – Singularity

Then you are not talking about a “marriage”.

“And since marriage is not the exclusive property of the religious, we seek to eliminate such wording and advance the cause of others who wish to participate in it.” – Singularity

So marriage in now sufficiently the property of the irreligious that it may be changed to support the whims of cultural movement du jour?

“And yet, those homosexuals who are married are indeed married. Legal recognition is all good, but two homosexuals who have the ceremony are just as married as any heterosexual couple.” – Singularity

That is a very debatable matter and you are simply sharing a personal opinion.

“I understand that you may be against homosexual marriage. That's fine, your opinion is your own. But I disagree with your assessment that homosexual marriage is not marriage, because it most certainly is. And I think that I suffienciently showed you why.” - Singularity

I will politely disagree.

you may disagree with all of us who stand up for same sex marriage and for the time the law is on your side. soon like abortion the law will not be on your side and it will never go back.

 

[katiegrrl0]

Katie--

Marshall Rosenberg claims to be able to resolve a dispute among any two people or any two groups in 20 minutes the moment that both sides are able to communicate their needs and the needs of the other side.

Most of us are not trained in needs literacy. That makes discussions and debates on politics extremely limited.

it is limited. it gets very difficult to debate people when they would prefer to discuss words and sentence structure rather than issues. than they somehow get the idea that they are correct. it is frustrating when you can type for hours and say nothing toward the issue.

 

[The Baron]

“in the US i do care that marriage should include same sex. it will happen soon enough. as for me i am now from another country and am no longer subject to the puritanical doctrine of a nation that seems to think it wants to be a theocracy. a nation that in many ways cringes at the very thought of sexuality. i am out from under the thumb of this so to me it matters not.” - katiegrrl0

So you do care about marriage in the US but then--by the end of the same paragraph--you don’t care about marriage in the US.

This is very confusing.

“but as a homosexual it matters. it matters as much as the treatment of woman in Islam. it matters as much as fighting for equal pay for equal pay for equal work for woman. it matters as much as keeping abortion a safe option for woman. it matters as much as man and women being held and tortured in places as political prisoners. it all matters.” - katiegrrl0

Now you’re making an illogical and emotional appeal by lumping in a bunch of unrelated subjects to confuse matters.

But, at least, you care about marriage in the US…again (I think).

“you still play word games and that is not debate. i thank you for your attempt at debate but i am done with word games with you. debate issues or do a crossword puzzle. one or the other because both at the same time seems not to be working for you.” - katiegrrl0

Uh-huh. Gotcha.

 

[The Baron]

“Marshall Rosenberg claims to be able to resolve a dispute among any two people or any two groups in 20 minutes the moment that both sides are able to communicate their needs and the needs of the other side.

Most of us are not trained in needs literacy. That makes discussions and debates on politics extremely limited.” – windovervocalcords

Not true.

I’ve seen people debate here all the time.

You’d be surprised.

 

[The Baron]

"it is limited. it gets very difficult to debate people when they would prefer to discuss words and sentence structure rather than issues. than they somehow get the idea that they are correct. it is frustrating when you can type for hours and say nothing toward the issue." - katiegrrl0

By all means, what do you see as being the issues of this subject?

 

[katiegrrl0]

“in the US i do care that marriage should include same sex. it will happen soon enough. as for me i am now from another country and am no longer subject to the puritanical doctrine of a nation that seems to think it wants to be a theocracy. a nation that in many ways cringes at the very thought of sexuality. i am out from under the thumb of this so to me it matters not.” - katiegrrl0

So you do care about marriage in the US but then--by the end of the same paragraph--you don’t care about marriage in the US.

This is very confusing.

“but as a homosexual it matters. it matters as much as the treatment of woman in Islam. it matters as much as fighting for equal pay for equal pay for equal work for woman. it matters as much as keeping abortion a safe option for woman. it matters as much as man and women being held and tortured in places as political prisoners. it all matters.” - katiegrrl0

Now you’re making an illogical and emotional appeal by lumping in a bunch of unrelated subjects to confuse matters.

But, at least, you care about marriage in the US…again (I think).

“you still play word games and that is not debate. i thank you for your attempt at debate but i am done with word games with you. debate issues or do a crossword puzzle. one or the other because both at the same time seems not to be working for you.” - katiegrrl0

Uh-huh. Gotcha.

i care about the people the US marriage laws have no control over me.

 

[The Baron]

"i care about the people the US marriage laws have no control over me." - katiegrrl0

With all due respect, who cares.

What do you see as the "issues" of this subject?

 

[Singularity]

“’The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.’ - Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Earl Warren, LOVING v. VIRGINIA” – Singularity

And Loving vs. Virginia dealt with heterosexual marriage exclusively and in no way pertained to homosexual marriage.

Context, please.

Nowhere in Loving v Virginia does it specifically say 'heterosexual marriage', so your context argument is nullified. In addition, my reply was to illustrate that marriage has been defined as a right, something you seemed to ardently deny when you typed "I don’t recall homosexual marriage ever being defined as a “human right” (or even heterosexual marriage for that matter)." (Post #84). Human right? Debatable. But civil right? Most definitely.

“This would be incorrect. Different forms of marriage - including homosexual marriage - has been recognized in certain civilizations. Your bible tells of one, too, correct?” – Singularity

Please enlighten us.

Certainly. The city of Sodom, correct? My biblical history is a bit rusty, but weren't they facing the wrath of your deity simply because they engaged in homosexuality? Then there is the Roman Empire, which did recognize homosexual marriages at one point in their history. And what about polygamy? That is certainly one of the different forms of marriage I am speaking of.

[“Marriage is not solely an ‘institution of God’” – Singularity

I didn’t say that. I said it was “instituted by God”.

I have seen no proof anywhere beyond the word of your particular scriptures and their supporters which makes this claim. I am not knocking your religion, but you must realize that other cultures that did not worship in your way also engaged in marriage. While it is certainly acceptable that you believe that marriage is tied to your deity, I do not.

“…as many other cultures throughout history who did not believe in your particular god engaged in marriage. The same holds true today. Marriage is and has never been the exclusive property of Christianity.” – Singularity

Which is the exact same point I made in an earlier post. Marriage has always existed between men and women regardless of country, culture, religion, time, geography, etc.

Than you agree that marriage has always been malleable, too, as it has included not only one man and one woman, but two women and one man, two men, two women, and many other combinations throughout various civilizations in our history.

“We have the right to change it because we disagree with the current definition.” – Singularity

I couldn’t disagree more that you have the “right”. Whether or not is will be changed remains to be seen but it will be changed only at the expense of marriage as an institution.

Not hardly. It will certainly demolish your particular definition of it, but the definition has changed throughout history, as I showed you.

“Marriage may mean 'one woman and one man' to you. But to me and millions of others, it means something different.” – Singularity

Then you are not talking about a “marriage”.

Yes I am.

“And yet, those homosexuals who are married are indeed married. Legal recognition is all good, but two homosexuals who have the ceremony are just as married as any heterosexual couple.” – Singularity

That is a very debatable matter and you are simply sharing a personal opinion.

As are you.

 

[katiegrrl0]

"i care about the people the US marriage laws have no control over me." - katiegrrl0

With all due respect, who cares.

What do you see as the "issues" of this subject?

the real issue is that most people homosexuals and heterosexuals stick their noses into everyone else's business. the issue is that there are now and always have been homosexuals. the number within the population as any given time is pretty much the same. why does anyone care? we are such a small piece of the pie? my real question is why to many heterosexuals fear us so much?

 

[Kelzie]

the real issue is that most people homosexuals and heterosexuals stick their noses into everyone else's business. the issue is that there are now and always have been homosexuals. the number within the population as any given time is pretty much the same. why does anyone care? we are such a small piece of the pie? my real question is why to many heterosexuals fear us so much?

Because you are different? Because they see themselves in you? My personal favorite is religious brainwashing. I've never met an athiest who opposes gay marriage.