Gay Marriage Debate - Cleveland, MS

No, Marriage is something that was founded based on religion. It is a covenant between a man and a woman before god. I believe that homosexuals shouldn't force us to change our views. If they want marriage, stop being gay. It's that simple. A man and women only can make life. You have to have both, why aren't they suing the government because 2 women or 2 men can't make a baby? They can't do so with out the other sex. They are forcing others to comprimise. There are limitations to every lifestyle. Should Pedophiles be allowed to marry 10 year old girls? What is the difference. Should we change the laws so that it isn't illegal to have sex and then marry children?
I mean no harm nor condem homosexuals, I ask they they be the same. Don't bastardize something that I hold sacred.

i'm curious, how does one stop being gay?

anon wrote:

i'm curious, how does one stop being gay?

easy, choose to not act on evil impulses. Kinda like recovering Pedophiles do. It's the same thing.

If marriage is founded on religion then what business does the government have granting marriage licenses to heterosexuals considering the government isn't supposed to get involved in religious matters?

"Marriage" in a legal context is just a contract with rights. If the name alone makes it religious then the governments needs to start referring to all marriages, straight or gay as "civil unions".

First off, pedophilia is not a lifestyle. Being gay is not a lifestyle or a choice matter.

Secondly, no one knows what exactly marriage is founded on. People were being married long before Christianity rolled around. Being married isn't about making children. It's about sharing your life with another person.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with what Madax states. Being religious is one thing but laws and government have no business being intertwined with religious overtones and ignorance.

anon wrote:

i'm curious, how does one stop being gay?

stop having sex with people of the same sex. See it's that simple and I am glad that I could be of assistance.

"stop having sex with people of the same sex. see, it's that simple."

when you say that, you make it seem like homosexuality is a choice. this is not just an argument against gay marriage. this is an argument against gays. Furthermore, if sexual orientation is a "choice", then it follows that heterosexuality is a choice too. Why should one "choice" be favored over another?

Incidentally, a person's religion is certainly a choice, yet we firmly protect that as a person's right.

no one bother arguing with this dude. he is a huge troll, and trying to point out any preponderance of evidence to him is just feeding the troll. hiiiii!

anon wrote:

"stop having sex with people of the same sex. see, it's that simple."
when you say that, you make it seem like homosexuality is a choice. this is not just an argument against gay marriage. this is an argument against gays. Furthermore, if sexual orientation is a "choice", then it follows that heterosexuality is a choice too. Why should one "choice" be favored over another?
Incidentally, a person's religion is certainly a choice, yet we firmly protect that as a person's right.
no one bother arguing with this dude. he is a huge troll, and trying to point out any preponderance of evidence to him is just feeding the troll. hiiiii!

"Why should one "choice" be favored over another?"

smoking crack is a choice. You smoke it or you don't. Would you agree it is fair to say that one choice should be favored over the other?

You see it is really simple, the act is a choice, the desire may not be but because it isn't doesn't make it right. Some people have a strong desire to rape women, to have sex with children, to have sex with animals, to take something that isn't theirs, to drive faster than what is considered safe, to drink anti-freeze. Does doing those things make it right because they did what they desired?

Incidentally, a person's religion is certainly a choice, yet we firmly protect that as a person's right.

There is freedom of religion, but that to has been turned around with the seperation of church and state argument. Which by the way isn't found in the constitution. that argument is being used to remove all reference to religion from state when the actual paper that was written that included the argument was ment to keep the State from interferring with religion.
Not sure why you brought up religion, it isn't helping your argument. It is mentioned in the constitution, having sex isn't and neither is marriage. It isn't a constitutional thing, gays have tried to defy states rights and the will of the people by trying to make it a constitutional argument. Some states voted to allow it and other didn't. Now there will be a decision and it will probably be that the court has no right interferring because there is no constitutional basis for it. When that happens, you won't even be allowed civil unions in most places, which I am not against.

Have a nice day and try again.

I am not anti-gay by the way, I could careless what choices a person makes as long as it doesn't have an effect on me. The only reason that I am in this argument is because someone is trying to force something on someone else, that would be gays in Califonia trying to force the rest (majority of the state) to conform to their beliefs and lifestyles. I am not for religion doing it and I am certainly not for homosexuals doing it.

BigDan wrote:

<quoted text>
"Why should one "choice" be favored over another?"
smoking crack is a choice. You smoke it or you don't. Would you agree it is fair to say that one choice should be favored over the other?
You see it is really simple, the act is a choice, the desire may not be but because it isn't doesn't make it right. Some people have a strong desire to rape women, to have sex with children, to have sex with animals, to take something that isn't theirs, to drive faster than what is considered safe, to drink anti-freeze. Does doing those things make it right because they did what they desired?
Incidentally, a person's religion is certainly a choice, yet we firmly protect that as a person's right.

I don't personally care if someone smokes crack or drinks anti-freeze but would say its a bad choice. As for the other things they violate other people's rights. Homosexuality doesn't violate anybody's rights and isn't even bad for your health.

There is freedom of religion, but that to has been turned around with the seperation of church and state argument. Which by the way isn't found in the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

You can NOT connect church and state and still have no law respecting an establishment of religion, because a law connecting church and state essentially respects an establishment of religion.

I am not anti-gay by the way, I could careless what choices a person makes as long as it doesn't have an effect on me. The only reason that I am in this argument is because someone is trying to force something on someone else, that would be gays in Califonia trying to force the rest (majority of the state) to conform to their beliefs and lifestyles. I am not for religion doing it and I am certainly not for homosexuals doing it.

Nobody is trying to force you to accept gays. In all the states that gay marriage is legal in churches can not be forced to hold gay marriage ceremonies if they don't want to. In fact a church can turn away any couple for what ever reason. There are still churches where interracial couples can't get married. Gay marriage is about legal equality, the right to sign a marriage contract with the county clerk not the right to a ceremony. They already have the right to a ceremony whenever a church decides to allow it. The issue is legal rights.

"The only reason that I am in this argument is because someone is trying to force something on someone else, that would be gays in Califonia trying to force the rest (majority of the state) to conform to their beliefs and lifestyles."

how so? just because gay marriage is legal, that doesn't make anyone conform to their beliefs or lifestyle. just as you said before, it's simple, right? if you don't support gay marriage, don't have one.:)

Also, when you compare being gay with having sex with children, raping women, having sex with animals, etc,- it isn't so much an argument about gay marriage on your part as it is a scare tactic and a demeaning remark about gays. Your remarks are inflammatory because you make it sound like homosexuals are less than human. That homosexuals aren't worthy of being allowed to marry, though heterosexuals are.

The real question isn't "if two men can marry, then why not a man and a pig," but rather, "if a man and a woman can marry, then why not a man and a pig?" How about "if a man and a woman can get married, why not a man and his sister?" A man and his sister would, after all, be an opposite-sex couple. Rhetorically, these questions are identical. Better still, "if a man and a woman can marry, then why not a man and a man?"

Our society ostensibly supports freedom, liberty, and equality under the law for everybody, which our great Constitution eloquently outlines. It is this equality which same-sex couples are seeking to secure in their efforts to legalize same-sex marriages.

Madax wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't personally care if someone smokes crack or drinks anti-freeze but would say its a bad choice. As for the other things they violate other people's rights. Homosexuality doesn't violate anybody's rights and isn't even bad for your health.
<quoted text>
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
You can NOT connect church and state and still have no law respecting an establishment of religion, because a law connecting church and state essentially respects an establishment of religion.
<quoted text>
Nobody is trying to force you to accept gays. In all the states that gay marriage is legal in churches can not be forced to hold gay marriage ceremonies if they don't want to. In fact a church can turn away any couple for what ever reason. There are still churches where interracial couples can't get married. Gay marriage is about legal equality, the right to sign a marriage contract with the county clerk not the right to a ceremony. They already have the right to a ceremony whenever a church decides to allow it. The issue is legal rights.

it isn't even bad for your health? GAY SEX IS THE #1 WAY HIV IS TRANSMITTED. Look it up on the CDC website, it's actually VERY UNHEALTHY.

Wow, I don't have time at the moment to respond to your very biased statements. You can't see clearly because of your wants, not because of whats right.

anon wrote:

"The only reason that I am in this argument is because someone is trying to force something on someone else, that would be gays in Califonia trying to force the rest (majority of the state) to conform to their beliefs and lifestyles."
how so? just because gay marriage is legal, that doesn't make anyone conform to their beliefs or lifestyle. just as you said before, it's simple, right? if you don't support gay marriage, don't have one.:)
Also, when you compare being gay with having sex with children, raping women, having sex with animals, etc,- it isn't so much an argument about gay marriage on your part as it is a scare tactic and a demeaning remark about gays. Your remarks are inflammatory because you make it sound like homosexuals are less than human. That homosexuals aren't worthy of being allowed to marry, though heterosexuals are.
The real question isn't "if two men can marry, then why not a man and a pig," but rather, "if a man and a woman can marry, then why not a man and a pig?" How about "if a man and a woman can get married, why not a man and his sister?" A man and his sister would, after all, be an opposite-sex couple. Rhetorically, these questions are identical. Better still, "if a man and a woman can marry, then why not a man and a man?"
Our society ostensibly supports freedom, liberty, and equality under the law for everybody, which our great Constitution eloquently outlines. It is this equality which same-sex couples are seeking to secure in their efforts to legalize same-sex marriages.

"how so? just because gay marriage is legal, that doesn't make anyone conform to their beliefs or lifestyle. just as you said before, it's simple, right? if you don't support gay marriage, don't have one.:)"

It wasn't legal, the people of California said so. A GAY judge forced it on the people of Califonia. It (the ruling)will be upheld in the 9th circuit and then smacked down by the Supreme Court.

Pro Equality.

BigDan wrote:

<quoted text>
it isn't even bad for your health? GAY SEX IS THE #1 WAY HIV IS TRANSMITTED. Look it up on the CDC website, it's actually VERY UNHEALTHY.
Wow, I don't have time at the moment to respond to your very biased statements. You can't see clearly because of your wants, not because of whats right.

Unprotected sex is the #1 way HIV is transmitted regardless of sexual orientation.

Protected sex almost never transmits HIV.

Wouldn't marriage actually encourage monogamy and therefore less transmission of HIV? And then there will be less gay people pretending to be straight, marrying, having gay sex on the side, and infecting their spouse. So if that's your main concern why not support gay marriage?

Not that I'm personally a big fan of monogamy. However, I do think people should be upfront about any other relationships. Polyfidelity is a viable alternative that can also prevent HIV transmission.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyfidelity

BigDan wrote:

<quoted text>
"how so? just because gay marriage is legal, that doesn't make anyone conform to their beliefs or lifestyle. just as you said before, it's simple, right? if you don't support gay marriage, don't have one.:)"
It wasn't legal, the people of California said so. A GAY judge forced it on the people of Califonia. It (the ruling)will be upheld in the 9th circuit and then smacked down by the Supreme Court.

Oh really? I remember reading an article showing the most likely outcome of an appeal to SCOTUS over the issue of gay marriage would be 5-4 that banning gay marriage is unconstitional!

I'm bookmarking this page. Can't wait to come back when the decision is handed down and say I told ya so. If you don't like it move to Iran. Their government seems to suit you better.

Madax wrote:

<quoted text>
Unprotected sex is the #1 way HIV is transmitted regardless of sexual orientation.
Protected sex almost never transmits HIV.
Wouldn't marriage actually encourage monogamy and therefore less transmission of HIV? And then there will be less gay people pretending to be straight, marrying, having gay sex on the side, and infecting their spouse. So if that's your main concern why not support gay marriage?
Not that I'm personally a big fan of monogamy. However, I do think people should be upfront about any other relationships. Polyfidelity is a viable alternative that can also prevent HIV transmission.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyfidelity
<quoted text>
Oh really? I remember reading an article showing the most likely outcome of an appeal to SCOTUS over the issue of gay marriage would be 5-4 that banning gay marriage is unconstitional!
I'm bookmarking this page. Can't wait to come back when the decision is handed down and say I told ya so. If you don't like it move to Iran. Their government seems to suit you better.

Gay SEX protected and unprotected is the #1 cause of HIV. Sexual Orientation is the most important factor. You can make up things to make yourself feel better, the facts are simply the facts. Please bookmark this page and come back. It will bring me little joy proving you wrong but it will make me happy that the Supreme Court got it right and that California can ban gays trying to be like normal people and getting married. If gays wanna get married, stop being gay and then you can.

BigDan wrote:

<quoted text>
Gay SEX protected and unprotected is the #1 cause of HIV.

Please cite your sources. How many cases of HIV are due to PROTECTED gay sex?

Madax wrote:

<quoted text>
Please cite your sources. How many cases of HIV are due to PROTECTED gay sex?

I did in the first post that you replied to. Maybe you should read and comprehend first. Just shouting out your pro homo talking points must distract you. Try thinking for yourself and forming an opinion based on facts, not wants.

BigDan wrote:

<quoted text>
I did in the first post that you replied to. Maybe you should read and comprehend first. Just shouting out your pro homo talking points must distract you. Try thinking for yourself and forming an opinion based on facts, not wants.

I looked. I can find no stats on how many cases of HIV were transmitted through PROTECTED homosexual intercourse. If I'm missing it please point out the page. A stat lumping unprotected and protected sex together doesn't count. I specifically want the stat for PROTECTED homosexual sex.

Any evidence that the increased risk has to do with them being the same-sex and not the fact that the virus happened to strike the gay community first would be nice.

Also, its widely known that while more people get HIV from gay male sex than straight sex that the rate of lesbians getting STDs from sex is far lower than people getting STDs from straight sex.

So then why don't you support lesbian marriage?

Madax wrote:

<quoted text>
I looked. I can find no stats on how many cases of HIV were transmitted through PROTECTED homosexual intercourse. If I'm missing it please point out the page. A stat lumping unprotected and protected sex together doesn't count. I specifically want the stat for PROTECTED homosexual sex.
Any evidence that the increased risk has to do with them being the same-sex and not the fact that the virus happened to strike the gay community first would be nice.
Also, its widely known that while more people get HIV from gay male sex than straight sex that the rate of lesbians getting STDs from sex is far lower than people getting STDs from straight sex.
So then why don't you support lesbian marriage?

I guess I should support incest, rape and beastility also? Nah I will just stick to what nature and god wants, Sex between a man and a women, same as marriage.

BigDan wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess I should support incest

If its between consenting adults I honestly don't see a problem. But even with incest there's more of an argument against it than homosexuality. Incest increases the risk of birth defects(although far less than 2 people with the same disorder knowingly having children together, luckily in both cases couples tend to avoid having biological children and opt for adoption).

rape

Consent

beastility

Animals cant consent

Nah I will just stick to what nature and god wants, Sex between a man and a women, same as marriage.

You do that. Wont make a difference when SCOTUS rules for gay marriage.