I doubt this topic needs any introduction, as it is so incredibly controversial in many areas.

For my part, I think it's perfectly fine. The cliche "Straight but not narrow" applys to me in this case. It's ridiculous that the word "gay" has become an insult in high-school culture. I, however, am not the only one with views... please share...

Ahhhhhhhhhh god don't get me started. let me just say its not right. i mean a girl thats bi is ok but thats cause i like girls too and i can see where they are comeing from but gay fags is just wrong!!!!

I strongly agree with Moril. It's not like it's a choice; people have no control over their sexuality. Personally, I think that if two people of the same sex have a loving, caring relationship then they're better off than the 51% (I think) of divorced heterosexual couples, or the people stuck in abusive relationships.

Nirvana, you make no sense and have no support for your argument. Even the crazy (in my opinion) religious right that spout "God doesn't like gay people" have some backup. It doesn't make them right, but it at least gives them a reason for being wrong.

As someone with gay and lesbian friends, I can truly say that they're not the horrible perverts culture has made them out to be. The horror stories one hears about gay men are only applicable to a minority. Think about it - assume for a moment (because I'm really not sure) that Jack the Ripper was heterosexual. If someone told an isolated homosexual community about Jack, a horrible straight person, they might assume that all straight people were like him. But they're not, and we know that. So, by the same token, a "psycho" homosexual is in the extreme minority.

I agree with august on the concept that gay couples are equally capable of taking care of children as straight ones.

Yup i am here to make no sence.............. No i am just to damn lazy to make sence. i all so watse to much time supporting myself.

Nirvana: use proper adjectives please..unless you want a ban

And I have to agree with Moril...this is an example of the prejedice that drives some rather sad parts of our society

i think that we should all just join perspectives club instead...and those words are in the english dictionary. How can you be sure he is using them in the way you think he is using them?

Good question - and how can I be sure that everyone on this forum except me isn't actually a robot? Seriously - just because someone tells me in person that they are The_Nightshift or something, that doesn't prove they are... never mind. Babbling again.

Ok so i am dislecsic and i can't spell and use proper english........ Big Deal.......

i dont hold any personal against gay or anything... in my opion though i find it wrong, cuz its sort of a creepy thought, that i try not to think about. i think that they r ppl and stuff, but its not something that i exactly agree with...but i'm not gonna hurt a gay person either.

Hmmmm, I already posted on this, and it was really long. Damn it, its gone (pardon the French). Oh well. Anyway, I am really undecided, cause lots of straight dudes do gay stuff, and nowadays, the line is blurred. I mean, being called gay at Valleyview cause there are few peeps are are actually "gay" (less than 20, I can name only 10 of them are proven "pervs"

homo sexuality is some thing to be recognized, the straight majoirity is still accepting it. but that is no exscuse for prejudice. it's there sexuality. you have no right to judge them by that. even god dose not, ( i know its the church saying that but im saying what if thats true.)

why marry in the first place, it's nothing more than saying i will love you, which half the time doesn't happen?

It is merley a pathetic human courtship dance.

quite, and over half will divorce, then 40% will divorce AGAIN!
serial monogamy...

This is Incredably deprssing how ever most gay marrages work out

i'm a little to lazy to read all of that cuz, as usual, i'm late in the topic: so i'm just gonna state my views:

Gay Marriage is BULLCRAP

the original idea (and the idea stated in the constitution or one of those big major laws) of marriage is for a man and a woman to come together to create more human lives and continue the population....

gay marriage cannot supply the world with offspring...

the reason the government doesn't want gay marriage is because it doesn't do anything for society or for the world....it doesn't give anything back....gay people just want to be recognized as "married" so they can get the benefits....

i respect people who are gay, and i don't care what they want to do....but if u want papers, then make a new thing that's not marriage...cuz it's not the same as normal marriage, it's NOT THE SAME....

Marrige is bull crap!!! its where church and state intertwine just let people marry eachother and sotp with the homophobic bull crap.

it doesn't intertwine anything.....marraige is a totally different thing in government and the church

in the church its a divine law allowing them to have sex

in the government its a piece of paper saying that they have to have kids and continue the population or they will be punished/taxed...

you can get married in the government without getting married in the church and visa versa

those, as well, are different

marriage is pointless, what is it aside from a statement?

it really is but if it saves you money let them have there way

it's only considered a piece of paper because people go outside the boundaries and have sex outside of marriage like it has always been that way

originally, you got married and had sex to reproduce, that was the only way....you HAD to get married first or you would be like crucified or something

but now teens get pregenant all the time and nobody cares

my point continuously being: marriage is for reproduction, and gays can't provide that.......

well well well, welcome to the year 2004......

so what? it's 2004! the same rules should apply

people only changed the rules cuz they are lazy and they don't want to follow them....they want to be different

the world has gone f00king crazy...they don't care about any past morals whatsoever besides direct murder

Rules, i thought It was amendments. Some of this Bullcrap here is insane, but our country has got it good.

I am pro-lesbian rights. Guy on guy just seems so...... gay.


However, I consider a guy grabbing my a$$ a friendly greeting (much like a dog does)

As times change so do the rules that guide them.....

and the people grow more extreme seriously its not like they can change over night the like what they like. i my self am a bi sexual furvert and there is not a damn thing you can do about it!

let me ask... who would disadvantage from legal gay marrage?

i never had a problem with it cuz it never would b a concern in my life, so i could give a crap. let em get married, who the motha-f***in hell cares!

Really it does not f**k with you so why do you give a s**t. let them marry!

I think it is absolutely ridiculous to put a ban on gay marriages... and have you heard this? Now, there is a lawmaker somewhere in Alabama that wants to put a library ban on gay novels to "protect the youth." How closed-minded can our fellow citizen and not to mention, politicians be??? Speaking as someone who has several gay/lesbian/bisexual friends, I just don't understand what the problem is here. Fine, the Bible says that homosexuality is "unnatural," but the Bible is not meant to taken literally. If it was meant to be taken literally, all women would not be able to cut their hair and always have to keep their heads covered. All women would be subservient to their husbands, etc. etc. We all know that many things that are stated in the Bible are no longer applicable to today's society. The mindsets of Americans and our leaders must continue to change with the times. Banning gay marriages is discrimination, prejudice, and just about every other evil thing that most people think is wrong. Also, the banning of the gay novels, that's just plain censorship. Why is this country so unreasonable?

Oh and I forgot to add something... in response to whoever that was who said that "marriage is for reproduction" is stupid. When you get down on one knee and ask someone to marry you does it normally go "Will you be my wife, my baby-machine, so that we can benefit society?" and the woman says "oh my god, (crying) yes, yes, i would love to pop out child after child just so i can benefit society, who gives a flying f*** about love, lets have children!!" Marriage is meant so that two people can be in love together for the rest of their lives. It is meant as a sacred commitment to another human being, saying that you will be faithful and loving and all that good stuff... it is not however, for the sole purpose of having children... oh and in response to "teenagers have children every day and no one cares," where have you been? everyone cares, otherwise, why would our nation keep track of the percentages of teenage pregnancies. It's important to society to keep these down, it leads to unemployment and welfare and general burdens to our society. I'm not saying that all teenage pregnancies lead to this. My nephew is a product of an out of wedlock, teenage relationship, and everything has turned out perfectly fine with him... but for the most part, if you're going to be making the statements you do, you should find a way to back them up, otherwise, no one wants to hear it.

1. Welcome to FreedomsNet

2. hear hear!

marriage itself is outmoded, so that makes it matter even less

hey guys, thanks for welcoming me.. how come i have to be a newbie? how do i rank up? (sounds like a video game)

Is marriage really outdated? It's still everyone girl's dream to be married... well every girl except me.. i'd be happy with cohabitation or marriage.. whatever.. i don't really care.. but on the actual topic.. gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone and this nation is based on freedom.. and the pursuit of happiness... so why not let everyone join in on these rights.. if they want to get married.. let them.. laissez faire... let them be

Answering the two inter-related questions you asked that fall into my line of work, if you look at the member list, you'll quickly discover that a vast majority of our users are simple members. As for "ranking up", that 's earned, and only very slowly.

yeah, speaking of which, i wanna b a supe again... please???

I've said it before, I'll say it again...it's earned, not given...

Now...back on topic with us?

As the resident crazy guy until spook tart returns from sitting on his ass all day playing halo 2 I welcome you and are glad to have some one so open minded join this wonderful (cough) community.

thanks for the boost shifty.

now , i said this in other topics and probably said it before on this one, but if you aren't gay, why do you care (don't give me that sanctity of marrage nonsense either)?

Is being a homosexual even choice or are you born like that? I personally think that you are not born a homosexual. Some people want to make laws to censor gay related material. I dont see this as really unreasonable. I know what they're thinking. If the chance of being gay is presented to people, then the chance that they'll be gay will increase. The idea is that if the opportunity is not presented to them, they will never go there.

My view on gay marriage and homosexuality is that maybe some of it should be restricted. It's best that children dont learn about things like these until they're a proper age. You might argue that its censorship and its wrong and everyone has rights. But thats the same arguments the NRA would use. And we're not all here pro guns and violense are we?

I have no problem with gays or anything in fact, I'm pretty open minded. And I'm not say gays shouldnt be allowed to get married.
Please dont flame me that hard >.< I'm just posting my opinion =/ Hope I made sense o.o

well my slightly homophobic friend, you may have an argueable point on the issue of children's exposure to some more explict details of homosexuality.

however, (there's always a however), why should being gay be something that should be contained and controled? there are some cases where people are born gay. they never in their lives were atracted to the opposite sex. there is no way to prevent that. and, pardon my crassness, but if there are more gays, there would be less compitition for the ladies. also less children, and overpopulation is a problem.

(Replying to Wergo)
There's a difference between reasonable protection of the safety of the general public (since one person having a gun problem and getting a gun sorta becomes problematic for others...) and protection of the public from certain views. And to be honest, I think the "protect the children" argument is BS. Whether sexual preferences are known from birth or acquired, the government has no right to decide that one group should have their views persecuted simply for the "protection of the majority".

well said shifty, well said.

the gov't suks, why should they decide who gets to do what. my philosophy is that if it dosen't infringe on the rights of others, it should not be illegal.

Would you want you children to be gay? What if homosexuality really is acquired because the oportunity is presented to children? If this is true, then I would go for some restrictions on homosexuality so the least likely chance that my children would be gay. I mean I would want them to continue the family line and you cant do that with the same sex (maybe in the future but cerently not now). Thats why I find it somewhat reasonable to restrict homosexual material. I'm not saying that we should definetly censor/control homosexuality there is really no definate in an issue like this. I'm just posting my opinion = ).

Legally, if a parent doesn't want their child to hold a belief, it is their right to protect that child from such material, but not to infringe upon the rights of anyone else, reguardless of age. But to be honest, from what I've heard at least, most homosexuals never chose to be that way. Going from that philosophy, the whole purpose of regulation of related materials is defeated.

Many of those who have attacked it in recent years strike me as a subscribers to the modern media's misconceptions and stereotypes about homosexuality. 99.9% of them lead otherwise normal lives, but the remaining .1% are always the ones protrayed as a model of the group. The majority wouldn't seem different if you saw or even met them in the street, many refraining entirely from mentioning their stance unless they feel that it is infringed upon primarily because their orientation makes them marked people in a modern, media ruled, stereotypical, and biased society.

Do you know what the condemnation of a certain group of people for their beliefs or characteristics is? A predjudice. We are a predjudiced society. We accept some and shun others. Our views constantly shift, and slowly, each group has become accepted. Whether it be women winning equal rights or the acceptance of african americans into a european society, the walls have been built by some, scaled by others, and fallen. And my honest belief is that eventually the general public will grow to accept homosexuality as it has accepted other groups. It is a question of when, not if.

And for those curious, I'm quite straight. I'm just also a supporter of the fair treatment of all persons, reguardless of race, creed, sex, age, orientation, or beliefs. And while I would question not removing a person from society for killing another, I do question imposing restrictions of the literature of one group, as well as restricting their right to enter a marriage with the person of their choice (and to recieve whatever benefits their peers would recieve for their own marriages). For now, our laws are little different than a segragationist policy, giving unequal treatment to some when they request the same service given freely to others because of who they are.

Frankly, I believe that gay marriages should recieve at least some civil recognition, giving them benefits. The worst outcome I could see from this fight is if it was decided to allow gay marriages without state recognition, leading to a seperate and unequal situation (and if the phrase seperate and unequal doesn't seem familiar, study up on the Supreme Court's decisions on the constutionality of segregation). And time has shown that the government cannot regulate morality (case in point: prohibition). At any rate, these people have a right to live knowing that they have the security when they retire that any couple would have. Anything less would be denying them the benefits of America.


And directly attacking Wergo's argument, no couple in America is obligated to contribute to our future population. Quite frankly, if they did, we'd have had to colonize Mars by now to fit everyone. Additionally, no individual is required to be able to do so with their partner (due to diseases, genetic defects, injuries, etc. this ability certainly doesn't exist even in all new marriages), so I don't see why a couple should be obligated to have that ability. Finally, there comes a time in the life of every individual when their parents no longer hold power over them, and at that point they can chose as they want, parental scorn or no parental scorn. So, hypothetically, were we to assume that homosexuality is an acquired trait in all cases, they would have the right to chose, even against their parent's will, whether or not to "become gay" and marry another homosexual by the time they could get a marriage license (assuming one were made available to them, as current law allows for normal couples) anyway.

And I hate to say it, but while, as I stated above, parents have a legal right to try to censor what reaches their children, I certainly consider excercising that right to enforce a view on a child is unfair. The child may not be able to judge at that time, but then they'll have years to grow and re-evaluate their decision before marriage can even be considered, much less performed. I honestly don't see how a child chosing at 8 years old to be a homosexual "scars them for life" so to speak. The decision is their's to make and their's to go back on.

So, shall we have a rebutal? (Don't feel bad about attacking my points, that's the whole purpose of intellectual debates)

In response to The_NIghtshift's last post.

Yes its true T_T I really have never met or talked to a gay person in real life. Every one of my opinions on this subject comes from just the media and talking to friends. So my opinon would not really be a valid one. But I do think its the opinion of the average joe smith. The person who dosent care enough to do anything about it or to get more information. Which I think is really sad, that the average is this.

Anyways... I just wanna say some things



This quote just stuck out to me. Its just so right and non debatable and anyone that reads it would agree right away.



I dont think thats agreeable. Sure some groups have become more accepted but theres still prejudice and unequal opportunities placed on people. For example, the media. Whenever theres a killing or a robbery, you'll most likely see black people doing it. Even though the percentage of black and white law offenders are almost the same.
Its because of things like that will cause people to think differently about different groups of people. Like me, sure I dont think I'm really racist. I have alot of black friends of all. But I cant help thinking badly about a black person once I see one even though I constantly remind myself that I'm probably wrong.
Thats why I dont think any group will really be fully accepted. There will always be some sort of prejudice (hidden or not) from one group to another.

You sound like a good-hearted righteous person = D

Well, those are held as unavoidable. Predjudices will always exist. My point is, the more major ones [blacks are inferrior, women don't diserve freedoms, etc.] never stand up for good, and in particular, never remain part of our laws.

unfortunately it seems to be a trendin our nature to go throught the intolorance phase

IN RESPONSE TO WERGO: i do know some gay people, though i'm not gay myself
(if u want proof ask your mom, noonch), and they are like any other streotype, some of it was based in fact, then they made stuff up, exagerated they whole thing and called it Will and Grace. i'm merly saying this so that you know i have a fairly decent idea of what im talking about.

that said, i have no problem whatsover with gay marrage. why would you care if your kids were gay. i really wouldn't give a crap. im not so egotistical that my genes must be passed on or else. all in all, ergo, vis-a-vis, concordedly, who gives a sh**?

Well, I would care how my kids would act and look from the view of other people. I was raised in the traditional chinese way and well, I'm somewhat traditional in my views and opinions.