Do You Support Gay Marriage?

Well seem we all agree religion can't lay claim to the word marriage cause it is just a word. So if they can't lay claim to the word they can't also deprive another group of people from using it. unless they have ownership of the word they can't control who uses it. last I knew nobody owns the word marriage.

Now I am not saying religion has to be forced to marry gays but since they don't own the word marriage they can't deprive anyone else from using it.


Also just a side note remember folks we are an international community here and not everyone is going to read the post the same way. Even myself sometimes I have to reread a post to understand the users meaning and especially where we have English from both sides of the pond not every word has the same meaning like bonnet for hood (of car) so please be patient and just ask users if that is what they meant.

shadows, I don't think it's right nor wrong as well, I mean, it's their cup of tea as you said =)

But it does exist and I doubt people get to it by infection or something, so I deduce out of this that it is natural for some to feel affiliated to men rather than women and the other way around.. (edits: in the same way as others find members of the opposite sex far more attractive...)

I can certainly say that I find a women's body aesthetically far more pleasing than a man's body, even though a good man's body is very nice as well. It doesn't make me gay, I just think like that in the aesthetical side of the whole thing. When it comes to more basic joys I do prefer men to women

Which is my point. Redefining the word would open the doors for others to use it to fit their situation. It's a legal term, not a religious one, so it should be defined from the perspective of a secular government.

Miri, dont' get upset. I'm not. The reason I made that whole post was to make it more clear what I was trying to say, because I know English is your second language and sometimes a scentence to me means something slightly different to you. Don't worry, I'm not harping on you.

I'll try to say it again. When I said they defined the legal term, I mean when the legal system was set up church and state were in cahoots. So, when the legal term for marriage was defined it was done so from the perspective of the church. I'm not saying they created marriage, they just had an influence on what it meant in legal terms.

I hope that one made sense, because you still think I'm saying the Church created marriage. Well, hopefully not now.


*gasp-pant*

And I'm spent

But married is just the joiing of 2 items or people. For instance I can say I married this peice of metal to another peice of metal this just means I joined one peice to the other. It is religion that has been trying to redefine the word to mean male and female when i fact marriage is the joining of to items or people.

And I just looked up this definition in 3 different dictionaries and one has no gender asigned one has gender but in the sense of taking a wife or husband but this is vague cause it doesn't say a wife taking a husband or a husband taking a wife and gay people do consider themselves to be one or the other so fits right in and then the 3rd definition does say man and woman. All 3 are of varying age dictionaries meaning ones not to old and the other 2 are older. But as I stated above all marrying is is the joining of two items or people and the gender is irrelevent when using this word. And in my view it has been religion forcing the view on what marriage is but as can be seen by this whole issue not everyone agrees with how religion tries to define a word that isn't theirs to begin with.

That is the crust of the bisquit!!!

Is it a genetic thing, social ( did mommy/daddy scare the hell out of jimmy/jasmine? ) or is it an anomoly of nature?

Most religions call it an abomination, is it a manifestation of our current society ( homosexuality in the current numbers is a modern thing ), or has it been so closeted up over the centuries that it has been over looked as an issue until now?

I neither condone nor condem such feelings, but do see how the lines of battle can be drawn over this issue.

Side bar counceler:

Aon I too preferr the female body to the male, so if I say so would you hold it aginst me ?.... LOL!!!!

DOn't get in an uproar fellow members that was in jest!!!

*lol* I wouldn't hold it against anybody... *grins* us females.. we were gifted by nature *whistles innocently*

I wouldn't go as far to say it's genetic or anomaly, I never pondered about that anyway... maybe it is, but it would still be natural..
I'm quite sure that there have been cavemen that lusted after other men rather than women and the other way round. Even under other animals it's known. I have a friend who breeds budgies and she's got a pair of "married" females.. they would never breed with males, they just shared that life long relationship. And males are readily available in her house (budgie ones that is!).
I think I've watched a documentary about "gay" mammals some time ago. But I can't recall the name..
Anyway, it's not only humans.

hehe, Adam, I got your point, but I disagree because today it isn't that way anymore. People see marriage differently and the church bit is for most only the romatic part...

Anyway, have fun yous, see you tomorrow! *bedtime in Scotland*

S2, I see what you did. You looked in a generic dictionary. But we're not talking in generic terms. I know that the issue here is that in our legal system, marriage is defined as the legal joining of a man and a woman as lifetime companions. Now, that's not exactly it, but I know that is the main idea. The whole uproar here is in getting the legal definition of marriage to disregard the man and woman part so it works for alternative lifestyles. You have to look at how your government defines marriage, not Websters or Britanica. Maybe it's different in your countries, but since all of our governments are formed from the same source, I wouldn't be surprised if you find they all say the same thing.

You can't disagree..........because that's exactly what I've been trying to say this entire time. The term IS defined that way, but it shouldn't be anymore.

How did that song back in the sixties go??? ::

"Lord why am I so misunderstood?"

Sometimes I think I must be from mars... I say the same thing as most of you and I get chastized; what gives?

I am only making a point of difference that many percieve as correct. I do say that don't I ?

Maybe it's the way you say it?

Try saying it a differnt way I had to do this on another list I am on cause someone didn't understand the first time I said it.

Damn. Sorry Shadows, I was replying to S2's post where he looked up the dictionary definition of marriage. You're name was the first one to reach the keyboard man. Sorry, again.

And for the record, I wasn't chastising anyone. I wasn't even disagreeing with S2. I was pointing out a difference.

Guys, it takes a lot to actually get me mad, and I'll let you know when that is. I certainly don't get upset over topics that have no effect on me............... selfish as that sonds.



Anywho, Sorry again for the mixup. You must have thought you made a post when you blacked out.

If I could anwser that Aon I would be a rich man!

I believe I have the answer for it. Any Animal involved with Homosexuality is Mentally Disturbed. This is only my opinion.

As far as marriages, there are other species of animals that mates for life with only one other. The main purpose of marriage for the human being species, in my understanding, was to stop the spread of sexual transmitted diseases.

Wow Richard, close your mind a little more. If that's a tone of bitterness I'm feeling, then you're getting dangerously close to trolling. If you have something to say, say it and make a point. Don't just toss insults out. That doesn't help you make a case, now does it?

Yea, my mind may be closed to this subject, but I am only stating how I feel. I am really getting tired of all these Liberalists telling me how I am suppose to accept everything they want.

Hey, if they want to be gay, then so be it. This does not mean that I have to accept their decision. This is not any different than someone of another Religion telling me that I have to believe as they do. First of all, I don't, nor do I have any plans to. So if this is bitterness, then YES, I am bitter.

Second of all I do not rudely insult others because if I did, then I would not be any better as a person. But common sense tells me if a person does thing in their life that contradicts the natural ways of live and feels that they are in the right, then something inside of me tells me that there is something wrong with them.

I said in the beginning of this that I was only going to comment here one time only. but some how I got sucked up into this. I have yet to see anywhere in here explaining to me why I should accept their way of life.

This does not mean that if a gay person asked me for help that I would not help them, because I would. But this does not mean that I have to support the way they believe and this also goes for anything else that I am against.

I am a person with an mind set and I plan to keep it that way.

My apologies for getting on my soap box. But again I say that Homosexuality is not NATURAL!

First off I have to say I agree with Oldraven here lets not call names

I mean you don't agree fine but that doesn't make someone mentally disturbed just because they have an opposing view point or practice then you.

OK now onto the response to your second post. First off if you read back I have never said through out this entire thread that you should accept their lifestyle but I have also said repeatedly that no body including you and even the government has any power to prevent 2 same sex consenting adults from getting married and receiveing the benifits of this marriage. They have a RIGHT to pursue happiness and together pursue happiness if they chose to do so just as a man and a woman chose to pursue a lifetime of happiness together. And I am using this term marriage on purpose cause as most seem to agree so far is religion can't lay a claim to a simple word. So if they can't lay claim to a word they also can't control it, they can't say who can or cannot use this word it is just a word and nothing more and definitions are always being changed as we evolve otherwise you would not see multiple subsections of a word. Words grow to have more then 1 meaning.

As for legal definiti0ons I repeat my unanswered question fro my 3rd to last post on the first page of this thread

---

If anyone knows of the section where congress can legislativly control marriage I am all eyes and ears.

Here I will even help you out

For the U.S. Constitution click here.

The U.S. Bill of Rights

---

No government (at least in the US) has the right to tell a citizen they can't pursue happiness in their chosen manor so long as that pursuit does not infrige or take away anothers right. Problem is majority rule has given thiem this right and it is still a right they don't have the power to do because it would be taking away or infringeing on an individuals right to ppursue happiness.