Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Stephen Colbert

2010-06-20T02:17:04Z

TomRobinson: /* The Colbert Report */

[[File:Stephencolbert2.jpg|thumb]]

'''Stephen Colbert''' is a writer, a comedian, and an actor. Colbert is [[Catholic]] and an erstwhile Sunday school teacher<ref>http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/</ref>, and a self-proclaimed [[liberal]] [[Democrat]]. <ref>http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/jon_stewart_stephen_colbert_americas_anchors/page/4 Rolling Stone Interview, Oct 31, 2006</ref>

Colbert began his career at [[Comedy Central]] in the year 2000 on the show ''Strangers with Candy''. He later left in order to become a correspondent on ''[[The Daily Show|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]'', where he began to build what would later be the character he would play on ''The Colbert Report''. He was well-regarded on the show and occasionally guest-hosted for Stewart.

Due to his work on ''The Daily Show'', he won three [[Emmy Awards]] and two [[Peabody Awards]] along with the other writers.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0170306/awards IMDB List of Stephen Colbert Awards </ref> <ref>http://128.192.29.189/news/pressrelease.asp?ID=151 List of 2007 Peabody Award Winners</ref>

==''The Colbert Report''==

In 2005, Colbert left ''The Daily Show'' in order to become the host of a spinoff, ''The Colbert Report''.

In the show, Colbert plays a satirical right-wing political talk show host. This personna was largely based on [[Bill O'Reilly]], who has a friendly rivalry with the show.

''The Colbert Report'' has a very loyal following which the Colbert character often uses for his various pranks. For example, in every public vote for naming something, Colbert urges his fans to vote for him.

In his recurring segment "The Word", which is a parody of O'Reilly's "Talking Points", Colbert coined the word [[truthiness]] which refers to the quality possessed by statements which, though factually false, are repeated by supporters who feel in their hearts that they ''ought'' to be true, and regard it as quibbling to object to their falsehood.

Colbert has poked fun at [[Wikipedia]] and its apparent democratization of truth. He has coined the word "Wikiality" (as opposed to "reality") and caused trouble for Wikipedia by suggesting that his listeners alter articles. In August of 2006, he encouraged users to state that the population of African [[elephants]] had tripled in the last decade. Colbert's point was that if enough people believe something, it becomes "the truth". Wikipedia responded by reverting and locking down the pages to prevent further vandalism.

Recently, Colbert had viewers write in his name to a public vote done by [[NASA]] to name a new room addition to the [[International Space Station]]. Colbert's cult-like followers won the contest for him with an astonishing 230,539 total votes, 40,000 more than NASA's choice of Serenity.

Stephen Colbert recently has gained attention in the media with his satirical mocking of [[Fox News]]'s [[Glenn Beck]]. Colbert has mocked Beck for claiming that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] is a racist and a socialist.

==Relationship with Conservapedia==
Conservapedia was mentioned on at least two episodes of ''The Colbert Report''. After learning about Conservapedia's [[Conservative Bible Project|initiative to remove "liberal bias" from the Bible]], Stephen Colbert urged his followers to insert him into the planned conservative rewrite as a Biblical figure.<ref>{{cite episode
| title = The Colbert Report (October 7, 2009 episode)
| series = The Colbert Report
| serieslink = The Colbert Report
| airdate = 2009-10-07
| url = http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/251994/october-07-2009/tip-wag---conservapedia--louvre---honda-unicycle}}</ref> This was followed by mass vandalism by Colbert fans.<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stephen_Colbert&diff=709438&oldid=709432 Example of vandalism on the Stephen Colbert article]</ref><ref>[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29&diff=prev&oldid=709520 Example of vandalism on the Genesis 1-8 page of the Conservative Bible Project]</ref> Later on, he interviewed Conservapedia founder [[Andy Schlafly]].<ref>{{cite episode
| ttle = The Colbert Report (December 8, 2009 episode)
| series = The Colbert Report
| serieslink = The Colbert Report
| airdate = 2009-12-08
| url = http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/258144/december-08-2009/andy-schlafly}}</ref>

==See also==

*''[[The Daily Show]]''

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Colbert, Stephen}} 
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Television Show Hosts]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category: Liberals]]
{{liberalism}}

Talk:Stephen Colbert

2010-06-20T00:22:40Z

TomRobinson: /* Cult-like */ new section

Considering the obvious relevance it has to Conservapedia, a mentioning of the interview of Andrew Schafly on the Colbert Report should be included in this article.

Stephen Colbert's name has a French pronunciation -- that's not very American. I say this article should be removed.--[[User:Jesus_H_Christ|Jesus_H_Christ]] 23:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jesus H. Christ, Les Francais sont tres bon![[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Any reason why the part about the Correspondents' Dinner was removed? Also the statement about Colbert's intention with the Wikipedia vandalizing is speculative at best and should probably be removed.--[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 18:59, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Here's a link to the Correspondents' Dinner speech on Google Video: [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879&q=colbert+white+house Colbert Roasts President Bush - 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner]

The Sunday school teacher remark needs a cite--I know it's true, but it really should be cited. Here's a good website, I'd edit if I could. (http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/) Also, the Correspondent's dinner should be added. As much as I hate what he did, it is our duty to tell the truth on this site. --[[User:Splark|Splark]] 21:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Why would you hate what he did? He's the greatest American ever! Stephen Colbert is a champion of truth and justice. Come on, he got Captain America's shield!!--[[User:Dialecticftw|Dialecticftw]] 06:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Truthiness ==

Instead of "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," shouldn't Conservapedia's slogan be "The Encyclopedia of Trustiness"? It just feels right.

:hmm, Or maybe, ''Conservapedia: your daily recommended allowance of '''truthiness'''''?[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

::'''''Conservapedia: The Truthy Encyclopedia''''' Notice that to make this, we remove the letters STWOR - an acronym for WORST [[User:Human|Human]] 02:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== "right wing" removed? ==

Without explanation, his act was reduced to "extreme commentator". He plays an extreme ''right wing'' commentator, specifically. That's the whole point of the show. Can anyone explain, please? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:He plays what in his view and others is a "right-wing" commentator; but that does not mean the so-called right-wing fits those stereotypes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::OK, I'll buy that. Can the article say that? It would sort of be a double-parody - explaining that he does not, in the view of those he think she is parodying, accurately portray their positions? How about "[he plays] an extreme left wing stereotype of an extreme right wing commentator"? Pretty fair and balanced, and accurate in that it mentions that his "extreme" parody or attempt at it is politically charged. It's up to you, I have no axe to grind here. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Give it a try. Sounds like it couild be humourous. Nothing wrong with that to make the point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like a fair compromise, given that Colbert specifically refuses to share his personal political beliefs. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:Personally, Colbert is a democrat; he's said it several times, at speeches at colleges and what not. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:57, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't care what he is, it just has to be disclaimed properly. We can't have any bigotry here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey RobS, I just realized I can't "give it a try" - the page is locked. Can we try this sentence:

"He plays the role of an extreme left wing stereotype of an extreme right wing commentator." I forget if you're a sysop, but obviously Hoji is. By the way Hoji, nice addition with the ursaphobia. I do think that articles on lighter subjects can have a lighter tone, even using the tone of their subjects, carefully (cf some [[Monty Python]] pages).

By the way, yes, he's a Democrat, Catholic, and Sunday School teacher. I don't know if you guys have ever seen him rip scripture (you gotta call it that if you've seen it) on people, but it's amazing. He's got that "Catholic School" recitation at full speed with full articulation thing deep in him.

And, to his minor credit (on this site), if a liberal screws up in an interview, he <s>rips them a new one</s> tears them apart like a hungry eagle, and leaves them gasping for air. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:13, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I added that sentence above, and that he is a Catholic. If it stays unlocked I'll be on the eye for vandalism, but I don't check in until after noon most days. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==

Maybe I have a bit of a dirty mind, but I really don't think this is the best picture. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:23, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

::There probably are better pictures. I know he has a lot of good ones with his arms folded across his chest giving a serious look. Perhaps one of those.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:26, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

*Hey! I liked it! Back off! :p (most were copyrighted) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Why are any pages locked at all?? How can i "lock" my contributions?

== Misspelling ==

In the last sentence ("Wikipedia responded by reverting and locking down the pages to pervent further editing"), the word ''prevent'' is spelled ''pervent'' and I cannot correct it.

Who wrote this?!

[[User:Fairn|Fairn]]
:See the page's history to see who wrote it, but I've fixed the spelling error, thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deceit? ==

So how exactly is Wikipedia locking articles to prevent vandalism an example of their deceit? Isn't that what you do here, including this article? --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::Fair enough. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:35, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==Stephen Colbert the character versus Stephen Colbert the person==

This article presents everything Colbert has said on his show, [[The Colbert Report]], as his actual views.

I know you folks aren't big on seperating fact from fiction, but he's a left-leaning guy off the set. Maybe the article should be changed to reflect that. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:44, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't that clear that he's a liberal playing a liberal stereotype of a conservative? If you feel you want to make that clearer, then please suggest something with a citation to his real views. Thanks. In Christ--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Factual error ==

The "Wikiality" incident occurred in July 2006, not August 2006. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 19:50, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

*Citation, please? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:59, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, forget it. The word "wikiality" was introduced on July 31, and the corresponding wave of vandalism occurred in August. My mistake. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:14, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
::*It is important to keep a record of when you do those things! :P --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:46, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

== typo ==

There's a typo at the end of the first paragraph. It should say "and 'he is' a self-proclaimed democrat." or something along those lines. Small, but it probably should be fixed anyway. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 19:20, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

== why is this article protected? ==
I have much to add to article, (not to mention I can find a better picture, if only I had upload rights.... Sysops get to work on that), It's a pretty tame subject, so why is it locked?

On that note: why is the "see also" a link to [[Conservative Links]], JM, Colbert plays a conservative on television! [[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 08:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

:Unprotected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

== Nixon ==

I don't think that source is reliable enough to say that Nixon is his hero There are 2 colberts, the character and the real guy. The character likes Nixon, but the person is a Democrat. His comment that Nixon was one of his heroes was meant to be taken as humorous. Im going to remove it [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 10:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:No, he was serious. Believe me, I know that there is the real Colbert and a character. Here in a rolling stone interview (out of character) he describes Nixon as [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/jon_stewart_stephen_colbert_americas_anchors/page/4 "the last liberal president".] I'm reverting it, but since part of the MTP interview was in character, I'm putting the RS interview as the ref. '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 11:00, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:OK thanks, I just wasn't convinced by the previous source [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 11:09, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::No prob -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 11:15, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Time to re-protect? ==

I hate to say it, but given the recent and persistent vandalism, it may be time to re-protect this article, at least until the liberal vandals' limited attention spans are exhausted and they're distracted by something new and shiny.

Hmm. Should the article include a section on Colbert openly soliciting vandalism of Conservapedia? It certainly highlights the sort of tactics he favors, but might also be seen as rewarding bad behavior with acknowledgement. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 00:13, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

:Better they mess with his page then the Bible pages. The page is officially a mouse trap. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:16, 12 October 2009 (EDT)
::[[User:Benp|Benp]], I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stephen_Colbert&diff=709452&oldid=709444 added a "Relationship with Conservapedia" section]. I hope that there isn't anyone who minds. --[[User:Michaeldsuarez|Michaeldsuarez]] 14:37, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

== Cleanup ==

The page is currently locked (probably for good reason as it'll receive some attention after tonight), however, I'd really like to make some quality additions to the page and clean it up a bit, if it's OK with some administrators. Would it be alright if I update the article? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 14:08, 8 December 2009 (EST)
:It's nothing urgent, so I don't mind waiting until it becomes unlocked in the future. Just wanted to offer some help if needed! :-) [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 14:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)

== "claims to be" Catholic ==

I think it should say ''is'' a Roman Catholic.
I mean, in [[Glenn Beck]]'s article it says "Beck is a Mormon," not "Beck ''claims to be'' a Mormon."

I think saying "claims to be" Catholic implies that he's lying, of which there is no evidence. [[User:Ololwut|Ololwut]] 16:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:: I'm with you on this. What reason would we have for doubting his religion?--[[User:Bobobo|Bobobo]] 14:08, 23 February 2010 (EST)

== Cult-like ==

Could someone be so good as to elaborate on how Stephen Colbert's followers are cult-like?--[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 20:22, 19 June 2010 (EDT)

Stephen Colbert

2010-06-18T23:21:08Z

TomRobinson: /* The Colbert Report */

[[File:Stephencolbert2.jpg|thumb]]

'''Stephen Colbert''' is a writer, a comedian, and an actor. Colbert is [[Catholic]] and an erstwhile Sunday school teacher<ref>http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/07/13/ask-tv-squad-stephen-colbert-teaches-sundayschool/</ref>, and a self-proclaimed [[liberal]] [[Democrat]]. <ref>http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/jon_stewart_stephen_colbert_americas_anchors/page/4 Rolling Stone Interview, Oct 31, 2006</ref>

Colbert began his career at [[Comedy Central]] in the year 2000 on the show ''Strangers with Candy''. He later left in order to become a correspondent on ''[[The Daily Show|The Daily Show with Jon Stewart]]'', where he began to build what would later be the character he would play on ''The Colbert Report''. He was well-regarded on the show and occasionally guest-hosted for Stewart.

Due to his work on ''The Daily Show'', he won three [[Emmy Awards]] and two [[Peabody Awards]] along with the other writers.<ref>http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0170306/awards IMDB List of Stephen Colbert Awards </ref> <ref>http://128.192.29.189/news/pressrelease.asp?ID=151 List of 2007 Peabody Award Winners</ref>

==''The Colbert Report''==

In 2005, Colbert left ''The Daily Show'' in order to become the host of a spinoff, ''The Colbert Report''.

In the show, Colbert plays a satirical right-wing political talk show host. This personna was largely based on [[Bill O'Reilly]], who has a friendly rivalry with the show.

''The Colbert Report'' has a very loyal following which the Colbert character often uses for his various pranks. For example, in every public vote for naming something, Colbert urges his fans to vote for him.

In his recurring segment "The Word", which is a parody of O'Reilly's "Talking Points", Colbert coined the word [[truthiness]] which refers to the quality possessed by statements which, though factually false, are repeated by supporters who feel in their hearts that they ''ought'' to be true, and regard it as quibbling to object to their falsehood.

Colbert has poked fun at [[Wikipedia]] and its apparent democratization of truth. He has coined the word "Wikiality" (as opposed to "reality") and caused trouble for Wikipedia by suggesting that his listeners alter articles. In August of 2006, he encouraged users to state that the population of African [[elephants]] had tripled in the last decade. Colbert's point was that if enough people believe something, it becomes "the truth". Wikipedia responded by reverting and locking down the pages to prevent further vandalism.

Recently, Colbert had viewers write in his name to a public vote done by [[NASA]] to name a new room addition to the [[International Space Station]]. Colbert's cult-like {{fact}} followers won the contest for him with an astonishing 230,539 total votes, 40,000 more than NASA's choice of Serenity.

Stephen Colbert recently has gained attention in the media with his satirical mocking of [[Fox News]]'s [[Glenn Beck]]. Colbert has mocked Beck for stating that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] is a racist and a socialist.

==Relationship with Conservapedia==
Conservapedia was mentioned on at least two episodes of ''The Colbert Report''. After learning about Conservapedia's [[Conservative Bible Project|initiative to remove "liberal bias" from the Bible]], Stephen Colbert urged his followers to insert him into the planned conservative rewrite as a Biblical figure.<ref>{{cite episode
| title = The Colbert Report (October 7, 2009 episode)
| series = The Colbert Report
| serieslink = The Colbert Report
| airdate = 2009-10-07
| url = http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/251994/october-07-2009/tip-wag---conservapedia--louvre---honda-unicycle}}</ref> This was followed by mass vandalism by Colbert fans.<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Stephen_Colbert&diff=709438&oldid=709432 Example of vandalism on the Stephen Colbert article]</ref><ref>[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Genesis_1-8_%28Translated%29&diff=prev&oldid=709520 Example of vandalism on the Genesis 1-8 page of the Conservative Bible Project]</ref> Later on, he interviewed Conservapedia founder [[Andy Schlafly]].<ref>{{cite episode
| ttle = The Colbert Report (December 8, 2009 episode)
| series = The Colbert Report
| serieslink = The Colbert Report
| airdate = 2009-12-08
| url = http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/258144/december-08-2009/andy-schlafly}}</ref>

==See also==

*''[[The Daily Show]]''

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT: Colbert, Stephen}} 
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Television Show Hosts]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category: Liberals]]
{{liberalism}}

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2010-06-18T23:14:22Z

TomRobinson: /* Homosexual denial */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Are opinions like that really necessary? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:07, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:And can you indisputably prove, in general, what you just stated? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:13, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::I think if you check your Bible, you'll find that each man should have his own '''wife''', and each woman her own husband. That's 1 Corinth. 7:2. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's not a commandment (1 Corinth. 7:6), and Paul would actually prefer people not to marry at all (that's where the Roman Catholics get priesthood celibacy from). On the other hand, bishops are explicitly required to be married to just one wife in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, indicating that non-bishops may have had several wives. In fact the source our polygamy article cites for the biblical prohibition of polyandry strongly argues that polygyny is not forbidden by God. I'd assume the change in sentiment was probably due to greco-roman ideas of family and marriage. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 19:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Adam and Eve pretty much set the standard, wouldn't you say? There have been only very rare exceptions in the Bible since that beginning. A very rare exception does not change the rule.

::::Same-sex marriage as a political movement, by the way, is anti-Bible in its agenda, because same-sex marriage has been used (e.g., in Massaschusetts) to teach an anti-biblical lifestyle to children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:39, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::I think it's also important to note the context of the exceptions. Jacob had two wives because Laban engaged in [[deception,]] substituting his older daughter for the younger. The multiple marriages were the result of two factors: Rachel's desire not to shame and disgrace her older sister, and Jacob's unfaltering love for Rachel.
:::::Furthermore, the multiple marriages were always focused on fulfilling the commandment "be fruitful and multiply." Time and time again, the reason was the same: the continued birth of children in order to ensure that the family would remain strong. This is not something same-sex marriage can achieve. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ben, you're a genius. Thanks for your insights here!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ditto. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:08, 18 December 2009 (EST)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2010-06-18T23:14:07Z

TomRobinson: /* Homosexual denial */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Are opinions like that really necessary? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:07, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

And can you indisputably prove, in general, what you just stated? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:13, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::I think if you check your Bible, you'll find that each man should have his own '''wife''', and each woman her own husband. That's 1 Corinth. 7:2. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's not a commandment (1 Corinth. 7:6), and Paul would actually prefer people not to marry at all (that's where the Roman Catholics get priesthood celibacy from). On the other hand, bishops are explicitly required to be married to just one wife in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, indicating that non-bishops may have had several wives. In fact the source our polygamy article cites for the biblical prohibition of polyandry strongly argues that polygyny is not forbidden by God. I'd assume the change in sentiment was probably due to greco-roman ideas of family and marriage. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 19:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Adam and Eve pretty much set the standard, wouldn't you say? There have been only very rare exceptions in the Bible since that beginning. A very rare exception does not change the rule.

::::Same-sex marriage as a political movement, by the way, is anti-Bible in its agenda, because same-sex marriage has been used (e.g., in Massaschusetts) to teach an anti-biblical lifestyle to children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:39, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::I think it's also important to note the context of the exceptions. Jacob had two wives because Laban engaged in [[deception,]] substituting his older daughter for the younger. The multiple marriages were the result of two factors: Rachel's desire not to shame and disgrace her older sister, and Jacob's unfaltering love for Rachel.
:::::Furthermore, the multiple marriages were always focused on fulfilling the commandment "be fruitful and multiply." Time and time again, the reason was the same: the continued birth of children in order to ensure that the family would remain strong. This is not something same-sex marriage can achieve. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ben, you're a genius. Thanks for your insights here!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ditto. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:08, 18 December 2009 (EST)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2010-06-18T23:13:50Z

TomRobinson: /* Homosexual denial */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Are opinions like that really necessary? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:07, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)
And can you indisputably prove, in general, what you just stated? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:13, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::I think if you check your Bible, you'll find that each man should have his own '''wife''', and each woman her own husband. That's 1 Corinth. 7:2. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's not a commandment (1 Corinth. 7:6), and Paul would actually prefer people not to marry at all (that's where the Roman Catholics get priesthood celibacy from). On the other hand, bishops are explicitly required to be married to just one wife in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, indicating that non-bishops may have had several wives. In fact the source our polygamy article cites for the biblical prohibition of polyandry strongly argues that polygyny is not forbidden by God. I'd assume the change in sentiment was probably due to greco-roman ideas of family and marriage. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 19:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Adam and Eve pretty much set the standard, wouldn't you say? There have been only very rare exceptions in the Bible since that beginning. A very rare exception does not change the rule.

::::Same-sex marriage as a political movement, by the way, is anti-Bible in its agenda, because same-sex marriage has been used (e.g., in Massaschusetts) to teach an anti-biblical lifestyle to children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:39, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::I think it's also important to note the context of the exceptions. Jacob had two wives because Laban engaged in [[deception,]] substituting his older daughter for the younger. The multiple marriages were the result of two factors: Rachel's desire not to shame and disgrace her older sister, and Jacob's unfaltering love for Rachel.
:::::Furthermore, the multiple marriages were always focused on fulfilling the commandment "be fruitful and multiply." Time and time again, the reason was the same: the continued birth of children in order to ensure that the family would remain strong. This is not something same-sex marriage can achieve. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ben, you're a genius. Thanks for your insights here!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ditto. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:08, 18 December 2009 (EST)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2010-06-18T23:07:38Z

TomRobinson: /* Bias */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Are opinions like that really necessary? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:07, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::I think if you check your Bible, you'll find that each man should have his own '''wife''', and each woman her own husband. That's 1 Corinth. 7:2. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's not a commandment (1 Corinth. 7:6), and Paul would actually prefer people not to marry at all (that's where the Roman Catholics get priesthood celibacy from). On the other hand, bishops are explicitly required to be married to just one wife in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, indicating that non-bishops may have had several wives. In fact the source our polygamy article cites for the biblical prohibition of polyandry strongly argues that polygyny is not forbidden by God. I'd assume the change in sentiment was probably due to greco-roman ideas of family and marriage. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 19:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Adam and Eve pretty much set the standard, wouldn't you say? There have been only very rare exceptions in the Bible since that beginning. A very rare exception does not change the rule.

::::Same-sex marriage as a political movement, by the way, is anti-Bible in its agenda, because same-sex marriage has been used (e.g., in Massaschusetts) to teach an anti-biblical lifestyle to children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:39, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::I think it's also important to note the context of the exceptions. Jacob had two wives because Laban engaged in [[deception,]] substituting his older daughter for the younger. The multiple marriages were the result of two factors: Rachel's desire not to shame and disgrace her older sister, and Jacob's unfaltering love for Rachel.
:::::Furthermore, the multiple marriages were always focused on fulfilling the commandment "be fruitful and multiply." Time and time again, the reason was the same: the continued birth of children in order to ensure that the family would remain strong. This is not something same-sex marriage can achieve. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ben, you're a genius. Thanks for your insights here!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ditto. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:08, 18 December 2009 (EST)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Citizen Kane

2010-06-07T19:34:28Z

TomRobinson:

{{Infobox Film
| name=Citizen Kane
| image=CitizenKanePoster.jpg
| caption=
| director=Orson Welles
| producer=George Schaefer Orson Welles
| writer=Orson Welles Herman J. Mankiewicz
| narrator=
| starring=Orson Welles Joseph Cotten Dorothy Comingore
| music=Bernard Herrmann
| cinematography=Gregg Toland
| editing=Robert Wise
| distributor=RKO Radio Pictures
| released=May 1, 1941
| runtime=119 min
| country=USA
| language=English
| budget=$686,034
| gross=
| preceded_by=
| followed_by=
| website=
| amg_id=
| imdb_id=
}}
'''Citizen Kane''' is a 1941 American drama film produced and directed by [[Orson Welles]], who also played the title character. Many critics have named it as the greatest movie of all time. It was also voted #1 on the American Film Institute's list of the hundred best American movies ever made.<ref>http://www.afi.com/tvevents/100years/movies.aspx</ref> Though it was nominated for nine Academy Awards, it only won one for Best Original Screenplay (Orson Welles and Herman J. Mankiewicz).

==Plot==
Charles Foster Kane, multi-millionaire newspaper baron, has not been dead for long as reporters begin to investigate his rags-to-riches life in a search for the meaning of his last word: "Rosebud".

Kane was born to an impoverished boardinghouse keeper during the 1870s. After a defaulting boarder left them a deed to a successful gold mine, Mrs. Kane sent her son to live with Wall Street tycoon Lawrence Thatcher in [[New York City]]. Mrs. Kane did so to get her son away from his abusive father, but there would be a devastating price to pay.

Upon reaching adulthood, Kane informs his former guardian that he is not interested in any of his investments except for ''The New York Enquirer'', a newspaper which has been taken as collateral for a bad loan. By running the ''Enquirer'' as a sensationalistic scandal sheet, Kane succeeds in building it into the City's most successful newspaper. In the process, he attacks Thatcher's business interests, forces the United States into the [[Spanish-American War]], and increasingly alienates his best friend, Jedediah Leland.

Despite the success of his media empire, Kane remains unsatisfied. He marries the President's niece and sets his sights on political office. Although Mrs. Kane originally marries him for love, she soon realizes that her husband does not really care for her. Instead of leaving him, however, she continues to keep up appearances for the sake of their son. As for Kane, he begins a discreet affair with a young woman named Susan Alexander.

Meanwhile, Kane runs for Governor of New York and vows both in his campaign speeches and in the ''Enquirer'' to crush [[political boss]] Jim Gettys. On the eve of the 1916 election, however, Jim Getty's lures the Kanes to Susan Alexander's apartment and serves them an ultimatum: either Kane drops out of the election or his affair with Susan will be leaked to the press. Although Mrs. Kane pleads with him to protect their family from the scandal, her husband refuses to listen. He insists that he will win the election anyway and send Gettys to Sing-Sing Prison. Disgusted, Mrs. Kane divorces her husband, who marries Susan Alexander immediately. Due to the scandal, Kane is slaughtered at the voting booths.

In the aftermath, Jedediah arrives at the ''Enquirer'' offices drunk. With great insight, he deconstructs Kane and accuses him of wanting the public's love as a gift for services rendered. He declares that, with the rise of labor unions, the "poor and underprivileged" don't need Kane anymore. To Kane's shock, Leland climaxes by asking to be transferred to the new [[Chicago]] newspaper.

Later, Kane pays for singing lessons for Susan and builds her a massive opera house in [[Chicago]]. Although no one else actually likes Susan Kane's voice, Kane insists that she continue performing. Only when she attempts suicide does he finally relent.

In later years, he builds Xanadu, a massive estate in [[Florida]] filled with statues, pleasure grounds, and "the largest zoo since [[Noah]]." Despite Susan's hatred of Xanadu, he insists that it is their home and refuses to take her back to New York.

At last, Susan Kane reaches the end of her tether. She packs her bags and prepares to leave her husband. Devastated by the thought of losing her, Kane pleads with her to stay and tells her, "You can't do this to me." Viewing this as proof that her husband loves no one but himself, Susan storms out of the estate in a rage.

Soon after, Kane dies, wealthy, powerful, and completely alone in a hell of his own making. Meanwhile, the reporters finally give up all hope of uncovering the meaning of his last words. Then, however, a sled with the title "Rosebud" is cast into the furnace. It is a relic from Kane's childhood at his mother's boarding house, the only time when he was both penniless and completely happy.

==Media Backlash==
Kane was modeled after [[Progressive]] media mogul [[William Randolph Hearst]], who was enraged by the negative portrayal of his mistress, Marion Davies. As a result, he used his influence in order to force RKO Pictures not to release the film in theaters. The career of Orson Welles never recovered from Hearst's campaign.

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Historical Dramas]]

User:TomRobinson

2010-06-07T18:24:51Z

TomRobinson: Replaced content with 'In fact we trust.'

In fact we trust.

Apple Inc.

2010-06-07T18:18:40Z

TomRobinson:

[[Image:Apple-logo.png|right|thumb|150px|Apple Inc. logo]]
'''Apple Inc.''' is a liberal <ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> corporation based out of Cupertino, California, that deals primarily in computer hardware, software, and their line of [[MP3]] players, [[iPod]]s. Founded on April 1st, 1976, by [[Steve Wozniak]] and [[Steve Jobs]], its first product was the Apple I. The two Steves founded the company in their garage, which has since became one of the biggest tech companies in America. On January 9th, 2007, Apple Computer Inc. officially changed its name to Apple Inc to include their other non computer products. That same day, they announced the revolutionary [[iPhone]], which according to Apple, combines "a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device with desktop-class email, web browsing, maps, and searching."<ref>http://www.apple.com/iphone/</ref>

==Politics==
Apple supported the [[homosexual agenda]] by donating $100,000. to defeat [[Prop 8]] <ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> and named its operating system [[Darwin]].<ref>http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/</ref>
[[Al Gore]] was appointed to Apple's Board of Directors in 2003.<ref>http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/mar/19gore.html</ref>

==Original computers==
===The Apple I===
The Apple I was the first apple computer. The Apple I started out with just being a circuit sold to computer hobbyists. Later Apple realized that they could make more money by selling the Apple I all developed and put together instead of having the consumer build it themselves.
=== The [[Apple II]] ===

In 1977, however, Apple released the [[Apple II]], which was one of the first computers that came completely contained within a plastic case, motioning towards ''user-friendliness''. The main difference, however, was the screen display. Instead of just being able to display text, it would display graphics, charts, and eventually, color. Many small companies were buying these for use in their offices, but Steve Jobs had ambitions to expand.

=== The Apple III ===

The Apple III was created in response to Steve Jobs' wanting to move ahead with new innovations. He wanted to innovate, and as such, provided some questionable designs to the employees, such as it being shipped without a cooling fan, because Steve Jobs felt that having a loud obnoxious fan would interfere with his meditation. This particular defect caused the computer to break down, usually before it had reached its destination. Thousands were recalled.

===The Lisa===
The Lisa was named after Steve Jobs' daughter Lisa. The company had contests to come up for a computer acronym using the letters LISA. The Lisa was a failure because it was more expensive and not as powerful as the Macintosh.

=== The [[Macintosh]] ===

In 1984, the next Apple computer was released. Apple paired with Adobe to create Adobe [[PageMaker]]. The Macintosh was famous for its "1984" [[Super Bowl]] advertisement. The name of the device was taken from Steve Job's favorite type of apples the McIntosh apples. Despite the difference in spelling the name was also used by McIntosh Labs who brought certain legal problems into play. <ref> iCon: Steve Jobs </ref> The Macintosh had three major flaws. First, it only had six applications {{fact}}, and the Macintosh did not have an internal hard drive to save to, so users constantly had to do the "Floppy disk Olympics."

=== The Apple IIgs ===

The Apple IIgs was a mix between the two, but its main feature was that it was mouse driven.

==John Scully==
[[John Scully]] was appointed CEO of Apple by Steve Jobs because they would not let him run the company. Jobs picked Scully because he knew nothing about computers and would need to depend on Jobs for all decisions. This backfired on Jobs when he was forced to leave the company leaving control into the hand of a man who knew nothing about computers. When Jobs left the company was sent into despair. There was no vision and Scully was barely able to keep the company alive.

==Jobs Returns==
In 1997, Jobs organized a boardroom coup against then-CEO Gil Amelio to take control of the company after 3 years of declining stock values. He then restructured the company's product line, and eventually introduced an all-in-one computer named iMac.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Apple Inc.]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Companies]]

Apple Inc.

2010-06-07T18:14:26Z

TomRobinson: /* The Macintosh */ I've seen an expanded Macintosh 128K with my own two eyes.

[[Image:Apple-logo.png|right|thumb|150px|Apple Inc. logo]]
'''Apple Inc.''' is a liberal <ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> corporation based out of Cupertino, California, that deals primarily in computer hardware, software, and their line of [[MP3]] players, [[iPod]]s. Founded on April 1st, 1976, by [[Steve Wozniak]] and [[Steve Jobs]], its first product was the Apple I. The two Steves founded the company in their garage, which has since became one of the biggest tech companies in America. On January 9th, 2007, Apple Computer Inc. officially changed its name to Apple Inc to include their other non computer products. That same day, they announced the revolutionary [[iPhone]], which according to Apple, combines "a revolutionary mobile phone, a widescreen iPod with touch controls, and a breakthrough Internet communications device with desktop-class email, web browsing, maps, and searching."<ref>http://www.apple.com/iphone/</ref>

==Politics==
Apple supported the [[homosexual agenda]] by donating $100,000. to defeat [[Prop 8]] <ref>http://www.osnews.com/story/20432/Google_Apple_Openly_Support_Fight_Against_Proposition_8_</ref> and named its operating system [[Darwin]].<ref>http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/</ref>
[[Al Gore]] was appointed to Apple's Board of Directors in 2003.<ref>http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/mar/19gore.html</ref>

==Original computers==
===The Apple I===
The Apple I was the first apple computer. The Apple I started out with just being a circuit sold to computer hobbyists. Later Apple realized that they could make more money by selling the Apple I all developed and put together instead of having the consumer build it themselves.
=== The [[Apple II]] ===

In 1977, however, Apple released the [[Apple II]], which was one of the first computers that came completely contained within a plastic case, motioning towards ''user-friendliness''. The main difference, however, was the screen display. Instead of just being able to display text, it would display graphics, charts, and eventually, color. Many small companies were buying these for use in their offices, but Steve Jobs had ambitions to expand.

=== The Apple III ===

The Apple III was created in response to Steve Jobs' wanting to move ahead with new innovations. He wanted to innovate, and as such, provided some questionable designs to the employees, such as it being shipped without a cooling fan, because Steve Jobs felt that having a loud obnoxious fan would interfere with his meditation. This particular defect caused the computer to break down, usually before it had reached its destination. Thousands were recalled.

===The Lisa===
The Lisa was named after Steve Jobs' daughter Lisa. The company had contests to come up for a computer acronym using the letters LISA. The Lisa was a failure because it was more expensive and not as powerful as the Macintosh.

=== The [[Macintosh]] ===

In 1984, the next Apple computer was released. Apple paired with Adobe to create Adobe [[PageMaker]]. The Macintosh was famous for its "1984" [[Super Bowl]] advertisement. The name of the device was taken from Steve Job's favorite type of apples the McIntosh apples. Despite the difference in spelling the name was also used by McIntosh Labs who brought certain legal problems into play. <ref> iCon: Steve Jobs </ref> The Macintosh had three major flaws. First, it only had six applications {{fact}}, and the Macintosh did not have an internal hard drive to save to, so users constantly had to do the "Floppy disk Olympics."

=== The Apple IIgs ===

The Apple IIgs was a mix between the two, but its main feature was that it was mouse driven.

==John Scully==
[[John Scully]] was appointed CEO of Apple by Steve Jobs because they would not let him run the company. Jobs picked Scully because he knew nothing about computers and would need to depend on Jobs for all decisions. This backfired on Jobs when he was forced to leave the company leaving control into the hand of a man who knew nothing about computers. When Jobs left the company was sent into despair. There was no vision and Scully was barely able to keep the company alive.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Apple Inc.]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Companies]]

Cable News Network

2010-06-07T18:04:58Z

TomRobinson: The AOL division of TimeWarner has been sold, not to mention that TimeWarner has been called that way since 2004.

[[Image:LOGOCNN.png|right|200px]]
The '''Cable News Network''' (CNN) was the first 24-hour cable [[news]] channel in the [[United States]]. First started in 1980 by [[liberal]] [[Ted Turner]], it is a division of the Turner Broadcasting System, which is owned by TimeWarner.

From its origin as a cable-only service, CNN now broadcasts worldwide by satellite, with programs presented from studios in several countries in addition to their headquarters in Atlanta. Some regions receive locally produced opt-outs (under the name "CNN International"), and there are also broadcasts in [[Spanish]], [[German]], [[Italian]], [[Croatian]],[[Japanese]], [[Turkish]] and [[Gaelic]].

==History==
CNN is owned by [[leftist]] media mogul Ted Turner and made its debut in 1980 as the first US 24-hour news network. <ref>http://www.turner.com/about/corporate_history.html</ref>
During its early years it struggled to achieve the success and credibility of older news agencies, such as the [[BBC]]. However it achieved a great deal of recognition during its coverage of the first Gulf War during which it was the only news agency reporting during the initial night of the war. These events led to a movie, ''Live from Baghdad'', which portrays the events. <ref>http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Coursetexts/gulf-war-arnett.html</ref>

== Allegations of Bias ==
It has been accused by non-politicized and conservative media critics of having a liberal slant to its reporting.<ref>http://newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/13</ref>

== News Anchors ==
*[[Larry King]]
*[[Anderson Cooper]]
*[[Erica Hill]]
*[[Paula Zahn]]
*[[Campbell Brown]]

== References ==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.cnn.com/ CNN official site]
*[http://bloggasm.com/cnn-creates-blogging-policy-encourages-employees-to-engage-in-sockpuppetry CNN creates blogging policy, encourages employees to engage in sockpuppetry], Simon Owens, ''Bloggasm'', August 2, 2008

[[Category:Television]]

Ted Turner

2010-06-07T18:03:05Z

TomRobinson:

'''Ted Turner''' is a [[liberal]] [[media]] magnate, best known for founding [[CNN]] and Turner Broadcasting, and for making many insulting comments towards [[Christians]] and [[Republicans]]. He has publicly described himself as a [[socialism|socialist]] and declared admiration for [[Fidel Castro]].<ref>http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2004</ref>

He was previously married to [[Jane Fonda]] but their marriage ended when Fonda became a Christian.<ref>''My Life So Far'', Jane Fonda, 2006</ref> Turner had previously gone on record stating that Christianity was "a religion for losers", a comment that outside of the Christian community was generally deemed to be unimportant by the press and appeared to have no negative impact on his standing in the eyes of the media or his place as a businessman. Turner is also well known for his pledge to give a large chunk of his money to the [[United Nations]] and his encouragement for other people of wealth to do the same. He sponsored a United Nations religious program that brought up speakers to talk about the 'many paths to God', but did not invite Evangelical Christians to express their view.

In recent years Turner's view has mellowed. In 2008 while announcing a $200 million anti-malaria partnership with [[Lutheran]] and [[Methodist]] denominations, he had this to say:<blockquote>"Religion is one of the bright spots as far as I'm concerned, even though there are some areas, like everything else, where they've gone over the top a little, in my opinion."<ref>Christianity Today, June 2008, Pg. 15</ref></blockquote>

Turner also says he now prays for sick friends, explaining, "It doesn't hurt."

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Turner, Ted}}

[[Category: Business People]]
[[Category: Broadcasters]]
[[Category: Liberal Activists]]

Ted Turner

2010-06-07T18:02:35Z

TomRobinson:

'''Ted Turner''' is a [[liberal]] [[media]] magnate, best known for founding [[CNN]] and Superstation TBS, and for making many insulting comments towards [[Christians]] and [[Republicans]]. He has publicly described himself as a [[socialism|socialist]] and declared admiration for [[Fidel Castro]].<ref>http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2004</ref>

He was previously married to [[Jane Fonda]] but their marriage ended when Fonda became a Christian.<ref>''My Life So Far'', Jane Fonda, 2006</ref> Turner had previously gone on record stating that Christianity was "a religion for losers", a comment that outside of the Christian community was generally deemed to be unimportant by the press and appeared to have no negative impact on his standing in the eyes of the media or his place as a businessman. Turner is also well known for his pledge to give a large chunk of his money to the [[United Nations]] and his encouragement for other people of wealth to do the same. He sponsored a United Nations religious program that brought up speakers to talk about the 'many paths to God', but did not invite Evangelical Christians to express their view.

In recent years Turner's view has mellowed. In 2008 while announcing a $200 million anti-malaria partnership with [[Lutheran]] and [[Methodist]] denominations, he had this to say:<blockquote>"Religion is one of the bright spots as far as I'm concerned, even though there are some areas, like everything else, where they've gone over the top a little, in my opinion."<ref>Christianity Today, June 2008, Pg. 15</ref></blockquote>

Turner also says he now prays for sick friends, explaining, "It doesn't hurt."

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Turner, Ted}}

[[Category: Business People]]
[[Category: Broadcasters]]
[[Category: Liberal Activists]]

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2010-06-07T17:57:31Z

TomRobinson:

{{debate}}

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I think the current method of insta-banning anyone for 5 years for any edit that isn't evangelically conservative is working very well, actually.--[[User:Colbertnation2|Colbertnation2]] 19:45, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Read relativism and read Bertrand Russell. There's no absolute truth and there's no absolute mathematical truth that doesn't require unsupported assumptions (much like this statement). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1+3=4; 2+2=4; 2x2=4; 3+1=4; 6-2=4; -2x-2=4; 22=4; 100=4 (binary). Maybe we shouldn't be looking for the correct answers before knowing the correct questions? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 18:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The readership and editors of Conservapedia, Wikipedia, the New York Times, Fox News, in fact everyone would do well to remember Chapter 2 of J.S. Mill's ''Italic text''On Liberty''Italic text'': 'He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion'. Glib and flippant characterisations, (I hesitate to say misrepresentations) of liberal thought help no one. Liberal arguments, like Conservative ones, are amenable to rational debate. To dismiss them completely does our readership, especially those relying on this encyclopedia as an educational resource, a great disservice.

== It shouldn't ==
Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Terry, I don't for the life of me understand how you can connect modernism, postmodernism, etc., with political positioning. There is a wide range of political views associated with either. Modernism has to include both Marx and Jefferson, for example. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 13:04, 17 November 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small. - User: Edward. (I might not have formatted this properly, I apologise).

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, as long as we're talking Christianity (and Conservapedia is at least partly about that, isn't it?), comforting the afflicted sounds about right. And challenging the comfortable was certainly not foreign to Jesus' approach. Apart from that, though, when you say that liberals have a problem with truth because it conflicts with their views, the tendency you're talking about isn't by any means the exclusive province of liberals. Everyone does it to some extent, amazingly even people who edit Conservapedia. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I think it is ironic that Conservapedia should wish to be unbiased when "Conservative" is evident in it's name. I have argued the conservative view on Wikipedia many times. I think that one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that so many people of so many backgrounds can discuss matters on an online forum. When debating anywhere, I argue a creationist pov, and am deeply religious when it comes to following Jesus. I know go to your "terrorist" debate page and will use Jesus as a weapon. [[User:Two by two|Two by two]] 08:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The name says it all, this is not liberalpedia. You can have a conservative democrat(maybe) and a conservative Republican posting to Conservapedia. The point of view should still be conservative. When we post in the name of 'fairness', then we say we accept opposing viewpoints a.k.a. liberal points or grey instead of black or white. Truth and half truth should not be considered equal, only truth should be the guiding principle.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Liberals will not recognise that there is such a thing as the truth and righteousness. They are embroiled in their own pseudo-intellectual activities, such as the vain search for moral relativism. Conservapedia is neutral to the facts, as it should be. We present the facts, people make up their own minds then. Liberals insist on compensating for something or someone in order to try and give a balanced viewpoint when the truth is that sometimes God made some horrible, evil people, and we should be pointing that out, not pointing out that for example Hitler was good with dogs and therefore had a nice side. Its ridiculous. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 12:31, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

How is it even possible for a conservative website to be without bias? By adding a viewpoint, you are already inserting bias. Many of you claim that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, (which it may), but by choosing to make a site centered around a viewpoint (which everyone knows this site is) bias is already present. I am willing to accept the fact that Conservapedia has a bias, and I think once that is acknowledged, this site can become far more productive. All I ask is that you be up front about it. [[User:Rbpolsen|Rbpolsen]] 16:38, 20 November 2008 (EST)

== It should==
Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

As a non-conservative, I have to say that as it stands, this website has absolutely no credibility outside conservative/fundamentalist circles. Your articles, particularly science issues, and on things like evolution, abortion, and homosexuality read more like a fred phelps handout or a chick tract than a dictionary. If your guys goal is to create an insular, self congratulating source of propaganda, you've succeeded. If your goal was to make an 'unbiased' version of wikipedia, you've merely gone in the exact opposite direction. I wish you all luck. -s

I think religious bias is something to be worried about. For example, the article on [[Salvation]] shows only one facet of Salvation (e.g. the protestant version of the satisfaction theory) but the admins say it is true and will not let it be changed. Of course, this alienates Roman Catholics, some Lutherans, and Orthodox Christians. Also, it makes the conservapedia an unreliable source for students writing papers on the history of theology.--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 16:41, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:A very perceptive comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It the Bible is the only reliable source of truth, why don't we just post the Bible. In fact, I'm surprised how many articles here don't refer to the Bible at all. Shouldn't we be trying to provide an appropriate Biblical reference for evey topic? Surely links to other mere websites can't be as important as the word of the Lord? [[User:FijjaccoDeMiggnotta]]

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine and dandy. Since "truth" has been established as knowable (see above, generally), and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "truth" and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "the only true source of information," then let's use this source of truth to solve some age-old problems. And what better place to start than religion, where truth claims abound. OK, what is the "true" reason for which Christ died on the cross? The three competing truth claims (according to [[Christianity]]) are: (1) to cleanse humanity of Adam's original sin (predominantly Catholic teaching), (2) for our sins (predominantly Protestant teaching), or (3) as a sacrifice to defeat death or Satan (predominantly Lutheran teaching). So, who's got it right (i.e., what's the "truth") -- the Catholics, the non-Lutheran Protestants, or the other Protestants? If facts are facts (2 + 2, etc.), and if unbiased people can see them clearly, then there must be an obvious candiate for the truth of this matter. If the Bible is a reliable source of "information," then I expect it would have an answer for questions like these in particular. Still no takers? I don't get it. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 01:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

FINALLY! someone who sees clearly! Thank you unnamed writer above (the posts between my last and this one are not written by me.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 16:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberals have control of Wikipedia (fooling the readers that it is unbiased). Conservatives have control of Conservapedia (upfront with their readers as to their true intentions). Fair and balanced? Thats like truth (fair) with half truth (balanced) as a counterpoint. You want a centrists approach, start Centripedia.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative, yes. Bias, no.==
I for one would like to see a more conservative and less biased Conservapedia. Many articles here read like mirror images of Wikipedia articles. I'd like to see a truly fair and balanced encyclopedia that does not squelch the conservative point of view. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Will someone please explain ==
How does the term "conservative" automatically mean fair and balanced AND the truth?

== Idea ==
Perhaps the name should be objectivepedia, if one were wanting to have an un-biased, truthful, and accurate reference tool.

== Radical Idea : Could change internet traffic forever! ==
Let's rename Conservapedia to Encyclopedia Politica or Politipedia or something that al least sounds neutral. --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 13:57, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

Debate:Favorite old time radio show

2010-06-07T17:55:27Z

TomRobinson:

{{debate}}

What is your favorite old time radio show, let's debate this topic

My favorite thing about old time radio is that it proves that entertainment does not need to be dirty to be funny, (but to be honest it was sometimes a little racist).

For those new to old time radio, you can find huge amounts on the Internet Archive[http://www.archive.org/details/oldtimeradio].

My Personal favorite is the [[Dean Martin|Martin]] & [[Jerry Lewis|Lewis]] show[http://www.archive.org/details/MartinAndLewis_OldTimeRadio]. What's yours? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 22:39, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Although it was canceled a long time before I was born, I've listened to recordings of Lux Radio Theater and love them--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Jack Benny, hands down. Mel Blanc was one of the funniest radio voices in broadcast history. --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 13:55, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

== Kick to the head! ==

Do any of y'all remember [[Ed Gruberman]]? Oh man, he'd just sit there and http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Favorite_old_time_radio_show&action=editkick people in the head. Sometimes they deserved it, sometimes they didn't - but it was always good stuff. --[[User:DrHubertJNugz|DrHubertJNugz]] 22:07, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia Forum: How Can John McCain Connect Better With Young Voters?

2010-06-07T17:52:24Z

TomRobinson: /* Add Forum Responses Here */

==Introduction==

The purpose of this page is to allow members of the Conservapedia community to contribute their thoughts on the topic above in an Op-Ed context. Like the debate pages, editors should feel free to express their opinions without having to cite references, and without concern that expressing their candid opinions will lead to being disciplined, provided the ''Ground Rules'' below are followed.

==Background==

This forum was prompted by a July 2008 [http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/24/young.gop/ story] on CNN.com about Senator John McCain's apparent problems in connecting with young Republican voters. Some of the most interesting comments came from Eric Pearlmutter, a member of the Young Republicans at the University of Southern California, who said the roaring enthusiasm that follows Obama is missing among conservatives his age. Pearlmutter also said he cringed when McCain admitted he doesn't use e-mail, and pointed out that the images used in McCain's campaign -- such as a message about small businesses showing a barber shop with a traditional red and blue pole -- hardly connect to the younger generation. "Well when you see the Main Street barber shop image, you think of 1950s America -- an entrepreneur, a Silicon Valley guy would definitely make him more attractive," he said.

McCain also acknowledged the importance of using the Internet to reach out to a generation that stays in touch via social networking sites. On MySpace, Obama has more than 427,000 friends, compared with less than 60,000 for McCain. Obama also has increased his college-age appeal by holding rallies and giving speeches at hundreds of campuses. McCain has said he recognizes he needs to get out to those venues "where young people are engaged and receiving their information and forming their opinions."

==Forum Question==

Given that McCain has acknowledged the importance of connecting and resonating with young voters, what should he be doing more or less of to achieve that goal in a meaningful way to impact the election?

==Add Forum Responses Here==

*First off, he needs to focus less on attacking Obama without offering a better counter-plan at the same time. Obama beat Clinton because the voters wanted "new ideas" over "experience", and McCain's not been coming up with enough of the former. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

*Well, first off, he made a brilliant choice in that regard with [[Sarah Palin]] who is about the same age Obama is. Another idea is that he run his campaign with young people in mind. Not nearly enough young adults are [[Republican]], since they buy into all the junk public schools feed them, about "abortion rights" and "gay rights". [[User:JY23|JY23]] 18:45, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

:The Palin observation is a good one. Can you expand more on what you mean when you suggest that he "run his campaign with young people in mind". What can Republicans do to connect better with young people? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

*As a Democrat who was actually saddened to see McCain lose the Republican Ticket in 2000 to You-Know-Who, I ''wanted'' to have debates as to whether to vote for Obama or McCain. If he had picked Mike Huckabee over Palin, and dropped the crappy radio commercials, I would have seriously considered voting for McCain. Unfortunately, he let Rove manipulate him into giving the VP ticket to Palin, which really caused a revulsion in several neutral voters. --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 13:52, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

==Ground Rules==

#Please keep all edits family-friendly and courteous.
#No personal attacks.
#Do not edit or delete anyone else's comments unless they break rules 1 or 2.
#Contributions here do not count towards the 90/10 rule.
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?

2010-06-07T17:47:01Z

TomRobinson: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

''Are homosexuals "born that way"? Would it outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex?''

==Yes==

"Are homosexuals "born that way"?"

I think the science is not all in on that one. All I do know is that many of them have known they were "different" from a very young age.

"Would it outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex?"

What a sick, controlling question. I know it would outrage my personhood to suppress any desire I hold because ''someone else'' finds it abominable or disgusting. As it should, indeed, outrage theirs if I were to expect them to suppress a desire that I think is wrong somehow. Although, now that I think about it, why shouldn't all warmaking people suppress that desire? A bit off topic there. Anyway, yes, I'm certain that it would be a cruel outrage for expect or force someone else to suppress their desires where they do not affect you personally. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, there are elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts. This question is more of a free will versus determinism question than about the science behind homosexuality. People have the choice in whether or not they have a relationship with a person of the same sex. I believe that we have the free will in what we do and so homosexuals have the choice of not committing those sinful acts. --'''[[User:AdrianP|Adrian]][[User talk:AdrianP|P]]''' 21:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Those that think the acts are "sinful" can make that choice, yes. Those that don't are free to act in a way that increases their happiness. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:There are elements of choice in heterosexuality, too. When you have sex with someone, anyone, it is (generally) a choice. But you can not choose who you desire. [[User:ChrisQ|ChrisQ]]

yes, there is the same way there are elements of choice when it comes to carrying out heterosexual acts, is there a element of choice to being homosexual no-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:05, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Yea but it's so hard not to do it[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:Could someone from the 'No' side be so good as to give physical data/proof from an NPOV-based source proving that Homosexuality as a whole is based on choice alone and in no way is received at birth?--[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 13:47, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

==No==

I believe that there are elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out [[homosexual act]]s. Homosexuals are not "born that way", and it would not outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:Answered below.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Homosexuality is a choice. It definitely isn't something that is programmed into your genes. I was told to compare it to drug addiction. Drug addicts are never "born that way". However, once the choice is made (to do drugs, or engage in homosexual acts) the addicted rarely want to break the cycle. Sometimes the addicted can't pinpoint the exact moment the choice is made or blow off their actions as "just nothing" (Such as smoking a marijuanna cigarette or making out with another boy.) It is a slippery slope once the abuse begins. These addictions can be overcome though, but it is never easy. One must dedicate themselves to the rehabilitation process and truly give themselves to Jesus. That way, and that way alone is the way to overcome the Homosexual addiction. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

:Out of curiosity, do you believe - following the drug addict analogy - that almost ''anyone'' could potentially become "addicted" to homosexuality? I was never quite clear what the supposed stance on vulnerability to homosexuality was... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 16:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:Oh, and I thought this might be an interesting contribution to the debate: [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316316,00.html Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again.] [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 16:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::As far as vulnerability goes, it depends on the person, their mental strength and the environment they grow up in. Some people might be coaxed into homosexual acts because it's the "cool" thing to do, especially since Hollywood appears to be fixated on glamorizing the homosexual lifestyle. Children raised in a secular environment, or by same-sex parents are more likely to become homosexuals because the temptation is always there (Just like how a child raised by drug-addicts is more likely to become a drug addict themselves because there are constantly drugs in the household.) However, children raised in a traditional family that attends a Christian church regularly is far less likely to become a homosexual because the behavior is discouraged and there is little or no temptation. Individuals need a considerably larger amount of mental strength in a secular environment to resist homosexuality than they would need in an environment that embraces Jesus. -- [[User:Jose83|Jose83]]

::: I wouldn't be so sure. It's not necessarily all about temptation. Children of homosexuals are not always homosexuals, and homosexuality occurs in families who have no history of it. And continuing, when the hell was homosexuality "cool" in any way?!?? It's always been queer this, sissy this, fag that. Schoolboys have always tried to defend their masculinity. Oh, and I don't know how you can tie secularism to homosexuality, either. [[User:ChrisQ|ChrisQ]] 20:12, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:So does that mean the apparent "sexual orientation" of homosexuals is merely the expression of the individual experiencing that temptation? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:53, 28 December 2007 (EST)

::Feebasfactor, your article hardly proves anything. Fruit fly behavior is much simpler than that of humans and is entirely based on genetic teachings. Human behavior is much more complex and more learned. I do not believe, however, that being gay is a choice in anyway. I am gay and I certainly did not make that choice. Have you ever noticed that almost every gay person says that it is NOT a choice? Why is it that the beliefs of straight people always overrule ours, when they have no experience in the matter? Those "gone straight" bible stories are people just denying who they are because they can't handle the social stigma or have some hell and brimstone complex. I have known people who have tried that, it never worked for them. It is, however, their choice if they want to put themselves through the emotional pain of these "programs." Some people can't handle it, and I respect that, however, I think in the end they are just harming themselves more. [[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 13:48, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Maybe==

I think there is a division of homosexuality. I think that some people during their youth are sexually confused by hormones, and they engage is sexual acts that they otherwise wouldn't. I have a friend who is straight as can be, but he's had homosexual sex before, as a teen, and regrets it, because he was not homosexual. Also, I don't believe in "Bisexuality." I can give that people can be attracted to the opposite sex, but I don't think that you can be attracted to both. I think bisexually is just a lack of CARING about what you have sex with, so long as you are having sex.

Now, I am a strong believer in gay rights and I believe that at least some gays are in some way a natural occurrence. I have many gay friends and am a member of our school's LGBTS alliance. I have meet many single sex couples, including a pair of lesbians partners who are currently raising a daughter that is more well behaved than most straight raised couples and she is heterosexual to boot.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can bisexuality be a lack of caring? I am bisexual, and besides the fact that I am not legally old enough to have sex, there are plenty of people with whom I simply would not want to do so.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 20:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::I just don't think you can be both. I think you can be either one or the other. Being bisexual means that you don't care whether or not you are having sex with a man or a woman. Also, if you are not legally old enough to have sex (No such thing btw, sex isn't illegal) then you may not be bisexual. You might be hormonally confused. It happens. But anyway, I just don't think bisexuality is a valid sexual identity. I think its more like you just want to have sex, and its really irrelevant what you are having sex with. I mean, feel free to think me wrong. It just what I personally feel. You can either be gay or straight, but both is pushing it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I like apples. I also like oranges. It's not that I don't care what I'm eating - I just enjoy the specific qualities of each, and sometimes prefer one over another. Is this such an unreasonable position? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:43, 5 March 2008 (EST)

:: How about being neither? [[User:ChrisQ|ChrisQ]] 20:14, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== The Obvious Arguments ==
People have said repeatedly that homosexuality is not "inborn" - rather, it appears at a very early age, such that people don't remember it, so they think it's inborn, but it's not. The question is, how does this matter? If the change is subtle, at a young age, and permanent, how is it any different from being "inborn" in the respect it deserves? The trait is still immutable, and discrimination based on immutable traits is flat-out bigotry (racism, sexism). So, does it matter if the trait is inborn, if it can be proved to be acquired early on, as Ed has argued?

Second, the argument is that homosexuals do not have to be "practicing" homosexuals - they can abstain. The request, then, is for homosexuals to live a sex-less life. Hands up who's male, straight, and adult here (*hand up*). Hands up who'd be mad as anything if they couldn't have sex ever again (*hand up*). Now impute that same prospective frustration onto homosexuals. Can you deny someone, even someone with whom you disagree, someone who you think is a sinner, the basic right of expression & love that sexual intimacy is? Plenty of people do voluntarily - but that's entered into voluntarily, not by forcible compulsion.

A closing thought: if it disgusts you, so be it; don't do it. If you think it'll condemn gays to Hell, so be it; according to fundamentalist Christianity, all Muslims & Jews are going to hell anyways, and you seem capable of getting along with them. Ed, maybe "evil" doesn't deserve your acceptance, but you "accept" evil all the time in the form of different religions. The point is that it doesn't hurt anyone to be accepting of '''a right that infringes upon none of yours.'''-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Very eloquent: "You should be a lawyer." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks Ed! I try. I've just seen too many good people go through pain & trauma because they've been needlessly ostracized for their sexual orientation.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::As Ed said, very eloquent. I agree completely; this equivocation is ridiculous. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:23, 8 November 2007 (EST)

:Hey, I didn't say "correct", I just said "eloquent". ;-)
::Yeah, but in the legal world, you don't have to be correct to be right.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:48, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::"if it disgusts you"... The thought of many, many people fornicating/consummating their marriage disgusts me. But, ''it is none of my business who they choose to do it with''. And none of yours, either. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:37, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==Does It Matter?==
Regardless of whether homosexuality is genetically determined or a personal choice, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. It's a no-brainer, guys. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:23, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Conservapedia:Are role-playing games good for children?

2010-06-07T17:43:28Z

TomRobinson: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

==Yes==

* [[Role-playing]] games do not reinforce evil, but "get it out of your system".
* Anyway, it's just a game.
* Encourages a sense of imagination

Yes, for at least two reasons:
1) Most of the monters encountered are based on mythology and literature. Seeing the cool monsters would spark a broader interest in the classics. It did for me when I was a kid.

2) Playing those games builds problem solving skills. If you're in a party of five characters, and you're about to enter a dungeon with forty hobgoblins, you can't just walk in with swords drawn and expect to survive. To succeed at a role-playing game, you need to know how to plan, you need to find creative ways to maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses, you need to learn when to be aggressive and when to use caution. All of those are skills which will serve the kids well in the real world, even if (hopefully) not in the same situation.

It is true that it's bad if the child goes overboard, but that's true of anything. That's why we have parents, to keep that from happening.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:04, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

'''Yes, but in moderation-''' Let them play RPGs. Most of the time they do no harm, as long as they have a stable social life, RPGs can't hurt. It's good to check the ratings, though. --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 13:43, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

==No==

* Acting out mental fantasies of sorcery, theft, etc., encourages these evil tendencies.

:It seems to me that "'''of course''' they are bad" is the obvious and correct conclusion. People tend to escalate in behaviors in which they indulge. When I started collecting guns, I bought one, and it was cool, so I bought a second...then my collecting got more and more pronounced. Now I actually have to budget my income to make sure I don't inadvertently indulge the hobby too much. The same goes for '''bad''' behaviors. Pedophiles, murderers, drug users, criminals, all are known to escalate over time, not start off at the top and then, the "pressure" released, revert to ordinary citizens. It's called "escalation behavior" and it's why no one, children or adults, should casually play RPGs in my opinion. Part of the reason we (meaning conservatives) seem to have, on the whole, a very relaxed attitude towards sexual and occult imagery and influences of things like [[Dungeons and Dragons]] and [[Harry Potter]] are that the influences are everywhere and we "get used to them." Though I have my issues with Catholicism, the Pope is absolutely right to refer to the "[http://www.explorefaith.org/news/08_02_05.html subtle seductions] of fictional representations of the occult. They normalize things which should be categorically condemned. Jesus Saves 19:22, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

==Very Occasionally==

I think both of the Debaters above have good points. I do think it is unfair to write off all RPG's as evil. However they should be played only for enjoyment in my opinion. I would put them in same category of movies, not very profitable, but usually somewhat enjoyable. There are some interesting aspects of most of them, but not really any moral ones. However many Role Playing Games glorify Gore, Violence and suggestive content. These should be avoided, especially by children. Parents should monitor what their children play, indeed in some games such as the [[elder scrolls]] series there is a variety of dark, wicked cults for players to join. Indeed caution is required when children devote any amount of time to Role Playing Games. [[Baronvonbob]]

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2010-06-07T17:41:01Z

TomRobinson: /* Yes */

{{Debate-religion}}
{{Debate-politics}}
{{Debate}}
This is basically a forum. You can chat with your friends, and reminise with them about that special person that you will never meet because you were too busy here answering if gay marrage should be legaized. So, answer. The sooner you do, the faster you might meet that special someone. 
 
==Yes==
Yes, it should be allowed. For all too long, there has been discrimination in this country. For instance, racism was considered normal for a long time. However, although people might think that there is no discrimination going on in America today, there is prejudice against the homosexual population. The discrimination is that they are denied their free right to, well, equal rights. The right of being married. One of this country's fundimental principals was to have everyone come here and be equals. Although that promise wasn't nessicerally held up (slaves are still people, yet they were still imprisoned for many years after this country was founded), do we need to fight another war in order to try to get homosexual marrage allowed (a very long strech, but you get the point). Discrimination was tolerated at one point in America. Can't we leave that point behind us? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

You say it should be legalized because of equality. But, it’s because of equality that it shouldn’t be legalized. Homosexuals already have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. A homosexual man can marry any woman he chooses (assuming that she is of legal age and is consenting) just as any heterosexual man can. They already have the exact same rights. Allowing homosexuals to marry one another would be giving them special rights based on a behavioral preference. They choose to engage in homosexuality. Note that when I say they’re “choosing”, I’m not talking about whether they’re born that way or not. I mean they’re choosing their lifestyle. Born that way or not, they still choose to engage in that particular sexual behavior, just like heterosexuals choose to engage in their sexual acts. So, it is a behavioral choice, and legalizing it would be giving them a special right based on a behavior. That is inequality. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:44, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't quite see why they would marry someone that is heterosexual if they are homosexual. I mean, look at it this way. Let's say that it was illigal for everyone that was not Roman Catholic to be married. Should it not be legalized for other religons to do that. Because, I mean, religion is simply the truth that you prefer to believe (for catholics, it is that Jesus was the messiah, for example). Should it not be legal for other religions to marry, even though they prefer not to be Roman Catholics? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

The point is that they can marry. You're giving examples of people who can't marry at all, but that doesn't fit the current scenario of things. Homosexuals might not want to marry the opposite gender, but they have the right to, just like a heterosexual person can. The point is that they all have the same rights, and to allow them to wed the same sex would be to give out special rights. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, homosexuals can marry those of opposite gender, but, if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will be able to marry people of the same gender, so everyone will still have equal rights. If gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody, why shouldn't it be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:11, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Because you're giving out rights based on a behavioral preference. It's saying, "I prefer to do this, so it should be legal because I want to do it." Besides, who says that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone? I would dispute that. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:26, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

If you want to do something why shouldn't it be legal? The only answer I can think of is if it hurts someone. If gay marriage indeed hurts someone, who does it hurt? (And I'm not giving out rights based on behavioral preference; everyone would get the right to a homosexual marriage just like everyone gets the right to a heterosexual marriage.) [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:32, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

It hurts society. We already have moral standards that are in place that have been there a long time. The standard for marriage is one man and one woman who are of legal age. If we redefine the standard, then we move the line back a little. If you set the precedence that it's okay to move that line in regards to morality as we see fit, then where does it end? Polygamy? Bestiality? Pedophilia? And it is a special right, because it is giving out a right because a particular group of people hold to that behavior. It's like drug users who want drugs to be legalized because they like to use them. That's giving in to a person's behavior. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:40, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, the Biblical standard for marriage is "One man, and as many wives and concubines as he can afford". You need to start getting all huffy about how abandoning this Godly standard has hurt our country. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Is society really hurt just because it stops reflecting your morals? There have been other opinions that had "been there a long time" before they got changed: see [[slavery]]. The government has to protect its citizens and residents and so it cannot allow bestiality or pedophilia because neither a (non-human) animal nor a child is mentally capable of consenting to sex. Polygamy is a little trickier. While I don't object to it in principle, it generally seems to lead to abusive husbands and male-dominated societies and so the government could certainly outlaw it.
And homosexuality is not like drug use because drug users actually ''do'' harm society; they make roads more dangerous and tend to commit more crimes than non-drug users. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:56, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't forget that [[Miscegenation]] used to be illegal, too. :-P --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

How are you asking that first question? Are you asking my morals in particular, or in a generalistic sense? If it's my morals that society no longer reflects, well, I think it's morally wrong to steal, rape, murder, etc. So, yea, socitey would be hurt real bad. What I'm saying about changing values is that it makes things easier to pass that were at one time considered terrible. Let me give you an example:

An 18 year old can marry anyone they want without their parents permission. But, a 17 year old can't. But is a 17 year old that much different from an 18 year old? Most would say they're not. So shouldn't a 17 year old be able to marry as he chooses as well? Really, that makes pretty good sense. But, a 16 year old isn't that different from a 17 year old, so why can't he marry as he wants? And on and on it goes until you get to, "Well, a 5 year old isn't that much different than a 6 year old, so hey should be able to get married." My point is that it's just a real slippery sloap. Simillarly, how do you tell the very next thing after homosexuality that they can't when you just made the exception for homosexuals? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:07, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

To answer your first question, yes, I am asking about your morals. I really don't care what society thinks. If society thinks that it is okay to steal, rape, and murder, I don't care. I do care about what the government thinks, because, even if society condones murder, people will not be allowed to murder each other as long as the government opposes it. The government does not need any moral standard to outlaw theft, rape, and murder, as I said before: the government has to protect its citizens. As a result, the government should, and would, outlaw theft, rape, and murder without any morals.

As to your slippery slope example, in 1971 the minimun voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. 37 years later, there are still no supporters of suffrage for 15 year olds. I can't see why allowing gay marriage would be so different. Finally, I haven't made an exception for homosexuals until you prove that they harm society. If you do that I will oppose gay marriage. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:31, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Wait. Government doesn't need any moral standards? I disagree. There have been lots of governments that kill their own citizens when it's convenient for them to do so. Everybody needs an objective standard, otherwise your just making you morals up out of your own preferences. The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 because 18 years olds were dieing in Vietnam but couldn't elect the officials who sent them there. That made no sense. The reason it isn't continuing to be lowered is because people realize that there must be some standard. If you lower to 17, then why not 16. If 16, why not 15? But we realize that you have to keep some standard otherwise where does it end? The same goes for marriage. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

I would like to add something. If the government does not have any moral stadards, then the government will end up deciding to destroy it's people and if anyone speeks out against it, then they will stop at nothing to make sure you will not say anything. However, I would like to say this. In a way, heterosexual marrages are based upon one's behavioral preferance. For instance, let's say that a man likes women. Isn't that a preference? Why, then should a homosexual not be able to marry because of their behavioral preference? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

::"Because gays are icky" seems to be the basis for all the arguments I've heard. If these folks REALLY think that gay marriage will Destroy the Institution of Marriage (possibly by giving it AIDS), you have to wonder why they don't try to outlaw [[Divorce]], FIRST. There are a LOT more divorced heterosexuals than there are gays, period.
::Especially [http://www.acupofambition.com/index.php?s=marriages celebrity marriages]! They're doing more damage to the Sacredness of Marriage than all they homosexuals in the world could. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, my morals say that it is wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Since these are the same morals that are against pedophilia, wouldn't your slippery slope argument say that we must allow gay marriage or risk pedophilia becoming legal? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay, let me try to hit all those points one at a time. First off, yes, people being involved in heterosexual relationships is a behavioral preference, too. But, it's a little different in the sense that heterosexuality is generally considered to be the natural way. It's what we predominantly see in nature, the male and female bodies are obviously meant to couple, the vast majority of people are heterosexual, etc. So, my argument is that there's the so called "normal" way that has been perfectly accepted and legal since this nation's foundation, and everyone is given the same rights to perform that way. Then there is another lifestyle that is only preformed by a small minority, and they are engaging in an activity which they choose to do. (Not the choice to be gay, but the choice to "act" gay, or to engage in that behavior.) So for it to be asked that this alternative choice be given just as much legitimacy as the first option is somewhat of a push. It's almost as if homosexuals are saying "we choose to act differently then you, but we want you to treat us like we're not." But wait. Your making that choice, not me. I don't force it on you. You do it by your own free will. You can't turn around and then act like your not making that choice. That's having your cake and eating it too.

I can't speak for all, but I'm not against homosexuality because it's "icky". I'm against it because I believe it's morally wrong. Yes, divorce is bad, too. People treat marriage far too flippantly, with the attitude of, "if it doesn't work, we'll get a divorce". That's wrong, too. But the problem is that there are some scenarios where divorce could be legitimate. In cases of unfaithful partners, abusive spouses, etc. So there are cases that make it impossible to outlaw divorce.

I think that I get your point about turning my slippery slope argument against me. (Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.) No, the slippery slope doesn't occur because of my personal values or yours. It occurs because of what is already in place in society. What there is one man, one woman of legal age and they consent. That's the standard. So if you lower that standard to suit homosexual marriage, then where does it end? The slippery slope has to do with what's already in the society, not my personal beliefs. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:03, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, so we're talking about society's morals then. But wouldn't the slippery slope mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The argument is that anything will be allowed if you get on the slippery slope, because once you start down it there's no real way to stop. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Is that a yes then? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 19:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry; I think I'm missing the question. Yes to what? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 19:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't the slippery slope argument mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:00, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. The slippery slope is saying that if you get onto that road then you can't stop any possible outcome that fits within that context. Things still could get passed and changed, because society could get on the slope. It's just a caution for society to be careful of which way it heads because it might not like where it ends up. But it still could change and allow things. That's why the argument is there. There's no point in arguing it if it can't change anyway. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Incestuous relationships: "but they love each other shouldn't they be allowed to marry whoever they want without any circumstances that is discrimination they love each other but you won't let them marry it may not be the ideal but how could you prevent two people who really love each other from marrying, marriage is based on love, is it not, honestly why do you care what they do in their bedroom it is there business" It is the same argument as that of homosexual relationship, both are stupid views incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberals don't think they follow their emotions -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Immorality anywhere is a threat to morality anywhere, if you actually cared about homosexuals instead of the radical ones, you'd feel sorry for them according to Center for Disease Control, 71% of the people with HIV are homosexual, homosexuals are overrepresented for all STDs extensively-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps gay marriage would encourage monogomy and thus reduce STD's among homosexuals. Also I think the problem with incest is not a moral one but rather a genetic one. The children of close relatives are far more likely than others to get rare genetic diseases. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

But even monogamy in a homosexual relationship can lead to STD's. As for the incest thing, you're right. Even from a Biblical standpoint that's the view. Early on in creation it was okay for brothers and sisters to marry. How else could the Earth be populated by two people? Cain had to marry his sister. But back then the genetic line was pure enough to allow for that sort of thing, where now it is not. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:53, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

STD's can be transmitted in even in a monogomous relationship (homosexual or heterosexual), but it is far less likely than if someone has many different partners. The odds of 1 in 2 people having an STD are far less than the odds of, say, 1 in 10 [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:29, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Certainly. But the form of sexual intercourse with the highest STD rate would be anal. I know both heterosexual and homosexual couples are capable of that, but homosexuals are more likely to engage in it because, well, count the holes... [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:20, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Question, why do you even care about gays having STDs? That is our problem to deal with, not yours. We can't have children (not biologically anyway) so we cannot pass it on, we are gay and therefore will not engage in sex with heterosexual persons, and thus won't spread it within the heterosexual community (which is all you seem to care about). Thus, why does it even matter to you? What business is it to you if a person (gay or straight) gets a STD. That is their problem to deal with, not yours. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 6:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first of all someone else raised the point and I was simply addressing it. Secondly, it can be passed on, just not through hereditary means. Say someone with HIV gave blood and it got passed on, that would be a problem. (I know that's unlikely because they test for that stuff before they take blood, but I'm just saying it can still be passed by means other than sex.) Thirdly, I care because I don't want gay people to get diseases. It may not have a direct impact on me, but I still don't want them to be sick. I don't like homosexuality and I think it's wrong, but I don't want them to get sick and die. I care about a lot of things that don't necessarily impact me. Children starving to death in Africa doesn't affect me personally, but I still care about them and don't want it to happen. People I don't know who go to Hell might not affect me personally, but I still don't want them to have to suffer like that. I think it‘s just a sign of humanity to care about other people.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

It is fine to "care" about other people, but not when it negatively impacts their lives. Starving children in Africa will not deny your help or aid because they want it, and it makes their lives better. People's interference with private social lives, however, is not wanted. And just a FYI, under current law, any individual with a same-sex sexual experience since 1977 cannot give blood. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:43, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Who said anything about interfering with your life? That's putting words in my mouth. You have every right to live that way if you want to. I care about homosexuals and don't want them to get diseases, but I fully recognize that individuals have the right to make their own choices. Where the discrepancy comes up is when we're dealing with legalizing it and it becoming a societal factor. That's when it interferes with my life and negatively impacts me. That's when I have to say "no." [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:36, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is, why is it alright to negatively impact my life, but not yours. What makes the negative impact of my life so inferior to yours that it is okay for mine to continue, but it is an abomination that your life is somehow impacted. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 12:51, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not. I'm not trying to negatively impact your life. That's why I don't push for homosexuality to be made illegal. (As some people have suggested be done.) Your have the right to live that way if you want. But, it's not fair to negatively impact my life, either. That's why I'm against it being legalized and pushed onto society. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:02, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You may not specifically be trying to negatively impact my life (as neither am I) but you are in your attempts to prevent such legislature legalizing gay marriage. So my question still stands, why is the negative impact on your life worse than the negative impact on mine? Considering just what legally will change, it seems that the negative impact on my life is greater than yours. You will loose no rights whatsoever, you will not have to recognize gay marriages in a religious sense. The gay community, however, is suffering from inability to receive benefits of legally married couples such as child custody protection, inheritance priority, and visitation rights. Unless if you are some form of insurance representative, or a member of any other such industry that would change due to gay marriage, your life is not effected directly at all. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:27, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Define negative impact. Because a child molester could say, "Hey, you're not allowing me to legally molests kids! I consider that a negative impact on me!" (I'm certainly not trying to say homosexuals are the same as child molesters, just making an analogy.) The point is that society has determined that there are certain things that have a negative impact on society so those things aren't acceptable. The whole point of this debate is why you should now be able to do something that was previously unacceptable. You might not like the status, but you have to prove why homosexuality should be accepted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. And it does affect me, as I've explained numerous times. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:43, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think this conversation keeps going off onto tangents about slippery slopes, child molestation and allowing 6-year-olds to marry, so let me ask this succinctly and hopefully I'll get a succinct answer in return.
:I'm in favor of allowing same-sex marriage because when you strip away all the rhetoric and politics, it's simply about letting two people who love each other and are dedicated to a relationship together solemnize their commitment, and enjoy the same legal rights as any other couple the state considers "legally married". The gender of the individuals in this commitment should matter as much to the government as their race (not at all), because it has no bearing on their ability to be a functional couple or good citizens. Even the mostly conservative/republican judges in California understood that when you define something like "domestic partnership" to be separate but equal to "marriage", it enables ''society' to discriminate anyway regardless of the law, so it's not equal in the end.
:One hundred years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many places because it violated the traditions and norms of society. This is no longer the case because it's clear that interracial marriage itself causes no actual harm to society, so there is no legitimate basis in law to deny the legal benefits of marriage to mixed-race couples. Arguing that marriage does not apply to same-sex couples because they cannot bear children on their own is invalid as well - the government does not require fertility before marrying men and women.
:My simple question to the opponents of same-sex marriage is this, then: ''If you remove "religion" and "tradition" as reasons for a government to establish law granting equal rights, what is the objective, quantifiable harm that is done to society by allowing two people to be legally married, with as little regard for gender as there is for race?''"--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:51, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If two people should be allowed to marry because they "love each other", then by that definition two kids should be able to marry as long as they "love each other". That's not a tangent, it's using the same logic to bring up a valid point. Don't even look at it from a religious standpoint. Would kids getting married be a good thing? No. So, if you say two people love each other and that's all that matters, then anyone should be able to marry as long as they love each other. That logic is simply flawed.

No, race and sexual orientation is different. Race is something you have no control over, where as sexual orientation you do. (I'm not saying you can choose your sexuality, but you can choose to act on it. No one forces two homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior, so it is a choice. On the other hand, you can't "act black", etc. So there's an obvious difference.)

Alright, completely outside of religion or tradition. Would two homosexuals be as good at raising kids as two heterosexuals? No. Ideally, you need a mom and dad.

Besides, legalizing homosexuality is forcing it upon the rest of us. Want to talk about California? Okay. When the people vote and 61% say they don't want homosexuals to marry, and then despite this, four people on court bench say "regardless of what the people want, we're going to ignore them and do what we want." Four people can overrule 61% of the largest state in the nation. That's forcing it on others. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:43, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Four people can overrule the legislation because that is their job. Our government was set up in the way it is as system of checks and balances. The founding fathers recognized what is known as the "tyranny of the majority" and established federal and state supreme courts on that basis, as a check of the people. The people can, and will, vote for a constitutional amendment (California's in November) which the SCOC cannot touch. "The rights of the minority should never be restricted by the majority." As per the child argument, you again are warping the argument presented by DinsDaleP and myself. The key point is that homosexuals are legal adults. Now you may claim that one day the marriage age will be dropped, which, though I don't foresee it, is possible. But the key there is that it will be dropped for both gay and straight couples. We are not asking for rights that only apply to us, but an extension of all citizens rights. Currently all citizens (above the age of 18) can marry the opposite sex. If gay marriage is legislated, all citizens (above the age of 18) will be able to marry both sexes. It is not special rights, you will get them too. To the argument "but I am not gay, I do not want those rights" well I am not straight, I don't want the right to marry the opposite sex. The actual legal argument against gay marriage is pretty tenuous. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:23 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ultimahero, AndrasK made the same point about age that I would have - it's misdirection to add in age as a factor when we're talking about the rights of legal adults. That's why kids don't vote, drink or drive cars. It's true that you don't choose race, but even if you accept that sexual orientation is a choice and not a preference some are born with, so what? We choose our religions, and as adults, any male-female couple of any religion (or atheists for that matter) can get married without the state weighing in.

::Ideally, you need parents who love and support you, who help you grow to be a happy, productive and well-adjusted adult. Many single parents raise their kids great, and many male-female couples raise their kids terribly. Your assumption that kids would be raised best by a pair of male-female parents is based on opinion, not fact. There's a lot more to being a good parent than gender or gender-orientation, and the government does not make parenting skills a criteria for getting married (although it'd be a good thing if it did).

::Finally, I don't see how allowing same-sex marriage forces anything on you. You can marry whoever you want, and you don't have to associate with anyone you don't want to either. We all hear people using their first amendment rights to express ideas that may offend us, but we're not harmed by the words themselves. In the same way, you need to accept that responsible, law-abiding adults should have a right to marry who they want because their marriage may offend you, but it isn't hurting you. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

Trust me, I know all about how the government is set up. The judiciary is all about interpreting the law. If something violates the Constitution, then the court can rightfully say a law is unconstitutional. But, if something is not addressed, then it is left up to the people of the states to decide what should happen. (As per the 10th Amendment.) So I ask you: is marriage ever defined in the Constitution? The answer is no, it’s not. So, since that isn’t brought up, then it’s left up to the people of the states to determine who should marry. And in California 61% of the people said they want for marriage to remain between one man and one woman. 61%. That is a solid majority. So when the courts overrule that, that isn’t overruling an unjust law. That’s liberal activism; judicial tyranny. Tyranny is when a view held by a few is forced on the whole. That’s exactly what’s happening here. We are being forced to accept something that is absolutely wrong and that we don’t want. That is unconstitutional.

No, I’m not warping the child argument. You’re missing my point, or perhaps I’m not being clear enough. I’m not saying that the age limit is going to be dropped. What I’m saying is that if someone says that “love is all that matters”, then by that definition anyone who loves someone else should be able to marry. (I know you personally acknowledge that there are other factors involved, as we have already had this discussion.) I use the child argument as an example, but there’s a lot dog things I could use. I could say that as long as I love my dog and it loves me, we should be able to marry. I could say as long as me and my fifty girlfriends love one another, we should be able to marry. Heck, I could say that as long as my table and I love each other we should be able to marry. I know those are extreme examples, but I’m trying to illustrate why “love” isn’t a sufficient requirement. I’m simply asking you for a better definition.

Yes, we could all get the same rights if homosexuality is legalized. But, by that argument I suppose we could say that is car theft is legalized, then it won’t benefit just the thieves because we all have that right now. Obviously, that erroneous. Just because we can make something legal doesn’t mean we should. Legal doesn’t mean it’s beneficial or good. I’d argue homosexuality would hurt society (a claim which I know you will inherently disagree with) and that’s why it shouldn’t be legalized.

To DinsdaleP:

Again, I was trying to demonstrate the fallacy of using “love” as requirement. It simply doesn’t work because there are to many problems with that. You need better requirements to determine who should marry other than “love”.

Comparing people’s religions when they are getting married to when there sexual orientation is like comparing apples to oranges. They’re different categories. It doesn’t matter what your religious beliefs are when you get married. Two Atheists heterosexuals who wed is fine. One’s religion is irrelevant. But, the gender and sexual orientation of a person isn’t. I would argue that a mom-dad couple is the ideal partnership. Boys need a fatherly influence to see how a man should act, and a girl needs a motherly influence to see how a woman should act. And, kids need to see how men and women interact in a healthy relationship. So if they be Atheists, Christians, etc., heterosexual couples still provide that example, whereas homosexuals don’t. (Besides, we can debate whether or not homosexuality is Constitutionally protected, but there is no debate that religion is.)

Heterosexuality can be terrible parents, certainly. And I’m not saying it’s impossible for homosexuals to be good parents. I am saying that male-female parents are the ideal thing. (For the reasons I mentioned in the above paragraph, as well as others.) Doe it always work that way? No. But just because something doesn’t always work doesn’t mean you abandon it. For example, we have laws against rape, murder etc. Those laws don’t always bring successful results, but that doesn’t mean that we should get rid of the laws. (Again, it’s an extreme example, but it serves a point.)

It does force it on me. First, it’s an attempt to force those moral on me. Secondly, if the laws says that homosexuals can be married, then that means that anyone who refuses to recognize that is guilty of discrimination and is breaking the law. And who might object? Churches. If a church refuses to perform a marital service for two homosexuals, then that legally qualifies as sexual orientation discrimination. Churches can be sued, fined, etc. So that is forcing it on me. When these things get taken into the schools, with classes on “the homosexual struggle” being taught alongside the black and women’s movements, then that is forcing it on me and my family. So it is forcing it on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Love is not the only requirement for a marriage. Love ''and'' consent are. The only argument you've given, or at least that I've seen, for homosexuality harming society is that it goes against society's morals. I still do not see, however, how that actually harms society. As for forcing churches to marry homosexuals, I am unaware of any law that forces churches to marry anyone who asks to be married. If you know of one, please, show me. Finially no morals are forced on you. You are more than welcome to dislike homosexuality and consider it immoral. No one is trying to take that right from you. All homosexuals want is their right to marry. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:37, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. Love and consent. A child can love someone and give consent. That brings us right back to where we were.

I’ve offered many arguments. One is that it does lower the morals of society and make things easier to get through in the future. I also pointed out that homosexuals aren’t the best parenting couples. I’ve said that it’s giving special rights out for a personal behavioral preference. I’ve said that churches will be in serious legal trouble if homosexuality is legalized. Whether you agree or not, I’ve offered a lot.

There doesn’t nee to be any additional law specifically saying churches must administer marriages. The law would be that homosexuals can be married the same as heterosexuals. So, if a church refuses to marry two homosexuals, then the homosexual couple could sue over discriminatory purposes. They could argue that since legally they have the same rights, then their legal right is being denied. Just like a discrimination suit could come in a work place over not hiring a homosexual, a lawsuit could come just the same against a church for “discriminating against homosexuals legal rights.” Churches can’t disobey the law, and could be forced to obey with fines, jail time, etc.

It does force morals on me. The church thing, as I already mentioned. Also, a churches could be forced to hire openly homosexual personnel. If they don’t, then that would be called discrimination. It’s in the schools being presented as an “acceptable alternative lifestyle”. You don’t want to force it on me? Fine. Get it out of schools and away from children and then I’ll believe you. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:54, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, a child cannot LEGALLY consent to ANYTHING. Keyword is LEGAL. Unless if Congress LEGALLY lowers the legal adult age, the child argument is null. The church argument, a marriage in a church is in no form a legal contract. What legally marries a couple is the marriage license that they must apply for and obtain from the government. That is civil marriage, religious marriage has no standing in a legal sense without that document. A person can have the entire ceremony and be married in the eyes of the church but not the law. As the Church does not provide the legal aspect of the marriage, just the religious one, there would be no grounds for a discrimination lawsuit against a church. If you don't want your children in public schools, take them out. I personally think it is a poor choice, but it is your right as a parent to do such. I laugh at how this site thinks that public schools are so gay-friendly and "promoting homosexuality." Have any of you ever even stepped foot in a school? Have any of you ever experienced what it is like to be gay in public schools? It is laughable honestly. Not only that, it is arrogant and superior. You claim we try and force our morals on you, but then you try and do the same exact thing with yours. We are at least willing to look at things from a purely legal standpoint, as is necessary to remove religion from the legislature. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 00:13 22 May 2008 (EDT)

If the keyword is legal, then let’s end the debate because homosexual marriage is not legal. Debate over, I guess… No, the point isn’t null, because we’re talking in a future hypothetical sense about all of this. But if the child thing really bugs you, then I can switch to a polygamist standpoint or bestiality, etc. Any of things would be legitimate if love is all that matters. Again, I know you personally don’t hold to that view. But others have presented that and that’s what I’m arguing against. The church marriage service may not be relevant in the legalistic sense, but it still could be argued as discrimination. If a church refuses to recognize homosexuals, they could respond that it is a violation of there legal rights and based on “discriminatory” purpose. So are you saying that homosexuality should be pushed in public schools? I think that’s a poor choice. I wouldn’t argue that we should promote anything anti-homosexual in the schools. That’s simply not something you force on kids. (What you teach your own kids in your home, that’s your business and your free to choose. But in the school that’s different.) And who said that I had kids? You’re making an assumption. I actually just graduated from a public high school last year, so I’ve definitely stepped foot in a school. And in junior year US History, we were taught civil rights. And at the end of the segment was a homosexual unit. (I’ll point out for clarification that we didn’t finish it due to time constraints, but it was there nonetheless.) No, I don’t force my morals on you. I don’t support outlawing homosexuality or throwing homosexuals in jail. What you do in your own house is your business. But it’s when you want to go beyond that and bring it out in the open, where it automatically becomes my business, that it’s forced on me. When it’s in the schools is when it’s forced on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because something is not legal currently does not make it a null argument....that is the entire point of debating; we are debating if it SHOULD be legal. As to the polygamist standpoint, I personally would not oppose such legislation. Polygamy, however, presents MUCH larger legal problems than gay marriage, in that the legal infrastructure is set up to handle a two-member couple (Spouse 1 and spouse 2). Inheritance rights, visiting rights, custody rights, tax exemptions etc are designed in a two-person marriage. So while I do not oppose polygamy (I personally am not a polygamist) on the basis that the government should have no right to restrict activities that do not directly effect others. Bestiality, like child marriage, is a null argument in that animals cannot legally consent. When we say consent, we do not mean the physical ability (which animals still lack) but the legal authority to do so. As to the discrimination against the Church, you keep saying gays will say its "discrimination" but discrimination on what grounds. The topic of this debate is gay marriage, not sexual orientation as a hate crime basis or any other anti-discrimination measure (which is another topic entirely). I have already established that legalizing gay marriage will offer no legal basis for discrimination lawsuits on the fact that churchs have no legal standing in marriage already. Gays could indeed sue the government for discriminatory practices, but not churchs because churchs are under no legal obligation to perform any wedding (straight or gay). I did not mean to assume you had kids, sorry I read your respoonse at 12AM and read the line "keep it away from kids" as "keep it away from my kids." A simple error. As to the homosexual unit in your history class, that is not promoting homosexuality or trying to force any form of morality into you, it is presenting historical fact. Homosexuals, just like African Americans, Women, Whites, Indians, or ANY other group (and don't tell me we don't learn about straight or white history because learning US history is basically learning the history of straight, white males, as they have had almost all the power since the creation of the nation). It would be historically ignorant NOT to mention homosexuals in history class as they played a role in history. This is not 1984, you cannot just remove portions of history and call them insignificant or non-existent. The homosexual movement has, and continues to have, a role in American history, and it is ignorant to say we can just ignore that because its a "controversial" issue. Should we remove learning about African Americans in history because it is pushing African Americans into the classroom and upsetting the racist (not accusing you of being racist, just using this as an example), of course not. It is important to try and learn history in its entirety, it is then we can truly learn from it in seeing how every individual aspect fit together to form the chain of events of history. The "it's in schools and therefore forced upon me" argument could be used to remove the teaching of ANYTHING. I dislike Irish authors, I think that they are a scourge upon the Earth and are harmful to American society, does that mean that we should stop teaching Joyce? Think about what you are implying with your words. You are implying that just because an individual does not like something, means it should stop being discussed or studied. I personally don't like the Catholic Church (surprised?) but I learned about it almost every day in World History. Did I particularly want to learn the history of the church? No. But I recognized its vast importance in the history of the world, got over my dislike because I KNEW that it was important to learn if I was to understand human history. Just because something is not like, does not remove its historical importance. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 8:23 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Once again, AndrasK addressed many points I would have myself, so I'll just offer a "Nicely said!" and add a brief comment. Ultimahero, what keeps coming up in your statements is that your principal objection to same-sex marriage is not based on it causing any direct, material harm, but that it's based on offensiveness to your values. That's a legitimate reason to object to anything, and your values aren't being judged. What's key here is that in a free society, the best government is one that provides the greatest equality among people with the least intervention. The government is not going to tell a religion who it can and can't marry, but at the the same time, it shouldn't be telling two adults they can't be legally married based on their gender if all the other criteria for getting a marriage license are met. What the conservative, mostly-republican judges ruled is that society treats married people differently than unmarried people or "domestic partners", and that there's no compelling reason for the state to draw that distinction in law. Maturity and wisdom comes in part from accepting differences in others that we don't approve of, when those differences are not harming us in any material way. The older I get, the more I realize though my own experiences that I was wrong for judging people with different values in my youth, because I don't want to be judged for mine. (For example, I'm tired of being told I'm going to spend an eternity in Hell for not being a born-again Christian, and when I worked for one, I always wondered if that affected my reviews and promotions no matter how good my performance was). At this point in life, I appreciate the vision of Dr. King when he dreamed of a world where people were judged for the content of their character - period. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:00, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

The whole point of my arguing about polygamy, child marriage, etc. is simply to say that anything can be allowed if love is all that matters. We have already agreed previously that this is an insufficient standard, so I’m trying to continue this point with you. We’re already in agreement on that. Churches are under no obligation to perform marriage, but they can’t disregard the law. If homosexual marriage is legalized, then both they and heterosexuals will have the same legal rights. So, if the church permits one and refuses another, homosexuals could argue it as discrimination. There’s lot’s of examples like this. Businesses are under o obligation to provide whatever product they produce. Yet if a business were to come out and say “we refuse to serve gays”, would you honestly say that that would get taken to court at some point? It would be based on the fact that legally homosexuals have the right to marry, just like heterosexuals, yet churches only accept the latter. That could be discrimination, depending on your perspective.

Interesting perspective on the history fact. The problem is that is isn’t an unbiased presentation. The various black, women, etc. movements are presented with the underlying tone of, “see how wrong this was.” Which it should be. Slavery and oppression was wrong. But homosexuality doesn’t fit in that same category. Homosexuality isn’t being opposed out of prejudice (well, I suppose that some might be, but mot aren’t) but rather on moral grounds. If this were just unbiased issue, then it might not be that bad to simply learns facts of what have happened. But it never will be, because the people involved are just that: people. People, whether consciously or not, people will inject their own bias into this. True, I suppose on could say they don’t like anything and have it be taken out. But, ‘Irish authors’ or other things would not face realistic opposition. That, as well as most things, would face no serious risk f being removed. The church is not being presented along with theology and saying, “kids, Jesus died from your sins”. It’s simply being presented as a historical institution. I certainly agree that we shouldn’t take things out of discussion just because it’s controversial. But when you’re talking about a controversial moral issue, then is it right to take one side in the schools? I say it’s not. You and me talking about it? Fine. We’re two private citizens engaging in our own conversation. But a school is different. It’s influential kids who are by law required to go to school and sit in on those courses.

To DinsdaleP:

Yes, I am primarily opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds. I think it is wrong. Easy as that. But, when it comes to the overall society, I look at it differently. I think it will lower the overall values of society. I’m not looking at things from my moral, but a societal stance as a whole. I think homosexuals would not make as effective parents as heterosexuals. That’s not morality. That’s looking out for the well-being of kids. I worry about the ramifications on churches. That’s a legal stance. Yes, people can do whatever they want in there own homes. But, when it comes out into the streets and into the courts and into the classrooms, then it’s a different matter. I agree that people should have equality. But, that’s tricky because “equality” means different things depending on whose defining it. Obviously, you and I see it differently. You may not like being told that without Christ your going to Hell. Well, I don’t like constantly being told that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 12:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:Okay, I think AndrasK and I have addressed the point that love is not all that matters where marriage is concerned, so tangents about polygamy, bestiality or loving one's table are not relevant. It's also a given that the government has no right to interfere in the practices of a religion, unless it involves criminal acts like statutory rape, human sacrifice, etc. Your have the right to your opinions, and it's not my place to declare them invalid. It's just that as a society, we have to have laws that are based on reason and not opinions. You can assert that homosexuality lowers the overall values of society, but I doubt you can prove it in any objective way.

:If you look at the stories about the 1950's and 1960's civil rights movement in the south, you'd see many examples of everyday citizens believing deeply that an unsegregated society would be worse off than a segregated one. There was no basis in fact for this - it was all about "values" and "traditions" and maintaining "a way of life that's important to people". It is also something most people would disavow today. You feel that allowing same-sex marriage sends the wrong message in schools, but kids in public schools aren't being taught that same-race marriage is better or worse than mixed-race marriage, and they're not going to be taught that homosexuality is good or bad - just that like race, it's not grounds for discrimination in the eyes of the law.

:You would also be hard-pressed to provide any objective proof that a same-sex couple would not raise a child as well as a mixed-gender couple. We would never expect the government to require single parents to immediately marry or to turn their kids over to be raised by couples for the well-being of the kids. Parenting is personal, and as long as there's no abuse or neglect it's not the government's place to tell anyone how to raise their kids. That standard carries over by extension to same-sex parenting. Frankly, it's a shame that there are kids living in orphanages instead of homes with parents because of adoption policies that prevent adoption by single-sex couples. Are the kids really better off being raised by an institution?

:What I'd like to know then, is this. On the streets and in the courts and in the classrooms, it doesn't matter who's married or single, or what their religion is. Why would it cause anyone material harm if some people are married to the same gender, when it doesn't cause harm based on whether they were married in a church or not, or to the same race? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:58, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

No, you haven’t. There have been repeated attempts to refute why those groups can’t marry. But that’s not the point. The point I’m raising is that your standard is problematic. Love isn’t enough. If it is, then anyone can marry as long as they love each other. Neither is love and consent, because that doesn’t deal with polygamy, etc. I’m not asking you to refute these other groups. I’m asking for a better standard.

Well proof is different than persuasion. I might be able to prove a point, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll convince you. It lowers societies standards in regards to marriage because society has for a long time said “one man, one woman.” Now we’re trying to lower that bar. (That effectively proves the point in and of itself because we are indeed lowering the standard.) But, to go further, it effectively makes it easier to lower the standard in the future. If the definition for marriage can just be tweaked a little bit, just pushed a little farther, then the next thing in line is permissible. Then the next, and so on.

You keep playing the race card. But the way blacks were treated is much different that they way the gays are treated. Blacks were slaves, weren’t allowed to vote, were forced to use separate facilities, etc. That’s not what’s happening to gays. They aren’t being enslaved or having their freedoms taken away. Quite frankly, it’s an outlandish and offensive example.

Kids in schools aren’t being taught that same-race marriages are good or bad. But that’s because no one talks about same-race marriages. Why? Because it’s irrelevant. Race has no bearing on marriage. Gender, however, does. What sex the people are does matter. And that is being brought up, and they are being taught that it’s okay. When schools are told to report if there are any kids who “speak out” against homosexuality, then that’s a negative influence. “Speak out” could include someone saying it’s wrong. Pretty soon, it becomes impossible to even object to it. That’s teaching them it’s okay by silencing the opposition.

I can easily demonstrate that same-sex couples aren’t as effective as heterosexual couples. Where do kids primarily learn things such as what’s okay and what’s not, how to treat each other, etc.? From their families. They see what goes on at home and that is their primary example to model. Boys need their fathers to see what men act like, girls need their mothers to see how women act. And both need to see the opposite sex to see how it’s proper to treat the other. (Are they respectful to one another, etc.) But with same-sex couples, you run into a road block: There inherently won’t be only a mother and a father. Granted, one could say what about divorced families or single parents. But kids who grow up in divorced homes still have a mom and dad. They may not live together, but they still have them. And single parents still do as well, assuming that one hasn’t died. But in that case do you take the kids away because a parent died? Of course not. With mom-dad couples, you might run into instances where the kid doesn’t have a mom or dad. But with same-decouples you will never have both a mom and a dad because you can’t be definition.

There needs to be more adoption certainly, and less premarital sex that brings kids into unwanted families, certainly. But that doesn’t mean that we let homosexual couples adopt to remedy that. That just creates more problems.

I’m not sure I fully understand the last question. Race, as I’ve already said, is irrelevant to marriage. It has no bearing. Same goes for religion. They simply have no bearing on marriage, and it’s a category mistake to put them into the same category as gender. Gender and sexual orientation have to have an impact by definition. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:45, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, because even if you disagree with the principle of what Homosexual people do (I perosnally have no problem with it), it makes no dfference to YOU if they can or cannot. How does it affect YOU if the person someone loves wants to legally leave their possessions behind once they die? Wants it to be officially known that they want to spend the rest of their life with the person they love? You can disagree with it via what you read in the Bible, but there are laws in place that contradict the Bible's message, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:SIMONR2|SIMONR2]]

Here are my questions that no one has yet been able to answer: In what way does homosexuality threaten "straight" marriage? Something I'm not sure if you're aware of: Making same-sex marriage legal doesn't make it mandatory. As to the arguments about it being a behavioral issue, so what if it is? It's attraction. That means it's wrong? You're saying anything we do because we choose to should be illegal? As to gay marriage being against the Bible, so is shaving your face, eating shellfish, and wearing poly-cotton blends. Oh, and you know, stoning people to death for disobeying God's will. Let's reinstate THOSE things, shall we? The fact of the matter is, Congress cannot make laws because God says so, because we do not live in a theocracy. For that same reason, Congress cannot mandate churches to perform same-sex marriages. Now explain to me where you (as in, the collective of heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage) are hurt by this? You say it is your moral decision; and yet, are you not infringing upon my morals with what I view as discrimination? As long as we're following that train of logic. My problem is, this is a "values voting" issue, and that entire concept is wrong to me--values are something you develop through life based on experiences. Values are not something you vote on. I don't think this should even be an issue--as long as it's not hurting anybody, let people make their own moral decisions, and that means, yes, legalizing something because it's behavioral and people want to do it. Because you don't have the right to tell them whether what they do, when it isn't hurting anyone else, is immoral.[[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 01:39, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::Now we're getting somewhere! Could someone for the Anti-LGBT Marriage side kindly clarify as to why LGBT marriage is "immoral" or "damaging to society"? Please don't bombard me with "It's God's will" and other crap because being a human, you do '''NOT''' know the will of God.--[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 12:53, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a sort of silly argument - the notion that because we are not divine we know nothing of the divine. I think the Bible is pretty articulate of the will of God.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:57, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:::It's rather simple, actually. If you allow gay marriage, then what reason is there not to allow any other type of marriage? Now, you probably will simply dismiss the question as a "slippery slope" argument and never, ever provide a serious answer. It's okay. It won't be the first time I've run into gay marriage advocates who refuse to answer that question, but it is an important question to answer. In fact, I suspect you already know the answer to the question, just as everyone who opposes gay marriage does. You just refuse to answer it because it would embarrass you and undermine your position. The fact is that if you allow gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason to bar any other type of marriage no matter how extreme. Bigamy and polygamy will be first, of course. (In fact, the Netherlands has already started down that road after legalizing gay marriage.[http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301]) Then you will move into "unthinkable" territory: people with animals (which people have already tried[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html]), adults with kids (as is commonplace in Middle Eastern and Eastern societies), etc. But don't worry. I'm sure you can work out deciphering God's will when you meet Him face-to-face and impotently try to explain yourself. [[User:Jinxmchue|euHcM xniJ]] 13:49, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

::Iduan, you're citing a religious scripture to support a discriminatory law (Which is expressly forbidden by the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights) that has been translated and reinterpreted thousands upon thousands of times in human history, putting into question whether today's Bible differs from that of the one from the Biblical times. As for Jinx's retort, clarification is appreciated on the magical connection between homosexuality and polygamy/bestiality/etc. --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 13:41, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

==No==
It's said that it is discrimination to be against homosexual marriage. But, whether you agree with it or not, you have to look at things from the Christian perspective to see where we are coming from. As a Christian, I see the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I am against it. It's not about prejudice. It's just the fact I have a moral obligation to stand against anything that is wrong. I am against homosexuality in the same sense that I am against stealing. I consider them both to be wrong. Would someone say that I'm discriminating against thieves when I say that's wrong? Of course not. I don't think that homosexuals should be treated badly, or made fun of, but it is wrong and Christians have to say so.
: I do agree that Christians should say it's wrong if that is what they believe in. But I do believe that not allowing them to marry is unconstitutional, because of the first amendment that states "no law should be made enforcing or discriminating religion" (I'm paraphrasing here.) and if a law were to be passed, it would be enforcing a religious value on people that may not believe in what the people that put that action into law believe. But, even though I think gay marriage is OK, I also support peoples right to say its wrong, start up "rehab" for gay people (If the homosexual chooses to go there and its not tax-funded), and tell the world what they think about the issue. As long as the wall of separation between church and state is intact, and that homosexuals are not verbally or physically harassed, I believe it is OK for Christians (and any other religion) to say its wrong and not like it. --[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 18:47, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

The first amendment deals with not being able to keep some one from practicing a particular religion, or force to them to practice it. Homosexuality is not a religion. And although it is opposed on religious grounds, there are also cultural and sociological factors involved, so it really doesn't fit into what the first amendment outlines. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Why is it that you consider it a moral obligation to believe the part of the Bible that says that homosexuality is a sin when other parts of the Bible are discarded as culturally antiquated or irrelevant to a given sect (i.e. the eating of shellfish, the call to embrace revenge over forgiveness in the Old Testament)? The Bible is not a single document, but a compilation of a number of different sources with diverse perspectives and (at times) contradictory values.
--[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 19:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

With all due respect, you don't know what I believe, so you can't really make a claim that I only believe part of the Bible and not another. Now, nothing is ever "disregarded" when you consider culture, etc. It is simply looking at things in their proper context. But, what you gave as examples don't fit the culture aspect.

The Old Testament law is split up into three basic categories: the priestly laws, the civil laws, and the moral laws. The priestly laws are no longer applicable today because they were fulfilled by Christ. (Ex: The Old Testament required animal sacrifice for the remission of sins, but in the New Testament Christ is sacrificed once for all sins.) The civil laws are also not applicable because they were in place in the Old Testament in a Theocratic system. Obviously, we live a democracy, not a theocracy, so the same laws don't apply. (I would also point out that as Christians we are no longer under the law, according to Romans 6:14-15.) The moral laws, however, are still in effect because they reflect the nature and character of God. (Ex: Lying is wrong because God can't lie.) So because God's character never changes, neither do the moral laws.

Plus, in the New Testament we don't see the civil or priestly laws reestablished, but we do see the moral law reestablished. That is why the New Testament still calls homosexuality wrong, but not with the associated death penalty.

And the Bible does not present contradictory values. Maybe things that are difficult, but not contradictory. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:01, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Gay marriage doesn't exist. The term is an inherent oxymoron. Marriage by definition is the union of one man and one woman, This is God's definition is will always be the true definition. A lie told a million times is still a lie--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==It Depends==
*If the marriage is going to be carried out as a religious service, it should be up to the relevant religious authorities. If the marriage is nonreligious (carried out by a justice of the peace, or Elvis, for example), then it should be allowed. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:38, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

But a religious group can't refuse to follow the law. So if homosexual marriage is legal, they would be forced to adhere to that law, regardless of what they believe. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not the intent of homosexual marriage advocated, myself included. I fully recognize any religion's right to refuse to marry homosexuals. Marriage in the religious sense should be left up to each religion. If the Catholic church wishes not to recognize gay marrriage, that is 100% their prerogative. What I am advocating, however, is legal gay marriage. In that a gay couple can obtain a marriage license via the same requirements that heterosexual couple can. No church would be forced to perform a ceremony, and they would not be forced to recognize the marriage as marriage licenses offer legal, not religious benefits. Only churches that desire to perform gay ceremonies would. The gay marriage issue is about LEGAL rights and LEGAL recognition by the government, not RELIGIOUS recognition by any church or organization. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but it is about religion. Right now it's being pushed for homosexuality to be added to the list of hate crime victims. This means that if Christians don't like it and speak out against it, and then someone who overheard it went out and beat up a homosexual (I'm certainly not advocating that) , then the church that originally spoke out could be sued or shut down for promoting 'hate speech'. Similarly, if homosexuality was legalized, and a church refused to perform a ceremony for two homosexuals, then that could be labeled as discrimination and that church would suffer consequences. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

So as I can tell, you fear that if gay marriage was legalized and if gays were added to hate crime lists, then churches would face discrimination? May I ask why it is okay that gays are discriminated against, but not churches. As to the specific cases you mentioned. In this country, we thankfully still have (more or less) have first amendment rights. Nazi groups, white supremacy (and I am not comparing the church to these groups, just using them as examples) still can exist, as they should be able to, as long as they don't actively advocate violence against Jews, African Americans, whoever. Much like any group (be it Nazis, gay rights advocates, or anyone else) churches could continue to speak as they will as long as they don't advocate direct violence. As to the marriage aspect of it, as long as the law clearly states that no religious organization can be forced to marry any two individuals, then there is no basis for legal discrimination. Socially, people who think that the church discriminate will continue to do the same, and those that don't won't. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:51, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I do fear that Christians will face discrimination. I think hate crimes are stupid (not to debate that; it's a different topic) because they deal will motivation and intent. If I as a Christian exercise my Constitutional right to free speech and say I think something is wrong, then I can risk punishment. I know you might advocate that churches should be able to still voice opinions, but not everyone thinks that way. And yes, discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, too. But the marriage thing is not discrimination, because everyone has the same rights. Giving homosexuals the right to marry based off of their sexual preference, which is a behavior, would be discrimination. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because not everyone believes that churches should be able to voice anti-homosexuality opinions does not mean they won't be allowed to. As before mentioned, other groups face much more dissent than the Catholic Church, but they are allowed to voice their opinions under 1st amendment protection. As to the marriage aspect once again. I wouldn't call gay marriage discrimination but I understand your point. However, history has shown that specific legislature is often needed to protect the rights of minorities. We have specific laws regarding women (although no equal rights amendment amazingly) that protect them and give them specific protections (not rights, just protections) under the law. The same is true for African Americans, and other minorities. Minorities often need to be recognized legally to ensure the mantainence of their rights. And to use a very popular argument on this site, if gay marriage were to be passed, then heterosexuals would have the same rights to marry someone of their sex. That may seem odd to you, but the argument that we gays have equal rights in that we can marry members of the other sex is equally odd.[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Your right in that just because some don't want Christians to be able to speak out against homosexuals doesn't mean it will happen. But there are signs that we, in reference to us Christians, are going to be in trouble. I've heard there's a law out here in California that if a homosexual feels he or she has been discriminated against, then they can file a law suit and the state will pay all their legal fees. The defendant, on the other hand, would have to pay their own way. This has scary implications, because a homosexual could file a law suit and be backed up by the state, which has in all practical terms unlimited resources, while a church would have to pay for itself when most churches are struggling financially anyways. And I know that the homosexual movement is sometimes compared to the black or women's movement, but it's not the same. Blacks were fighting against slavery, which was clearly wrong, as well as Jim Crows laws sending to the back of the bus, etc. And women for a long time couldn't even vote. But homosexuals aren't facing that. No serious person is saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to vote or should have to use separate facilities. It is simply in regards to marriage and sexual preference, which is a behavioral issue. And you could say that allowing homosexuality would still give everyone the same rights, but I could say that if murderers wanted to legally murder and a law was passed to allow it, then would it be okay because "you can now legally murder too?" (I'm not equating murderers and homosexuals, just using that as a rather extreme example to prove a point.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

To identify the issue with the whole California thing. This type of extreme legislature (which I am against by the way. If the state is paying for one side, it should pay for the other as well) is often suggested, and even if passed, quickly altered. For example, under LBJ's presidency, federal funds were given to schools to allow busing for inner-city schools to outer-city schools to try and reduce de facto segregation (I am using the Civil Rights movement because it is a good historical precedence. You say that the gay rights movement cannot be compared to the African American or Women's movements. Its specifics and severity is certainly different, however, the theory and ideology behind it is not). This law was overturned rather quickly. We find that this country operates in knee-jerk reactions and extremes. Yes there may be some extreme legislature at the very beginning, but such legislature rarely lasts. Time ultimately smooths out the extremes in social policy.

As to the murder idea, that is different in that murder (or other such crimes such as rape, assault etc) physically harm other people. I can hardly see an argument that gay marriage somehow directly, physically harms people.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that homosexual marriage physically harms people like murder does. Like I said, I wasn't trying to equate the two. The point was that you had mentioned if homosexuality was made legal, then everyone would still have the same rights because heterosexuals would have that right by extension. So I was just saying that is if murder was hypothetically made legal, then everyone still has the same rights because even non-murderers would be able to legal murder. My point is that, yes, the rights would still be the same, but that doesn't make murder right, and, similarly, homosexual marriage being passed doesn't make it right or beneficial to society. And the ideology of the black movement compared to the homosexual movement isn't quite the same. Blacks were being picked on because of racism and prejudice. When it comes to homosexuality, yes, there are some who are motivated by prejudice, but many such as myself come at it from a strictly moral stance. I'm against it because the Bible says it's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:17, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand that gay marriage is against your moral code, and I respect that, but what this country is based on is the allowance of multiple opinions to coexist in harmony. You don't have to recognize gay marriage, think it is right, think it is natural or any other such thing. It is you perogative to have any such views you desire on the subject. It is important to realize the difference between secular marriage (perhaps I should use the word union?) and religious marriage. The Bible indeed dictates religious marriage for christianity, but it does not dictate secular marriage. The Bible also says (correct me if I am wrong, I am not very versed in the Bible. I mean this seriously, not sarcastically) that atheism is a sin, as is sex before marriage? Yet you do not oppose the secular marriage of two atheists, or two non-virgins. Now to clarify my stance, I do not believe the Bible should have any authority in dictating governmental and legal marriage. In this socio-political climate, however, I must be pragmatic. Now my question is, why is it that homosexuality is cornered out as massively sinful and thus not eligible for marriage, when atheists and non-virgins are? By the way, I would like to thank you for being logical and rational in this debate. Both sides are much to prone to sensationalism; rational debate seems to be less and less common these days. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

As a Christian, I hold the Bible in the utmost regard. I consider it to be the holy word of God, infallible and inherent. But, this being said, I fully recognize that not everyone holds that same opinion. Your an Atheist, correct? I definitely don't expect you to hold the Bible in any special light, and that's fine. You're entitled to your own worldview. So I also wouldn't say that we should create any law "just because the Bible says so". I run my life, to the best of my ability, based on what the Bible says. But I don't want to force you to. I primarily oppose homosexuality because of Biblical reasons, but the reasons why I think homosexual marriage should not be legalized has to do with societal issues, such as I don't see it as being beneficial to society, etc. As for why Atheists can marry and non-virgins as well, it has to do with context. I wouldn't oppose two heterosexual Atheists marrying because heterosexual marriage is good, regardless of whether the participants are Christians, Atheists, or whatever. And for non-virgins, yes, it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. But there is nothing in the Bible that says that someone who has committed that sin couldn't later get married, so I see no reason to be against it. (Besides, the Jesus said that to lust after a woman in your heart is to commit adultery of the heart, so even if someone hasn't committed the physical act, everyone is guilty of lust.) And once they marry, then they're no longer committing the sin of sex outside of marriage, so it's better in that sense. So it’s about context. With homosexual marriage, homosexuality is the problem. Even if both homosexuals claimed to be Christian I would still be against it because homosexuality is the sin. And yes, thank you for being very logical and friendly. I often hear a lot of insults, (and they come from both sides), so thanks for being polite. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is this. I see some benefits to society to allow gay marriage, and I see no societal harms. Benefits include financial and legal aid which can be helpful for the raising of a child. One of the societal arguments I hear most often is that gay marriages cannot produce children (I would like to point out that neither can marriages in which the couple is sterile, or simply choose not to). Gay couples can adopt one or more of the hundreds of thousands of parentless children in the country and world as a whole. The idea that marriage is simply for procreation seems ludicrous to me, coupled with the fact that we currently face overpopulation, it seems as if the human race can surely survive. I am not quite sure what societal issues you are referring to when you say they oppose gay marriage. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first off I think that we can both agree that the male and female is the natural option. Obviously they're bodies are designed to fit together. And yes, there is overpopulation. (One of the reasons why I and other Christians would stress abstinence until marriage, for the sake of not bringing yet another unwanted child into the world.) And yes, a gay couple could try to raise the child, sure. But the question is: would a homosexual couple be as effective at raising a child as a heterosexual couple? And I think that the answer is no, they couldn't. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that homosexuals are incapable of raising kids, but rather that they would simply not be as good as a mom and a dad. Because no matter how feminine a man may get, he can't substitute for a mother. And no matter how masculine a woman gets, she will never be a true father. Men and women are different. One's not better than the other, but they do posses different qualities that when coupled together compliment each other nicely. They're like the two different pieces to a puzzle. They just fit together. So I would wonder if same-sex couples could adequately raise kids when they won't have the full range of characteristics that men and women together posses. And, considering how kids can get made fun of in school for practically anything, having homosexuals parents just adds one more thing to shoot at them. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:15, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Please keep in mind that many gay couples who want to get married don't do so to have (or get) children, but instead to receive recognition of their love to each other. In some countries non married couples including homosexuals are able to adopt children, so banning homosexual marriages will not stop gays raising kids, this is an entirely different issue. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 01:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Granted. But I was addressing a previous point about how homosexual couple could adopt kids and help with overpopulation and I was simply comparing parenting ability. As for what other nations do, I can’t really comment on that. I don't have enough knowledge about how they go about things to say one thing or another, so I can really only talk about what happens in the United States. That's what I'm familiar with. But to address just homosexuality in general apart from kids? I understand that they want to show their love, but that's not enough. Love isn't all there is to it. Should kids be able to marry just because they love one another? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

As to the children aspect of this conversation. You say that a man can never replace a mother and a woman a father. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of single parent families. Single people are allowed to adopt children and/or have children. If it is acceptable for a child to have only one mother and no father, what is wrong with having two mothers? @StatsMsn, yes many gay couples just want recognition of their love. But so do hundreds of thousands of couples who marry and choose not to have children. If they are allowed to marry for recognition why not gays? Finally, regarding the child marriage. Please do not insult this hereto rational debate. We are speaking purely in the realm of acts and legal standing of legal and consensual adults.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, they're are lots of single parents. Many come by in the case of one parent dying. In those cases, you can't really say much, because they tried to raise the kids with both parents, but one unfortunately passed on. You can't really take kids away from them. Some are single because of divorce. I am against divorce, but as I've said before on this post, there are times when divorce is necessary. Adulterous or abusive spouses, etc, so you can't make divorce illegal because it can be legitimately necessary. And, even if they divorce, the kid still has a mom and dad. They might not live together, but they still have them.

Now, to what I said about child marriage. Please do not take away the courteously that we have so far had towards one another. That was a perfectly rational point. Yes, child marriage is not legal, but neither is homosexual marriage. If we can only discuss what's legal, then we shouldn't be having this debate at all. My point was that love is not all you need. It is certainly the single biggest factor, but there are other things that matter, too. If love is the only thing, then why can't kids marry if they love one another? It's a somewhat extreme example, certainly, but it's intended to show that more than just love is required. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I am not saying love is all that is required in marriage, one large aspect of marriage is responsibility, commitment, and maturity. That is why children are not allowed to marry. The country has deemed that children, and rightly (there are a few outliers, and I would include myself in this group, that are more mature) that under the age of 18, children are not legal adults. Thus they cannot sign legal documents without a guardian as well, they cannot enter contracts without a guardian, they cannot be treated as adults. The question of gay marriage is not are gays mature enough to enter marriage, but do we/should we have the right to under the US constitution. The reason why kids cannot marry is one of maturity, the reason why gays cannot marry, well I don't quite know, but it is not of maturity. Also I would like to ask, though I do not concur with your argument, how is a heterosexual couple getting married "just for love" any less threatening to the concept of adolescent marriage than homosexual couples getting married. I understand you think that "it is a slippery slope" but just on pure theory, where does that discrepancy lie.
As per the child argument, you have neglected the demographic of single parents that adopted/gave birth to a child purely on their own. Some people simply never find their life partner, and choose to have children on their own anyway. That is legal, and as it should be. If a single person all on his or her lonesome can decide to adopt/have a child, why should a two people of the same sex not have the same right? The child will undoubtedly receive more attention that way (seeing as there are two parental figures, not one) as well as enjoy the benefits of having possibly two incomes, or one income and one staying at home etc. Children of single parents by choice grow up into model citizens and valuable members of society every day, as do the children of gay couples where it is legal. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I know your not saying that love is the only requirement, and I'm not trying to advocate child marriage. I know why kids can't marry, and I think that the reasons for that are good ones. It's just that one common argument that I hear is, "They love each other so they should marry." But, as we both agree, there are more factors. As far as do homosexuals have the right to marry under the Constitution, it isn't addressed or defined. As I said before, the reason for gay marriage to not be allowed (at least in my opinion) is an issue of morality and the potential benefit for society. I'm not sure I understand what your asking about heterosexuals couples marrying "just for love". Can you specify that a little more? I want to make sure I accurately understand you so I can properly respond. The slippery slope thing is that hypothetically you should line up all the various issues of marriage in order of least harmful to most harmful, (heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.). Now, we've had a standard in place (one man and one woman). So if you move the bar down to allow for homosexuals, then it will make it easier for society to accept the next thing in line. After all, homosexuality was seen as being really bad but now it's okay, so why not _______. (Fill in the blank with whatever might come next.)

The child that is born of just one parent, presumably the mother, still has a mom and dad. She's not the virgin Mary, so there had to be conception. Now did the father take off or the parents don't want to marry, etc. I guess there's lots of theoretical scenarios there, so I can't possibly address them all. But if the dad takes off you can't punish mom and the child for that. Or if she doesn't tell the father and has the baby n her own, again, you can't take away the child and punish the kid because of the mom. Again, a single parent is not the ideal way to raise kids, either. A mom and a dad together are. But you can't reasonably say, "Single parenthood isn't ideal but it's allowed, so homosexual marriage should be allowed." That's creating more un-ideal situations and doesn’t help. And I'm certainly not saying that kids raised by homosexuals will grow up to be dysfunctional. It's just not the best way to do it. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:07, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Civil partnerships rather than marriages==
I would suggest, to avoid the moral and religious issues associated with the term "marriage", that it should simply be removed from the whole question. Rather than talking about "gay marriage", there should be civil partnerships which are available to any two cohabiting consenting adults. This is the approach which has been taken in the UK, and which (as far as I know) some US states are considering.

People in a civil partnership will have the same legal rights as married people regarding inheritance, welfare, etc., but they won't be "married" as regards the religious sense of the term. Civil partnerships should also be available to people living together in a non-sexual sense, e.g. cohabiting siblings.

There is already a distinction between civil and religious marriage; for instance, if you are Roman Catholic, you may be legally divorced under the civil law but still married under Catholic canon law, unless you seek an annulment of your marriage from the Church. So churches and other religious organisations would ''not'' be required to recognise secular civil partnerships.

Thus homosexual couples can have the same legal/financial advantages as married couples, without redefining the concept of marriage or upsetting the many religions which disapprove of homosexual relations. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but that wouldn't work. (At least from my perspective.) That's still legalizing gay marriage and just simply calling it something else. It's not the word marriage that should be treasured, but the institution itself, regardless of what name it's under. Besides, everyone says that government doesn't have the right to enforce religious values on everyone else. But then government also doesn't have the right to enforce secular values on society. Legalizing gay marriage is the government putting a stamp of approval on marriage and saying that it is an acceptable alternative. But it's not. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I simply don't agree with it.

Besides, that doesn't address all of the other issues about child raising, etc. that were previously brought up. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT) 
 
Acceptible alternative to what? I think (and this is just me), if two people love each other, should they not have the right to be married and share that happyness in the greatest way. Besides, by doing this, it shows that two heterosexual people that hate each other have more of a right than two homosexuals that have a perfect right to get married. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Marriage is not a government institution and marriage should not be corrupted by sexual perverts, yes I said it, sexual perversion: deviating from mainstream sexuality -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Every time a liberal talks to me I get more conservative -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:45, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Debrah, no offense, but you kind of seem to be freking out. Let me just say, in defense to my liberal nature, that I am from Massachussets, the most liberal state in the country. Anywho, sexual perverts? Perverts, although I see what your saying, is very strong (then again, so was my comment on the front page). But, let's face it, does a homosexual have a choice in the matter? Before I would say that they are sexual perverts, lets take this into consideration, do you know any homosexuals and if so, have you asked them why they are homosexual? It seems to me that people don't listen to homosexuals enough and thereby try to make it seem that they are chosing it on their own free will. Am I saying they are not? No. What I am saying is that someone should at least find out. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

I know homosexuals, and my best friend Jessica used to be a lesbian but became straight -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:How does one change? If one changes, would that not mean that she (and this is no offense to your friend) was bisexual? I mean, how is it possible for one to change the way that they love (and who they can love) in one thing. If she was, then does that not mean that she was part stright to begin with? This would not make her lesbien, but rather, bisexual. Again, this is all a spitball (I am going to ask a gay person I know tomarrow about this). --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

She experimented with women then she started becoming more interested in men as time went by and less interested in women, she isn't interested in women anymore, she just changed -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

For example, people can slowly become liberal, and eventually not be conservative anymore -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not becoming "straight" that is just realizing your true sexuality. She had doubts, she experimented, and slowly realized her true sexuality as being heterosexual. That indeed does happen, as sexuality is a highly confusing and complicated concept within a person. Some people discover that though they had homosexual inklings, they are overall heterosexual. Others, however, discover that they are completely homosexual. Showing one example of someone discovering their sexuality isn't proof that conversion is possible. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, just because two people love each other, that's not enough. As I said earlier, should kids be able to marry if they love one another? I know it's an extreme example, but it illustrates that more than love is required. As far as whether or not homosexuals are born that way or not, well, that's debatable. From a Christian standpoint, I'd say that's somewhat legitimate. Everyone is born with things that tempt them to sin, but not everyone is tempted in the same way. Some people are naturally arrogant, some are very humble. Yet that arrogant person might be honest, while the humble man could have a problem with lying. It just depends. So homosexuals might be born that way in the sense that they are born with that natural temptation. Of course, that's no excuse to do it, since people are still not supposed to sin. (Obviously if you aren't a Christian, then you won't accept this basic premise. But I'm just illustrating this from a Christian perspective.) And there are cases where homosexuals who are adamant about their sexuality will be cured. It does happen. Whether or not you accept those results is a different matter, but there's no denying it happens. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:I understand that, and I am aware of the fact that conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral, and that there is Biblical support for this standpoint. However, in modern society there is a distinction between law and morality; not everything which is immoral is necessarily illegal. The fact remains that (for better or worse) in modern society, homosexuality is a legal and accepted practice, and homosexual couples are legally entitled to live together without interference by the state. So why should the state not allow them the same practical legal rights as married couples?

:Our society tolerates practices which we do not necessarily condone. I respect your viewpoint that homosexuality is sinful, and this is a widely held viewpoint; but we don't live in a theocracy, and not all sins are crimes. I just don't understand the basis for your argument. If you are arguing that same-sex civil partnerships are a bad idea because the state should not approve or condone homosexuality, then why aren't you going the whole way and arguing for homosexuality to be made illegal? [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I myself am Conservative for secular reasons, this country doesn't allow incestuous marriages, because they are immoral, the same should be true for homosexual marriage, I don't care if people love each other in a non-platonic manner, for example if a brother and a sister love each other in a non-platonic manner they shouldn't get marriage because it is sick, and the same goes for homosexual marriage -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Homosexuals are not born that way Columbia University did a study on twins and found out if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is 7% -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

No offense, but this why you shouldn't come into the debate in the middle of it. I already acknowledged earlier that just because the Bible says something is wrong that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I can't force moral principles onto you, and I don't want to. I'm against it from a legal standpoint because I don't think it's beneficial to society, I doubt that a homosexual couple would be as effective in raising kids as a heterosexual couple, etc. I've already outlined and given reasons for these arguments several times.

Now people do have the right to do what they want. If two homosexuals want to live together and have relationships, that's their business. I don't like it and I think it's wrong, but they have the freedom to do it. But they don't have the right to be legally married, for those earlier stated reasons and because the government doesn't have the authority to say "this is morally okay" and force it upon the rest of us. I'm not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal because, as you stated, we're not in a theocracy and I can't force that on you. But, in all fairness, homosexuality shouldn't be forced on me as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" either. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:39, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, immediate siblings and immediate family marriages are not legal because they have huge genetic implications in terms of children. Marrying further family is still actually legal in this country (depending on the relation and how the genetics would work out) [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's true. Inbreeding can lead to retardation and other problems. You don't want children coming out of those families when there's a really high statistical chance that they'll have genetic issues. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:41, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Exactly - that's why there is an objective, secular reason for incestuous relationships to be illegal. But there is no such reason for homosexual relationships. Some people believe them to be immoral, based on religious views; others don't.

:In response to what you (Ultimahero) said earlier, allowing homosexuals to have ''civil partnerships'' (not marriages) hardly "forc[es] homosexuality" on you as "an acceptable alternative lifestyle". It doesn't affect you at all. I can understand that you would object to a law which required religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages - and I would also strongly object to such a law. Religious groups have the right to define marriage however they wish according to their doctrines, and the government should not force anything on them. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a law which allows homosexual couples to have ''secular'' civil partnerships. So I don't see how it forces anything on you or anyone else. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 06:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. I just said that the reason I'm against homosexuality from a legal standpoint is because of it's not beneficial to society, homosexual parents wouldn't be as effective as heterosexual one, etc. I'm not basing the legal factor on religious values. I'm primarily against it for religious reasons, but when it comes to the legal aspect I'm not.

A civil union is the same thing as a marriage with one key difference: you don't call it marriage. As I said earlier, it's not the word "marriage" that matters, but the institution itself, whatever you may call it. And it certainly does affect me. If it affects society, it affects me. When homosexuality is strongly being pushed to be added to the list of hate crime groups, meaning that if I say anything negative about homosexuality I could get fined or jailed for spreading "hate speech", that affects me. When the "homosexual struggle" is being taught in public schools, to children nonetheless, alongside blacks-Americans struggle against racism and women’s struggle for equality, as if those movements were the same thing (which they aren't, not even close) then yes, that affects me. When a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America can be sued and forced to include homosexual scout masters, then yes, that affects me. When homosexual parades come down the street and the cries are "We're here, we're queer, get used to it", then that affects me. If gay couples were off doing there own things and keeping to themselves, then it wouldn't be an issue. But they aren't. It's an in-your-face mentality. So, yea, it affects me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree that homosexuality should not be added to the list of hate crime groups (I believe in free speech, and that you should have the right to criticise homosexuality if you wish to), and that the Boy Scouts of America should not be forced to include homosexual scoutmasters if it doesn't want to. As a libertarian conservative, I believe in the right of private organisations to make their own inclusion choices based on their own moral beliefs. However, that has no bearing on whether same-sex civil unions should be allowed. It isn't the same issue, and introducing civil unions will not have any effect on any of the other issues which you highlighted.

:I also wasn't making any argument about homosexual parents. As it happens, I do think that some homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children (subject to careful vetting), but that isn't the issue here. Civil unions have nothing to do with the right to adopt children; it's a completely separate issue. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

The adoption of children is relevant in the sense that if civil unions are allowed, then it is a recognized family. I suppose it subjective to how you define it, but the gay couple in question would be legally recognized the same way that any heterosexual couple would be. So the issue of children being raised is an inevitable follow up.

Granted, civil unions aren't directly related to those other issues. But, this basically has the to do with the Domino Effect. First gay marriage isn’t even thinkable. Then civil union's are allowed, because that gives homosexuals some recognition, but it's not quite marriage. (I would still argue it is the same basic thing, but I digress.) But of course gay couples won't be happy with that. No, because we call it something else instead of marriage, then they'll feel like they're not really equal and will demand full-blown marriage. And since we've already conceded most of the basic rights of marriage to them anyways, why not just go the extra mile? But then when some Christian group in some church somewhere refuses to do a service for a homosexual couple based on moral principles, and they will be sued. After all, if homosexuals are added to the hate crime list (I know you personally said your against it, but still bear with me) then it's discrimination to treat them that way. You can’t talk badly about their sexual orientation or refuse them service of any kind because of it. The churches will either be forced to recognize them, or will be shut down, or the members fined or jailed. It's all one thing that leads to another. So, no, a civil union isn't directly causing those other issues, but they are all inherently linked. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:This is a slippery slope argument, which, formally speaking, is a logical fallacy. I do understand what you're saying, but I am arguing that we should allow civil unions and ''stop there''. As I said, I believe in the libertarian principles of free speech and association - thus you should be able to criticise homosexuality if you wish, and churches and other private organisations should not have to recognise same-sex marriage or perform other services for homosexuals if they don't wish to. This is why I'm against "hate speech laws" in general, and why I think anti-discrimination laws have gone too far. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the ''government'' (as opposed to private organisations) should be required to treat all people equally, homosexual or heterosexual. Thus, the government should recognise same-sex civil unions, but private organisations (including churches) should not be forced to. I don't accept your argument that recognising civil unions is going to lead to this massive landslide which will lead to churches being shut down and their members arrested; that isn't realistically going to happen (especially given that the "free exercise of religion" is explicitly protected by the US Constitution). [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 16:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Which logical fallacy applies here? I can't see how it is illogical. The example I gave is hypothetical, I acknowledge that. But it's a realistic possibility. I know that you might say stop at civil unions, but it won't end there. Even now, when civil unions aren't allowed, there's a push for gay marriage. Logically, if it's being pushed for now, without any precedent, then why should we assume that it will end if they do get civil unions? That's like saying we want X, but we'll stop once we get 90% of it. That doesn't make sense. If you can get 90%, why not go for the whole thing? It will lead to full marriage. And I understand that you don't want private organizations to be forced to accept homosexuality. But, we've already seen it happen. I gave the Boy Scouts as an example. Again, the precedent has been set that homosexuals can impose their will upon private organizations if they push hard enough. Why should I believe that they won't do it to churches? We're the biggest one opposing them. If they can shut us up then that just helps them. I know this is all just theory because we're talking about something that has yet to happen, but I see no logical reason to assume that it will stop at civil unions. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:18, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

And the Constitution gets reinterpreted all the time. All it takes is for a majority on the Supreme Court, which would currently be five people, to rule that the Constitution doesn't protect religion if they are "discriminating". [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:20, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Excellent point with the Supreme Court Ultimahero, it happens all the time with The Bill of Rights. Does anyone know what infringe means compared to gun control. The slippery slope arguement is very valid (gun control are examples). You are talking about changing laws to your liking and not the majority. I would like the "adult" age lowered to 12 (just to emphasis the point)so the children can legally give condent. Texas recently (within the last 10 years) raised the marriage age from 14 to 18 after the Mormon church moved in.So much for religious freedom since the marriages where already in place.
Just because you are an adult does not mean you can do anything you wish. 18 is the adult age but you still can not legally drink alcohol. There are other examples where adults can not do things until they are of appropiate age. Homosexual marriage does affect everyone. What legal statuses are you trying to obtain that doesn't affect the entire population and isn't already available elsewhere (other laws)?

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?

2010-06-03T17:10:16Z

TomRobinson: /* Let's clear some things up */

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

As Japan attacked the United States and Germany declared war on the United tates, the question is a non-question. Perhaps the question that should have been asked is: Should the United States have aided both China and Britain before war was declared on it. I suggest that in both instances the United States was looking after its long term interests.

The United States was attacked by Japanese forces and the Axis powers threatened to take over Europe. America would be greatly harmed if the axis had taken over Europe because the resources and allies that we had there would no longer exist. If the US didn't want to attack Japan they would look weak to the rest of the world and would risk being attacked again, by the Japanese or another hostile force. So, only looking at the good for America directly it is obvious that war was necessary. The crimes against humanity that the Nazis committed are atrocious but, as we can see from current examples, such as Darfur, it is not enough to get America into battle.
--[[User:Flax+|Flax+]] 20:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Sure, It's a Question ==

While it's true that the U.S. couldn't directly do anything to undo Germany's DoW on it, that's not really the same thing as saying we had no choice about entering the war. It's one thing to exist in a nominal state of war, and another entirely to launch a total war effort beyond anything the world ever witnessed before. Germany had approximately zero capability to project power into North America, and, while it's U-boats were capable of interdicting American shipping, that didn't require a full scale response. We could have simply chosen not to participate in shipping offensive to the Nazi regime (which collapses back to Flax's point), or simply fought a naval battle to keep open the shipping lanes.

The situation with respect to Japan was a bit more difficult, since Japan had chosen to directly attack us. But, in point of fact, Japan was at the end of its logistical tether. It couldn't repeat the attack on Pearl Harbor, much less carry the war forward. We could have simply chosen to turn the other cheek. Of course, Japan would, in that event, likely have succeeded in expanding its influence to control the petroleum resources in the co-prosperity sphere, which, over the course of 20 years or so, given them the means to project power throughout the Pacific. But that get more to the question of whether it was advisable for us to stay out of WWII, than the question of whether it was possible to do so. [[User:QBeam]]

== no ==
The British and French were no better than the Nazis. Their imperialism was what drove Germany to such desperate measures. Also, if left alone, Germany would have destroyed the Soviet Union, which would have halted the spread of Communism and the polarization of the Third World during the Cold War. It was basically the other European powers that were adding fuel to Hitler's fire. If Germany defeated them, the German people would seek a more moderate leader. If FDR hadn't interfered with Japanese expansion in the Pacific, America could have avoided war completely. The Japanese never thought for a moment that they could defeat America. They hoped that after winning a few battles, America would be willing to compromise.
[[User:neocorporatist|neocorporatist]]

:Have you read anything about the history of the war in Europe? Or are you simply spouting what other people have said? For a start, the Nazi's were a terrible party who '''murdered''' many millions of Jews, homosexuals, political leaders (who opposed the Nazi's), disabled people and many more besides. How can you possibly say that Britain and France are even comparable to that? Then you go on to say that it would have been better if Germany had defeated Europe and had a one country continent ruled by an evil dictator; oh wait they wouldn't keep the evil dictator they'd get rid of him. Oh, wait a mo, he killed everyone who opposed him so perhaps getting rid of him might be a bit hard! You need to read up on your history if you think that that's an accurate representation of what happened in WW2. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

America's involvement in WWII was a total disaster.

WWII started when Germany invaded Poland. After millions dead on both sides at the end of the war Poland was turned over to the Soviets. We never even accomplished the initial goal! Hitler wanted to deport the Jews. Awful yes, but if we would have accepted them we would have gotten a million educated immigrants. Better than the millions of uneducated immigrants we get today. After Hitler's death the Germans would have gotten back to sanity. With the death of millions of Europeans the Middle eastern nations were able to rise to more power. This is also the reason millions of Muslims have been immigrating to Europe. With the invasion of Muslims indigenous Europe will cease to exist in a generation.
WWII may have very well be the seed that lead to the extinction of indigenous Europe. Remember the Holocaust didn't start until well after the war started and might never had happened if there had not been a war. So don't use the Holocaust as a reason for the war.

The Japanese front is even a more obvious failure. We never should have stuck our nose into the orient's business. We kicked the Japanese out of China, thus letting the Communist take over. This lead to Mao's murder of about 100 million Chinese. This is no improvement over the Japanese controlling China. The new Japanese Empire would have collapsed eventually, like all empires do. We didn't need to kill millions to speed it up. Millions dead for no improvement at all and probably made things worse.

:*Just a slight factual [[correction]] in your response. The jews of Europe varied in education, from some of the highly educated peoples of France and Germany to the entirely ignorant populations of Poland and Russia. [[User:Sunfun2|SunFun2]] 09:43, 30 January 2008 (EST)

===Let's clear some things up===
Just to clear some things up. Hitler did not want to '''deport''' the Jews, he wanted to kill them, six million of my people were mercilessly murdered in the camps. (America's hands aren't clean though, they refused to accept Jewish refugees.)

Sunfun2, all of my ancestors are from the Jewish communities of Russia, Poland and Lithuania, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't slander them with disgusting lies.

[[User:DLerner|The user formerly known as DLerner]] 06:34, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

actually the Nazis initial plan was to force the Jews to leave Germany, he aimed to send them all the Madagascar so they could have a country of their own. Unfortunately, he realised it would be easier to put them in concentration camps than force them to leave their own country. The holocaust was the "Final Solution" to the "Jewish problem" as the Nazis liked to refer to their anti-semitism.

:No. Hitler wanted to kill the Jews, and I think that's been well established. I'm a bit angry myself that FDR took such a long time to sign Lend-Lease because of pressure from the pacifist crowd. --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 13:10, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

==Yes==

As a European I'm glad they did, otherwise I'd probably live under Nazi rule now, that is if none of my ancestors had been disposed of by the party.

So I'm glad the Americans joined in, even though I know their reasons for doing so weren't noble: the Holocaust didn't start until after the Americans got involved and the segregation of Jews in Germany was no different from the segregation of blacks in the US.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::most europeans still hate jews.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:38, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh, do we? What a claim... [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 12:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes because without American intervention the Nazis would be ruling over large portions of the world now.--[[User:Fg|Fg]] 12:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Edited a bit as your answer was most likely for the original question, not to me [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't aware that I hate Jews.
That's like saying everyone in the southern US still hates blacks.

that is so stupid to say that most europeans still hate jews. in most european countries there was hardly any anti-semitism, and only really ignorant people are anti-semitic or are willing to group a whole continent as anti-semetic.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::the segragation of Jews in Germany was nothing like the segragation of blacks. I am not aware of any death camps in Alabama. The holocaust did start before Americas entry. if the americans reasons werent noble, what were they?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

And its true that many Europeans do still have negative opinions of Jews. According to Abe Foxman of the ADL 21% of europeans consider themselves anti-semitic! thats one-fifth of the population. 40% of Europeans believe Jews have "too much power in financial markets" everyone knows thats the most basic anti-semitic claim. If one-fifth of our beloved continent openly admits anti-semitism, we have a problem.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I live in Europe, and yes, there is some anti-semitism (like there is everywhere on the planet), but not 20% of the population.

No, really, the "final solution" (including the death camps) was set in motion after the Swannsee conference in 1942, partly because the Nazis felt that they wouldn't have the time and resources to ship the Jews to Madagascar (the original plan) now that the US had entered the war.

There were earlier death camps for political opponents and there was a "euthanasia" policy against the handicapped, but those were not the reasons the US entered the war, the possibility of losing trade partners and allies Great Britain and Australia combined with the attack on Pearl Harbour and pressure from American Jews were.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Those sound like pretty good reasons for war to me. I too live in Europe and even I think that these statistics are high, but the ADL stands by them.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

They are reasons for war, but they do not show the allies were morally superior to the axis (before the Holocaust took place), especially if you count the Soviets with the allies.

Let's face it: there's never been a pure "Good vs Evil" war.

:::were the Soviets really with the Allies?[[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] Before the holocaust took place(as you say) the Nazis did many very bad things(large scale anti-semitism among others). The allies were definately morally superior. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

That pact didn't last until 1941, the Nazis fought the Soviets along the eastern front (20 million Soviet and 3 million Germans died on that front), and the Soviets had entered an official alliance with the western allies.

I'm not saying the Nazis were good (their policies were cruel and racist), I'm just saying we don't like to remember the racism and segregation in the US and Australia (isn't racism towards blacks, hispanics, asians and aboriginals just as bad as anti-semitism?), the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, the Soviet reprisals against civilians, the Soviet deportations, etc...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::this brigs up interesting debate about USSR. nothing the US or austalia did compares to the actions of Nazis. obviously the Soviets were bad, I personally think they were worse than the nazis.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

In Australia aboriginal kids were put in "re-education camps" and beaten if they spoke their own language, same thing happened to Indians in Canada and hispanics in the US, the US also officially endorsed segregation (also the official policy of Nazi Germany before the Holocaust), natives in the British and French colonies did not have the same rights as Europeans, the allies knew about the atrocities Stalin was committing, but denied it in public, carpet bombing of cities, nuking of 2 cities, that kind of thing...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Remember the part where Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, then invaded Poland? Segregation in the US, the British and French Colonies, and Australia, as wrong as they were, were not the issues at hand in WWII.

Actually, it was completely Germany's fault that the United States entered World War II. Contrary to popular belief, Germany and Japan did not work together very much. Germany did not have to declare war on the United States after Pearl Harbor. If it wasn't for Germany declaring war, the United States would have been fighting WWII in the Pacific Ocean only. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:17, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:I think this hypothesis is shown to be false by the way in which the U.S. actually responded to Pearl Harbor. "That was a dirty rotten trick the Japanese pulled, and we're never going to forgive the Germans for it!" would be a reasonable tag line. Both Germany and Japan declared war on us, but it was Japan that killed 2,000 of us in what we at least said we regarded as a dispicable and underhanded sneak attack. So how did we respond? With a maximum war effort in Europe, and no serious committment to the Pacific. In fact, as I indicated above, Germany had essentially zero ability to threaten us, and so their declaration of war was immenently ignorable, if we'd been inclined to ignore it. We weren't, and we didn't. [[User:QBeam]]

We Absolutely should have been there helping our friends the Brits, they have always been there for us. It's because of American and Britian (as well as Canada and Australia) that we are free from being a leftist totalitarian state like Germany was in the 30s and early 40s. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:20, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
:Leftist? Are you kidding? German fascism was definitely NOT leftist. Considering it claimed to be the polar opposite and immortal enemy of socialism (especially Bolschevism) the leftist claim seems a little ridiculous. [[User:Bruce1|Bruce1]] 21:04, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Intervention was to prevent the spread of Communism

I think the way the war has been taught in many years has been a bit misleading. The biggest winners of the war were the US who defeated the Japanese and the Soviets who mainly defeated Hitler (80-90% of German casualties were on the Eastern front). Hitler's greatest folly was to invade the USSR as he was up against an enemy far better resourced and far more ruthless than himself stretched over a land mass too large to occupy. As in wars today the story of the war in Europe centers around the oil fields. Once the Italians and Germans were driven out of North Africa and The Nazis had failed to take Stalingrad and gain access to the oilfields beyond Hitler was finsished, it was only a matter of time before the Red army took Germany. America and Britain joined the war in earnest on the Western front only once it was obvious Stalin would win and there was the real danger of the Red Army taking the whole of Europe. If the map of the cold war was redrawn to include the whole of continental europe the outcome might well have been different, although it was always destined to come to an end eventually. [[User:Mrvipond]]

The US was right when it went to war with Japan, after Pearl Harbor. The US then had war declared ON THEM by Germany and Italy. With the Germans advancing on Britain, if America never acted, they would have had to defend German attacks on US soil. In the words of Admiral Nimitz... "Our job is to bring the fight to the enemy so we don't have to fight it here.

== From an Economic Standpoint, Yes ==

{{Though I believe wholeheartedly in our decision to go to war, I will focuse on the economic division of the causes and effects of the war. 
The United States in 1940-41 was still struggling painfully to escape the clutches of the Great Dpression. When war was declared on December 8, the USA moved over to a War Economy. This entailed price restrictions, massive increases in production, and government protectionism of American industries. This gave a powerful boost to the American economy, giving jobs to millions who had not had a job in years. The war brought strength to ailing industries and drew women into the workforce, creating another increase in jobs. 
Not only this, but the Japanese Empire was also invading American tradepartners like China, and threatening British-held India, a large source of income for one of our closest allies. By crushing Japan, America also gained dominance in the Pacific, securing a great amount of new trade, not the least of which was Japan itself and the millions of dollars that American investors put in to it's recovery. 
This stimulated the American economy, and in fact allowed it to supplant older countries like Britain and France. This was also in part due to the more flexible system of Capatalism used in America, the basis of which was free trade with equal partners, as opposed to the Mercantilist economies of France and Britain which relied on colonies to produce wealth. In the De-Imperialization era after WWII, the older empires fell apart because of the loss of colonies to revolts and the freeing influence of the United States, while ours remained strong. }}

User talk:TomRobinson

2010-06-03T16:56:44Z

TomRobinson:

If you have a problem, kindly contact me on this very page. I can and will respond within a couple hours or maybe even a couple of minutes.

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2010-06-03T16:53:55Z

TomRobinson: /* Yes */

{{Debate-religion}}
{{Debate-politics}}
{{Debate}}
This is basically a forum. You can chat with your friends, and reminise with them about that special person that you will never meet because you were too busy here answering if gay marrage should be legaized. So, answer. The sooner you do, the faster you might meet that special someone. 
 
==Yes==
Yes, it should be allowed. For all too long, there has been discrimination in this country. For instance, racism was considered normal for a long time. However, although people might think that there is no discrimination going on in America today, there is prejudice against the homosexual population. The discrimination is that they are denied their free right to, well, equal rights. The right of being married. One of this country's fundimental principals was to have everyone come here and be equals. Although that promise wasn't nessicerally held up (slaves are still people, yet they were still imprisoned for many years after this country was founded), do we need to fight another war in order to try to get homosexual marrage allowed (a very long strech, but you get the point). Discrimination was tolerated at one point in America. Can't we leave that point behind us? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

You say it should be legalized because of equality. But, it’s because of equality that it shouldn’t be legalized. Homosexuals already have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. A homosexual man can marry any woman he chooses (assuming that she is of legal age and is consenting) just as any heterosexual man can. They already have the exact same rights. Allowing homosexuals to marry one another would be giving them special rights based on a behavioral preference. They choose to engage in homosexuality. Note that when I say they’re “choosing”, I’m not talking about whether they’re born that way or not. I mean they’re choosing their lifestyle. Born that way or not, they still choose to engage in that particular sexual behavior, just like heterosexuals choose to engage in their sexual acts. So, it is a behavioral choice, and legalizing it would be giving them a special right based on a behavior. That is inequality. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:44, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't quite see why they would marry someone that is heterosexual if they are homosexual. I mean, look at it this way. Let's say that it was illigal for everyone that was not Roman Catholic to be married. Should it not be legalized for other religons to do that. Because, I mean, religion is simply the truth that you prefer to believe (for catholics, it is that Jesus was the messiah, for example). Should it not be legal for other religions to marry, even though they prefer not to be Roman Catholics? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

The point is that they can marry. You're giving examples of people who can't marry at all, but that doesn't fit the current scenario of things. Homosexuals might not want to marry the opposite gender, but they have the right to, just like a heterosexual person can. The point is that they all have the same rights, and to allow them to wed the same sex would be to give out special rights. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, homosexuals can marry those of opposite gender, but, if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will be able to marry people of the same gender, so everyone will still have equal rights. If gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody, why shouldn't it be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:11, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Because you're giving out rights based on a behavioral preference. It's saying, "I prefer to do this, so it should be legal because I want to do it." Besides, who says that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone? I would dispute that. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:26, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

If you want to do something why shouldn't it be legal? The only answer I can think of is if it hurts someone. If gay marriage indeed hurts someone, who does it hurt? (And I'm not giving out rights based on behavioral preference; everyone would get the right to a homosexual marriage just like everyone gets the right to a heterosexual marriage.) [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:32, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

It hurts society. We already have moral standards that are in place that have been there a long time. The standard for marriage is one man and one woman who are of legal age. If we redefine the standard, then we move the line back a little. If you set the precedence that it's okay to move that line in regards to morality as we see fit, then where does it end? Polygamy? Bestiality? Pedophilia? And it is a special right, because it is giving out a right because a particular group of people hold to that behavior. It's like drug users who want drugs to be legalized because they like to use them. That's giving in to a person's behavior. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:40, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, the Biblical standard for marriage is "One man, and as many wives and concubines as he can afford". You need to start getting all huffy about how abandoning this Godly standard has hurt our country. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Is society really hurt just because it stops reflecting your morals? There have been other opinions that had "been there a long time" before they got changed: see [[slavery]]. The government has to protect its citizens and residents and so it cannot allow bestiality or pedophilia because neither a (non-human) animal nor a child is mentally capable of consenting to sex. Polygamy is a little trickier. While I don't object to it in principle, it generally seems to lead to abusive husbands and male-dominated societies and so the government could certainly outlaw it.
And homosexuality is not like drug use because drug users actually ''do'' harm society; they make roads more dangerous and tend to commit more crimes than non-drug users. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:56, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't forget that [[Miscegenation]] used to be illegal, too. :-P --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

How are you asking that first question? Are you asking my morals in particular, or in a generalistic sense? If it's my morals that society no longer reflects, well, I think it's morally wrong to steal, rape, murder, etc. So, yea, socitey would be hurt real bad. What I'm saying about changing values is that it makes things easier to pass that were at one time considered terrible. Let me give you an example:

An 18 year old can marry anyone they want without their parents permission. But, a 17 year old can't. But is a 17 year old that much different from an 18 year old? Most would say they're not. So shouldn't a 17 year old be able to marry as he chooses as well? Really, that makes pretty good sense. But, a 16 year old isn't that different from a 17 year old, so why can't he marry as he wants? And on and on it goes until you get to, "Well, a 5 year old isn't that much different than a 6 year old, so hey should be able to get married." My point is that it's just a real slippery sloap. Simillarly, how do you tell the very next thing after homosexuality that they can't when you just made the exception for homosexuals? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:07, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

To answer your first question, yes, I am asking about your morals. I really don't care what society thinks. If society thinks that it is okay to steal, rape, and murder, I don't care. I do care about what the government thinks, because, even if society condones murder, people will not be allowed to murder each other as long as the government opposes it. The government does not need any moral standard to outlaw theft, rape, and murder, as I said before: the government has to protect its citizens. As a result, the government should, and would, outlaw theft, rape, and murder without any morals.

As to your slippery slope example, in 1971 the minimun voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. 37 years later, there are still no supporters of suffrage for 15 year olds. I can't see why allowing gay marriage would be so different. Finally, I haven't made an exception for homosexuals until you prove that they harm society. If you do that I will oppose gay marriage. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:31, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Wait. Government doesn't need any moral standards? I disagree. There have been lots of governments that kill their own citizens when it's convenient for them to do so. Everybody needs an objective standard, otherwise your just making you morals up out of your own preferences. The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 because 18 years olds were dieing in Vietnam but couldn't elect the officials who sent them there. That made no sense. The reason it isn't continuing to be lowered is because people realize that there must be some standard. If you lower to 17, then why not 16. If 16, why not 15? But we realize that you have to keep some standard otherwise where does it end? The same goes for marriage. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

I would like to add something. If the government does not have any moral stadards, then the government will end up deciding to destroy it's people and if anyone speeks out against it, then they will stop at nothing to make sure you will not say anything. However, I would like to say this. In a way, heterosexual marrages are based upon one's behavioral preferance. For instance, let's say that a man likes women. Isn't that a preference? Why, then should a homosexual not be able to marry because of their behavioral preference? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

::"Because gays are icky" seems to be the basis for all the arguments I've heard. If these folks REALLY think that gay marriage will Destroy the Institution of Marriage (possibly by giving it AIDS), you have to wonder why they don't try to outlaw [[Divorce]], FIRST. There are a LOT more divorced heterosexuals than there are gays, period.
::Especially [http://www.acupofambition.com/index.php?s=marriages celebrity marriages]! They're doing more damage to the Sacredness of Marriage than all they homosexuals in the world could. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, my morals say that it is wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Since these are the same morals that are against pedophilia, wouldn't your slippery slope argument say that we must allow gay marriage or risk pedophilia becoming legal? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay, let me try to hit all those points one at a time. First off, yes, people being involved in heterosexual relationships is a behavioral preference, too. But, it's a little different in the sense that heterosexuality is generally considered to be the natural way. It's what we predominantly see in nature, the male and female bodies are obviously meant to couple, the vast majority of people are heterosexual, etc. So, my argument is that there's the so called "normal" way that has been perfectly accepted and legal since this nation's foundation, and everyone is given the same rights to perform that way. Then there is another lifestyle that is only preformed by a small minority, and they are engaging in an activity which they choose to do. (Not the choice to be gay, but the choice to "act" gay, or to engage in that behavior.) So for it to be asked that this alternative choice be given just as much legitimacy as the first option is somewhat of a push. It's almost as if homosexuals are saying "we choose to act differently then you, but we want you to treat us like we're not." But wait. Your making that choice, not me. I don't force it on you. You do it by your own free will. You can't turn around and then act like your not making that choice. That's having your cake and eating it too.

I can't speak for all, but I'm not against homosexuality because it's "icky". I'm against it because I believe it's morally wrong. Yes, divorce is bad, too. People treat marriage far too flippantly, with the attitude of, "if it doesn't work, we'll get a divorce". That's wrong, too. But the problem is that there are some scenarios where divorce could be legitimate. In cases of unfaithful partners, abusive spouses, etc. So there are cases that make it impossible to outlaw divorce.

I think that I get your point about turning my slippery slope argument against me. (Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.) No, the slippery slope doesn't occur because of my personal values or yours. It occurs because of what is already in place in society. What there is one man, one woman of legal age and they consent. That's the standard. So if you lower that standard to suit homosexual marriage, then where does it end? The slippery slope has to do with what's already in the society, not my personal beliefs. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:03, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, so we're talking about society's morals then. But wouldn't the slippery slope mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The argument is that anything will be allowed if you get on the slippery slope, because once you start down it there's no real way to stop. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Is that a yes then? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 19:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry; I think I'm missing the question. Yes to what? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 19:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't the slippery slope argument mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:00, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. The slippery slope is saying that if you get onto that road then you can't stop any possible outcome that fits within that context. Things still could get passed and changed, because society could get on the slope. It's just a caution for society to be careful of which way it heads because it might not like where it ends up. But it still could change and allow things. That's why the argument is there. There's no point in arguing it if it can't change anyway. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Incestuous relationships: "but they love each other shouldn't they be allowed to marry whoever they want without any circumstances that is discrimination they love each other but you won't let them marry it may not be the ideal but how could you prevent two people who really love each other from marrying, marriage is based on love, is it not, honestly why do you care what they do in their bedroom it is there business" It is the same argument as that of homosexual relationship, both are stupid views incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberals don't think they follow their emotions -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Immorality anywhere is a threat to morality anywhere, if you actually cared about homosexuals instead of the radical ones, you'd feel sorry for them according to Center for Disease Control, 71% of the people with HIV are homosexual, homosexuals are overrepresented for all STDs extensively-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps gay marriage would encourage monogomy and thus reduce STD's among homosexuals. Also I think the problem with incest is not a moral one but rather a genetic one. The children of close relatives are far more likely than others to get rare genetic diseases. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

But even monogamy in a homosexual relationship can lead to STD's. As for the incest thing, you're right. Even from a Biblical standpoint that's the view. Early on in creation it was okay for brothers and sisters to marry. How else could the Earth be populated by two people? Cain had to marry his sister. But back then the genetic line was pure enough to allow for that sort of thing, where now it is not. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:53, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

STD's can be transmitted in even in a monogomous relationship (homosexual or heterosexual), but it is far less likely than if someone has many different partners. The odds of 1 in 2 people having an STD are far less than the odds of, say, 1 in 10 [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:29, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Certainly. But the form of sexual intercourse with the highest STD rate would be anal. I know both heterosexual and homosexual couples are capable of that, but homosexuals are more likely to engage in it because, well, count the holes... [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:20, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Question, why do you even care about gays having STDs? That is our problem to deal with, not yours. We can't have children (not biologically anyway) so we cannot pass it on, we are gay and therefore will not engage in sex with heterosexual persons, and thus won't spread it within the heterosexual community (which is all you seem to care about). Thus, why does it even matter to you? What business is it to you if a person (gay or straight) gets a STD. That is their problem to deal with, not yours. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 6:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first of all someone else raised the point and I was simply addressing it. Secondly, it can be passed on, just not through hereditary means. Say someone with HIV gave blood and it got passed on, that would be a problem. (I know that's unlikely because they test for that stuff before they take blood, but I'm just saying it can still be passed by means other than sex.) Thirdly, I care because I don't want gay people to get diseases. It may not have a direct impact on me, but I still don't want them to be sick. I don't like homosexuality and I think it's wrong, but I don't want them to get sick and die. I care about a lot of things that don't necessarily impact me. Children starving to death in Africa doesn't affect me personally, but I still care about them and don't want it to happen. People I don't know who go to Hell might not affect me personally, but I still don't want them to have to suffer like that. I think it‘s just a sign of humanity to care about other people.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

It is fine to "care" about other people, but not when it negatively impacts their lives. Starving children in Africa will not deny your help or aid because they want it, and it makes their lives better. People's interference with private social lives, however, is not wanted. And just a FYI, under current law, any individual with a same-sex sexual experience since 1977 cannot give blood. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:43, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Who said anything about interfering with your life? That's putting words in my mouth. You have every right to live that way if you want to. I care about homosexuals and don't want them to get diseases, but I fully recognize that individuals have the right to make their own choices. Where the discrepancy comes up is when we're dealing with legalizing it and it becoming a societal factor. That's when it interferes with my life and negatively impacts me. That's when I have to say "no." [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:36, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is, why is it alright to negatively impact my life, but not yours. What makes the negative impact of my life so inferior to yours that it is okay for mine to continue, but it is an abomination that your life is somehow impacted. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 12:51, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not. I'm not trying to negatively impact your life. That's why I don't push for homosexuality to be made illegal. (As some people have suggested be done.) Your have the right to live that way if you want. But, it's not fair to negatively impact my life, either. That's why I'm against it being legalized and pushed onto society. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:02, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You may not specifically be trying to negatively impact my life (as neither am I) but you are in your attempts to prevent such legislature legalizing gay marriage. So my question still stands, why is the negative impact on your life worse than the negative impact on mine? Considering just what legally will change, it seems that the negative impact on my life is greater than yours. You will loose no rights whatsoever, you will not have to recognize gay marriages in a religious sense. The gay community, however, is suffering from inability to receive benefits of legally married couples such as child custody protection, inheritance priority, and visitation rights. Unless if you are some form of insurance representative, or a member of any other such industry that would change due to gay marriage, your life is not effected directly at all. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:27, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Define negative impact. Because a child molester could say, "Hey, you're not allowing me to legally molests kids! I consider that a negative impact on me!" (I'm certainly not trying to say homosexuals are the same as child molesters, just making an analogy.) The point is that society has determined that there are certain things that have a negative impact on society so those things aren't acceptable. The whole point of this debate is why you should now be able to do something that was previously unacceptable. You might not like the status, but you have to prove why homosexuality should be accepted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. And it does affect me, as I've explained numerous times. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:43, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think this conversation keeps going off onto tangents about slippery slopes, child molestation and allowing 6-year-olds to marry, so let me ask this succinctly and hopefully I'll get a succinct answer in return.
:I'm in favor of allowing same-sex marriage because when you strip away all the rhetoric and politics, it's simply about letting two people who love each other and are dedicated to a relationship together solemnize their commitment, and enjoy the same legal rights as any other couple the state considers "legally married". The gender of the individuals in this commitment should matter as much to the government as their race (not at all), because it has no bearing on their ability to be a functional couple or good citizens. Even the mostly conservative/republican judges in California understood that when you define something like "domestic partnership" to be separate but equal to "marriage", it enables ''society' to discriminate anyway regardless of the law, so it's not equal in the end.
:One hundred years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many places because it violated the traditions and norms of society. This is no longer the case because it's clear that interracial marriage itself causes no actual harm to society, so there is no legitimate basis in law to deny the legal benefits of marriage to mixed-race couples. Arguing that marriage does not apply to same-sex couples because they cannot bear children on their own is invalid as well - the government does not require fertility before marrying men and women.
:My simple question to the opponents of same-sex marriage is this, then: ''If you remove "religion" and "tradition" as reasons for a government to establish law granting equal rights, what is the objective, quantifiable harm that is done to society by allowing two people to be legally married, with as little regard for gender as there is for race?''"--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:51, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If two people should be allowed to marry because they "love each other", then by that definition two kids should be able to marry as long as they "love each other". That's not a tangent, it's using the same logic to bring up a valid point. Don't even look at it from a religious standpoint. Would kids getting married be a good thing? No. So, if you say two people love each other and that's all that matters, then anyone should be able to marry as long as they love each other. That logic is simply flawed.

No, race and sexual orientation is different. Race is something you have no control over, where as sexual orientation you do. (I'm not saying you can choose your sexuality, but you can choose to act on it. No one forces two homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior, so it is a choice. On the other hand, you can't "act black", etc. So there's an obvious difference.)

Alright, completely outside of religion or tradition. Would two homosexuals be as good at raising kids as two heterosexuals? No. Ideally, you need a mom and dad.

Besides, legalizing homosexuality is forcing it upon the rest of us. Want to talk about California? Okay. When the people vote and 61% say they don't want homosexuals to marry, and then despite this, four people on court bench say "regardless of what the people want, we're going to ignore them and do what we want." Four people can overrule 61% of the largest state in the nation. That's forcing it on others. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:43, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Four people can overrule the legislation because that is their job. Our government was set up in the way it is as system of checks and balances. The founding fathers recognized what is known as the "tyranny of the majority" and established federal and state supreme courts on that basis, as a check of the people. The people can, and will, vote for a constitutional amendment (California's in November) which the SCOC cannot touch. "The rights of the minority should never be restricted by the majority." As per the child argument, you again are warping the argument presented by DinsDaleP and myself. The key point is that homosexuals are legal adults. Now you may claim that one day the marriage age will be dropped, which, though I don't foresee it, is possible. But the key there is that it will be dropped for both gay and straight couples. We are not asking for rights that only apply to us, but an extension of all citizens rights. Currently all citizens (above the age of 18) can marry the opposite sex. If gay marriage is legislated, all citizens (above the age of 18) will be able to marry both sexes. It is not special rights, you will get them too. To the argument "but I am not gay, I do not want those rights" well I am not straight, I don't want the right to marry the opposite sex. The actual legal argument against gay marriage is pretty tenuous. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:23 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ultimahero, AndrasK made the same point about age that I would have - it's misdirection to add in age as a factor when we're talking about the rights of legal adults. That's why kids don't vote, drink or drive cars. It's true that you don't choose race, but even if you accept that sexual orientation is a choice and not a preference some are born with, so what? We choose our religions, and as adults, any male-female couple of any religion (or atheists for that matter) can get married without the state weighing in.

::Ideally, you need parents who love and support you, who help you grow to be a happy, productive and well-adjusted adult. Many single parents raise their kids great, and many male-female couples raise their kids terribly. Your assumption that kids would be raised best by a pair of male-female parents is based on opinion, not fact. There's a lot more to being a good parent than gender or gender-orientation, and the government does not make parenting skills a criteria for getting married (although it'd be a good thing if it did).

::Finally, I don't see how allowing same-sex marriage forces anything on you. You can marry whoever you want, and you don't have to associate with anyone you don't want to either. We all hear people using their first amendment rights to express ideas that may offend us, but we're not harmed by the words themselves. In the same way, you need to accept that responsible, law-abiding adults should have a right to marry who they want because their marriage may offend you, but it isn't hurting you. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

Trust me, I know all about how the government is set up. The judiciary is all about interpreting the law. If something violates the Constitution, then the court can rightfully say a law is unconstitutional. But, if something is not addressed, then it is left up to the people of the states to decide what should happen. (As per the 10th Amendment.) So I ask you: is marriage ever defined in the Constitution? The answer is no, it’s not. So, since that isn’t brought up, then it’s left up to the people of the states to determine who should marry. And in California 61% of the people said they want for marriage to remain between one man and one woman. 61%. That is a solid majority. So when the courts overrule that, that isn’t overruling an unjust law. That’s liberal activism; judicial tyranny. Tyranny is when a view held by a few is forced on the whole. That’s exactly what’s happening here. We are being forced to accept something that is absolutely wrong and that we don’t want. That is unconstitutional.

No, I’m not warping the child argument. You’re missing my point, or perhaps I’m not being clear enough. I’m not saying that the age limit is going to be dropped. What I’m saying is that if someone says that “love is all that matters”, then by that definition anyone who loves someone else should be able to marry. (I know you personally acknowledge that there are other factors involved, as we have already had this discussion.) I use the child argument as an example, but there’s a lot dog things I could use. I could say that as long as I love my dog and it loves me, we should be able to marry. I could say as long as me and my fifty girlfriends love one another, we should be able to marry. Heck, I could say that as long as my table and I love each other we should be able to marry. I know those are extreme examples, but I’m trying to illustrate why “love” isn’t a sufficient requirement. I’m simply asking you for a better definition.

Yes, we could all get the same rights if homosexuality is legalized. But, by that argument I suppose we could say that is car theft is legalized, then it won’t benefit just the thieves because we all have that right now. Obviously, that erroneous. Just because we can make something legal doesn’t mean we should. Legal doesn’t mean it’s beneficial or good. I’d argue homosexuality would hurt society (a claim which I know you will inherently disagree with) and that’s why it shouldn’t be legalized.

To DinsdaleP:

Again, I was trying to demonstrate the fallacy of using “love” as requirement. It simply doesn’t work because there are to many problems with that. You need better requirements to determine who should marry other than “love”.

Comparing people’s religions when they are getting married to when there sexual orientation is like comparing apples to oranges. They’re different categories. It doesn’t matter what your religious beliefs are when you get married. Two Atheists heterosexuals who wed is fine. One’s religion is irrelevant. But, the gender and sexual orientation of a person isn’t. I would argue that a mom-dad couple is the ideal partnership. Boys need a fatherly influence to see how a man should act, and a girl needs a motherly influence to see how a woman should act. And, kids need to see how men and women interact in a healthy relationship. So if they be Atheists, Christians, etc., heterosexual couples still provide that example, whereas homosexuals don’t. (Besides, we can debate whether or not homosexuality is Constitutionally protected, but there is no debate that religion is.)

Heterosexuality can be terrible parents, certainly. And I’m not saying it’s impossible for homosexuals to be good parents. I am saying that male-female parents are the ideal thing. (For the reasons I mentioned in the above paragraph, as well as others.) Doe it always work that way? No. But just because something doesn’t always work doesn’t mean you abandon it. For example, we have laws against rape, murder etc. Those laws don’t always bring successful results, but that doesn’t mean that we should get rid of the laws. (Again, it’s an extreme example, but it serves a point.)

It does force it on me. First, it’s an attempt to force those moral on me. Secondly, if the laws says that homosexuals can be married, then that means that anyone who refuses to recognize that is guilty of discrimination and is breaking the law. And who might object? Churches. If a church refuses to perform a marital service for two homosexuals, then that legally qualifies as sexual orientation discrimination. Churches can be sued, fined, etc. So that is forcing it on me. When these things get taken into the schools, with classes on “the homosexual struggle” being taught alongside the black and women’s movements, then that is forcing it on me and my family. So it is forcing it on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Love is not the only requirement for a marriage. Love ''and'' consent are. The only argument you've given, or at least that I've seen, for homosexuality harming society is that it goes against society's morals. I still do not see, however, how that actually harms society. As for forcing churches to marry homosexuals, I am unaware of any law that forces churches to marry anyone who asks to be married. If you know of one, please, show me. Finially no morals are forced on you. You are more than welcome to dislike homosexuality and consider it immoral. No one is trying to take that right from you. All homosexuals want is their right to marry. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:37, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. Love and consent. A child can love someone and give consent. That brings us right back to where we were.

I’ve offered many arguments. One is that it does lower the morals of society and make things easier to get through in the future. I also pointed out that homosexuals aren’t the best parenting couples. I’ve said that it’s giving special rights out for a personal behavioral preference. I’ve said that churches will be in serious legal trouble if homosexuality is legalized. Whether you agree or not, I’ve offered a lot.

There doesn’t nee to be any additional law specifically saying churches must administer marriages. The law would be that homosexuals can be married the same as heterosexuals. So, if a church refuses to marry two homosexuals, then the homosexual couple could sue over discriminatory purposes. They could argue that since legally they have the same rights, then their legal right is being denied. Just like a discrimination suit could come in a work place over not hiring a homosexual, a lawsuit could come just the same against a church for “discriminating against homosexuals legal rights.” Churches can’t disobey the law, and could be forced to obey with fines, jail time, etc.

It does force morals on me. The church thing, as I already mentioned. Also, a churches could be forced to hire openly homosexual personnel. If they don’t, then that would be called discrimination. It’s in the schools being presented as an “acceptable alternative lifestyle”. You don’t want to force it on me? Fine. Get it out of schools and away from children and then I’ll believe you. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:54, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, a child cannot LEGALLY consent to ANYTHING. Keyword is LEGAL. Unless if Congress LEGALLY lowers the legal adult age, the child argument is null. The church argument, a marriage in a church is in no form a legal contract. What legally marries a couple is the marriage license that they must apply for and obtain from the government. That is civil marriage, religious marriage has no standing in a legal sense without that document. A person can have the entire ceremony and be married in the eyes of the church but not the law. As the Church does not provide the legal aspect of the marriage, just the religious one, there would be no grounds for a discrimination lawsuit against a church. If you don't want your children in public schools, take them out. I personally think it is a poor choice, but it is your right as a parent to do such. I laugh at how this site thinks that public schools are so gay-friendly and "promoting homosexuality." Have any of you ever even stepped foot in a school? Have any of you ever experienced what it is like to be gay in public schools? It is laughable honestly. Not only that, it is arrogant and superior. You claim we try and force our morals on you, but then you try and do the same exact thing with yours. We are at least willing to look at things from a purely legal standpoint, as is necessary to remove religion from the legislature. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 00:13 22 May 2008 (EDT)

If the keyword is legal, then let’s end the debate because homosexual marriage is not legal. Debate over, I guess… No, the point isn’t null, because we’re talking in a future hypothetical sense about all of this. But if the child thing really bugs you, then I can switch to a polygamist standpoint or bestiality, etc. Any of things would be legitimate if love is all that matters. Again, I know you personally don’t hold to that view. But others have presented that and that’s what I’m arguing against. The church marriage service may not be relevant in the legalistic sense, but it still could be argued as discrimination. If a church refuses to recognize homosexuals, they could respond that it is a violation of there legal rights and based on “discriminatory” purpose. So are you saying that homosexuality should be pushed in public schools? I think that’s a poor choice. I wouldn’t argue that we should promote anything anti-homosexual in the schools. That’s simply not something you force on kids. (What you teach your own kids in your home, that’s your business and your free to choose. But in the school that’s different.) And who said that I had kids? You’re making an assumption. I actually just graduated from a public high school last year, so I’ve definitely stepped foot in a school. And in junior year US History, we were taught civil rights. And at the end of the segment was a homosexual unit. (I’ll point out for clarification that we didn’t finish it due to time constraints, but it was there nonetheless.) No, I don’t force my morals on you. I don’t support outlawing homosexuality or throwing homosexuals in jail. What you do in your own house is your business. But it’s when you want to go beyond that and bring it out in the open, where it automatically becomes my business, that it’s forced on me. When it’s in the schools is when it’s forced on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because something is not legal currently does not make it a null argument....that is the entire point of debating; we are debating if it SHOULD be legal. As to the polygamist standpoint, I personally would not oppose such legislation. Polygamy, however, presents MUCH larger legal problems than gay marriage, in that the legal infrastructure is set up to handle a two-member couple (Spouse 1 and spouse 2). Inheritance rights, visiting rights, custody rights, tax exemptions etc are designed in a two-person marriage. So while I do not oppose polygamy (I personally am not a polygamist) on the basis that the government should have no right to restrict activities that do not directly effect others. Bestiality, like child marriage, is a null argument in that animals cannot legally consent. When we say consent, we do not mean the physical ability (which animals still lack) but the legal authority to do so. As to the discrimination against the Church, you keep saying gays will say its "discrimination" but discrimination on what grounds. The topic of this debate is gay marriage, not sexual orientation as a hate crime basis or any other anti-discrimination measure (which is another topic entirely). I have already established that legalizing gay marriage will offer no legal basis for discrimination lawsuits on the fact that churchs have no legal standing in marriage already. Gays could indeed sue the government for discriminatory practices, but not churchs because churchs are under no legal obligation to perform any wedding (straight or gay). I did not mean to assume you had kids, sorry I read your respoonse at 12AM and read the line "keep it away from kids" as "keep it away from my kids." A simple error. As to the homosexual unit in your history class, that is not promoting homosexuality or trying to force any form of morality into you, it is presenting historical fact. Homosexuals, just like African Americans, Women, Whites, Indians, or ANY other group (and don't tell me we don't learn about straight or white history because learning US history is basically learning the history of straight, white males, as they have had almost all the power since the creation of the nation). It would be historically ignorant NOT to mention homosexuals in history class as they played a role in history. This is not 1984, you cannot just remove portions of history and call them insignificant or non-existent. The homosexual movement has, and continues to have, a role in American history, and it is ignorant to say we can just ignore that because its a "controversial" issue. Should we remove learning about African Americans in history because it is pushing African Americans into the classroom and upsetting the racist (not accusing you of being racist, just using this as an example), of course not. It is important to try and learn history in its entirety, it is then we can truly learn from it in seeing how every individual aspect fit together to form the chain of events of history. The "it's in schools and therefore forced upon me" argument could be used to remove the teaching of ANYTHING. I dislike Irish authors, I think that they are a scourge upon the Earth and are harmful to American society, does that mean that we should stop teaching Joyce? Think about what you are implying with your words. You are implying that just because an individual does not like something, means it should stop being discussed or studied. I personally don't like the Catholic Church (surprised?) but I learned about it almost every day in World History. Did I particularly want to learn the history of the church? No. But I recognized its vast importance in the history of the world, got over my dislike because I KNEW that it was important to learn if I was to understand human history. Just because something is not like, does not remove its historical importance. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 8:23 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Once again, AndrasK addressed many points I would have myself, so I'll just offer a "Nicely said!" and add a brief comment. Ultimahero, what keeps coming up in your statements is that your principal objection to same-sex marriage is not based on it causing any direct, material harm, but that it's based on offensiveness to your values. That's a legitimate reason to object to anything, and your values aren't being judged. What's key here is that in a free society, the best government is one that provides the greatest equality among people with the least intervention. The government is not going to tell a religion who it can and can't marry, but at the the same time, it shouldn't be telling two adults they can't be legally married based on their gender if all the other criteria for getting a marriage license are met. What the conservative, mostly-republican judges ruled is that society treats married people differently than unmarried people or "domestic partners", and that there's no compelling reason for the state to draw that distinction in law. Maturity and wisdom comes in part from accepting differences in others that we don't approve of, when those differences are not harming us in any material way. The older I get, the more I realize though my own experiences that I was wrong for judging people with different values in my youth, because I don't want to be judged for mine. (For example, I'm tired of being told I'm going to spend an eternity in Hell for not being a born-again Christian, and when I worked for one, I always wondered if that affected my reviews and promotions no matter how good my performance was). At this point in life, I appreciate the vision of Dr. King when he dreamed of a world where people were judged for the content of their character - period. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:00, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

The whole point of my arguing about polygamy, child marriage, etc. is simply to say that anything can be allowed if love is all that matters. We have already agreed previously that this is an insufficient standard, so I’m trying to continue this point with you. We’re already in agreement on that. Churches are under no obligation to perform marriage, but they can’t disregard the law. If homosexual marriage is legalized, then both they and heterosexuals will have the same legal rights. So, if the church permits one and refuses another, homosexuals could argue it as discrimination. There’s lot’s of examples like this. Businesses are under o obligation to provide whatever product they produce. Yet if a business were to come out and say “we refuse to serve gays”, would you honestly say that that would get taken to court at some point? It would be based on the fact that legally homosexuals have the right to marry, just like heterosexuals, yet churches only accept the latter. That could be discrimination, depending on your perspective.

Interesting perspective on the history fact. The problem is that is isn’t an unbiased presentation. The various black, women, etc. movements are presented with the underlying tone of, “see how wrong this was.” Which it should be. Slavery and oppression was wrong. But homosexuality doesn’t fit in that same category. Homosexuality isn’t being opposed out of prejudice (well, I suppose that some might be, but mot aren’t) but rather on moral grounds. If this were just unbiased issue, then it might not be that bad to simply learns facts of what have happened. But it never will be, because the people involved are just that: people. People, whether consciously or not, people will inject their own bias into this. True, I suppose on could say they don’t like anything and have it be taken out. But, ‘Irish authors’ or other things would not face realistic opposition. That, as well as most things, would face no serious risk f being removed. The church is not being presented along with theology and saying, “kids, Jesus died from your sins”. It’s simply being presented as a historical institution. I certainly agree that we shouldn’t take things out of discussion just because it’s controversial. But when you’re talking about a controversial moral issue, then is it right to take one side in the schools? I say it’s not. You and me talking about it? Fine. We’re two private citizens engaging in our own conversation. But a school is different. It’s influential kids who are by law required to go to school and sit in on those courses.

To DinsdaleP:

Yes, I am primarily opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds. I think it is wrong. Easy as that. But, when it comes to the overall society, I look at it differently. I think it will lower the overall values of society. I’m not looking at things from my moral, but a societal stance as a whole. I think homosexuals would not make as effective parents as heterosexuals. That’s not morality. That’s looking out for the well-being of kids. I worry about the ramifications on churches. That’s a legal stance. Yes, people can do whatever they want in there own homes. But, when it comes out into the streets and into the courts and into the classrooms, then it’s a different matter. I agree that people should have equality. But, that’s tricky because “equality” means different things depending on whose defining it. Obviously, you and I see it differently. You may not like being told that without Christ your going to Hell. Well, I don’t like constantly being told that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 12:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:Okay, I think AndrasK and I have addressed the point that love is not all that matters where marriage is concerned, so tangents about polygamy, bestiality or loving one's table are not relevant. It's also a given that the government has no right to interfere in the practices of a religion, unless it involves criminal acts like statutory rape, human sacrifice, etc. Your have the right to your opinions, and it's not my place to declare them invalid. It's just that as a society, we have to have laws that are based on reason and not opinions. You can assert that homosexuality lowers the overall values of society, but I doubt you can prove it in any objective way.

:If you look at the stories about the 1950's and 1960's civil rights movement in the south, you'd see many examples of everyday citizens believing deeply that an unsegregated society would be worse off than a segregated one. There was no basis in fact for this - it was all about "values" and "traditions" and maintaining "a way of life that's important to people". It is also something most people would disavow today. You feel that allowing same-sex marriage sends the wrong message in schools, but kids in public schools aren't being taught that same-race marriage is better or worse than mixed-race marriage, and they're not going to be taught that homosexuality is good or bad - just that like race, it's not grounds for discrimination in the eyes of the law.

:You would also be hard-pressed to provide any objective proof that a same-sex couple would not raise a child as well as a mixed-gender couple. We would never expect the government to require single parents to immediately marry or to turn their kids over to be raised by couples for the well-being of the kids. Parenting is personal, and as long as there's no abuse or neglect it's not the government's place to tell anyone how to raise their kids. That standard carries over by extension to same-sex parenting. Frankly, it's a shame that there are kids living in orphanages instead of homes with parents because of adoption policies that prevent adoption by single-sex couples. Are the kids really better off being raised by an institution?

:What I'd like to know then, is this. On the streets and in the courts and in the classrooms, it doesn't matter who's married or single, or what their religion is. Why would it cause anyone material harm if some people are married to the same gender, when it doesn't cause harm based on whether they were married in a church or not, or to the same race? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:58, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

No, you haven’t. There have been repeated attempts to refute why those groups can’t marry. But that’s not the point. The point I’m raising is that your standard is problematic. Love isn’t enough. If it is, then anyone can marry as long as they love each other. Neither is love and consent, because that doesn’t deal with polygamy, etc. I’m not asking you to refute these other groups. I’m asking for a better standard.

Well proof is different than persuasion. I might be able to prove a point, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll convince you. It lowers societies standards in regards to marriage because society has for a long time said “one man, one woman.” Now we’re trying to lower that bar. (That effectively proves the point in and of itself because we are indeed lowering the standard.) But, to go further, it effectively makes it easier to lower the standard in the future. If the definition for marriage can just be tweaked a little bit, just pushed a little farther, then the next thing in line is permissible. Then the next, and so on.

You keep playing the race card. But the way blacks were treated is much different that they way the gays are treated. Blacks were slaves, weren’t allowed to vote, were forced to use separate facilities, etc. That’s not what’s happening to gays. They aren’t being enslaved or having their freedoms taken away. Quite frankly, it’s an outlandish and offensive example.

Kids in schools aren’t being taught that same-race marriages are good or bad. But that’s because no one talks about same-race marriages. Why? Because it’s irrelevant. Race has no bearing on marriage. Gender, however, does. What sex the people are does matter. And that is being brought up, and they are being taught that it’s okay. When schools are told to report if there are any kids who “speak out” against homosexuality, then that’s a negative influence. “Speak out” could include someone saying it’s wrong. Pretty soon, it becomes impossible to even object to it. That’s teaching them it’s okay by silencing the opposition.

I can easily demonstrate that same-sex couples aren’t as effective as heterosexual couples. Where do kids primarily learn things such as what’s okay and what’s not, how to treat each other, etc.? From their families. They see what goes on at home and that is their primary example to model. Boys need their fathers to see what men act like, girls need their mothers to see how women act. And both need to see the opposite sex to see how it’s proper to treat the other. (Are they respectful to one another, etc.) But with same-sex couples, you run into a road block: There inherently won’t be only a mother and a father. Granted, one could say what about divorced families or single parents. But kids who grow up in divorced homes still have a mom and dad. They may not live together, but they still have them. And single parents still do as well, assuming that one hasn’t died. But in that case do you take the kids away because a parent died? Of course not. With mom-dad couples, you might run into instances where the kid doesn’t have a mom or dad. But with same-decouples you will never have both a mom and a dad because you can’t be definition.

There needs to be more adoption certainly, and less premarital sex that brings kids into unwanted families, certainly. But that doesn’t mean that we let homosexual couples adopt to remedy that. That just creates more problems.

I’m not sure I fully understand the last question. Race, as I’ve already said, is irrelevant to marriage. It has no bearing. Same goes for religion. They simply have no bearing on marriage, and it’s a category mistake to put them into the same category as gender. Gender and sexual orientation have to have an impact by definition. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:45, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, because even if you disagree with the principle of what Homosexual people do (I perosnally have no problem with it), it makes no dfference to YOU if they can or cannot. How does it affect YOU if the person someone loves wants to legally leave their possessions behind once they die? Wants it to be officially known that they want to spend the rest of their life with the person they love? You can disagree with it via what you read in the Bible, but there are laws in place that contradict the Bible's message, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:SIMONR2|SIMONR2]]

Here are my questions that no one has yet been able to answer: In what way does homosexuality threaten "straight" marriage? Something I'm not sure if you're aware of: Making same-sex marriage legal doesn't make it mandatory. As to the arguments about it being a behavioral issue, so what if it is? It's attraction. That means it's wrong? You're saying anything we do because we choose to should be illegal? As to gay marriage being against the Bible, so is shaving your face, eating shellfish, and wearing poly-cotton blends. Oh, and you know, stoning people to death for disobeying God's will. Let's reinstate THOSE things, shall we? The fact of the matter is, Congress cannot make laws because God says so, because we do not live in a theocracy. For that same reason, Congress cannot mandate churches to perform same-sex marriages. Now explain to me where you (as in, the collective of heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage) are hurt by this? You say it is your moral decision; and yet, are you not infringing upon my morals with what I view as discrimination? As long as we're following that train of logic. My problem is, this is a "values voting" issue, and that entire concept is wrong to me--values are something you develop through life based on experiences. Values are not something you vote on. I don't think this should even be an issue--as long as it's not hurting anybody, let people make their own moral decisions, and that means, yes, legalizing something because it's behavioral and people want to do it. Because you don't have the right to tell them whether what they do, when it isn't hurting anyone else, is immoral.[[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 01:39, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::Now we're getting somewhere! Could someone for the Anti-LGBT Marriage side kindly clarify as to why LGBT marriage is "immoral" or "damaging to society"? Please don't bombard me with "It's God's will" and other crap because being a human, you do '''NOT''' know the will of God.--[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 12:53, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

==No==
It's said that it is discrimination to be against homosexual marriage. But, whether you agree with it or not, you have to look at things from the Christian perspective to see where we are coming from. As a Christian, I see the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I am against it. It's not about prejudice. It's just the fact I have a moral obligation to stand against anything that is wrong. I am against homosexuality in the same sense that I am against stealing. I consider them both to be wrong. Would someone say that I'm discriminating against thieves when I say that's wrong? Of course not. I don't think that homosexuals should be treated badly, or made fun of, but it is wrong and Christians have to say so.
: I do agree that Christians should say it's wrong if that is what they believe in. But I do believe that not allowing them to marry is unconstitutional, because of the first amendment that states "no law should be made enforcing or discriminating religion" (I'm paraphrasing here.) and if a law were to be passed, it would be enforcing a religious value on people that may not believe in what the people that put that action into law believe. But, even though I think gay marriage is OK, I also support peoples right to say its wrong, start up "rehab" for gay people (If the homosexual chooses to go there and its not tax-funded), and tell the world what they think about the issue. As long as the wall of separation between church and state is intact, and that homosexuals are not verbally or physically harassed, I believe it is OK for Christians (and any other religion) to say its wrong and not like it. --[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 18:47, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

The first amendment deals with not being able to keep some one from practicing a particular religion, or force to them to practice it. Homosexuality is not a religion. And although it is opposed on religious grounds, there are also cultural and sociological factors involved, so it really doesn't fit into what the first amendment outlines. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Why is it that you consider it a moral obligation to believe the part of the Bible that says that homosexuality is a sin when other parts of the Bible are discarded as culturally antiquated or irrelevant to a given sect (i.e. the eating of shellfish, the call to embrace revenge over forgiveness in the Old Testament)? The Bible is not a single document, but a compilation of a number of different sources with diverse perspectives and (at times) contradictory values.
--[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 19:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

With all due respect, you don't know what I believe, so you can't really make a claim that I only believe part of the Bible and not another. Now, nothing is ever "disregarded" when you consider culture, etc. It is simply looking at things in their proper context. But, what you gave as examples don't fit the culture aspect.

The Old Testament law is split up into three basic categories: the priestly laws, the civil laws, and the moral laws. The priestly laws are no longer applicable today because they were fulfilled by Christ. (Ex: The Old Testament required animal sacrifice for the remission of sins, but in the New Testament Christ is sacrificed once for all sins.) The civil laws are also not applicable because they were in place in the Old Testament in a Theocratic system. Obviously, we live a democracy, not a theocracy, so the same laws don't apply. (I would also point out that as Christians we are no longer under the law, according to Romans 6:14-15.) The moral laws, however, are still in effect because they reflect the nature and character of God. (Ex: Lying is wrong because God can't lie.) So because God's character never changes, neither do the moral laws.

Plus, in the New Testament we don't see the civil or priestly laws reestablished, but we do see the moral law reestablished. That is why the New Testament still calls homosexuality wrong, but not with the associated death penalty.

And the Bible does not present contradictory values. Maybe things that are difficult, but not contradictory. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:01, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Gay marriage doesn't exist. The term is an inherent oxymoron. Marriage by definition is the union of one man and one woman, This is God's definition is will always be the true definition. A lie told a million times is still a lie--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==It Depends==
*If the marriage is going to be carried out as a religious service, it should be up to the relevant religious authorities. If the marriage is nonreligious (carried out by a justice of the peace, or Elvis, for example), then it should be allowed. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:38, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

But a religious group can't refuse to follow the law. So if homosexual marriage is legal, they would be forced to adhere to that law, regardless of what they believe. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not the intent of homosexual marriage advocated, myself included. I fully recognize any religion's right to refuse to marry homosexuals. Marriage in the religious sense should be left up to each religion. If the Catholic church wishes not to recognize gay marrriage, that is 100% their prerogative. What I am advocating, however, is legal gay marriage. In that a gay couple can obtain a marriage license via the same requirements that heterosexual couple can. No church would be forced to perform a ceremony, and they would not be forced to recognize the marriage as marriage licenses offer legal, not religious benefits. Only churches that desire to perform gay ceremonies would. The gay marriage issue is about LEGAL rights and LEGAL recognition by the government, not RELIGIOUS recognition by any church or organization. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but it is about religion. Right now it's being pushed for homosexuality to be added to the list of hate crime victims. This means that if Christians don't like it and speak out against it, and then someone who overheard it went out and beat up a homosexual (I'm certainly not advocating that) , then the church that originally spoke out could be sued or shut down for promoting 'hate speech'. Similarly, if homosexuality was legalized, and a church refused to perform a ceremony for two homosexuals, then that could be labeled as discrimination and that church would suffer consequences. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

So as I can tell, you fear that if gay marriage was legalized and if gays were added to hate crime lists, then churches would face discrimination? May I ask why it is okay that gays are discriminated against, but not churches. As to the specific cases you mentioned. In this country, we thankfully still have (more or less) have first amendment rights. Nazi groups, white supremacy (and I am not comparing the church to these groups, just using them as examples) still can exist, as they should be able to, as long as they don't actively advocate violence against Jews, African Americans, whoever. Much like any group (be it Nazis, gay rights advocates, or anyone else) churches could continue to speak as they will as long as they don't advocate direct violence. As to the marriage aspect of it, as long as the law clearly states that no religious organization can be forced to marry any two individuals, then there is no basis for legal discrimination. Socially, people who think that the church discriminate will continue to do the same, and those that don't won't. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:51, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I do fear that Christians will face discrimination. I think hate crimes are stupid (not to debate that; it's a different topic) because they deal will motivation and intent. If I as a Christian exercise my Constitutional right to free speech and say I think something is wrong, then I can risk punishment. I know you might advocate that churches should be able to still voice opinions, but not everyone thinks that way. And yes, discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, too. But the marriage thing is not discrimination, because everyone has the same rights. Giving homosexuals the right to marry based off of their sexual preference, which is a behavior, would be discrimination. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because not everyone believes that churches should be able to voice anti-homosexuality opinions does not mean they won't be allowed to. As before mentioned, other groups face much more dissent than the Catholic Church, but they are allowed to voice their opinions under 1st amendment protection. As to the marriage aspect once again. I wouldn't call gay marriage discrimination but I understand your point. However, history has shown that specific legislature is often needed to protect the rights of minorities. We have specific laws regarding women (although no equal rights amendment amazingly) that protect them and give them specific protections (not rights, just protections) under the law. The same is true for African Americans, and other minorities. Minorities often need to be recognized legally to ensure the mantainence of their rights. And to use a very popular argument on this site, if gay marriage were to be passed, then heterosexuals would have the same rights to marry someone of their sex. That may seem odd to you, but the argument that we gays have equal rights in that we can marry members of the other sex is equally odd.[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Your right in that just because some don't want Christians to be able to speak out against homosexuals doesn't mean it will happen. But there are signs that we, in reference to us Christians, are going to be in trouble. I've heard there's a law out here in California that if a homosexual feels he or she has been discriminated against, then they can file a law suit and the state will pay all their legal fees. The defendant, on the other hand, would have to pay their own way. This has scary implications, because a homosexual could file a law suit and be backed up by the state, which has in all practical terms unlimited resources, while a church would have to pay for itself when most churches are struggling financially anyways. And I know that the homosexual movement is sometimes compared to the black or women's movement, but it's not the same. Blacks were fighting against slavery, which was clearly wrong, as well as Jim Crows laws sending to the back of the bus, etc. And women for a long time couldn't even vote. But homosexuals aren't facing that. No serious person is saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to vote or should have to use separate facilities. It is simply in regards to marriage and sexual preference, which is a behavioral issue. And you could say that allowing homosexuality would still give everyone the same rights, but I could say that if murderers wanted to legally murder and a law was passed to allow it, then would it be okay because "you can now legally murder too?" (I'm not equating murderers and homosexuals, just using that as a rather extreme example to prove a point.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

To identify the issue with the whole California thing. This type of extreme legislature (which I am against by the way. If the state is paying for one side, it should pay for the other as well) is often suggested, and even if passed, quickly altered. For example, under LBJ's presidency, federal funds were given to schools to allow busing for inner-city schools to outer-city schools to try and reduce de facto segregation (I am using the Civil Rights movement because it is a good historical precedence. You say that the gay rights movement cannot be compared to the African American or Women's movements. Its specifics and severity is certainly different, however, the theory and ideology behind it is not). This law was overturned rather quickly. We find that this country operates in knee-jerk reactions and extremes. Yes there may be some extreme legislature at the very beginning, but such legislature rarely lasts. Time ultimately smooths out the extremes in social policy.

As to the murder idea, that is different in that murder (or other such crimes such as rape, assault etc) physically harm other people. I can hardly see an argument that gay marriage somehow directly, physically harms people.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that homosexual marriage physically harms people like murder does. Like I said, I wasn't trying to equate the two. The point was that you had mentioned if homosexuality was made legal, then everyone would still have the same rights because heterosexuals would have that right by extension. So I was just saying that is if murder was hypothetically made legal, then everyone still has the same rights because even non-murderers would be able to legal murder. My point is that, yes, the rights would still be the same, but that doesn't make murder right, and, similarly, homosexual marriage being passed doesn't make it right or beneficial to society. And the ideology of the black movement compared to the homosexual movement isn't quite the same. Blacks were being picked on because of racism and prejudice. When it comes to homosexuality, yes, there are some who are motivated by prejudice, but many such as myself come at it from a strictly moral stance. I'm against it because the Bible says it's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:17, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand that gay marriage is against your moral code, and I respect that, but what this country is based on is the allowance of multiple opinions to coexist in harmony. You don't have to recognize gay marriage, think it is right, think it is natural or any other such thing. It is you perogative to have any such views you desire on the subject. It is important to realize the difference between secular marriage (perhaps I should use the word union?) and religious marriage. The Bible indeed dictates religious marriage for christianity, but it does not dictate secular marriage. The Bible also says (correct me if I am wrong, I am not very versed in the Bible. I mean this seriously, not sarcastically) that atheism is a sin, as is sex before marriage? Yet you do not oppose the secular marriage of two atheists, or two non-virgins. Now to clarify my stance, I do not believe the Bible should have any authority in dictating governmental and legal marriage. In this socio-political climate, however, I must be pragmatic. Now my question is, why is it that homosexuality is cornered out as massively sinful and thus not eligible for marriage, when atheists and non-virgins are? By the way, I would like to thank you for being logical and rational in this debate. Both sides are much to prone to sensationalism; rational debate seems to be less and less common these days. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

As a Christian, I hold the Bible in the utmost regard. I consider it to be the holy word of God, infallible and inherent. But, this being said, I fully recognize that not everyone holds that same opinion. Your an Atheist, correct? I definitely don't expect you to hold the Bible in any special light, and that's fine. You're entitled to your own worldview. So I also wouldn't say that we should create any law "just because the Bible says so". I run my life, to the best of my ability, based on what the Bible says. But I don't want to force you to. I primarily oppose homosexuality because of Biblical reasons, but the reasons why I think homosexual marriage should not be legalized has to do with societal issues, such as I don't see it as being beneficial to society, etc. As for why Atheists can marry and non-virgins as well, it has to do with context. I wouldn't oppose two heterosexual Atheists marrying because heterosexual marriage is good, regardless of whether the participants are Christians, Atheists, or whatever. And for non-virgins, yes, it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. But there is nothing in the Bible that says that someone who has committed that sin couldn't later get married, so I see no reason to be against it. (Besides, the Jesus said that to lust after a woman in your heart is to commit adultery of the heart, so even if someone hasn't committed the physical act, everyone is guilty of lust.) And once they marry, then they're no longer committing the sin of sex outside of marriage, so it's better in that sense. So it’s about context. With homosexual marriage, homosexuality is the problem. Even if both homosexuals claimed to be Christian I would still be against it because homosexuality is the sin. And yes, thank you for being very logical and friendly. I often hear a lot of insults, (and they come from both sides), so thanks for being polite. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is this. I see some benefits to society to allow gay marriage, and I see no societal harms. Benefits include financial and legal aid which can be helpful for the raising of a child. One of the societal arguments I hear most often is that gay marriages cannot produce children (I would like to point out that neither can marriages in which the couple is sterile, or simply choose not to). Gay couples can adopt one or more of the hundreds of thousands of parentless children in the country and world as a whole. The idea that marriage is simply for procreation seems ludicrous to me, coupled with the fact that we currently face overpopulation, it seems as if the human race can surely survive. I am not quite sure what societal issues you are referring to when you say they oppose gay marriage. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first off I think that we can both agree that the male and female is the natural option. Obviously they're bodies are designed to fit together. And yes, there is overpopulation. (One of the reasons why I and other Christians would stress abstinence until marriage, for the sake of not bringing yet another unwanted child into the world.) And yes, a gay couple could try to raise the child, sure. But the question is: would a homosexual couple be as effective at raising a child as a heterosexual couple? And I think that the answer is no, they couldn't. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that homosexuals are incapable of raising kids, but rather that they would simply not be as good as a mom and a dad. Because no matter how feminine a man may get, he can't substitute for a mother. And no matter how masculine a woman gets, she will never be a true father. Men and women are different. One's not better than the other, but they do posses different qualities that when coupled together compliment each other nicely. They're like the two different pieces to a puzzle. They just fit together. So I would wonder if same-sex couples could adequately raise kids when they won't have the full range of characteristics that men and women together posses. And, considering how kids can get made fun of in school for practically anything, having homosexuals parents just adds one more thing to shoot at them. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:15, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Please keep in mind that many gay couples who want to get married don't do so to have (or get) children, but instead to receive recognition of their love to each other. In some countries non married couples including homosexuals are able to adopt children, so banning homosexual marriages will not stop gays raising kids, this is an entirely different issue. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 01:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Granted. But I was addressing a previous point about how homosexual couple could adopt kids and help with overpopulation and I was simply comparing parenting ability. As for what other nations do, I can’t really comment on that. I don't have enough knowledge about how they go about things to say one thing or another, so I can really only talk about what happens in the United States. That's what I'm familiar with. But to address just homosexuality in general apart from kids? I understand that they want to show their love, but that's not enough. Love isn't all there is to it. Should kids be able to marry just because they love one another? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

As to the children aspect of this conversation. You say that a man can never replace a mother and a woman a father. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of single parent families. Single people are allowed to adopt children and/or have children. If it is acceptable for a child to have only one mother and no father, what is wrong with having two mothers? @StatsMsn, yes many gay couples just want recognition of their love. But so do hundreds of thousands of couples who marry and choose not to have children. If they are allowed to marry for recognition why not gays? Finally, regarding the child marriage. Please do not insult this hereto rational debate. We are speaking purely in the realm of acts and legal standing of legal and consensual adults.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, they're are lots of single parents. Many come by in the case of one parent dying. In those cases, you can't really say much, because they tried to raise the kids with both parents, but one unfortunately passed on. You can't really take kids away from them. Some are single because of divorce. I am against divorce, but as I've said before on this post, there are times when divorce is necessary. Adulterous or abusive spouses, etc, so you can't make divorce illegal because it can be legitimately necessary. And, even if they divorce, the kid still has a mom and dad. They might not live together, but they still have them.

Now, to what I said about child marriage. Please do not take away the courteously that we have so far had towards one another. That was a perfectly rational point. Yes, child marriage is not legal, but neither is homosexual marriage. If we can only discuss what's legal, then we shouldn't be having this debate at all. My point was that love is not all you need. It is certainly the single biggest factor, but there are other things that matter, too. If love is the only thing, then why can't kids marry if they love one another? It's a somewhat extreme example, certainly, but it's intended to show that more than just love is required. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I am not saying love is all that is required in marriage, one large aspect of marriage is responsibility, commitment, and maturity. That is why children are not allowed to marry. The country has deemed that children, and rightly (there are a few outliers, and I would include myself in this group, that are more mature) that under the age of 18, children are not legal adults. Thus they cannot sign legal documents without a guardian as well, they cannot enter contracts without a guardian, they cannot be treated as adults. The question of gay marriage is not are gays mature enough to enter marriage, but do we/should we have the right to under the US constitution. The reason why kids cannot marry is one of maturity, the reason why gays cannot marry, well I don't quite know, but it is not of maturity. Also I would like to ask, though I do not concur with your argument, how is a heterosexual couple getting married "just for love" any less threatening to the concept of adolescent marriage than homosexual couples getting married. I understand you think that "it is a slippery slope" but just on pure theory, where does that discrepancy lie.
As per the child argument, you have neglected the demographic of single parents that adopted/gave birth to a child purely on their own. Some people simply never find their life partner, and choose to have children on their own anyway. That is legal, and as it should be. If a single person all on his or her lonesome can decide to adopt/have a child, why should a two people of the same sex not have the same right? The child will undoubtedly receive more attention that way (seeing as there are two parental figures, not one) as well as enjoy the benefits of having possibly two incomes, or one income and one staying at home etc. Children of single parents by choice grow up into model citizens and valuable members of society every day, as do the children of gay couples where it is legal. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I know your not saying that love is the only requirement, and I'm not trying to advocate child marriage. I know why kids can't marry, and I think that the reasons for that are good ones. It's just that one common argument that I hear is, "They love each other so they should marry." But, as we both agree, there are more factors. As far as do homosexuals have the right to marry under the Constitution, it isn't addressed or defined. As I said before, the reason for gay marriage to not be allowed (at least in my opinion) is an issue of morality and the potential benefit for society. I'm not sure I understand what your asking about heterosexuals couples marrying "just for love". Can you specify that a little more? I want to make sure I accurately understand you so I can properly respond. The slippery slope thing is that hypothetically you should line up all the various issues of marriage in order of least harmful to most harmful, (heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.). Now, we've had a standard in place (one man and one woman). So if you move the bar down to allow for homosexuals, then it will make it easier for society to accept the next thing in line. After all, homosexuality was seen as being really bad but now it's okay, so why not _______. (Fill in the blank with whatever might come next.)

The child that is born of just one parent, presumably the mother, still has a mom and dad. She's not the virgin Mary, so there had to be conception. Now did the father take off or the parents don't want to marry, etc. I guess there's lots of theoretical scenarios there, so I can't possibly address them all. But if the dad takes off you can't punish mom and the child for that. Or if she doesn't tell the father and has the baby n her own, again, you can't take away the child and punish the kid because of the mom. Again, a single parent is not the ideal way to raise kids, either. A mom and a dad together are. But you can't reasonably say, "Single parenthood isn't ideal but it's allowed, so homosexual marriage should be allowed." That's creating more un-ideal situations and doesn’t help. And I'm certainly not saying that kids raised by homosexuals will grow up to be dysfunctional. It's just not the best way to do it. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:07, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Civil partnerships rather than marriages==
I would suggest, to avoid the moral and religious issues associated with the term "marriage", that it should simply be removed from the whole question. Rather than talking about "gay marriage", there should be civil partnerships which are available to any two cohabiting consenting adults. This is the approach which has been taken in the UK, and which (as far as I know) some US states are considering.

People in a civil partnership will have the same legal rights as married people regarding inheritance, welfare, etc., but they won't be "married" as regards the religious sense of the term. Civil partnerships should also be available to people living together in a non-sexual sense, e.g. cohabiting siblings.

There is already a distinction between civil and religious marriage; for instance, if you are Roman Catholic, you may be legally divorced under the civil law but still married under Catholic canon law, unless you seek an annulment of your marriage from the Church. So churches and other religious organisations would ''not'' be required to recognise secular civil partnerships.

Thus homosexual couples can have the same legal/financial advantages as married couples, without redefining the concept of marriage or upsetting the many religions which disapprove of homosexual relations. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but that wouldn't work. (At least from my perspective.) That's still legalizing gay marriage and just simply calling it something else. It's not the word marriage that should be treasured, but the institution itself, regardless of what name it's under. Besides, everyone says that government doesn't have the right to enforce religious values on everyone else. But then government also doesn't have the right to enforce secular values on society. Legalizing gay marriage is the government putting a stamp of approval on marriage and saying that it is an acceptable alternative. But it's not. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I simply don't agree with it.

Besides, that doesn't address all of the other issues about child raising, etc. that were previously brought up. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT) 
 
Acceptible alternative to what? I think (and this is just me), if two people love each other, should they not have the right to be married and share that happyness in the greatest way. Besides, by doing this, it shows that two heterosexual people that hate each other have more of a right than two homosexuals that have a perfect right to get married. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Marriage is not a government institution and marriage should not be corrupted by sexual perverts, yes I said it, sexual perversion: deviating from mainstream sexuality -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Every time a liberal talks to me I get more conservative -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:45, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Debrah, no offense, but you kind of seem to be freking out. Let me just say, in defense to my liberal nature, that I am from Massachussets, the most liberal state in the country. Anywho, sexual perverts? Perverts, although I see what your saying, is very strong (then again, so was my comment on the front page). But, let's face it, does a homosexual have a choice in the matter? Before I would say that they are sexual perverts, lets take this into consideration, do you know any homosexuals and if so, have you asked them why they are homosexual? It seems to me that people don't listen to homosexuals enough and thereby try to make it seem that they are chosing it on their own free will. Am I saying they are not? No. What I am saying is that someone should at least find out. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

I know homosexuals, and my best friend Jessica used to be a lesbian but became straight -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:How does one change? If one changes, would that not mean that she (and this is no offense to your friend) was bisexual? I mean, how is it possible for one to change the way that they love (and who they can love) in one thing. If she was, then does that not mean that she was part stright to begin with? This would not make her lesbien, but rather, bisexual. Again, this is all a spitball (I am going to ask a gay person I know tomarrow about this). --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

She experimented with women then she started becoming more interested in men as time went by and less interested in women, she isn't interested in women anymore, she just changed -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

For example, people can slowly become liberal, and eventually not be conservative anymore -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not becoming "straight" that is just realizing your true sexuality. She had doubts, she experimented, and slowly realized her true sexuality as being heterosexual. That indeed does happen, as sexuality is a highly confusing and complicated concept within a person. Some people discover that though they had homosexual inklings, they are overall heterosexual. Others, however, discover that they are completely homosexual. Showing one example of someone discovering their sexuality isn't proof that conversion is possible. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, just because two people love each other, that's not enough. As I said earlier, should kids be able to marry if they love one another? I know it's an extreme example, but it illustrates that more than love is required. As far as whether or not homosexuals are born that way or not, well, that's debatable. From a Christian standpoint, I'd say that's somewhat legitimate. Everyone is born with things that tempt them to sin, but not everyone is tempted in the same way. Some people are naturally arrogant, some are very humble. Yet that arrogant person might be honest, while the humble man could have a problem with lying. It just depends. So homosexuals might be born that way in the sense that they are born with that natural temptation. Of course, that's no excuse to do it, since people are still not supposed to sin. (Obviously if you aren't a Christian, then you won't accept this basic premise. But I'm just illustrating this from a Christian perspective.) And there are cases where homosexuals who are adamant about their sexuality will be cured. It does happen. Whether or not you accept those results is a different matter, but there's no denying it happens. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:I understand that, and I am aware of the fact that conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral, and that there is Biblical support for this standpoint. However, in modern society there is a distinction between law and morality; not everything which is immoral is necessarily illegal. The fact remains that (for better or worse) in modern society, homosexuality is a legal and accepted practice, and homosexual couples are legally entitled to live together without interference by the state. So why should the state not allow them the same practical legal rights as married couples?

:Our society tolerates practices which we do not necessarily condone. I respect your viewpoint that homosexuality is sinful, and this is a widely held viewpoint; but we don't live in a theocracy, and not all sins are crimes. I just don't understand the basis for your argument. If you are arguing that same-sex civil partnerships are a bad idea because the state should not approve or condone homosexuality, then why aren't you going the whole way and arguing for homosexuality to be made illegal? [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I myself am Conservative for secular reasons, this country doesn't allow incestuous marriages, because they are immoral, the same should be true for homosexual marriage, I don't care if people love each other in a non-platonic manner, for example if a brother and a sister love each other in a non-platonic manner they shouldn't get marriage because it is sick, and the same goes for homosexual marriage -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Homosexuals are not born that way Columbia University did a study on twins and found out if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is 7% -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

No offense, but this why you shouldn't come into the debate in the middle of it. I already acknowledged earlier that just because the Bible says something is wrong that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I can't force moral principles onto you, and I don't want to. I'm against it from a legal standpoint because I don't think it's beneficial to society, I doubt that a homosexual couple would be as effective in raising kids as a heterosexual couple, etc. I've already outlined and given reasons for these arguments several times.

Now people do have the right to do what they want. If two homosexuals want to live together and have relationships, that's their business. I don't like it and I think it's wrong, but they have the freedom to do it. But they don't have the right to be legally married, for those earlier stated reasons and because the government doesn't have the authority to say "this is morally okay" and force it upon the rest of us. I'm not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal because, as you stated, we're not in a theocracy and I can't force that on you. But, in all fairness, homosexuality shouldn't be forced on me as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" either. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:39, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, immediate siblings and immediate family marriages are not legal because they have huge genetic implications in terms of children. Marrying further family is still actually legal in this country (depending on the relation and how the genetics would work out) [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's true. Inbreeding can lead to retardation and other problems. You don't want children coming out of those families when there's a really high statistical chance that they'll have genetic issues. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:41, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Exactly - that's why there is an objective, secular reason for incestuous relationships to be illegal. But there is no such reason for homosexual relationships. Some people believe them to be immoral, based on religious views; others don't.

:In response to what you (Ultimahero) said earlier, allowing homosexuals to have ''civil partnerships'' (not marriages) hardly "forc[es] homosexuality" on you as "an acceptable alternative lifestyle". It doesn't affect you at all. I can understand that you would object to a law which required religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages - and I would also strongly object to such a law. Religious groups have the right to define marriage however they wish according to their doctrines, and the government should not force anything on them. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a law which allows homosexual couples to have ''secular'' civil partnerships. So I don't see how it forces anything on you or anyone else. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 06:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. I just said that the reason I'm against homosexuality from a legal standpoint is because of it's not beneficial to society, homosexual parents wouldn't be as effective as heterosexual one, etc. I'm not basing the legal factor on religious values. I'm primarily against it for religious reasons, but when it comes to the legal aspect I'm not.

A civil union is the same thing as a marriage with one key difference: you don't call it marriage. As I said earlier, it's not the word "marriage" that matters, but the institution itself, whatever you may call it. And it certainly does affect me. If it affects society, it affects me. When homosexuality is strongly being pushed to be added to the list of hate crime groups, meaning that if I say anything negative about homosexuality I could get fined or jailed for spreading "hate speech", that affects me. When the "homosexual struggle" is being taught in public schools, to children nonetheless, alongside blacks-Americans struggle against racism and women’s struggle for equality, as if those movements were the same thing (which they aren't, not even close) then yes, that affects me. When a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America can be sued and forced to include homosexual scout masters, then yes, that affects me. When homosexual parades come down the street and the cries are "We're here, we're queer, get used to it", then that affects me. If gay couples were off doing there own things and keeping to themselves, then it wouldn't be an issue. But they aren't. It's an in-your-face mentality. So, yea, it affects me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree that homosexuality should not be added to the list of hate crime groups (I believe in free speech, and that you should have the right to criticise homosexuality if you wish to), and that the Boy Scouts of America should not be forced to include homosexual scoutmasters if it doesn't want to. As a libertarian conservative, I believe in the right of private organisations to make their own inclusion choices based on their own moral beliefs. However, that has no bearing on whether same-sex civil unions should be allowed. It isn't the same issue, and introducing civil unions will not have any effect on any of the other issues which you highlighted.

:I also wasn't making any argument about homosexual parents. As it happens, I do think that some homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children (subject to careful vetting), but that isn't the issue here. Civil unions have nothing to do with the right to adopt children; it's a completely separate issue. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

The adoption of children is relevant in the sense that if civil unions are allowed, then it is a recognized family. I suppose it subjective to how you define it, but the gay couple in question would be legally recognized the same way that any heterosexual couple would be. So the issue of children being raised is an inevitable follow up.

Granted, civil unions aren't directly related to those other issues. But, this basically has the to do with the Domino Effect. First gay marriage isn’t even thinkable. Then civil union's are allowed, because that gives homosexuals some recognition, but it's not quite marriage. (I would still argue it is the same basic thing, but I digress.) But of course gay couples won't be happy with that. No, because we call it something else instead of marriage, then they'll feel like they're not really equal and will demand full-blown marriage. And since we've already conceded most of the basic rights of marriage to them anyways, why not just go the extra mile? But then when some Christian group in some church somewhere refuses to do a service for a homosexual couple based on moral principles, and they will be sued. After all, if homosexuals are added to the hate crime list (I know you personally said your against it, but still bear with me) then it's discrimination to treat them that way. You can’t talk badly about their sexual orientation or refuse them service of any kind because of it. The churches will either be forced to recognize them, or will be shut down, or the members fined or jailed. It's all one thing that leads to another. So, no, a civil union isn't directly causing those other issues, but they are all inherently linked. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:This is a slippery slope argument, which, formally speaking, is a logical fallacy. I do understand what you're saying, but I am arguing that we should allow civil unions and ''stop there''. As I said, I believe in the libertarian principles of free speech and association - thus you should be able to criticise homosexuality if you wish, and churches and other private organisations should not have to recognise same-sex marriage or perform other services for homosexuals if they don't wish to. This is why I'm against "hate speech laws" in general, and why I think anti-discrimination laws have gone too far. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the ''government'' (as opposed to private organisations) should be required to treat all people equally, homosexual or heterosexual. Thus, the government should recognise same-sex civil unions, but private organisations (including churches) should not be forced to. I don't accept your argument that recognising civil unions is going to lead to this massive landslide which will lead to churches being shut down and their members arrested; that isn't realistically going to happen (especially given that the "free exercise of religion" is explicitly protected by the US Constitution). [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 16:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Which logical fallacy applies here? I can't see how it is illogical. The example I gave is hypothetical, I acknowledge that. But it's a realistic possibility. I know that you might say stop at civil unions, but it won't end there. Even now, when civil unions aren't allowed, there's a push for gay marriage. Logically, if it's being pushed for now, without any precedent, then why should we assume that it will end if they do get civil unions? That's like saying we want X, but we'll stop once we get 90% of it. That doesn't make sense. If you can get 90%, why not go for the whole thing? It will lead to full marriage. And I understand that you don't want private organizations to be forced to accept homosexuality. But, we've already seen it happen. I gave the Boy Scouts as an example. Again, the precedent has been set that homosexuals can impose their will upon private organizations if they push hard enough. Why should I believe that they won't do it to churches? We're the biggest one opposing them. If they can shut us up then that just helps them. I know this is all just theory because we're talking about something that has yet to happen, but I see no logical reason to assume that it will stop at civil unions. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:18, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

And the Constitution gets reinterpreted all the time. All it takes is for a majority on the Supreme Court, which would currently be five people, to rule that the Constitution doesn't protect religion if they are "discriminating". [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:20, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Excellent point with the Supreme Court Ultimahero, it happens all the time with The Bill of Rights. Does anyone know what infringe means compared to gun control. The slippery slope arguement is very valid (gun control are examples). You are talking about changing laws to your liking and not the majority. I would like the "adult" age lowered to 12 (just to emphasis the point)so the children can legally give condent. Texas recently (within the last 10 years) raised the marriage age from 14 to 18 after the Mormon church moved in.So much for religious freedom since the marriages where already in place.
Just because you are an adult does not mean you can do anything you wish. 18 is the adult age but you still can not legally drink alcohol. There are other examples where adults can not do things until they are of appropiate age. Homosexual marriage does affect everyone. What legal statuses are you trying to obtain that doesn't affect the entire population and isn't already available elsewhere (other laws)?

User:TomRobinson

2010-06-03T00:16:44Z

TomRobinson:

I am what Glenn Beck would describe as a liberal atheist who hates America. Seeing crybaby's track record for fact checking and general intelligence, I'm proud of that title.

User talk:TomRobinson

2010-06-02T22:10:21Z

TomRobinson: Created page with 'If you have a problem, kindly contact me on my talk page.'

If you have a problem, kindly contact me on my talk page.

User:TomRobinson

2010-06-02T22:09:34Z

TomRobinson: Created page with 'Good morning, sunshine.'

Good morning, sunshine.

Talk:Atheism and morality

2010-06-02T22:08:47Z

TomRobinson: /* Fundamentally Incapable */

== Inclusion of Bertrand Russell? ==
One of the prominent quotes included on the CP entry for Russell is: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it." This seems to suggest that he felt compelled towards the notion of moral absolutes, although he was logically unable to prove them. In any case, I think he is a poor example of an atheistic moral relativist because presenting him in such a light in this article is not coherent with the quotation provided on his own entry. [[User:WalksAmongUs|WalksAmongUs]] 22:40, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to note the fact that the immoral behaviours referred to are all ones frowned upon by literal-minded Christians, and that there's nothing in there about more concretely immoral behaviour, such as murder, rape, robbery, etc. It's all just stuff that evangelicals get all pissy about in spite of the fact that what another person wants to do to themselves or other, consenting adults is none of their damned business. [[canadianredtory|canadianredtory]]

There's something puzzling in the first part of this page:
<blockquote>
Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time.

Dr. William Lane Craig states the following regarding the comments of atheist debator Dr. Kai Nielson:

“ ...He says, "It’s in our self-interest to be moral." ... self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism..."
</blockquote>

That first line seems to give a self-interested reason to avoid homosexuality. (Of course, a further problem is that pregnancy causes all kinds of medical issues, so heterosexuality might be even more dangerous for women than homosexuality is, certainly before modern medicine and probably even today, but that's a whole 'nuther issue.) So the article seems to contradict itself.--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 11:41, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== Inappropriate Comment ==

The last sentence in the first paragraph:

<blockquote> Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the Bible prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time. </blockquote>

has nothing to do with Atheism. I will delete it from the article unless someone has an explanation. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Unsigned reply: "It shows irrationality of atheism and atheists."

How? It's an unverified claim about the bible's knowledge being ahead of its time, I don't see how it has anything to do with atheism. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Perhaps you have something better to do than vandalizing/censoring under the cover of midnight? It's verifiable and verified. Study up before you make further censorship. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:39, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::If its verified then provide a reliable reference. But either way the quote is out of place in an article about atheism. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:47, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Fundamentally Incapable ==

The first sentence in this article says "atheists are fundamentally incapable of having a coherent system of morality". Now, this is plain wrong. I obviously have morals. I don't go around killing people and doing cocaine and raping people. Just because I figured out and thought for myself and discovered my morales, and did not have them hand fed me from a 2000 year old book that promotes hating people different from myself. This article is full of libel and should be heavily edited.
:Libel, I have to laugh out loud at that. Throwing around words like that without any comprehension of their actual meaning makes you look incredibly ignorant.
:As to whether or not atheists have morals, they can't. What's more, atheists really don't have a purpose in life; it's all about me for them with no real consequences for their actions. Morals are based on religion; God has a reason for our existance and defines consequences for our actions, but since atheists don't believe in God, atheists have no morals. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 11:39, 5 March 2010 (EST)

::I disagree. Morals are, of course, influenced and promoted by religion, and no one can deny that; but atheists are not immoral by NECESSITY. There are cynical and selfish atheists, but there are also atheists and agnostics who love their fellow human, and have a purpose in life, although not believing in the existance of God, or in an afterlife. --[[User:Maquissar|Maquissar]] 12:23, 5 March 2010 (EST)
:::God touches atheists whether they credit him or not, and they show it whether they like it or not. The more distant one is from Jesus and our Lord, the less morals they have. Even atheists accept God to a certain extent whether they like it or not, and to accept God, one ''has'' to believe somewhere deep inside. I personally find it hard to believe that a true atheist, that believes that we all just came out of no where, actually exists. A truely "Godless" person would be completely ruthless, or at least that's my hypothesis. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 15:09, 5 March 2010 (EST)

:::I'm an atheist, and yet I have morals. OR DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MIND?!

Neither of you have anything backing your awfully bigoted and bold argument that because I and the original poster believe in atheism, that we have no morals. Morals do not have to be based on belief in a deity. They can be based on reasons such as mutual respect for the common man, to abide by rules and regulations to avoid trouble, and to help discover one's self.

I do not accept Jesus as my savior, and yet I have an incredible sense of morality. I, and not you or anyone else on this wiki has any authority to judge my morality based on belief in a god alone. The mere concept of judging one's morality based on belief in a deity is bigotry and stupidity at it's purest.

Your 'God' did not send you down here to talk down to people who you feel are lesser than you are. Even if there is a God, I can imagine he would be wholeheartedly disgusted with this wiki and it's managers for prejudging people based on who they are and what they politically and religiously believe.

Watch my opinion get censored for who I am and how I'm politically aligned like thousands of others have, ironic considering how the managers of this wiki appear to feel that the criticism of FNC and the Wall Street Journal editorials is based on a disregard of the 1st amendment.

Oh, and if you think that blocking this IP for half a decade is going to stop me, you're going to stop an entire airport from contributing to this wiki. With that kind of banning rationale, you guys will never leave a significant mark on the Internet.--[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 18:08, 2 June 2010 (EDT)