“What if you couldn’t marry the person you love?”

[krahmaan]

I've been seeing this commercial that comes on everyday and I didn't really get it at first. But then I thought about it, and now I do. I usually don't pay too much attention to commercials anyhow, but I though this subject could make for an excellent discussion in the politics forum. I see no one else has posted it yet, so I'll be the one to do so.

This commercial recently showed up on YouTube too. So I wanted to take a poll on how people view the subject of gay marriage. Are you for it, or do you see it as not what the creator actually intended on creating a family? I want everybody here to keep the insults out of this thread, but just voice a mature opinion on this matter -please. Thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-lYoaY4tPU

[Zap]

It should be allowed. What's the big deal?

[chicgeek]

Originally Posted by Zap

It should be allowed. What's the big deal?

+++Sensibility.

[Luckyman]

If your love is deep for that person, the marriage shall be allowed. Of course, it is regulated by the laws of the land.

[thegamerslink]

The word should be changed for gay couples. This is the controversy. There isn't any reason a civil union shouldn't be acceptable by all sides.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

[John Scott]

The individualist point of view is that it is not the government's business to say who can and cannot marry.

[thegamerslink]

Originally Posted by John Scott

The individualist point of view is that it is not the government's business to say who can and cannot marry.

In the individualist point of view, you can marry anyone you like any way that you like. You can live someone and call them your mate. You can live with one another. This has always been so, except for some states that have actually put over extending government authority laws on the books about people having sex without being legally married under the states views, or living together without being married, these are very few, and as far as I know never actually enforced or at least very very rarely.

Fact is though, you can claim anyone you want as a mate, you can live with your mate. What you can't do is have it recognized by the state, or other state agencies unless you go through the legal method of marriage.

What does that mean? Means that you can have a will and leave all of your estate to your mate if you wish. However your mate will not receive any government or Social Security benefits on your behalf as you were never recognized by the government as legally married.

You can make a living will vesting decisional authority to your mate legally. Without the living will though the decision will fall to the legal next of kin. This also is an independant choice that can be made by the hospital if it is a private hospital and in the event your mate disputes their position without the will they will have no legal standing.

So you can in actuality marry anyone you like. That's not the question, the question is, does the state see it as a legal union? A completely different subject.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

In the individualist point of view, you can marry anyone you like any way that you like. You can live someone and call them your mate. You can live with one another. This has always been so, except for some states that have actually put over extending government authority laws on the books about people having sex without being legally married under the states views, or living together without being married, these are very few, and as far as I know never actually enforced or at least very very rarely.

Fact is though, you can claim anyone you want as a mate, you can live with your mate. What you can't do is have it recognized by the state, or other state agencies unless you go through the legal method of marriage.

What does that mean? Means that you can have a will and leave all of your estate to your mate if you wish. However your mate will not receive any government or Social Security benefits on your behalf as you were never recognized by the government as legally married.

You can make a living will vesting decisional authority to your mate legally. Without the living will though the decision will fall to the legal next of kin. This also is an independant choice that can be made by the hospital if it is a private hospital and in the event your mate disputes their position without the will they will have no legal standing.

So you can in actuality marry anyone you like. That's not the question, the question is, does the state see it as a legal union? A completely different subject.

I like how thegamerslink put that. I also like how everyone here has made a mature argument thus far. Thank you all.

There's is more I'd like to add to this though. The only thing I didn't like about most on the replies here was that only one of you owned up to your opinion -G10 there. He's the only one who used the word 'I' ...

So let me add that I think the subject of gay marriage or even being gay has a lot of confusion surrounding it. There are many people who say that they were born gay. This I can not agree with or believe. From my knowledge there's not even a shred of scientific proof that people are born this way. I believe people make this choice. That's the first part of the confusion. Though it may be their choice and they are so entitled to make this choice it is against nature.

Look around, there are no animals mating of the same sex nor are there any insects. Mating season has and always be a time to reproduce. So I believe if someone makes this choice in life to be homosexual they must bare the consequences. It has to do with owning up to our choices I think. Everyone likes not to be held accountable for what they do, but like everyone knows your choices create consequences.

There is no way for a gay couple to reproduce in the natural sense of how they too came into this world. And even those with sex changes cannot use their new genitalia in the natural form in which they were at birth. It is a confusion for one to believe they were not born with that genitalia to alter it.

The math is simple, and the science is simple. That's why I feel that once someone makes this free choice, the must bare the consequences even if they couldn't marry the one they've grown attached to.

[sitetutor]

Originally Posted by John Scott

The individualist point of view is that it is not the government's business to say who can and cannot marry.

And the same way we all have a right to accept it as valid or not.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by sitetutor

And the same way we all have a right to accept it as valid or not.

So what is your position on this subject? Most here have already stated if they were for, or against same-sex marriage. Please feel free to vote, the poll seems to be at a dead heat. I never knew that so many people felt this passionate about being for same-sex marriage.

It baffles me, maybe there are some people who are just too shy to even talk about it. I really think they should share their views -especially with the California General Election coming up this November.

It may just help same-sex marriage, because I really believe it will and should be overturned. That's just my opinion.

[sitetutor]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

So what is your position on this subject? Most here have already stated if they were for, or against same-sex marriage. Please feel free to vote, the poll seems to be at a dead heat. I never knew that so many people felt this passionate about being for same-sex marriage.

It baffles me, maybe there are some people who are just too shy to even talk about it. I really think they should share their views -especially with the California General Election coming up this November.

It may just help same-sex marriage, because I really believe it will and should be overturned. That's just my opinion.

I really don't know, bro. I mean from my personal belief I have to go with a "no" on this one, but I also think government should not have too much power.
I mean, I am against it, not hating gays, but consider the act of whatever those guys do a sin and would not like to see it being given the seal of God's approval when according to the Bible it's wrong.

But one of the most important parts of the Bible is also that this is not for me to judge, but if churches and pastors marry 2 men, or 2 women, I think it's wrong.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by sitetutor

I mean, I am against it, not hating gays, but consider the act of whatever those guys do a sin and would not like to see it being given the seal of God's approval when according to the Bible it's wrong.

I see your point. I kind of agree with you as well, it's a shame that two people of the same-sex who claim to love each other who try to enter holy matrimony will be deemed as sinners in most parts of the world. Too bad they deny what they were created as originally, and their role in the continuation of life. Not only in America will they be seen as sinners of lust, but just think -what if these two individuals were to go out and kill someone then they would be seen as murderers as well.

It goes back to taking responsibility for our actions. As many don't feel pertains to them. Just like now with this so-called financial crisis going on, everybody is looking for the ones in office to take responsibility for the mess. Same with sanctity of marriage. Everyone wants to be able to just do where ever they want. There cannot be natural reproduction in same-sex marriage, so instead of taking responsibility for choosing to live a gay life and just have a relationship to fulfill sexual fantasies. People want to have the same rights as a natural heterosexual lifestyle that has and always been for the natural course of raising a family by the Creator.

I know of these methods of artificial insemination and adoption, they could be used to help two women bare children or two men adopt a child. But then where does that leave the children when they will have to be taught about the birds and the bees? Or Natural reproduction? They'll be so confused to see they have two moms or two dads, that they'll only believe that that's how they came into the world (depending on their age). Later to be proved incorrect.

Kids never do what we tell them, the learn by what they see and our actions. So then those raised by same-sex marriages will no know the natural course of things. That's is unjust in my opinion and very unfair to them. Just like raising a child to become a terrorist. They'll will be confused and misinformed of the real truths, hence the world's future.

If Armageddon doesn't get us first!

[G10]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

I've been seeing this commercial that comes on everyday and I didn't really get it at first. But then I thought about it, and now I do. I usually don't pay too much attention to commercials anyhow, but I though this subject could make for an excellent discussion in the politics forum. I see no one else has posted it yet, so I'll be the one to do so.

This commercial recently showed up on YouTube too. So I wanted to take a poll on how people view the subject of gay marriage. Are you for it, or do you see it as not what the creator actually intended on creating a family? I want everybody here to keep the insults out of this thread, but just voice a mature opinion on this matter -please. Thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-lYoaY4tPU

This is a double question really and so I will give it two answers

Firstly, I have nothing against gay marriages and if people want to do that then so be it.

Secondly, as for it being not what the creator intended on creating a family.... Well, Gay couples can't actually 'create' a family per say, so I guess no, it isn't what 'the creator' intended, though they can adopt or can be artificially inseminated so that a woman can give birth..

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by G10

This is a double question really and so I will give it two answers

Firstly, I have nothing against gay marriages and if people want to do that then so be it.

Secondly, as for it being not what the creator intended on creating a family.... Well, Gay couples can't actually 'create' a family per say, so I guess no, it isn't what 'the creator' intended, though they can adopt or can be artificially inseminated so that a woman can give birth..

I've just went back to review some posts in this thread and I found one that I got so deep into a debate with thegamerslink I forgot to address. Honorable sir G10, may I attempt to rectify your post with a small friendly debate???

You had two very good points here. The first being that my initial question was a bit two sided. Well, I must admit you were right. My intentions were to get a good conversation going while still being open to all opinions. But in my error I did imply my belief that gay marriage was/is unnatural. So you got me there. I put that there because most people who are not for gay marriage agree that it's not what God or nature had in mind with the creation of man and woman.

Your other good point was that gay men can adopt, or the women do have the option of artificial insemination -true. But both of these are still not the natural reproduction I've been talking about. And the children will be faced with much confusion on if they too should lead a homosexual lifestyle. They may inadvertently be force to grow up as gay without the chance to acquire a natural life. When the adopting parents or artificial parents made a all these different choices. (to adopt, to be inseminated, to be gay) All these carry consequence, whether they are seen as straying from the natural order or not.

Will they grow up to naturally reproduce with the organs God gave to them? Or will they choose to not use them in their properly natural way? And adopt or be inseminated. When they didn't not actually have to. I can see a woman who can no longer bare children adopting, because she no longer has her natural ability. Or a man, donating his sperm to women who desire children but have no husband. Only to raise them with the natural teachings that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. So then there's no confusion add to the child to why they father is not around. But even that is psychologically risky for the child will grow to think it's not fair that they never had a father. Or that their biological father doesn't love them.

I had given my gold metal in this debate to thegamerslink just to prove a point to him, then I gave my second place silver to the Zapster. I said that I wouldn't give away my bronze but here I see I was mistaken. I should have given you my gold for you excellent post G10! Then I should have given thegamerslink the silver, & the Zapster my bronze. So now that I still have my bronze, and I can't go back in time to give you my gold, here -you deserve the bronze. But between me and you, I think it possesses a platinum centre.

[thegamerslink]

So let me add that I think the subject of gay marriage or even being gay has a lot of confusion surrounding it. There are many people who say that they were born gay. This I can not agree with or believe. From my knowledge there's not even a shred of scientific proof that people are born this way. I believe people make this choice. That's the first part of the confusion. Though it may be their choice and they are so entitled to make this choice it is against nature.

Actually there have been several scientific and psychological studies done on that very subject. And there is scientific as well as psychiatric proof that homosexuality is not in all cases a choice. There are subtle differences between male and female brains when it comes to size and distribution. And there are documented instances of homosexual males having the same traits as a female in certain areas of the brain. And vice versa with female lesbians having similar traits to the male brain.

Then you have have the instances when infants are born with both sexual organs, some don't even know it till late in life. So there is actually scientific basis for homosexuality.

I will agree though as will most people, there are several people that do make an active choice to be gay. And then there are others that simply have no choice.

[thegamerslink]

One of the more recent studies done. It is using MRI and PET scans by Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden.

http://www.physorg.com/news132842073.html

There are several other studies and college reports done out there, I figured I would pick a more recent one. The actual studies in similar areas have been going on since the 1930's. The most publicized was in 1991 by a San Francisco neuroanatomist Simon LeVay.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

One of the more recent studies done. It is using MRI and PET scans by Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden.

http://www.physorg.com/news132842073.html

There are several other studies and college reports done out there, I figured I would pick a more recent one. The actual studies in similar areas have been going on since the 1930's. The most publicized was in 1991 by a San Francisco neuroanatomist Simon LeVay.

Yes, science loves to claim it has the answers to most things. But still there is a very limited scope on knowledge of the brain. Leaving a huge margin for error. If we were to cut open someones brain and start to experiment on it, one small mistake could leave that person dead or a vegetable. Would you risk that type of experiment on your brain? I know I wouldn't, not even to save my own life. So, with the brain science cannot adequately state to have competent knowledge of the all the brain's workings.

If science could, then it would know the workings of psychic phenomenon, as well as near death experiences, spiritual healing, etc. No, science could not have this info because there are aspects of the brain that I feel link to the soul. Known science becomes useless in those realms of thought. Of course a scientist could say "well we researched this brain wave, and that wave -so we've come to a conclusion that this or that is true." But like you said, it may only work in specific or different persons. So where's the proof? If it were definitive proof, it would prove true in all subject findings.

I love science, but I think man needs to know his limits. When man thinks he can play God and do whatever he wants, this is where a lot of confusion falls in -I think. This is also where he thinks he not to be held accountable for his actions.

Even if someone was to be born with two opposite sets of genitalia, that won't make them gay. Most times only one of the set works properly. For them, I think they're would be the only exception to choose which sex to be. But then still reproduction would work in the natural scope. If they only kept the vagina, then they would be impregnated by a man. If they kept the penis, then they would inseminate a woman.

Even if you look at it with every angle possible, most people choosing to be gay only have one set.

[G10]

Interesting points krahmaan and I totally understand where you are coming from with the science aspect as I agree, science really doesn't have the answers that it likes to portray itself to have and sometimes likes to fill in the blanks with assumptions.

That said, you realise that there are hormones in the water that have been and still are altering the sex of certain fish.

Ok, that may sound like nonsense and what hormone could do that?..... It has a lot to do with what the pharmaceuticals made when making 'The Pill' for women, you see this gets excreted back into the water supply and may make some interesting research for some folk.

I can't comment on whether or not it is a condition or not just yet as I have not researched that aspect enough but I can see how it could be, given what it has done to certain fish's sexual organs.

[thegamerslink]

Oh, and by the way, there have been studies that even included Rams that show sexual preference to other Rams instead of Ewes so Homosapiens aren't the only animal that displays this type of sexual behavior.

[South]

Absolutely oppose gay marriage or any union which would provide state recognition.

Let me clarify that I mean my state. What other states do doesn't concern me so long as provisions are in place to stop mandated recognition of unions performed in other states.