The ethics of homosexuality.

[jayleew]

Wake up to 2005, MB. Do you not remember the redneck mentality they had toward black people? (Pretty much the same mentality you are spewing about homosexuals) Slaves were freed and eventually allowed to vote and own property. Women were allowed to vote...so on and so on. Times change and so do the way people come to believe.

You are so right. Times do change, but they change because we lack an objective set of morality like the ten commandments. What I think is right, is not necessarily what you think is right. Objective morality does not exist in today's society.

There is a physical difference between heterosexual and homosexual women. So, is it safe to assume that homosexuals are a different race, like Africans and African-Americans?
I'm not sure about that. I, myself, do not think we should change our laws to accomodate human behavior and accept it. Slavery was immoral by the all the sets of ethics I can think of, so the laws needed to change.
Homosexuality, by every set of ethics besides Christianity is not immoral, so why would we need to accomodate sexual behavior with the sanctity of marriage? Homosexuality is not against the law, so why does it have to be endorsed by the law. They want special treatment and given a marriage license.

You're very big about what the majority says should be set in stone. I'd like to point out to you that it was the majority who once thought the world was flat. Did that make it so? Would you agree or not agree that- just because the majority thought one way- did not make it correct?

We are talking ethics here, not science. Some ethical systems, especially Utilitarianism defines morality as what is accepted by all parties involved, which goes beyond the majority, but without a universal set of ethics, this is not possible. So, Utilitarianism would side with the majority.

Is that what you really think or have you, yet once again, clung to outdated stereotypical crap? You can't lump all gays and lesbians together and state that's how we think. Would it hurt you too much to look at a person's heart and intentions instead of judging them based sexual preference? I mean why the hell does it matter to you if someone sleeps with a person of the same sex?

Because the current set of ethics says it is wrong. Now, that can change because we no longer have a set of objective, universal, ethics.

So what if homosexuality deviates from the norm? It's not "normal" to be a genius, should we mark them like you do homosexuals? You know- just incase their superhuman thinking rubs off on us? Oh, it can't? Guess what? Neither can hanging around a homosexual- so what is your fear?

My fear is that we treat homosexuals special today, then we treat Christians special tomorrow because they were brainwashed individuals.

They ask for us to accept them as joined in marriage. There's no harm in that, but it is the principle of the matter of changing our set of ethics to accomodate what the current set of ethics is against.

This is speculation, but I think you will have your way soon. It isn't long before our morals change. We are at the turning point as relative moraltiy runs through our streets.

 

[Mystech]

You are so right. Times do change, but they change because we lack an objective set of morality like the ten commandments.

Do you believe that there is an objective set of morals? It would be nice if the world were so simple.

What I think is right, is not necessarily what you think is right. Objective morality does not exist in today's society.

And so it has always been. If objective morality can exist only in the setting of a society, then can it really be said to be objective? Are any human constructs - especially social conventions - perfect?

There is a physical difference between heterosexual and homosexual women.

Is that so? Please elaborate. In what physical ways to they differ?

So, is it safe to assume that homosexuals are a different race, like Africans and African-Americans?

Being that a race is usually defined as a breeding group within a species which shares certain genetic traits and often nationality and culture I don't really think that this term would apply to homosexuals, especially seeing how as homosexuality seems to exist members of every race.

I'm not sure about that. I, myself, do not think we should change our laws to accomodate human behavior and accept it.

Wait, what? If laws aren't tailored to cover human behavior, than what purpose would a human society have with them? I'm afraid you're being a bit incoherent at the moment. In the specific case of homosexuals, what reason have we to legislate specifically against them.

Homosexuality, by every set of ethics besides Christianity is not immoral, so why would we need to accomodate sexual behavior with the sanctity of marriage?

My goodness, what a charged question. You seem to be implying a good number of flawed premises here, so let me address those, and please forgive me if I was in correct in assuming that this is what you are implying - after all you are being a bit unclear.

Firstly marriage is not a Christian institution. That religion incorporates marriage into their rituals, yes, but it is not a practice which is even remotely unique to them. Every culture in the world has a form of marriage or exclusive pair bonding, and most religions incorporate it in some way, and indeed the institution is also recognized widely as a secular and civil institution. It is for this secular and secular reorganization of same-sex marriages and those legal rights and considerations associated therewith that homosexuals are seeking.

For that reason it would be a bit inaccurate to describe this issue as homosexuals seeking the "sanctity" of marriage, unless you feel that state governments are capable of bestowing some sort of sacred blessing – personally I think you’d need to get the federal government involved for that sort of thing, if not some sort of international treaety.

Homosexuality is not against the law, so why does it have to be endorsed by the law. They want special treatment and given a marriage license.

You've got it backwards. Homosexuals don't want special treatment, that is exactly what they are fighting against. Homosexuals want equal treatment. As Americans they'd like their government to stop persecuting them and admit that the differences between their relationships and those of heterosexuals are inconsequential in the eyes of the law. Who does what in the bedroom with their consenting adult partner shouldn't really be grounds for denial of entry into a binding legal contract.

Because the current set of ethics says it is wrong. Now, that can change because we no longer have a set of objective, universal, ethics.

Have we ever?

My fear is that we treat homosexuals special today, then we treat Christians special tomorrow because they were brainwashed individuals.

Agreed, special treatment must end. We can no more legislate specifically against homosexuals than we hypothetically should against Christians. That's nothing but mob rule and serves no purpose but to satisfy people's petty prejudices and bigotries.

They ask for us to accept them as joined in marriage. There's no harm in that, but it is the principle of the matter of changing our set of ethics to accomodate what the current set of ethics is against.

How certain are you that all of America hates homosexuals? It's my experience that most people don't give a shit, and when properly informed of the current situation they're in favor of civil rights.

I have no idea what this business of "changing ethics" is all about, though. You'll have to go into greater detail about that. If there's nothing wrong with homosexuals than how is removing relatively recent restrictions against them an unethical move? Was it unethical for us to change our laws to allow women to vote?

We are at the turning point as relative moraltiy runs through our streets.

I look back at history and can't think of a single instance in which this was not the case on at least some level.

 

[SpyMoose]

There is a physical difference between heterosexual and homosexual women.

Explain this. It has not been previously established in this thread that homosexuals and heterosexuals have a "physical difference". Do bisexuals shape shift this "physical difference" away depending on the circumstances?

So, is it safe to assume that homosexuals are a different race, like Africans and African-Americans?

Homosexuals exist in every race. Would white homosexuals be a different race than Asian or African ones? If white homosexuals get the right to marry is there going to be another battle over if interracial homosexual relations are moral? I think my point is that you are making it clear you haven’t thought this through.

I, myself, do not think we should change our laws to accommodate human behavior and accept it.

I'm sorry, what? Where do you think laws come from and why? Maybe there is a big mine in the southwest where miners line up every day in hats with lights on them and pneumatic drills. They wait their turn to ride the elevator down into the law mines and mine new legislation, hard as diamond and forged by the heart of the earth itself... Oh no wait, laws are made by people to help other people live better lives. If you know of some objectively perfect form of government or code of laws, one under which no one is mistreated or victimized by the system then you are being a real bastard about not giving it to us.

Slavery was immoral by the all the sets of ethics I can think of, so the laws needed to change.

So you just said that laws shouldn't be changed for the things that people do, and then you say that they should... great.

Homosexuality, by every set of ethics besides Christianity is not immoral, so why would we need to accommodate sexual behavior with the sanctity of marriage?

You weren’t very clear about what you meant here. Are you trying to tell me that you think that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because Christians don't like it? So what! Christians don't have a stake in it. Its between the homosexuals and the government and no one else. If you are one of those folks who are new enough to this topic to have not already heard, this issue is about civil marriage, not religious marriage. The issue at hand is not about forcing priests to perform homosexual marriages, its about allowing judges to.

Homosexuality is not against the law, so why does it have to be endorsed by the law.

The current legal status of homosexuality is a recent development, circa 2003. As the civil rights status of homosexuals currently stand they are not fighting for special rights, merely to get laws against homosexuals pulled from the books, which brings us to...

They want special treatment ...

The spirit in which you present this statement is the prime fallacy that the anti-gay movement likes to spout. Guess what, we are against special treatment for homosexuals as well! We want that special attention undone! You seem to think we want a law that says "Homosexuals can get married." When in actuality we are trying to get discriminatory laws that say "Homosexuals can't marry" stripped from the books because they are unconstitutional. That is the nature of our "Special treatment". You might call it oppression.

We are at the turning point as relative morality(<i>sic</i>) runs through our streets.

Everyone thinks they are living in the moral fulcrum of our age, you are just being self important. You are also borrowing the end times psycho babble that Christianity has been using for oh... about 2000 years now to get people to think they need to act now! Otherwise god will come back and be so angry!

 

[jayleew]

I don't know if I'm doing more harm than good, but you all have a right to know: In 1998 it was found that there is a inner ear difference between homosexual females and heterosexual females:

http://archive.salon.com/mwt/hot/1998/03/10hot.html
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cbidwell/DCAS/esesclip.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus1.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/columnists/19980316bsally1.asp

There are tons more references, just do a search for "inner ear homosexual"

 

[jayleew]

Do you believe that there is an objective set of morals? It would be nice if the world were so simple.

None, but the ten commandments, but they are failing as science credits macroevolution.

And so it has always been. If objective morality can exist only in the setting of a society, then can it really be said to be objective? Are any human constructs - especially social conventions - perfect?

Hmmm..none that I can think of, unless you believe in Jesus Christ.

Is that so? Please elaborate. In what physical ways to they differ?

The inner ear. I gave references today already, k?

Being that a race is usually defined as a breeding group within a species which shares certain genetic traits and often nationality and culture I don't really think that this term would apply to homosexuals, especially seeing how as homosexuality seems to exist members of every race.

Yeah, me either.

Wait, what? If laws aren't tailored to cover human behavior, than what purpose would a human society have with them? I'm afraid you're being a bit incoherent at the moment. In the specific case of homosexuals, what reason have we to legislate specifically against them.

I mean in the case of homosexuals, I do not wish to provide them a marriage license.

My goodness, what a charged question. You seem to be implying a good number of flawed premises here, so let me address those, and please forgive me if I was in correct in assuming that this is what you are implying - after all you are being a bit unclear.

Firstly marriage is not a Christian institution. That religion incorporates marriage into their rituals, yes, but it is not a practice which is even remotely unique to them. Every culture in the world has a form of marriage or exclusive pair bonding, and most religions incorporate it in some way, and indeed the institution is also recognized widely as a secular and civil institution. It is for this secular and secular reorganization of same-sex marriages and those legal rights and considerations associated therewith that homosexuals are seeking.

For that reason it would be a bit inaccurate to describe this issue as homosexuals seeking the "sanctity" of marriage, unless you feel that state governments are capable of bestowing some sort of sacred blessing – personally I think you’d need to get the federal government involved for that sort of thing, if not some sort of international treaety.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that marriage is unique to Christianity.

You've got it backwards. Homosexuals don't want special treatment, that is exactly what they are fighting against. Homosexuals want equal treatment. As Americans they'd like their government to stop persecuting them and admit that the differences between their relationships and those of heterosexuals are inconsequential in the eyes of the law. Who does what in the bedroom with their consenting adult partner shouldn't really be grounds for denial of entry into a binding legal contract.

I see. Well, they should not be persecuted. In the eyes of the law...there is where it gets sticky. Laws are created based on a set of ethics. The old system was Christianity. The new system? Doesn't exist.

How certain are you that all of America hates homosexuals? It's my experience that most people don't give a shit, and when properly informed of the current situation they're in favor of civil rights.

I'm not sure that all of America hates them. Interviews I hear confirm your experience. I'm just saying that for the moment, it is being rejected from a few states so far. Excuse my ignorance, but what are the states that have legalized homosexual marriage anyhow?

I have no idea what this business of "changing ethics" is all about, though. You'll have to go into greater detail about that. If there's nothing wrong with homosexuals than how is removing relatively recent restrictions against them an unethical move? Was it unethical for us to change our laws to allow women to vote?

It is unethical because the current ethics system in America is predominantly determined by Christianity, who share similar ethics with most of the nation. However, this is rapidly changing. It is unethical according to the old ethics when one changes to a new set of ethics.

I look back at history and can't think of a single instance in which this was not the case on at least some level.

Yup, I guess you are right.

 

[jayleew]

Explain this. It has not been previously established in this thread that homosexuals and heterosexuals have a "physical difference". Do bisexuals shape shift this "physical difference" away depending on the circumstances?

Explained. Check out my other post.

Homosexuals exist in every race. Would white homosexuals be a different race than Asian or African ones? If white homosexuals get the right to marry is there going to be another battle over if interracial homosexual relations are moral? I think my point is that you are making it clear you haven’t thought this through.

My question was rhetorical. My point is that homosexuality is not a different race; therefore, should not receive special treatment as a minority group.

I'm sorry, what? Where do you think laws come from and why? Maybe there is a big mine in the southwest where miners line up every day in hats with lights on them and pneumatic drills. They wait their turn to ride the elevator down into the law mines and mine new legislation, hard as diamond and forged by the heart of the earth itself... Oh no wait, laws are made by people to help other people live better lives. If you know of some objectively perfect form of government or code of laws, one under which no one is mistreated or victimized by the system then you are being a real bastard about not giving it to us.

Laws are made by the people. Ethics govern the people's beliefs of what is right or wrong; therefore, what whould be made law. I am probing for a replacement of our dying objective ethics system we had, largely based on Christianity. American Law rejects all religions, but American Law was created upon Christianity. In short, we've created a monster.

So you just said that laws shouldn't be changed for the things that people do, and then you say that they should... great.

Sorry, I'll try to be more clear: the laws should be only changed for things that are unethical. Slavery is unethical. Homosexuality is currently unethical, but I fear that after God is taken out completely as a system of ethics, what was unethical will become ethical.

You weren’t very clear about what you meant here. Are you trying to tell me that you think that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because Christians don't like it? So what! Christians don't have a stake in it. Its between the homosexuals and the government and no one else. If you are one of those folks who are new enough to this topic to have not already heard, this issue is about civil marriage, not religious marriage. The issue at hand is not about forcing priests to perform homosexual marriages, its about allowing judges to.

No, I am saying that the predominant system of ethics is Christianity for the moment (fading fast). Laws are based on ethics. So, if something is unethical, then it should not be made legal.

The current legal status of homosexuality is a recent development, circa 2003. As the civil rights status of homosexuals currently stand they are not fighting for special rights, merely to get laws against homosexuals pulled from the books, which brings us to...


The spirit in which you present this statement is the prime fallacy that the anti-gay movement likes to spout. Guess what, we are against special treatment for homosexuals as well! We want that special attention undone! You seem to think we want a law that says "Homosexuals can get married." When in actuality we are trying to get discriminatory laws that say "Homosexuals can't marry" stripped from the books because they are unconstitutional. That is the nature of our "Special treatment". You might call it oppression.

To remove discriminatory laws that say "Homosexuals can't marry" is to strip America of its Christian foundational ethics. The end result will be a nation with a shadow system of ethics that once resembled Christianity. The Christians are homosexuality rights' largest enemy.

So what's the problem with getting rid of this outdated ethics system?

Because it is unethical according to the system that still lives in American laws. I have a feeling that it will soon change.

Everyone thinks they are living in the moral fulcrum of our age, you are just being self important. You are also borrowing the end times psycho babble that Christianity has been using for oh... about 2000 years now to get people to think they need to act now! Otherwise god will come back and be so angry!

The proof is in the pudding. Look at what our controversies are about. Most controversies in the news are ethical debates.

Christians are on the losing side as American law turns a blind eye in the name of justice.

It cannot be denied that the current system of ethics, the ten commandments (which is a Christian icon), is being debunked. With nothing to replace the battered system, we will be left with relative ethics based on individual rights and desires. The pursuit for happiness will be realized in its grusome truth. If we leave ethics up to the individual (or even a group of individuals), we are going to be in a world of hurt. Another objective morality system must be established or there will be no definitive right and wrong. How can there be?

Is this the result of this one controversy of homosexuality. No, but it is a part.

 

[Baron Max]

Guess what, we are against special treatment for homosexuals as well! We want that special attention undone!

Then y'all should be just happy as pigs in shit! ...'cause regular folks can't marry the same gender either. See, no special treatment for gays and lesbians ...you should be happy as hell. So, see, ye're "equal" in the eyes of the law. Ain't that what y'all want?

As the civil rights status of homosexuals currently stand they are not fighting for special rights,...

I beg to differ. As it stands now, in most states (all?), marriage between same-sex persons is illegal ...and that's exactly the same for regular folks, too. Heteros can't marry same-sex partners, either. So .....how can you say you're not fighting or special rights?

...in actuality we are trying to get discriminatory laws that say "Homosexuals can't marry" stripped from the books because they are unconstitutional.

How do you get that it's unconstitutional? And if you're talking about "discrimination", then I'll bring up the topic of incestuous marriages and underage marriages again ...that's discriminatory also, but as I recall, you seem to think that those laws are okay. So please explain this in terms of unconstitutional for gays and lesbians.

Baron Max

 

[heart]

Max,

If homosexuals were of the majority (just humor me please) and it was prohibited that you marry a woman, would you convert and marry a man?

For some homosexuals/lesbians, not all, marriage isn't such a big deal- to others it is. Believe it or not, probably for the very same reasons some heterosexuals hold it as valued. At least though, heterosexuals have a choice of whom they want to marry. If homosexuals were of the majority- I don't think you'd see it as a choice if you couldn't marry the person you loved. You say we have the same choice- that's as much of one, if you were of the minority, and we scoffed at you saying ,"You have the same choice as us, you can marry a man- you just want special rights." No, Max, we want to have the very same rights as YOU do. Who are the ones with special rights?

There was a time that I broke and gave into "regular folk" way. I did this to please my family and to try to fit into society. My world sucked, Max. Intimacy was so very hard and - well, I hated it. As much as my husband had tried to be gentle and loving etc.. I felt like I was being raped. It, for me, was 100% unnatural. So, yeah, I had a "choice"- I tried it, was a huge mistake. It didn't have to do with him, it had to do with the fact that I couldn't force myself to engage in that life anymore than you could to be with a man. So I got divorced and decided to live life for me.

So when people talk of choice this choice that... well, you haven't a clue until you've been there. The only choice I have is to marry or not marry a man, Max. I don't have the same luxury as you, that being to marry the person I love- which happens to be of the same sex. Until you are faced with the same set of circumstances- you really have no clue just how much I cringe, when you say we have the same choice.

 

[Baron Max]

...and it was prohibited that you marry a woman, would you convert and marry a man?

No, I'd live with a woman and have a legal contract drawn up for all of the essential benefits neccesary for a good, happy life.

No, Max, we want to have the very same rights as YOU do.

You already have them! Men can marry women, women can marry men. Those ARE the "rights" for us heteros ....and we heteros are ALSO prohibited from marrying those of the same-sex ...exactly as you are.

As for you marrying a man, I have to ask ....why? If you're a homo, why in hell would you marry a man? That makes virtually no sense. why didn't you just live with your lover and be happy? There are many, many heteros doing exactly that as it is now.

I still have to ask: Why does it seem so neccesary to get married? Do you, and others, feel that marriage is the only way to "affirm" your love? That just seems like a major stretch to me ....there must be millions of ways, including legal contracts and such.

Just remember ....kids under 18 can't get married either. You homos are just one of a group of others that's not permitted to marry. Tough shit. I can't marry my goat, either ....but we're still happy together!

Baron Max

 

[john smith]

Just remember ....kids under 18 can't get married either.

No offence but thats bull,i assume your from america?Well here in england you can tie the knot when your 16! :m:

 

[Baron Max]

No offence but thats bull,i assume your from america?Well here in england you can tie the knot when your 16!

Oh, well forgive my ignorance ....but it changes nothing of the principle, does it? NO! (And if I'm not mistaken, in India, the legal age is 13!! But that don't change shit, does it? No!)

Baron Max

 

[john smith]

Fuck me give it a rest,you gotta fact rong, i corrected it,sorry to cause such offence

 

[Mystech]

None, but the ten commandments, but they are failing as science credits macroevolution.

And how does the idea of specization through evolution contradict the ten commandments? I've never really understood that concept. The only thing that I think evolution is really at odds with is a complete word-for-word literalistic interpretation of genesis. If god is supposidly all powerful and above all physical things, then why couldn't he have created evolution? I think that there's already sufficient evidence to support the idea that he's clever enough.

This would probably be a better topic to get into in the religion forum, though.

The inner ear. I gave references today already, k?

Interesting, I'd not heard of this study previously. However a single study of 240 people which itself did not even completely confirm what it seemed to hint at, and which (to the best of my quick researching) hasn't seemed to have been followed up is hardly grounds to go along with the idea that all lesbians have some physical inner-ear difference from heterosexual women.

There's plenty of room for that conclusion to be pushed out. Perhaps Texan lesbians simply rock much harder than heterosexual Texan women, and as such suffer slight hearing impairment?

And how does the idea of specization through macroevolution contradict the ten commandments? I've never really understood that concept. The only thing that I think evolution is really at odds with is a complete word-for-word literalistic interpretation of genesis.

I mean in the case of homosexuals, I do not wish to provide them a marriage license.

Why is that? Remember that theological reasoning isn't exactly the best to use in a society ruled by a (suposidly) secular governing body.

I see. Well, they should not be persecuted. In the eyes of the law...there is where it gets sticky. Laws are created based on a set of ethics. The old system was Christianity. The new system? Doesn't exist.

That's a slightly odd perspective. Do you really believe that Christianity is the foundation of our justice system? People of faith have certainly had some effect on it over the years, but has it been run upon theological concepts?

I'm not sure that all of America hates them. Interviews I hear confirm your experience. I'm just saying that for the moment, it is being rejected from a few states so far. Excuse my ignorance, but what are the states that have legalized homosexual marriage anyhow?

It is unethical because the current ethics system in America is predominantly determined by Christianity, who share similar ethics with most of the nation. However, this is rapidly changing. It is unethical according to the old ethics when one changes to a new set of ethics.

Again, this simply seems bizarre to me. National ethics determined by Christianity? Sounds a bit self important to me. What has been the over arching goals of government in this nation; to better conform to the laws of some version or other of the bible, or to follow those fairly secular principals set out in the constitution? What makes your ethics so much better than everyone else’s? Is it simply sheer numbers? Were the Hutus ethically superior to the Tutsis? That's not nessisarily a fair comparison, I know, but Baron Max seems very hung up on the idea that the majority has the absolute right and authority to do whatever it likes simply because there are more of them, and I've been itching to make that comparison.

 

[jayleew]

Good questions and good points, Mystech.

And how does the idea of specization through evolution contradict the ten commandments? I've never really understood that concept. The only thing that I think evolution is really at odds with is a complete word-for-word literalistic interpretation of genesis. If god is supposidly all powerful and above all physical things, then why couldn't he have created evolution? I think that there's already sufficient evidence to support the idea that he's clever enough.

This would probably be a better topic to get into in the religion forum, though.

You are right, in fact it is going on in "Who created God?" I will say briefly that I said, "science credits macroevolution." It is not the theory that dissolves Christianity, but science does, and it has to do with the laws of probability. Being that there are an infinite number of possibilites in any given situation, the one with the most evidence is true because the ones with no evidence have a zero(infinite) percent chance of being true respective of the number of possibilities....in short, there is a small chance that life was created by evoltuion and no chance that God did because of the lack of scientific evidence. If you want to know more, go to Who created God? under religion.

Interesting, I'd not heard of this study previously. However a single study of 240 people which itself did not even completely confirm what it seemed to hint at, and which (to the best of my quick researching) hasn't seemed to have been followed up is hardly grounds to go along with the idea that all lesbians have some physical inner-ear difference from heterosexual women.

True, and I am always skeptical of research data, but the findings are interesting. The findings have not yet been disputed that I can find.

Why is that? Remember that theological reasoning isn't exactly the best to use in a society ruled by a (suposidly) secular governing body.

I am against changing our laws/ethics because it is unethical to do so unless the law is supporting unethical behavor, and in our current ethics system within the government, you find that they are biased to Christian beliefs, which are against homosexuality as accetable behavior. I am biased to Christianity, so I support the current system of ethics which can be objective if we embrace it fully in our laws.

That's a slightly odd perspective. Do you really believe that Christianity is the foundation of our justice system? People of faith have certainly had some effect on it over the years, but has it been run upon theological concepts?

Yes, I believe it has because the founders were Christians which came from England. Anyone who was not Christian were shamed, the church had a lot of power. So, it is safe to say they were Christians with Christian ethics.

Besides that, most of them have writings of deep felt Christianity of how they trust in God. They wrote much like Paul did to the Romans found in the Bible. Our foundations were biased to Christian beliefs.

Again, this simply seems bizarre to me. National ethics determined by Christianity? Sounds a bit self important to me. What has been the over arching goals of government in this nation; to better conform to the laws of some version or other of the bible, or to follow those fairly secular principals set out in the constitution? What makes your ethics so much better than everyone else’s? Is it simply sheer numbers? Were the Hutus ethically superior to the Tutsis? That's not nessisarily a fair comparison, I know, but Baron Max seems very hung up on the idea that the majority has the absolute right and authority to do whatever it likes simply because there are more of them, and I've been itching to make that comparison.

National ethics influenced by the spirit of Christianity.
Congress approved the Bible and had copies imported in the 1770s. 106 of the 108 universities in the nation were Christian, including Harvard. Our nation was undoubtedly founded on Christianity.

This first source has plenty of affirming quotes from our founders:
http://pbnet.org/heritage.htm
This one dates the importation of 20,000 copies of the bible in 1777, a mandate made by the Contintental Congress.
http://www.michaelnewdow.com/ContinentalCongress.htm
This one shows some bills made by Congress, relaying a deep faith in God. It also shows the government allocating money to produce the Bible:
http://www.eadshome.com/UnderGodBill.htm
And now, the same Congress mandates the removal of the Bible from schools and the Ten Commandments from government offices. Doing so is erasing history and heritage.

The United States system of ethics was biased by Christianity. There is a mountain of evidence supporting this.

 

[Mystech]

No, I'd live with a woman and have a legal contract drawn up for all of the essential benefits neccesary for a good, happy life.

Well that's all well and good to say, but it simply can't be done. Many rights such regarding child custody, certainly taxes, and situations involving immigration (A homosexual can't sponsor their same-sex partner for citizenship) It simply can't be done. Not to mention the whole spousal benefits like health care through an employer or joint policy wouldn't exactly work out either.

You already have them! Men can marry women, women can marry men. Those ARE the "rights" for us heteros ....and we heteros are ALSO prohibited from marrying those of the same-sex ...exactly as you are.

Again you're trying to enforce a sort of culture of rape onto homosexuals through saying that a policy like this is sufficient. You have the right to marry the one you love, homosexuals just want the same.

As for you marrying a man, I have to ask ....why? If you're a homo, why in hell would you marry a man? That makes virtually no sense. why didn't you just live with your lover and be happy?

Mostly because of the influence that morons like you have on our society, I'd wager. You have no idea of the sorts of pressures to conform to an unworkable way of like people place on homosexuals.

I still have to ask: Why does it seem so neccesary to get married? Do you, and others, feel that marriage is the only way to "affirm" your love? That just seems like a major stretch to me ....there must be millions of ways, including legal contracts and such.

That's a larger discussion I think. You'd do better to ask heterosexuals, though, as there are far more of them that are allowed to marry.

Just remember ....kids under 18 can't get married either.

This varys from state to state, some allow it, others require parental consent.

You homos are just one of a group of others that's not permitted to marry.

You'll have to forgive us if this unthinking irrational fatalist approach to an issue which genuinely effects our lives in a negative way and could be easily changed if people weren't so pig headed seems unsatisfactory to us.

 

[Buddha1]

Then y'all should be just happy as pigs in shit! ...'cause regular folks can't marry the same gender either. See, no special treatment for gays and lesbians ...you should be happy as hell. So, see, ye're "equal" in the eyes of the law. Ain't that what y'all want?Baron Max

Before the start of the heterosexual society, male-female casual sex was a grave sin, that the society looked down upon. The marriage institution was built in order to make sure that men were tied into the reproduction process in order to increase population.

In non-christian societies, non-marital male-female sex is considered much worse than male-male sex. And open display of male-female sexuality even by married couples is the ultimate immorality.

What gives 'heterosexual' couples the right to break this morality and enter into casual relationships so 'proudly' and be empowered for that. What gives the heterosexuals the right to introduce the system of dating adn ruin the delicate moral thread of the society? Who is responsible for destroying the moral sanctity of male-female relationships by them an end in itself, without the responsibility of procreation? If heterosexuals can break morality for their sake, and violate the undeserved power that was given to them by the society which valued numbers of children. Why should heterosexuals be powerful now, when they have refused to take the burden of procreation.

If heterosexuals can enter into a sex/ love relationship without the burden of children, then there is no question of relationships between men being immoral. A casual male-female sexual relationship without the responsibility of children is way too immoral than a committed relationship between two men or two women, without reprocution.

In all honesty, in today's overpopulated world, such couples should be given the power given earlier to heterosexuals -- for they are doing mother earth a lot of favour by refusing to litter it.

 

[Mystech]

in short, there is a small chance that life was created by evoltuion and no chance that God did because of the lack of scientific evidence.

But that's where faith comes in, doesn't it? Science doesn't say anything about faith, save that it's no good for determining worldly things. God, of course is not a worldly thing.

I am against changing our laws/ethics because it is unethical to do so unless the law is supporting unethical behavor, and in our current ethics system within the government, you find that they are biased to Christian beliefs, which are against homosexuality as accetable behavior. I am biased to Christianity, so I support the current system of ethics which can be objective if we embrace it fully in our laws.

I would dispute the idea that our country is based at all on Christian ethics except in the most vague and non-specific sense of "the golden rule", do unto others as you would have done unto you, which all religions and, most civilized western social structures hold true. However I'll get to that in just a moment.

Where do you think our "ethics system" comes from, exactly? Who has the right to determine it? Are you certain that you're not just espousing a rather inflated sense of entitlement which sees to affect many loud-mouthed troublesome self described Christians? What ever happened to our obligation to the constitution? Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that, not to mention the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law? Even if the situation were as you described it, and America is somehow rightly part-theocracy we've already limited our powers such that no one majority group should have so much power over the lives of a minority.

Yes, I believe it has because the founders were Christians which came from England. Anyone who was not Christian were shamed, the church had a lot of power. So, it is safe to say they were Christians with Christian ethics.

Are we talking about the origional colinists, who ultimately had little to do with the shape of the emergenc of the USA as a soverigne nation, or the group of men we consider to be the founding Fathers? You seem to be confusing the two here by describing a group that both shaped our nation with long lasting relevant consiquenses and a group of religious Englishmen. I can't think of any single group which fills both rolls.

Besides that, most of them have writings of deep felt Christianity of how they trust in God. They wrote much like Paul did to the Romans found in the Bible. Our foundations were biased to Christian beliefs.

This is a commonly held and often quoted myth about the founding fathers. The truth is sort of not politically correct enough to be widely known in our conservative society (yes, conservatives, despite all their bitching, are just as guilty of perpetuation Political Correctness as liberals). Most of them were deists, a group that today we'd probably just call non theistic agnostics. Others were atheists and some simply abhorred organized religion.

Neither their age nor their stature were particularly conductive of devout religious faith. It was an age of rationalism, science and logical thought were more the order of the day. Reading through the constitution it is fairly clear that they never intended to have purely theological beliefs codified as laws, or use strictly theological reasoning to justify national policy.

here's a little linky dink for some more reading about our founding father's religious beliefs: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

National ethics influenced by the spirit of Christianity.
Congress approved the Bible and had copies imported in the 1770s. 106 of the 108 universities in the nation were Christian, including Harvard. Our nation was undoubtedly founded on Christianity.

In the sense that religion has had a strong effect on the lives of the nations citizens and private institutions I'd have to agree. However our governing system was set up with the intent that no religion would be endorsed, and all would be free to practice as they wish. It was never the intent to create a "Christian nation".

If you say that you oppose same-sex marriage because you are a Christian, do you then also oppose a marriage between two people of some other religion, or perhaps a marriage between two atheists? Certainly prohibiting such unions would be seen as unconstiutional, why then should same-sex marriage be any different?

And now, the same Congress mandates the removal of the Bible from schools and the Ten Commandments from government offices. Doing so is erasing history and heritage.

First off there is no ban on bibles in schools, nor is there a ban on prayer in schools, as some often like to rave about. Students are free to have a bible on them, read from it as they like (so long as they pay attention in class when they're supposed too!) and pray as they wish. The only limitation is that an instructor can not teach from the bible or lead children in prayer, save for in some sort of extra curricular sense.

Secondly Congress hasn't mandated these things, it's usually courts, namely the Supreme Court, and rightly so. The constitution places a prohibition of "establishing religion". If you were a person of some other faith and you walked into a court-room where a judge had a monument stating that it was sin to believe in any other God but his, and that this monument is built as a reminder of the foundation of the nation's law, wouldn't you get slightly nervous about the judges opinion of you? Wouldn't it also be a bit reasonable to say that the Judge is just slightly out of his mind? Never mind the fact that this is also state establishment of religion. Such things are fine proper places for some sort of memorial, or in museums, but not in a court house. In a court house a judge’s first responsibility is to the law of man, not of God. Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and all that.

 

[jayleew]

But that's where faith comes in, doesn't it? Science doesn't say anything about faith, save that it's no good for determining worldly things. God, of course is not a worldly thing.

You are very wise to think so. So many scientists, athiests, and agnostics cannot comprehend this. Or they just choose to ignore this reasoning.

Where do you think our "ethics system" comes from, exactly? Who has the right to determine it? Are you certain that you're not just espousing a rather inflated sense of entitlement which sees to affect many loud-mouthed troublesome self described Christians? What ever happened to our obligation to the constitution? Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that, not to mention the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law? Even if the situation were as you described it, and America is somehow rightly part-theocracy we've already limited our powers such that no one majority group should have so much power over the lives of a minority.

As I said before, our ethics system comes from the beliefs of the majority. The majority of colonists were Christians. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians because they believed in God and Jesus Christ as the Son of God. That is the primary belief among Christians, how can we call them Deists with such adamant quotes of their faith?

Are we talking about the origional colinists, who ultimately had little to do with the shape of the emergenc of the USA as a soverigne nation, or the group of men we consider to be the founding Fathers? You seem to be confusing the two here by describing a group that both shaped our nation with long lasting relevant consiquenses and a group of religious Englishmen. I can't think of any single group which fills both rolls.

I am saying that the founding fathers decended from the colonists, who were Christians. Is it just coincidence that the founding fathers spoke of Christian beliefs as their own? How can they be Deists if they profess Christianity? I think we might confusing the definition of a Christian and a Deist.

This is a commonly held and often quoted myth about the founding fathers. The truth is sort of not politically correct enough to be widely known in our conservative society (yes, conservatives, despite all their bitching, are just as guilty of perpetuation Political Correctness as liberals). Most of them were deists, a group that today we'd probably just call non theistic agnostics. Others were atheists and some simply abhorred organized religion.

Is myth still a myth when supported with evidence?

Neither their age nor their stature were particularly conductive of devout religious faith. It was an age of rationalism, science and logical thought were more the order of the day. Reading through the constitution it is fairly clear that they never intended to have purely theological beliefs codified as laws, or use strictly theological reasoning to justify national policy.

Is this speculation? Do you have proof that it was an age of science and logic? From what I read of history it was of men of faith, putting it on the line in the name of freedom. There is a mountain of evidence down to the US Dollar which reads, "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance.

here's a little linky dink for some more reading about our founding father's religious beliefs: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

Here's the thing. The author of this source can't understand why Christians see the writings of these men. It takes one to know one, I'm afraid. We see the struggles, we see the beliefs they had, and it is unmistakably, our faith. They write powerful in their personal journals of the faith they have. With the exception of Thomas Paine, the rest have quotes from journals and other writings that are undeniably Christian in nature. Sure, these men had doubts, all Christians do. But, we choose to believe, just as Benjamin Franklin. He had doubts about Jesus, but he chose to not concern himself with that.

You cannot assume that just because you see something that doesn't fit with what you preceive to be Christianity, because what do you know about Christianity, but from "Christians" who are self-proclaimed. There is a unique attitude that they wrote in their journals that is Christianity.

I would not expect a non-Christian to understand what a Christian is inside, because it is not found in scripture, but in the Holy Spirit which governs our attitudes. The scripture is a love letter and a guide. It describes a system of morals. The founding fathers, from their writings, are Christians. I know non-Christians can't see it because they aren't Christians. They don't know what we think about. I would not expect a Doctor of Medicine to discern the behavior of the Stars in the same way. The attitudes, beliefs, and morals expressed in journals and writings are consistent with the Christian faith. THis matter will never be settled because they spoke Christian talk, which is more than just a Deist who believes in God and morals. Non-Christians do not recognize the attitudes in the writings.

In the sense that religion has had a strong effect on the lives of the nations citizens and private institutions I'd have to agree. However our governing system was set up with the intent that no religion would be endorsed, and all would be free to practice as they wish. It was never the intent to create a "Christian nation".

Agreed, but they were biased and it could not be helped.

If you say that you oppose same-sex marriage because you are a Christian, do you then also oppose a marriage between two people of some other religion, or perhaps a marriage between two atheists? Certainly prohibiting such unions would be seen as unconstiutional, why then should same-sex marriage be any different?

I oppose the issue because I am a Christian.
As a Christian Republican, I oppose the issue because of the degradation of morality.

First off there is no ban on bibles in schools, nor is there a ban on prayer in schools, as some often like to rave about. Students are free to have a bible on them, read from it as they like (so long as they pay attention in class when they're supposed too!) and pray as they wish. The only limitation is that an instructor can not teach from the bible or lead children in prayer, save for in some sort of extra curricular sense.

For now, but have you read of Children being told to stay home because they were found praying? The principal said that they were making the other students uncomfortable. The problem is that this misconception you speak of is widespread and even the teachers and principals have it. Maybe they are scared of losing their jobs.

Secondly Congress hasn't mandated these things, it's usually courts, namely the Supreme Court, and rightly so. The constitution places a prohibition of "establishing religion". If you were a person of some other faith and you walked into a court-room where a judge had a monument stating that it was sin to believe in any other God but his, and that this monument is built as a reminder of the foundation of the nation's law, wouldn't you get slightly nervous about the judges opinion of you? Wouldn't it also be a bit reasonable to say that the Judge is just slightly out of his mind? Never mind the fact that this is also state establishment of religion. Such things are fine proper places for some sort of memorial, or in museums, but not in a court house. In a court house a judge’s first responsibility is to the law of man, not of God. Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and all that.

And that is where we have lost most ground. The courts need the wisdom of God according to scripture. Sodom and Gamorrah had courts that did not look to God and look at where they are now. It was deemed legal to have sexual relations in the street. The US is quickly becoming the early Roman Empire, where not only homosexuality, but pedifilers were allowed.

Yes, I would get nervous if the judge believed in any other God, just like I get nervous seeing that the judge does not believe in God. Should we segregate the courthouses into Christian and non-Christian? If I was in trouble I would be happier to go to a Christian judge knowing that he would be fair, just, and merciful. It is difficult for a non-Christian judge to be fair, just, and merciful because his mind is filled with worldly filth and he is biased by it. I hear about or see on the news that injustice is served by a judge every day, so it must be difficult.

Let me put it a non-religious way:
If a judge had a set of morals that was unchanging, I would be content in knowing he is going to be fair and just all the time. If a judge had a set of morals that was shifting with society and only laws to guide him, I would not be comfortable with him judging me because of his bias is shifting with what is acceptable for the day and age. It is impossible to serve blind justice.

 

[Mystech]

You are very wise to think so. So many scientists, athiests, and agnostics cannot comprehend this. Or they just choose to ignore this reasoning.

Well, to be honest it's mostly just my favorite cop-out argument. I don't particularly believe in a God and find the idea of unworldly things to be a sort of arbitrary idea anyhow. I mean if it's unknowable why profess an idea that some people a zillion years ago knew about it and we know through them that this one thing exists, but not fairys and unicorns and magic rainbows full of skittles?

It's a good line of discussion for smoothing things over and getting people to quit bickering about what is ultimately a futile topic of conversation - which is why you won't often find me in the Religion forum, heh.

As I said before, our ethics system comes from the beliefs of the majority. The majority of colonists were Christians. Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians because they believed in God and Jesus Christ as the Son of God. That is the primary belief among Christians, how can we call them Deists with such adamant quotes of their faith?

There are very few such quotes, and even fewer in which they profess any specific adherence to faith as opposed to a general idea of a benevolent creator and an obligation of men to do good by one another.

As I said, they were Deists, Atheists in a semantic sense, in that they were non-theistic, meaning they didn't expect to see miracles or the actual influence of god, but only processes of the natural world (which could have come from god, but all things work through them, and god is not actively controlling anything). It's the Watch-maker analogy that I believe Franklin wrote about. God created the world with all it's mechanisms and rules, then like a watch maker just sat back and is watching it tick away. Didn't you ever heard of this?

I am saying that the founding fathers decended from the colonists, who were Christians. Is it just coincidence that the founding fathers spoke of Christian beliefs as their own? How can they be Deists if they profess Christianity? I think we might confusing the definition of a Christian and a Deist.

No I'm certain of the distinction. Any profession of a Christian Identity on the founding fathers part would have been much like the bulk of America's "Christians". Few have read the bible, fewer still actually go to church regularly, they believe in God in a general sense but don't exactly adhere to any specific dogma or doctrine, and associate with a Christian identity mostly because of the fact that it's a societal defacto.

Is myth still a myth when supported with evidence?

Well yes it can be, but that's another topic all together. In this situation, however, I would contest that your evidence of the founding fathers as pious religious men is not only false, but it also contradicts every authoritative historical record and perspective that we have.

Is this speculation? Do you have proof that it was an age of science and logic? From what I read of history it was of men of faith, putting it on the line in the name of freedom.

Did you go to public school? Some teacher did you a great diservice, because this is simply flat out false. Faith didn't play a very big roll in the American revolution, and the founding fathers were certainly not dogmatic men thinking that they were acting for God or the like.

If you want proof then I'd encourage you to crack open any American history text book, head back to the index look up "rationalism" and then read up a bit. This is a pretty basic part of American history and there's not much dispute about it. I really had no idea that there was such a religious smoke-screen about the issue, but the historical record is quite clear about the time and people.

Also give these wikipedia links a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

Note a few of the names and pictures that pop up, hopefully they'll be familliar.

There is a mountain of evidence down to the US Dollar which reads, "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance.

I hate to break it to you but both of these things are relatively new developments. "In God We Trust" was added to the dollar bill by FDR's treasury department in the 1930s, and "Under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s, both to appease the radical religious movements of their day. Part of an ongoing effort toward revisionist history, I'd say, but that does sound slightly paranoid.

Here's the thing. The author of this source can't understand why Christians see the writings of these men. It takes one to know one, I'm afraid.

Trust me, with the way so many Christians shout their beliefs out to the hills and march in the streets with it, it's not hard to figure out what your thoughts are. Also, do you truly believe that you're the only one qualified to understand the writings of long dead people who's time and place in the world it seems you know very little of? Most did have a belief in a God, it's true, but they were not Christians as you seem to think of them, and weren't particularly ardent in their faith.

We see the struggles, we see the beliefs they had, and it is unmistakably, our faith.

Simply because they underwent a noble struggle and had a lot of idealistic as well as insightful views? Are you sure that you don't just want to have believed as you do?

The scripture is a love letter and a guide. It describes a system of morals. The founding fathers, from their writings, are Christians. I know non-Christians can't see it because they aren't Christians.

So it is the spirit of the law, not the letter, which truly matters? Should the condemnation of homosexuality in ancient Jewish writings meant for conduct among members of their priesthood in religious ceremonies, which is oddly juxtaposed next to a condemnation of shrimp which is three times as harsh, really a valid ground upon which to oppose extending the legal rights and considerations of marriage to loving monogamous married same-sex couples? For that matter, if specific blessings from god are needed for a marriage, then should members of other religions be allowed to marry? Should atheists?

This is kind of murky water we're getting into here, isn't it?

I oppose the issue because I am a Christian.
As a Christian Republican, I oppose the issue because of the degradation of morality.

Religious morals, you mean? Other people's morals as they apply to your religion to be more specific. Is it your inherent right to impose your religious views on others simply because you believe that it is in accordance with your own morality? Shouldn't others be allowed at least some small control of their life, a little wiggle room when you speak out on an issue? You do realize how amazingly authoritarian making decisions like this for other people is, don't you?

For now, but have you read of Children being told to stay home because they were found praying?

No, I have not.

The problem is that this misconception you speak of is widespread and even the teachers and principals have it. Maybe they are scared of losing their jobs.

I'm willing to agree with that. It's my personal belief that school administrators are one of the lowest form of life. . . but that's just what I got out of public school.

It's not even necessarily a political thing on their part, they're just spooked any time one of the cattle turns it's head. Oddly enough I wasn't even allowed to go to my high school prom because it was deemed that going with another boy was a provocation and disruptive element to the function, and for years my school wouldn't allow a Gay/Straight alliance club because they felt it was "Improper for the school to endorse sexual behavior among it's students". For all the learning that's supposed to be going on in those buildings, the people running them rarely ever seem to make a lick of sense.

And that is where we have lost most ground. The courts need the wisdom of God according to scripture. Sodom and Gamorrah had courts that did not look to God and look at where they are now. It was deemed legal to have sexual relations in the street.

You're describing theocracy, it's our major problem in the Middle east at the moment. Would you really like to make the US so much more like Saudi Arabia? Go read the bible a few more times over, trust me, you don't want that as your legal book, not unless you like a stone in the face for talking back to someone.

Yes, I would get nervous if the judge believed in any other God, just like I get nervous seeing that the judge does not believe in God. Should we segregate the courthouses into Christian and non-Christian? If I was in trouble I would be happier to go to a Christian judge knowing that he would be fair, just, and merciful. It is difficult for a non-Christian judge to be fair, just, and merciful because his mind is filled with worldly filth and he is biased by it. I hear about or see on the news that injustice is served by a judge every day, so it must be difficult.

Are you implying that a Judge of a particular religion should let their faith determine their actions? That's pure madness. Do you think a Christian Judge would really give you a fairer judgement than any other? I should certainly hope that that's never the case. When on the bench a Judge has only one obligation and that is to our nation's laws, not to their personal faith.

If a judge had a set of morals that was unchanging, I would be content in knowing he is going to be fair and just all the time. If a judge had a set of morals that was shifting with society and only laws to guide him, I would not be comfortable with him judging me because of his bias is shifting with what is acceptable for the day and age. It is impossible to serve blind justice.

Would it upset you to have a judge who's opinions and views on an issue change as he's exposed to more information about it, and learns more about it, or is initial rock hard gut-instinct always the way to go? How would you feel about a judge who’s been on the bench since the 60s trying a black man? If he supported segregation at the time, would it be best that he remain unwavering?

 

[heart]

Max,
You already have them! Men can marry women, women can marry men. Those ARE the "rights" for us heteros ....and we heteros are ALSO prohibited from marrying those of the same-sex ...exactly as you are.
No, Max. When I said, "...we want to have the very same rights as YOU do." I meant your right to be married to the person of YOUR choice. You are heterosexual, Max. You wouldn't desire to marry a man now, would you? Therefore, marrying a man is out of the question for you. That narrows it down to one other gender, Max. Women!!! What is Max attracted to? Women!!! Then it would make sense that Max would fall in love with a ??? WOMAN!!! WE DO NOT HAVE THAT SAME RIGHT/CHOICE, MAX. Stay with me and follow the bouncing ball here, Max. I do not have the luxury to marry the person of MY choice. YOU DO! I mean, I don't know how much clearer I can be. This isn't rocket science, Max. You seem intelligent enough. Why can't you understand? What is causing this blockage to your brain? The only things I can come up with is it's either bigotry or ignorance or both. If not, then I truly apologize, but in most of your posts I've read, spells one or the other, at least to me.

As for you marrying a man, I have to ask ....why? If you're a homo, why in hell would you marry a man? That makes virtually no sense. why didn't you just live with your lover and be happy? There are many, many heteros doing exactly that as it is now.
Well... to be honest, for the reasons I stated above. I wanted to please my family. I have a sibling that was pretty much disowned by my parents for a decision they made. My family is really big with appearance. Shallow, but that's the facts. So having a lesbian daughter, well it just really doesn't fit into the conversation on Sunday mornings at their church. I had a lot of pressure in my family- I was looked upon and treated very differently because of my sexual preference. Mystech was pretty right- the pressures are enormous, especially for a 20 year old back then. I wanted so badly to be accepted, I wanted so badly to please my family...I chose to deny who I was, and I have to tell you it was very wrong, Max. I'm not sure you could fully understand, nothing to do with you at all, I just strongly believe it's something you have to experience living day in and day out at that time in your life (youth) to understand the pressures.

I still have to ask: Why does it seem so neccesary to get married? Do you, and others, feel that marriage is the only way to "affirm" your love? That just seems like a major stretch to me ....there must be millions of ways, including legal contracts and such.
I'm with Mystech on this one. I think that question should be answered to those who are afforded the luxury of marriage to the person of their choice, namely heterosexuals. You ask why it's necessary- I'm asking you why you feel it's necessary to have a say in who I (or any other homosexual/lesbian) marry?

Just remember ....kids under 18 can't get married either. You homos are just one of a group of others that's not permitted to marry. Tough shit. I can't marry my goat, either ....but we're still happy together
There is a big f'ing difference between having consensual sex with a person and that of an animal. An animal has no say, Max. God, your thinking scares me man.