The number one reason why Same-sex Marriage should absolutely be allowed.

Allowing same-sex marriage would mean more work for catering services
So when you're against same sex marriage, you're against economic stimulation
and When you're against economic stimulation, you're against America
And when you're against America,
You're a communist.

10/10

-35/10

On a serious note, I think the number one reason should be because not doing so violates individual free-will, which is wrong (in cases where no-one is being harmed). However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

BluRayHiDef

However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

BluRayHiDef

The kids aren't going to turn out gay.

On a serious note, I think the number one reason should be because not doing so violates individual free-will, which is wrong (in cases where no-one is being harmed). However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

BluRayHiDef

That's not an argument at all, that's just stupid.

Ultimately the issue will be for the states to decide, I can see a few states allowing it but not the majority. Really the issue isn't that big of a deal, they have gay marriage in Mass and the world didn't blow up, and there arn't very many gay people so it's still rare to come across a a gay couple getting married. It's not like it's the norm or anything.

IMO states should be offered these two options:

1. Allow gay marriage (though making sure churches, synagouges ect...can't get sued for choosing not to ordain a gay couple)

or

2. Allow civil unions but extend ALL the rights of marriage to them.

They would get to vote on which option they prefer, but it as to be one of these two that way gay couples get all the same rights as us straight couples do. Which is the most important thing, equal rights.

This option is the most realistic one, not every state will allow gay marriage and straight couples arn't going to give up their marriages for just secular unions.

no we must harm these people and deny them rights IN JESUS NAME!!!! ;)

That's not an argument at all, that's just stupid.

Ultimately the issue will be for the states to decide, I can see a few states allowing it but not the majority. Really the issue isn't that big of a deal, they have gay marriage in Mass and the world didn't blow up, and there arn't very many gay people so it's still rare to come across a a gay couple getting married. It's not like it's the norm or anything.

IMO states should be offered these two options:

1. Allow gay marriage (though making sure churches, synagouges ect...can't get sued for choosing not to ordain a gay couple)

or

2. Allow civil unions but extend ALL the rights of marriage to them.

They would get to vote on which option they prefer, but it as to be one of these two that way gay couples get all the same rights as us straight couples do. Which is the most important thing, equal rights.

ShadowMoses900

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

worlock77

The kids aren't going to turn out gay.

That may or may not be the case, but at the very least the kids will gain the impression that homosexuality is normal, which is untrue (no offense). What I mean is that although there isn't anything immoral about homosexuality, it is indeed strange as it is antithetical to the survival/ purpose of a species (propogation of genes).

I can see a few states allowing it but not the majority.

ShadowMoses900

Nah. Over time every state will allow it and history will look back very unfavorably on the people who oppose gay marriage today.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

worlock77

The kids aren't going to turn out gay.

hell, if anti-gay people were smart and wanted to ensure their kids are not gay no matter what the cost they should hire gay people to pose as their parents.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

BluRayHiDef

The kids aren't going to turn out gay.

That may or may not be the case, but at the very least the kids will gain the impression that homosexuality is normal, which is untrue (no offense). What I mean is that although there isn't anything immoral about homosexuality, it is indeed strange as it is antithetical to the survival/ purpose of a species (propogation of genes).

We should raise our kids to be bisexual so they can have fun with everyone.

* Mind you, when they're adults.;)

no we must harm these people and deny them rights IN JESUS NAME!!!! ;)

Riverwolf007

lol I find it funny when I come acros some hardocre Christians that act like that and I tell them they don't know Jesus at all because he would never support hurting or oppressing gay people. He was about love and tolerance and not judging people, not killing them or oppressing people. If Jesus met a gay person he would never have harmed them at all.

A lot of "Chrisians" arn't real, they are just hypocrites. I'm not a Christian myself btw, but I do think there is a good amount of wisdom in it. I am aware you are an atheist (at least an agnostic) I don't remeber lol.

On a serious note, I think the number one reason should be because not doing so violates individual free-will, which is wrong (in cases where no-one is being harmed). However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

BluRayHiDef

Agreed.I think kids need parents of both/mixed genders.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

BluRayHiDef

The kids aren't going to turn out gay.

That may or may not be the case, but at the very least the kids will gain the impression that homosexuality is normal, which is untrue (no offense).

no lol

And when you're against America,You're a communist.SaintWalrus

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

On a serious note, I think the number one reason should be because not doing so violates individual free-will, which is wrong (in cases where no-one is being harmed). However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

nedim100

Agreed.I think kids need parents of both/mixed genders.

I'm in a similar boat as well, but I don't really care if a gay couple adopts kids. I thin they should be allowed to raise them, but there is no doubt that a man and woman is the most ideal setting for rasing a kid. Without them both it does have some consequences.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

BluRayHiDef

The kids aren't going to turn out gay.

That may or may not be the case, but at the very least the kids will gain the impression that homosexuality is normal, which is untrue (no offense). What I mean is that although there isn't anything immoral about homosexuality, it is indeed strange as it is antithetical to the survival/ purpose of a species (propogation of genes).

Having naturally blond hair isn't "normal" ether. Want to pass laws that discriminate against blonds?

That's not an argument at all, that's just stupid.

Ultimately the issue will be for the states to decide, I can see a few states allowing it but not the majority. Really the issue isn't that big of a deal, they have gay marriage in Mass and the world didn't blow up, and there arn't very many gay people so it's still rare to come across a a gay couple getting married. It's not like it's the norm or anything.

IMO states should be offered these two options:

1. Allow gay marriage (though making sure churches, synagouges ect...can't get sued for choosing not to ordain a gay couple)

or

2. Allow civil unions but extend ALL the rights of marriage to them.

They would get to vote on which option they prefer, but it as to be one of these two that way gay couples get all the same rights as us straight couples do. Which is the most important thing, equal rights.

This option is the most realistic one, not every state will allow gay marriage and straight couples arn't going to give up their marriages for just secular unions.

ShadowMoses900

1. Not an issue and I don't know why you persist in thinking it is.

2. Then it becomes marriage, so why not call it that?

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

no we must harm these people and deny them rights IN JESUS NAME!!!! ;)

ShadowMoses900

lol I find it funny when I come acros some hardocre Christians that act like that and I tell them they don't know Jesus at all because he would never support hurting or oppressing gay people. He was about love and tolerance and not judging people, not killing them or oppressing people. If Jesus met a gay person he would never have harmed them at all.

A lot of "Chrisians" arn't real, they are just hypocrites. I'm not a Christian myself btw, but I do think there is a good amount of wisdom in it. I am aware you are an atheist (at least an agnostic) I don't remeber lol.

:lol:

they don't even see how stupid they are.

jesus sure does hate healthcare for the poor! :lol:

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The kids aren't going to turn out gay.

worlock77

That may or may not be the case, but at the very least the kids will gain the impression that homosexuality is normal, which is untrue (no offense). What I mean is that although there isn't anything immoral about homosexuality, it is indeed strange as it is antithetical to the survival/ purpose of a species (propogation of genes).

Having naturally blond hair isn't "normal" ether. Want to pass laws that discriminate against blonds?

You're a bafoon. Consider the context of my use of the word "normal". What I meant was natural. Homosexuality is not natural. Stop picking at straws.

[QUOTE="nedim100"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

On a serious note, I think the number one reason should be because not doing so violates individual free-will, which is wrong (in cases where no-one is being harmed). However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

ShadowMoses900

Agreed.I think kids need parents of both/mixed genders.

I'm in a similar boat as well, but I don't really care if a gay couple adopts kids. I thin they should be allowed to raise them, but there is no doubt that a man and woman is the most ideal setting for rasing a kid. Without them both it does have some consequences.

What makes a man and a woman an ideal setting? Is it simply having one parent posessing a penis and one parent posessing a vagina that makes it ideal? Or are there other factors?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

That may or may not be the case, but at the very least the kids will gain the impression that homosexuality is normal, which is untrue (no offense). What I mean is that although there isn't anything immoral about homosexuality, it is indeed strange as it is antithetical to the survival/ purpose of a species (propogation of genes).

BluRayHiDef

Having naturally blond hair isn't "normal" ether. Want to pass laws that discriminate against blonds?

You're a bafoon. Consider the context of my use of the word "normal". What I meant was natural. Homosexuality is not natural. Stop picking at straws.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

That may or may not be the case, but at the very least the kids will gain the impression that homosexuality is normal, which is untrue (no offense). What I mean is that although there isn't anything immoral about homosexuality, it is indeed strange as it is antithetical to the survival/ purpose of a species (propogation of genes).

BluRayHiDef

Having naturally blond hair isn't "normal" ether. Want to pass laws that discriminate against blonds?

You're a bafoon. Consider the context of my use of the word "normal". What I meant was natural. Homosexuality is not natural. Stop picking at straws.

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

4 billion/10

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

BluRayHiDef

The kids aren't going to turn out gay.

That may or may not be the case, but at the very least the kids will gain the impression that homosexuality is normal, which is untrue (no offense). What I mean is that although there isn't anything immoral about homosexuality, it is indeed strange as it is antithetical to the survival/ purpose of a species (propogation of genes).

the genes are propagated by nephews and nieces that are protected and cared for by the gay members of the pack.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=gay-animals-and-evolution

[QUOTE="nedim100"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

On a serious note, I think the number one reason should be because not doing so violates individual free-will, which is wrong (in cases where no-one is being harmed). However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

ShadowMoses900

Agreed.I think kids need parents of both/mixed genders.

I'm in a similar boat as well, but I don't really care if a gay couple adopts kids. I thin they should be allowed to raise them, but there is no doubt that a man and woman is the most ideal setting for rasing a kid. Without them both it does have some consequences.

Yeah i think having mixed gender parents is ideal because a child should have role models of both genders.Its not impossible for gays or even single parents to raise kids,but as you said it might have some nasty consequences.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Having naturally blond hair isn't "normal" ether. Want to pass laws that discriminate against blonds?

worlock77

You're a bafoon. Consider the context of my use of the word "normal". What I meant was natural. Homosexuality is not natural. Stop picking at straws.

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

On a serious note, I think the number one reason should be because not doing so violates individual free-will, which is wrong (in cases where no-one is being harmed). However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

nedim100

Agreed.I think kids need parents of both/mixed genders.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You're a bafoon. Consider the context of my use of the word "normal". What I meant was natural. Homosexuality is not natural. Stop picking at straws.

BluRayHiDef

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

You sir, are a 1st class idiot. You might even be more of an idiot than Zuma Jones, in that you try really hard to sound like you know what you're talking about, yet fail miserably nearly every single time.

[QUOTE="nedim100"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

On a serious note, I think the number one reason should be because not doing so violates individual free-will, which is wrong (in cases where no-one is being harmed). However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

FrostyPhantasm

Agreed.I think kids need parents of both/mixed genders.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You're a bafoon. Consider the context of my use of the word "normal". What I meant was natural. Homosexuality is not natural. Stop picking at straws.

BluRayHiDef

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

[QUOTE="nedim100"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

On a serious note, I think the number one reason should be because not doing so violates individual free-will, which is wrong (in cases where no-one is being harmed). However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

ShadowMoses900

Agreed.I think kids need parents of both/mixed genders.

I'm in a similar boat as well, but I don't really care if a gay couple adopts kids. I thin they should be allowed to raise them, but there is no doubt that a man and woman is the most ideal setting for rasing a kid. Without them both it does have some consequences.

Actually, when gay couple adopt, they've made the decision to embrace a child into their lives, that means 100% of time, they are willing to take a baby that they don't have to, they're mentally ready to be parents, and they have the financial means to raise a child, at least, the adoption agency will make sure of that.

Can you say this is 100% true for all straight couples who are having children? there are accidental pregnancies when they're not mentally or financially ready for the baby, and there are irresponsible parents who keeps pumping out babies for state benefit (in europe at least), can you honestly stay that on average, gay couples provide a worse environment for children to grow up?

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Having naturally blond hair isn't "normal" ether. Want to pass laws that discriminate against blonds?

worlock77

You're a bafoon. Consider the context of my use of the word "normal". What I meant was natural. Homosexuality is not natural. Stop picking at straws.

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

Not exactly, animals might pair up with the same sex but it's not the same at all. They arn't being gay or anything, for instance a dog may mount another male dog but that isn't an act of sex it's an act of displaying dominance. It's a stretch to say there are gay animals. There isn't any hard evidence to suggest homosexuality is natural or learned.

Sure there are a lot of stuides done out there but a lot of them have agendas and contradict each other. There was a study attempted by National Geographic and they concluded that there was no evidence to suggest people are born gay.They did a study on identical twins (they share the EXACT same DNA structure and everything) and one is gay but the other wasn't. If it was innate they would both be gay.

Plus it makes no sense in evolution for there to be a gay gene" it's simply impossible. IMO it's a variety of different things like enviormental structure, men who wind up in prision often become gay even thoug they were completely straight outside.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

worlock77

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

You sir, are a 1st class idiot. You might even be more of an idiot than Zuma Jones, in that you try really hard to sound like you know what you're talking about, yet fail miserably nearly every single time.

What a nice rebuttal. I give a clearly thought out and rational argument, and you provide no counter argument whatsover. Anyhow, I'm done with you. I've clearly won this argument.

[QUOTE="nedim100"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

On a serious note, I think the number one reason should be because not doing so violates individual free-will, which is wrong (in cases where no-one is being harmed). However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.

FrostyPhantasm

Agreed.I think kids need parents of both/mixed genders.

Look 2 posts above your post

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

toast_burner

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

However, I must admit that I'm not too crazy about letting same-sex couples raise children.BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

toast_burner

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

Can you read? Let me repeat myself: The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You're a bafoon. Consider the context of my use of the word "normal". What I meant was natural. Homosexuality is not natural. Stop picking at straws.

ShadowMoses900

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

Not exactly, animals might pair up with the same sex but it's not the same at all. They arn't being gay or anything, for instance a dog may mount another male dog but that isn't an act of sex it's an act of displaying dominance. It's a stretch to say there are gay animals. There isn't any hard evidence to suggest homosexuality is natural or learned.

Sure there are a lot of stuides done out there but a lot of them have agendas and contradict each other. There was a study attempted by National Geographic and they concluded that there was no evidence to suggest people are born gay.They did a study on identical twins (they share the EXACT same DNA structure and everything) and one is gay but the other wasn't. If it was innate they would both be gay.

Plus it makes no sense in evolution for there to be a gay gene" it's simply impossible. IMO it's a variety of different things like enviormental structure, men who wind up in prision often become gay even thoug they were completely straight outside.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You're a bafoon. Consider the context of my use of the word "normal". What I meant was natural. Homosexuality is not natural. Stop picking at straws.

ShadowMoses900

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

Not exactly, animals might pair up with the same sex but it's not the same at all. They arn't being gay or anything, for instance a dog may mount another male dog but that isn't an act of sex it's an act of displaying dominance. It's a stretch to say there are gay animals. There isn't any hard evidence to suggest homosexuality is natural or learned.

Sure there are a lot of stuides done out there but a lot of them have agendas and contradict each other. There was a study attempted by National Geographic and they concluded that there was no evidence to suggest people are born gay.They did a study on identical twins (they share the EXACT same DNA structure and everything) and one is gay but the other wasn't. If it was innate they would both be gay.

Plus it makes no sense in evolution for there to be a gay gene" it's simply impossible. IMO it's a variety of different things like enviormental structure, men who wind up in prision often become gay even thoug they were completely straight outside.

Interesting

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Once again, you're a bafoon. The mere existence of a phenomenon does not make it natural. What makes something natural is its purpose within a certain context. Homosexuality has no purpose in regard to the propagation of genes, which is an organism's primary function. Hence, it is unnatural. Its existence is an aberration, an anomaly, an exception. Other examples of aberrations/ anomalies/ exceptions are cancer, genetic illnesses, and abnormal psychology (sociopathy, psychopathy, etc); these things exist, but they certainly aren't normal. Your argument is moot. You're done.

SaintWalrus

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You're a bafoon. Consider the context of my use of the word "normal". What I meant was natural. Homosexuality is not natural. Stop picking at straws.

ShadowMoses900

Homosexuality is natural you moron. Were it not it would not be observed in numerious species of animals in the wild.

Not exactly, animals might pair up with the same sex but it's not the same at all. They arn't being gay or anything, for instance a dog may mount another male dog but that isn't an act of sex it's an act of displaying dominance. It's a stretch to say there are gay animals. There isn't any hard evidence to suggest homosexuality is natural or learned.

Sure there are a lot of stuides done out there but a lot of them have agendas and contradict each other. There was a study attempted by National Geographic and they concluded that there was no evidence to suggest people are born gay.They did a study on identical twins (they share the EXACT same DNA structure and everything) and one is gay but the other wasn't. If it was innate they would both be gay.

Plus it makes no sense in evolution for there to be a gay gene" it's simply impossible. IMO it's a variety of different things like enviormental structure, men who wind up in prision often become gay even thoug they were completely straight outside.

Oh well sh*t, if National Geographic says it's so it must be so.