MordecooLol23 : Ok, I think you misread the title. It says "Political Standpoint". First problem, " You should like the opposite gender because that is how god wanted it be".

Next, you say "The whole point of regular marriage is to find an opposite gender lover, and reproduce.", which is also pretty false, because people who are infertile can get married too (AKA people who are not able to reproduce at all). They do what gay couples also do: 1) Adopt their children, 2) find a willing host for either missing piece, Nya~.

Also, "If your parents are married happily, how do you just turn on the ways of life and say, oh that guy over there is pretty or vice versa.", wat (it made pretty much no sense).

"This should never happen." Funny, people said the same for allowing African Americans equal rights. Have you checked the year yet, Nya~?

Hello there. I don't know how to read.

MordecooLol23 : Actually, I am a lesbian, so that works perfectly for me. I'm bringing African Americans into this because the same arguments were made against them and such.

Again, this is political. Not religious. You can not merge the two due to a separation of Church and State that should be. Your Bible has no power against the Constitution, especially due to amendments that say no to discrimination and such, Nya~.

EDIT:: Oh, I should mention, I'm also don't associate myself with any specific political standpoints.

Well it does affect you because most states don't allow gay marriage, so that is a disadvantage to you. But since I don't associate with gay people, I am not going to reply to you anymore. Have a nice day.

MordecooLol23 : Firstly how immature and close minded are you.... don't reply to gay people... that's hilarious.. And sickening at the same time.... 

THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO NOT BE BASED ON RELIGION AS WELL.... DERP...


I'm all up for gay marriage... why?... because the two people love each other and why should I be able to judge others on their sexuality.
it's as simple as that..

MordecooLol23 : get the hell out of my thread if you can't follow the rules.

Local Mods : mind erasing his posts as they do not follow the rules I plainly laid out? (I do miss being able to just do that myself )

MordecooLol23 : You are quite incorrect. Let me help you out here.
If you can't be bothered to read the rules of a thread before you post, then this thread is pointless.
Or, if you read the rules and chose to ignore them, then you are just trying to cause trouble, and you are the one being pointless.

This thread has a specific purpose, and you are completely ignoring it.

MordecooLol23 : By all means, state your opinion. I want people against gay marriage to post here. But I don't want to hear the same old religious arguments against it. I am a Christian man, so I know that side of the argument. The purpose of this thread is for someone to give a reason as to why our government has a right to vote it down when they are supposed to keep their religious feelings out of politics. So far, not a single post in this entire forum has really gave a functional reason as to why it should remain not legalized other than they believe it is wrong based on their religion.

The purpose, that you claim this thread lacks, is to find someone who can give a non religious argument against it. YOUR only argument was that 'God says it is wrong'. That is the same argument that pretty much every person against gay marriage gives. If you don't have a reason apart from your own personal or religious feelings, don't post here. I want to know why this government has a right to deny it. 'It is gross, I think it is wrong, I think it is unnatural, my Religion says it is wrong" are not arguments here. Come back if you can think of something purposeful.

Politically, I cannot envision a single legal argument against gay marriage-- even though there are certainly ones that will stand up in a court of law. Many of those who argue against gay marriage do , in fact, have strong religious beliefs that influence them to think so; that is their right as a human being living in America. however, there are also those that will use the Bible as a shield (or sword, in this case) to sanctify their ideas, regardless of the strength of their faith. While logically, this should not hold up in a court of law, it oftentimes does, due to the judge or jury's personal beliefs, as there is no way to be truly impartial. My arguments sum to this; in a country where equal liberty is promised to all, and the Church and State do NOT correlate, there is, in fact, an unconstitutionality inherent in every acclamation made against the marriage of gay couples in a legal situation. In casual or domestic situations, you are free to argue any point you so choose; however, in a court of law, all men, and all women, and all races, religions, and creeds are guaranteed legal rights equivalent to each other, and to deny the rights of one to another is tantamount to a laugh in the face of all that is good about the freedoms in this country! To deny the rights of gay couples to marry, especially on the basis of "sin" or "abnormality" is a disgrace that many Americans still today uphold. Gay couples are still couples, are still people, are still Americans, and I will fight until the day I drop to prove to everyone in this country that I am constitutionally allowed to marry whomever I want, be it a man or a woman.
Now, to ignore the legal parts of it, I wholly support gay marriage (as I am gay myself) and will logically fight to win any verbal engagement involving these beliefs, though I avoid insulting, making slurs against, or downgrading another's beliefs.

Following on this topic here (as in here, locally, in my country) lately many people point out calling themselves "realists" that the fact that gays are allowed on television and we even had a gay guy as nominee for presidential election last time (he came as second, mind you) and the fact that people are trying to push forward the right for gay folk to marry, they think that it is an "agenda" that everybody should be gay and they try to "turn" people gay. Which is an idea we came across here earlier too I think.

And yes, it is annoying that an adult literate person would think so. And yet it is so weird. Do these people think  that they might turn gay themselves just by watching some tv show with a gay character, having some guy in parliament who is gay, listening to Village people or something given enough time? Did living in a homophobic society turn those gay folk straight? No. Did it turn them miserable and at  times suicidal even? Yes.

Nobody cannot be turned "gay" more than anyone can be turned "straight". Giving people equal rights and opportunities is not going to turn anybody into anything they were not born with in the first place.

Yes, there "would not be reproduction in a gay society" but hey, that is something that is never going to happen. There never was a society that ever was 100% hetero or homosexual. Though I think there has been love in all forms of society.  Cant we all just agree on that please?

And this was not directed towards anybody here on vizzed or anyone taking part in this conversation. Just wanted to say this all out of my own frustration. Thank you.

Brigand : I definitely agree that in no way will it cause someone to 'become' gay. There is one thing it could lead to though. There are still plenty of people who see what gay is in the eyes of their society, so they live a strait life. As far as anyone else can see, they are strait. What creating a more accepting environment CAN do is make those few be more likely to live a live as a gay person. Now, I don't see that as wrong. But I think it might be possible that that is where people came up with this "turn gay" crap. Some might have seen someone who live a life a strait person and started living life as a gay person, and they just claim that society made them gay because there is apparently no way that that person could have actually been gay and not acted on it.

rcarter2 :

True and this is what I should have also addressed, would not I have been as lazy as I usually am.

Lot of these country folk here say that "well before all this and such, there were no gay people, so I recon all these people turned gay now all of a sudden since society tries to make em as such and such".

The gay people were indeed always there but since the society where everybody knows each other and is hetero normative, you had to have real balls to come out. You would be this town queer for the rest of your life as some people did and well, some of us kids did not really care for the "weird uncle". It was just the way he was, you just were not to talk about how come he was not married. As for lesbians it was at time even worse.

But my point being, they were always there. The fact that we can let them openly be what they are is not away from anyone, let alone the society. And yet here I am again only talking about my own culture of silence. But this is where I also see where this "people turning gay" crap comes from. People suddenly "go gay" when the actual gay people in our communities suddenly see what they are and no longer are afraid to voice it out.  And feel more secure and happy with it and hopefully, more accepted.

Oh and people should not forget about the bi-folk. Just because you were with someone with the opposite sex and then go out with someone who is of the same sex, doesn't mean you turned or went "gay". Necessarily.

Brigand : You've actually put into words quite nicely what has been giving me great frustration for a long time. I personally only discovered my homosexuality recently, so to a lot of people it seemed like I "turned gay," and it was frustrating that I couldn't figure out how to tell them that it is something you're born with, and will die with. But to me, being happy is the most important thing we have as people, and if more people could see, like you do, that 'live and let live' viewpoint, I think we would all be happier.

You have better odds at a vegas casino then marriage (gay or straight) so good luck with it. If people want to get married then let them. Marriage doesn't have to involve babies but traditionally I think that is what is was originally for. Now and days people get married over and over again and its kind of sad really. Maybe there should be a limit cause if you get married 5 times then I don't think your odds are looking that good. Who knows, if people can afford it and not ruin lives then go for it

JigSaw : Odds are better in Vegas unless you bid green 00 on roulette

I would like to point out that gays are not protected by the constitution,If you insist that religion has nothing to do with it. The constitution states that man was given certain inalienable rights  by our creator. So without the creator,man has no rights (according to the constitution).


Now to the point itself. It is true that without religion,there is no base against gay marriage. But i say to you,is there also any argument against murder without it? Since the constitution is voided by the basis of this thread,then tell me what law protects us from being killed?



If your answered is "natural law" then man may deiced for himself what is moral. And if man may choose for himself then why do we continue to debate this point?  You see,without a set of principles,you cannot say one way or another. Thus this thread would seem unnecessary .




I await a set of principles with eager eyes

Viktor Von`stah : You assume that when the Constitution says creator, it has to mean God. So you are still looking at the Constitution as if it were some religious document. So just because it says 'our creator', it doesn't mean that it is all void because you look at that from a non-religious perspective.

There are arguments against murder without religion. So many people, for example say that the right to the pursuit of happiness would allow murder if murder makes that person happy unless you go off religious principal of "Thou shalt not kill". "Natural Law" is not the principal I would use. The principal against murder is that murder creates a victim. Gay marriage, on the other hand, creates absolutely no victims.

Well first of the constitution was written as a transcendence of God's law to man,so in a way it is a religious  document.

As to the victim issue,where do you get the idea that a victim is a bad thing? What "law" or "principle"   conveys to you that hurting someone else is wrong?

From strictly a legal  view, we have many crimes that are "victimless". This is illustrated by the laws against having more than one wife. Yet there is no big debate going on there. If we were to use the same logic then it is also stupid to have the "age of consent" and incest laws.

Viktor Von`stah : Multiple wives opens up higher tax manipulation. With marriage comes certain benefits in that area. So allowing plural marriage means anyone can marry as many friends as they want just to get the tax benefit. As a matter of fact, that has happened in the past, resulting in plural marriage not being reconsidered in today's society. You can make the argument that a gay couple could get married for the tax benefit, sure. But strait people are given the right to do this with one partner, so why do gay couples have less rights than the strait couple?

Explain how the Constitution is a transcendence of God's Law. Because it has a lot of the same principals such as not killing, stealing, etc? By that logic, the Constitution is a transcendence of almost all religious law. The Code of Hammurabi was the first written law and had the same principals. So I guess the Constitution is a transcendence of the Code of Hammurabi as well? Many of the founding fathers who had a hand in the Constitution were actually NOT religious men, despite what the common society belief is. The Constitution was written not with the Lord in mind, but what gives everyone equal opportunity.

That equal opportunity is principal that determines victims, harm, etc. When you do something such as kill and steal, you are interfering with that person's equal opportunity in life. I don't see why you seem to think that you need religious views to have the idea of victims being a bad thing. Those views were around before the Bible was written.

I'm not saying we have crimes that are victimless. No arguments (except plural marriage as not one of those victimless crimes). But I never said I agreed with every law. I think that many victimless crimes should be looked at and reconsidered. It isn't that nobody is saying anything about those ones. I am just specifically curious about this one since this is a clear example of forcing one's religion on others, which is against what this country was truly founded upon.