I also stated that I did not support the homosexual agenda, but belive that in this country, a person can believe or do whatever they want.If law makers passed laws making homosexual contracts legal, then that is up to them, I do not pass laws and only have my one vote. But if they pass laws allowing two men or two women to join in a union, why can't 3 people or more join in a union or contract also?? Or as disgusting as it is to think, why not between humans and animals? In california they want animals to be treated as humans, with the same rights as people..Now I wouldn't support that for obvious reasons, and it disgusts me to even think about it, but my feelings about it shouldn't make it wrong right?? But what grounds do you have to object to multiple people getting married and animals being people getting married?

Oh boy, here we go. So, it's ok for a man and woman to be joined in a union. But not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. If either of those were to happen, why does that have anything to do with more than to people? Or people and animals? I never, ever understood that argument. It just doesn't make sense at all.

But if they pass laws allowing two men or two women to join in a union, why can't 3 people or more join in a union or contract also?? Or as disgusting as it is to think, why not between humans and animals? In california they want animals to be treated as humans, with the same rights as people..Now I wouldn't support that for obvious reasons, and it disgusts me to even think about it, but my feelings about it shouldn't make it wrong right?? But what grounds do you have to object to multiple people getting married and animals being people getting married?

Now that is exactly the kind of disgusting ignorance I would have expected .. Thanks for reaffirming that for me...

In the end, however, if this is a private religious school that receives no public money and uses no public facilities then I think it's their right to admit or dismiss whom ever they'd like.

I might take issue with the idea that they are not a business. Do they have employees? Pay taxes?

If you read my previous statements, I said that marriage is a church function, not to be mistaken for the state requirements of a legal document they sign to signify their union. If two people want to go before a judge and join in a legal union or contract with each other, that has nothing to do with a church wedding. After all, you can be married in a church, but not recognized by the state as being married, or united by a judge, and not be married as far as the church is concerned.. people want to blurr the lines between the church and the government santioned ceremonies. If the state wants to pass laws for people to join in a legal binding agreement, just as they do now, then so be it, I did not comment on that activity.
About being natural, procreation is only possible in humans between a man and a woman, not being able to do that is un-natural, is it not? I didn't say one way or the other whether it was right or wrong, just that it was un-natural. Two people that chose not to have children is not natural, because unless barren, they have to take un-natural steps to prevent it. I have noticed that since people have changed the meaning of words to no longer mean what they were designed to say, there is alot of confusion, and I believe that this is the case here.

I also stated that I did not support the homosexual agenda, but belive that in this country, a person can believe or do whatever they want.If law makers passed laws making homosexual contracts legal, then that is up to them, I do not pass laws and only have my one vote. But if they pass laws allowing two men or two women to join in a union, why can't 3 people or more join in a union or contract also?? Or as disgusting as it is to think, why not between humans and animals? In california they want animals to be treated as humans, with the same rights as people..Now I wouldn't support that for obvious reasons, and it disgusts me to even think about it, but my feelings about it shouldn't make it wrong right?? But what grounds do you have to object to multiple people getting married and animals being people getting married?

So you oppose multiple people getting married?? Why??

So, hypothetically, if I'm the headmaster of a private school, is it my right to decide that no black students are allowed in join?

I think this sort of discrimination should be illegal whether a school is public or private. Anyhow, in general, US schools suck and skipping a year or two and going directly to college is not always such a bad thing. Hopefully, these two girls will have a good time at college.



1) In many traditions, marriage has not been a union by a church. What's more, there are plenty of people these days (and before) who choose to marry without involving a church or religion. There is nothing about the agreement or contract of marriage that says it HAS to be done under God, or that it has to be religious.

Examples: China, Slavic countries, and many European countries have high numbers of atheists or agnostics who marry everyday without involving religion.

Thus, even with legal documents aside, marriage is not defined to be a holy union of two individuals. This means that all the fuss about changing the definition of marriage has little grounding, because for *some* people, marriage was *never* defined as being a holy union.

2) Homosexuality *is* natural. It occurs in nature among several species: cats, dogs, dolphins to name but a few.
Secondly, how can you say that the sole purpose of sex is procreation? If that was the only purpose, then why all the endorphins? Why all the relief of Why is sex and sexual desire such a complicated emotion? Obviously, there is more to sex than simple procreation. What's more, humanity does not need to procreate like it did before. The majority of our children survive and the human population continues to escalate to the point where an entire planet of resources may not be enough in 50-100 years at this rate. We are not rabbits designed for sex (although even rabbits are not designed explicitly for sex) - there is more to Mankind than that!
One more reason why homosexuality is natural: humans are homosexual. I mean, you wouldn't call being left-handed unnatural just because less of us are left-handed, would you? So, why wouldn't the same apply? And, for example, what about being good at golf? Isn't that unnatural because it doesn't help us reproduce? Honestly, not many girls are turned on by golf...

In conclusion: 1) marriage has been and can be a secular union of two individuals. 2) Homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon.

As for multiple people getting married, historically, such arrangements end up with one gender being treated poorly or unfairly. I would say that is the main reason why it isn't legal. If I was assured that such gender inequality could be 100% eliminated, then why would polygamy be bad?

Now, when it comes to bestiality, I do feel we must draw a line. In terms of intellect and understanding, I feel animals are more like children or babies like adults. With that in mind, marriage to or sex with an animal would be like statutory rape. If a viewpoint such as mine is taken, the animal issue is, well, not an issue.

As for giving animals the same rights as man, I would have to agree, especially when it comes to freedom of speech. I've always wondered what my cat thought about the way we painted the house a few years back, but he never felt that he could express himself without persecution...

;-)

Homosexuality is not natural in nature, since if dogs and cats and others species were homosexual, there would be no procreation, that species would no longer be passed on. Is it an infrequent phenomenon, I don't know of any studies that show that animals bind together in homosexual relationships..doen't mean they don't exsist, so if you know of any, send them my way..now is is true that animals exhibit some tendancies that can be preceived as homosexual, but companionship is not the same as homosexual relationships..

Your not liking that private schools and their ability to choose who and what standards is not the point, the supreme court has ruled that private religious schools cannot be made to follow laws concerning discrimination. Remember the part about making no law hindering or restricting the free exercise.. We may not always like it, and agree with some aspects of it, but it is protected under the constitution.

I made a clear and distinct difference between church and government practices of marriage or whatever word you want to use for it, but churches should not be forced to marry people they chose not to for whatever reason.

It does not matter what the history of multiple people marriages are, should history be a determinate factor in making this law??. I asked what grounds she uses to justify her disagreement with it, and since those that oppose homosexual marriages because if religious faith are bigots and we can't use their faith values to make laws against it, buy what standards should they be opposed?

And I agree with your conclusion about bestiality, and take your stance also, but was wondering by what standards these decisions are made, since religious moral standards are oppressive and repressive, and cannot be considered.

I ask these questions for discussion and debate and sharing of ideas, but seldom find anyone that will, so I do enjoy when someone or more do. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

It is understandable if you do not trust Wikipedia as a source. However, if you scroll all the way down, you'll find ample reliable news sources, books, etc. Note that when they say homosexuality in animals, they mean the full gamut: from affection to parenting to male on male anal sex.



I must disagree: Not liking this private school's judgment as well as the Supreme Court's judgment is the point. We make no law about hindering the free exercise, but we also have laws protecting the free exercise of this and that. I contend that freedom of sexual preference should be protected as well, and that discrimination against LBGT individuals should be illegal in all institutions.

As for churches marrying LGBTs, I agree with you. Oddly enough - that is, in light of the above paragraph - I do not think the government should force unwilling churches to marry LGBT individuals. Either way you slice that issue, though, you're going to be discriminating against either a couple or a religious sect. *shrug*



Why wouldn't the history matter? When making any decision, it is generally good to consider precedents as well as theory of practice. Therefore, I think history should always be *among the factors* that decide how a law is written.

And, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you wrote, beginning with "since" and ending with "opposed?"



I do not understand your question: Are you asking, "By what standards should these decisions be made?"

I would say the moral standard by which we make such decisions is a humane moral stance, as well as a stance that is nurturing towards nature and nature's creatures. Such a moral standard, at least for me, leads me to the above views on bestiality and polygamy.



Yes, it's nice to discuss and debate ideas. ^_^

I had a situation where I was hiring for some positions I had open..a man came in and before I even introduced myself, he stated that he was gay and wanted to know if I had a problem with that...to which I said that it didn't have anything to do with the job..he turned around and yelled that I was a gay basher and would sue me for discrimination...now I know that it was not a common practice, but these kind of things make it hard for me to see LGBT point of view with that kind of thing going on..

Doesn't seem to take much for you to have a problem with that point of view, period. And if you admit it's uncommon, then why would you then say it's hard for you to see that point of view with that sort of thing going on, unless you assume it goes one more often. Let's not pretend you are open to a change in point of view when you clearly are unlikely to.

It is difficult to bridge the gap of misunderstanding with common sense if you do not try..

But you didn't answer the question, on what grounds would you oppose it?? I am not allowed to oppose homosexual unions, I am called bigoted and homophobic, so I was wondering on what grounds you would oppose other unions..since my moral standards don't believe in homosexual unions, I oppose them, but belive that they have the right to have laws passed giving them the right to do so. If my moral standards are not to be considered and many others standards are not to be considered,by what standard prevents you from excepting or allowing those other unions??

It is sad that this private school chose to take their homophobia out on children that are there to learn. While I do understand that people have the choice whether or not to go to private schools such as this one, I can't understand how people would think it's ok to expel a student based on their sexual orientation. It's definitely sending the wrong message to children and teaching them to be close minded. Is that what we really need? More people growing up to be close minded and homophobic?

Do you also find couples who don't have kids to be unnatural? Since they're not reproducing?

I'm not demeaning anyone. I'm saying I think it's sad to be so close minded and to be able to teach kids that by expelling some because of sexual preference. If you think that's perfectly fine and normal.. then it's your right. Just as it's my right to be amazed that people still think that way.

So, hypothetically, if I'm the headmaster of a private school, is it my right to decide that no black students are allowed in join?

I think this sort of discrimination should be illegal whether a school is public or private. ...

And here I am amazed that anyone still uses that crap about accusing anyone of not believing people are born gay, and that it is basically a birth defect (has to be, if gay were in any way normal or natural it would end the species, no brainer people) as being homophobic. I COMPLETELY disagree with a lot of things, especially your attitude, but sure as hell not afraid of you, or any of them. That is just the way dems/liberals operate. Only liberties allowed, especially freedom of opinion, are for their ideas. Pretty much the opposite of liberal. And all this tolerance gays try to demand, where is their tolerance for anyone not like them?

And here I am amazed that anyone still uses that crap about accusing anyone of not believing people are born gay, and that it is basically a birth defect (has to be, if gay were in any way normal or natural it would end the species, no brainer people) as being homophobic. I COMPLETELY disagree with a lot of things, especially your attitude, but sure as hell not afraid of you, or any of them. That is just the way dems/liberals operate. Only liberties allowed, especially freedom of opinion, are for their ideas. Pretty much the opposite of liberal. And all this tolerance gays try to demand, where is their tolerance for anyone not like them?

Some people just don't like it when others are allowed their rights. And keep in mind people, California already shot down the gay "marriage" BS, so what would you expect?

Yes, the private schools should have the right to allow or disallow anyone, and they do, keep in mind that we already have "black" colleges and clubs. Are you trying to imply that they should be forced to open their enrollment along with these other private schools?

This is pretty much the same issue as when they passed the non smoking laws and stole the rights of small business owners to decide who could do what in their establishments. That was wrong. If these schools can afford or don't care about the loss of tuition from gays, that is their perogative.

Considering you started with that particular hypocritical example, just shows that you don't understand the question here. I thought it was about being fair to everyone, and there is nothing fair about the way blacks discriminate against whites, and anyone else when convenient, with their black colleges, BET, Chocolate News... As long as blacks discriminate the way they do, I will call BS on their racism just like that of any other group. And these types are REALLY crawling out of the wood work these days. The election was a perfect example of just how much racism and discrimination blacks are more than willing to dish out, and then lie claiming they are the ones being discriminated against.