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 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??

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

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...

;-)

I was referring more to the disgusting animal thing.. I haven't seen multiple marriages as a percentage, all that healthy for relationships but I don't' know enough about it to condemn it.

I find noting about your statement about unions to be at fault, I have said the same thing. If there are laws that provide for that, then it is legal and acceptble for society.

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. ^_^

Religous schools are extentions of the church..and protected by the constitution, this is plainly stated, you may not like it, but you have the freedom to either except it or stay away from it, that is the choice that everyone has. Laws that discriminate?? you've got to be kidding, most anti-discrimination laws are by nature discrimitory to someone. When a white male applies for entrance into a public school, anti-discrimination laws prevent him from attending even if he is the most qualified person to apply. Intead he will be turned away and someone of another ethnic group will take the place that he should rightly get..isn't that discrimination?? I think so. You cannot right the wrongs of the past by continuing or refocusing the discrimination to another group..

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..

When the movement for equality for gay people was starting, people were saying that I could not use my moral standards to discriminate against them, and so I wanted to know by what standard should laws be made..if you throw out all faith based beliefs and laws that are perceived as faith based, then there are no common moral standards by which to make laws based on...you say humane moral standards...wouldn't that arguement be a bad one because...who is to establish humane moral standards...since all standards are perceived to be different by many different people?? I know it can be confusing and maybe I am not making clear, but if people say we cannot use past moral standards to pass laws to prevent discrimination..there has to be a standard that is common and stable enough to base our decisions on, otherwise there would be chaos..What is ok for me is not ok for you, and what is ok for you may not be ok for someone else..how can you make laws that have no baseline standard?

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...that is what discussion is all about, not to change one's perspective..

That's right, so when are you going to try? Ok that's my last smart ass remark, I am bored with this line of discussion it's been discussed to 'death' in Mingle. And the outcome is always the same.

A union between two homosexuals is still between two people. Just like a marriage between a man and woman. Where do the extra people come from? Or the animals? I'm not even sure how they came into the discussion. The point is a union between two people (man/woman, man/man, woman/woman) should be allowed.

My question in all of this is how did they even know the kid was gay? Overly promiscuous in school? THAT should get kids booted from any school. As a parent of a teenager (second time LOL the other is a LOT older) I am sick to death of what goes on in schools, and how the rules of decent conduct seem to have all but evaporated. I say, there should have been no reason to even mention or disclose the sexuality of any kid, because there is no place for that in any school. Only sexual anything that should be going on is the lessons in health class.

Ok, yeah, and I am sick of those perv boys coming after my kids just because she bloomed into a little hottie LOL So I have a short fuse on this one maybe LOL

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?

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.

If I didn't tolerate anyone that isn't like me I certainly wouldn't have joined mingle. And all my friends wouldn't be straight they would be gay and they aren't. Gays tolerate a lot more than you think. But if you aren't aware of that then this will be wasted on you.

I don't care what people assume or think gay people are, whether born that way or otherwise. It's my life, not theirs.

I didn't mean afraid as in fearful. I meant that people are often afraid others might think they are gay by association, or that their children might become gay if they are around gays. It doesn't work that way but you can't explain to people who know very little if anything about it.

I am not asking you or anyone for tolerance. Maybe some gays are or some straights that don't have a problem with it are asking for tolerance. I am not. You really have no choice but to tolerate it, just as I must tolerate people that don't like it.

People can hate my guts but I got over caring about acceptance 40 years ago. You either do or you don't, and that's that. Considering I have been around a lot in life I rarely run into people with a problem with gays, thankfully.

Wow. That's all I have to say.

My child has attended two Christian elementary schools. They do have more of an open enrollment then people realize. They don't discriminate and children of all colors can attend the schools and are welcomed. There is a lesbian couple that have two daughters attending the school. The couple have had no problems with the school.

Black colleges are not discrimination. They are a minority and they're helping their own with college. White people are allowed to attend if they desire to do so. There are all women colleges too. There are Lutheran, Baptist, Jewish, and Catholic colleges too. Are they discriminating?

Why can't they have a TV station that caters to them when it's always been about white people on all of the other stations since TV first started? They wouldn't have to do it if they had fair representation on TV. I don't see discrimination there either.

This election? How is that showing discrimination by black people?