Off-Topic Hang out with people and talk about whatever. Feel free to suggest a better description for this forum as everyone seems to have an opinion. :D

TrollandToad.com
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old July 27th, 2012 (8:59 PM). Edited September 5th, 2012 by NarutoActor.
NarutoActor's Avatar
NarutoActor NarutoActor is offline
The rocks cry out to me
  • Silver Tier
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brooklyn/Marlboro
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Nature: Bashful
Posts: 1,979
Since the topic of gay marriage has come up, and some people then to think that gay marriage is only a religious problem, I thought I would make some arguments that have nothing to do with religion!

Preface:
First of all, I have nothing against homosexuals, and I feel that they have been bullied because of their choice, which is wrong. I believe there is a right and wrong way to life, however I do feel that bulling is absolutely wrong. And as such I would not liked to be bullied myself because of my opposing views. So please try to be mature when replying to any of my arguments, do not take the personal, and try to be nice. If you feel that I am wrong, yelling at me, and calling me names will not help your cause.

Tradition:
"Tradition enables us to isolate the new against a background of permanence, and to transfer its merit to originality, to genius, to the decisions proper to individuals" (FOUCAULT, The archaeology of knowledge)
It is tradition that enables people to view their current situation and evaluate it against the past. If the past made a mistake, lets not make the same one, if the past succeeded lets continue with that action. It is documented that any ancient civilization fell right at the time, that they started to accept homosexuality. (Romans, and Greek) The most successful society have all started with the concept of traditional marriage, one between a man, and a women.

Marriage is a right:
This statement is not true, people assume that marriage is a right, and that if marriage is a right then gay marriage becomes a civil rights problem. However marriage is limited to hetersexuals as well. Roughly half of all states do not allow first cousins from marrying, and all do not allow marriage of closer blood relatives, even if said individuals are sterile. In all states, it is ileagal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more then one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphillis, or other veneral deieses. Therefore, homosexuality is not the only group to be excluded form marriage.

Constitutionality:
The 14th amendment and the "Privileges and emmunity clause", along with the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, states that any right given in one state, must be carried over to an other, one said person moves or leaves. As such it is in direct contract with the federal government law, DOMA. Doma (Defense of marriage act) States that no state or authority can be forced to recognize a same sex marriage. But if a person obtains a marriage from one state, he or she can more to another state, and that state would be forced to recognize said marriage because of the 14th amendment, and the privileges and emunitys clause of the amendment. As such Doma is still in effect, and to keep the purity, and purpose of the law, states should not be able to determine marriage. It should be a federal issue. Doma was passed the senate on September 10th, (1996) by a vote of 85 to 14. A overwhelming majority. Going against this law would be going against democracy, and American values.

Legality (US)
For reference, the 14th says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.




So, that means that a state is forbidden from doing three things:

1) Reducing the rights or privileges granted to people by the federal government.
2) Take away a person's life, liberty or property without due process
3) Exclude people from the protections offered by state laws

Marriage is not a right or privilege granted by the federal government, so #1 is out.

#2 The state needs to prove that they are giving due process under the law, with that process being usable while treating homosexuals differently. becuase of court classification which I will better explain in point #3

#3 is a bit tougher to make. It sounds very clear cut- states can't deny any person equal protection of the laws. But in practice that super clear cut interpretation doesn't really work. For example, a felon can't vote, a young person can't claim benefits designed for the elderly and a person who isn't handicapped can't get a handicapped license plate. States realistically have to be able to control what laws apply to which people to some extent or you just end up with an absurd situation. So, the courts have devised a three tiered system for the characteristics that states could potentially use and different burdens of proof for them:

Strict scrutiny- states can only discriminate if they have a "compelling state interest" and the way they are discriminating is "narrowly tailored" to that state interest. What that means is basically that they need a really, really, important goal and there basically isn't any other way they could accomplish that goal. Virtually no law ever survives strict scrutiny in the 14th amendment context.

Intermediate scrutiny- states can only discriminate if they have an "important state interest" and the way they are discriminating is "substantially related" to that interest. This is basically just a weaker version of strict scrutiny. The state needs to be doing it to further an important goal and the discrimination needs to have something that ties it pretty closely to that goal. Laws often survive intermediate scrutiny.

Rational basis- this means that states can discriminate so long as they have some kind of a rational explanation for why they're doing it. The court doesn't need to agree with that reasoning, they just need to find that the state is acting rationally. Virtually any law will survive rational basis analysis (although not always).

Different characteristics of a person fall into different ones of these categories. Race, religion and national origin are in the strict scrutiny category. The only characteristic in the intermediate scrutiny category is sex. It makes sense to have that there because there are some things that states just need to do to treat men and women differently- for example, separate bathrooms or accommodations for pregnancy, etc. But, the courts also want to be able to prevent flat out sex discrimination. So they keep it in the middle tier and pretty much decide case by case. Everything else is in the rational basis category.

The economic problem:
When the state recognizes marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Producing Children:
Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

What about artificial insemination? What about the children?
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

You compared homosexuality to what?
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. Race is also something that a person is
(A) born into, and (B) can not change
While homosexuality is something that you chose. Now there are some who say that you are born that way, but you can pretend to be straight, and you can always chose not to act on those homosexual impulses. Being born with something does not excuse it. Studies have shown that thieves, and other criminals, have cretin brain differences compared to the average person as such, if a thief was to say, "I was born this way" they would not be excused.

Gay marriage is not necessary:
there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

The slippery slope argument:
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

Ending:
As you can see I took a lot of time and effort into this so again, please make mature thought provoking response not simple disillusioned ones.
__________________
~There are those people who understand hex, F the rest

Relevant Advertising!

  #2    
Old July 27th, 2012 (9:58 PM).
Golurks Were Meant to Fly's Avatar
Golurks Were Meant to Fly Golurks Were Meant to Fly is offline
NERF THIS!
  • Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: America, East Coast
Gender: Male
Nature: Adamant
Posts: 1,273
Tradition

A country that bases it's laws on tradition is a poor one. Say that in my country, most men traditionally wear a yamaka. Does that mean every man should have to wear a yamaka and be fined if he doesn't? That's ridiculous.

"It is documented that any ancient civilization fell right at the time, that they started to accept homosexuality. (Romans, and Greek) The most successful society have all started with the concept of traditional marriage, one between a man, and a women."

This is incredibly subjective, and kinda inaccurate. The Roman empire was incredibly successful! As for the Greeks, their culture was around for 4,000 years or so, you call that unsuccessful? The USA is only 200 years old, and look where we're at.

Marriage is a right

So what, it's a privilege only heterosexuals get to have? The word privilege entails unfairness, and just because that's how things are right now, doesn't mean it's how things have to/should stay. As for first cousins etc. there's a reason. Do you know what comes from incest? Disease, limited gene pool, health problems, genetic disorders, the list goes on and on. And polygamy IS legal (have you heard of the show Sister Wives?)

Constitutionality

"But if a person obtains a marriage from one state, he or she can more to another state, and that state would be forced to recognize said marriage"

This isn't true. Other states do NOT recognize a homosexual marriage. I find it unconstitutional that there are laws against allowing people to be happy and financially secure.

The Economic Problem

So if a there is heterosexual marriage that ends with no children, or where one of the partners is sterile, you think it should be disbanded (just using your reasoning) America is already overpopulated as is, and a smaller population would solve food shortages, job unemployment etc. Wouldn't that HELP the economy? And why can't two people who love each other be financially secure in the case of the others death. Because they're both the same gender? Really?

Producing Children

So basically it's "TOO MUCH OF A HASSLE" too ban sterile couples or elderly couples because they can't reproduce, but it's okay to ban a happy couple because their both men/women. I don't really think this ever really comes into play anyway...

"Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest"

I see. Since homosexuals can't reproduce, they don't deserve security. Adoption. (but I'll go more into detail in your next point)
Also, since when did heterosexuals need a wedding band on their finger to get drunk and make a child. Come on now.

What about artificial insemination? What about the children?


If every heterosexual parent was perfect, I'd see some sense in this argument. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Some parents are horrible, really terrible people. Just because a child's may not have a mother or father, does NOT mean their parents are bad, or that they don't have mother or father figures in their life. With this logic, single parents shouldn't exist. Are you proposing that a child be taken away from a parent because the father left or the mother died at birth or something similar? Because that is the logical next step in this argument.

You compared homosexuality to what?

This is my favorite so far, since you hypocritically compared gays to thieves.

Anyways, (A) people ARE born gay (although it's also shaped by their environment, their relationships etc) and (B) it can't be changed. Your solution to (B) appears to be pretending, yet that's not a solution. What you seem to be saying is that homosexuals should live a lie and be not allow themselves to be happy to keep the heterosexuals happy. You're kidding, right?

Gay Marriage Is Not necessary

Neither is Straight marriage. But that's like saying locks on your doors aren't necessary. (also, said lock is cool looking) Sure they aren't, but it provides security and makes you happy (because it looks cool) Not the best metaphor, I know, but I hope you get my point.

The slippery slope argument

Polygamy already exists, and we know the problems with incest.

"But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction"

Exactly! Your other points are all about how two people need to have interlocking parts, yet you're suddenly against that?! Love is what should fuel a marriage, and like it or not, sex IS a part of love a lot of the time. It sounds like you're saying homosexuals only know sexual love...?

"When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious."

This has never been the purpose of marriage. As much as you try to remain secular, the only reason marriage has to do with procreation IS religion so...

Ending

I will say that I do applaud you not basing your argument on religion and following religion blindly. Thank you, because that is INCREDIBLY annoying.
__________________
  #3    
Old July 27th, 2012 (11:41 PM).
Keiran's Avatar
Keiran Keiran is online now
Fight Off Your Demons
  • Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Jersey
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Nature: Careful
Posts: 2,466
Tradition:
We are not ancient societies, and their acceptance of homosexuality had no impact on their downfall. This is absurd.

Marriage is a right:
Marriage used to be a way of handing down property to offspring, it was not about love. Marriage has changed since then, no one is someones property. It is a right for anyone to marry whom they want, if both parties consent.

Constitutionality:
If by American values you mean bigotry and having subhuman intellect, sure.

The economic problem:
So because they don't benefit your bank account they shouldn't be allowed to marry? This makes no sense.

Producing Children:
This is ridiculous. Have you never heard of surrogacy? If you're that worried about the economy, homosexuals often adopt unwanted children that live off taxes and are raised horribly.

What about artificial insemination? What about the children?
A persons sex does not define their gender role. Children that are raised by homosexual couples are capable of being raised the same and come out just fine, often better.

You compared homosexuality to what?
All of your topics make it seem like homosexual marriage is illegal because it's of no benefit to the economy.

Gay marriage is not necessary:
Again...you're just worried about what's "costly" to the state....Why do we even live at all? Living costs the state money. We should just all die so the state can save its precious money!

The slippery slope argument:
I'm sure that polygamy will be argued for soon. One thing at a time, you can't rush stubborn conservatives you know!
__________________
Mod of Trade Corner| Pair | Trainer Information

When kings upon the main have clung to pride
And held themselves as masters of the sea
I've held them down beneath the crushing tide
Till they have learned that no one masters me
  #4    
Old July 28th, 2012 (3:18 AM). Edited July 28th, 2012 by Mana.
Mana's Avatar
Mana Mana is offline
  • Platinum Tier
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: UK
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,026
Tradition:
The Greeks and Romans prospered amazingly well, and brought SO many things that are still around today. I don't think you can say any form of homosexuality was their downfall.

Marriage is a right:
I would have to agree with above poster, Marriage has numerous purposes, and originally it was about wealth - property and pairing up your child to the wealthiest family you could. Nothing to do with children per se.

Constitutionality:
I really don't care for he US constitution so I'll skip over this.

The economic problem:
You know what happens when people get married? HUGEEE parties. You know who like to have fabulous* parties? Us homosexuals. Big parties = Big spending.

* Ironic fabulous.

Producing Children:
Sterile people aren't banned from marriage, neither are people with Syphilis (I mean, do priests go and check? It's certainly not a question you get asked).

What about artificial insemination? What about the children?
So single parents should have their children away. You forget that children do not become mini versions of their parents - there are role models in school, in the extended family, etc.

If you're going to quote from supposed sources you should probably link them. Since I have access to some research databases - I'll find some!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marks, 2012
Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hart et al., 2012
An estimated 14 million children are parented by gay or lesbian couples. Research indicates that children of same-sex parents are as well adjusted as their peers of opposite-sex parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potter, 2012
Children in traditional families (i.e., married, 2 biological parents) tend to do better than their peers in nontraditional families. An exception to this pattern appears to be children from same-sex parent families. Children with lesbian mothers or gay fathers do not exhibit the poorer outcomes typically associated with nontraditional families.
And here are some additional links, since I can't link directly to the university database: 1 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patterson, 2008
To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise comparable circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harris and Turner, 2010
The findings suggest that being homosexual is clearly compatible with effective parenting and is not a major issue in parents' relationships with their children.
You compared homosexuality to what?
I've been waiting to get to this section.

If Gay people can 'choose' to be straight, and just act straight, what is the difference between that and Black people being able to 'choose' to be white, ala Michael Jackson. The fact of the matter is it's not a choice, Jackson was still black no matter how many operations and procedures he underwent - someone is still gay no matter how many women they /pretend to/ sleep with.

Gay marriage is not necessary:
Neither is straight marriage. Neither are a lot of things. I mean if we weren't all so conservative clothing wouldn't be necessary. The way you're using 'necessary' is bias to you - because a gay marriage isn't needed in your life. However, yes it is necessary for some - those who need the economic stability, those who need to marry the one they love to be able to get a visa, those gays and lesbians who are religious and want to get married in a church.

The slippery slope argument:
The thing is, these problems aren't part of the same slope - they're all very separate things. Maybe this is just me but I don't see anything wrong with (non-baby producing) incest. Incest has happened in the past, it only really became taboo recently and no doubt there is plenty of incest happening anyway in the world. Two, consenting adults over the age of 18? Why not.


Also, I would like to point out that my ideal situation is that gay marriage is legalised, but individual priests are not forced in to doing them. I am perfectly satisfied if I can just ship a willing priest to my local church. Thereby nobody is forced to do something against their beliefs.
  #5    
Old July 28th, 2012 (6:38 AM).
Bluerang1's Avatar
Bluerang1 Bluerang1 is offline
pin pin
     
    Join Date: May 2009
    Location: Hiougi City
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Relaxed
    Posts: 2,548
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
    You compared homosexuality to what?
    Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. Race is also something that a person is
    (A) born into, and (B) can not change
    While homosexuality is something that you chose. Now there are some who say that you are born that way, but you can pretend to be straight, and you can always chose not to act on those homosexual impulses. Being born with something does not excuse it. Studies have shown that thieves, and other criminals, have cretin brain differences compared to the average person as such, if a thief was to say, "I was born this way" they would not be excused.
    .
    God bless you so much!

    I've always wanted to see a secular view on this topic. Thank you for enlightening me.
    __________________
    3DS Friend Code: 1204-0601-9485
    Pokémon X
    Post on my wall if you add me so I can add you!
      #6    
    Old July 28th, 2012 (7:43 AM).
    Shiny Celebi Shiny Celebi is offline
    • Gold Tier
     
    Join Date: Jun 2011
    Posts: 2,402
    I'd like to offer my opinions on these arguments:
    Traditionyes eterosexuality may be traditional and successful societies are mostly heterosexual, but I just do not see how gay people getting married messes that up. Traditions can be broken, and that isn't always a bad thing. I really don't see how accepting gay marriage would harm society.

    Marriage is a right That's not true, I will give you that one. Certain things should be restricted, such as an adult marrying a child for obvious reasons,and I'll agree blood reletives shouldn't marry.

    Constitutionality
    Personally, I view it as unconstitutional to not allow gays to be married and to bar gay marriage from state to state. I don't see how banning gay marriage benefits the country at all actually

    Economic
    I don't really believe most people get married for tax benefits.

    Producing children
    Really? I don't understand how not producing children is so bad. So what? Not everyone wants children even straight couples. I don't want children, and may want to be married some day, does that make my marriage invalid? I really don't think so. I'm not planning n marrying to have kids, that isn't what marriage is about nowadays. You can contribute to society without bearing children, such as helping people in need and such.

    Gay marriage is not nessesary
    Some gay people want to be married, marriage isn't a nessesity even straight marriage.

    The slippery slope argument
    Ok, I really don't think this is much of a reason for not allowing gay marriage. I really don't think it will go down this slippery slope at all. Marriage isn't all about sex.
      #7    
    Old July 28th, 2012 (8:10 AM). Edited July 28th, 2012 by Zoachu.
    Zoachu's Avatar
    Zoachu Zoachu is offline
    Pikachu?
       
      Join Date: Jul 2012
      Location: Maryland
      Age: 18
      Gender: Female
      Nature: Sassy
      Posts: 81
      It's not relevant to compare thieves to homosexuality. What has being gay ever done to hurt anyone?




      Thought Damon Fizzy was appropriate here.
      __________________
      Pika Pika? PIKACHU!
        #8    
      Old July 28th, 2012 (8:52 AM). Edited July 28th, 2012 by Starsprite.
      Starsprite's Avatar
      Starsprite Starsprite is offline
      This is how we live!
         
        Join Date: Jun 2012
        Location: TN
        Age: 20
        Gender: Female
        Nature: Quiet
        Posts: 290
        Tradition:
        How do you think that society has advanced so far? Certainly not by following any traditions. In fact, I'd have to say that abandoning tradition and coming up with new ideas is what propels society along.

        Honestly I think that some things were left in the past for a reason.

        And no, the Greeks and the Romans didn't fall from power because of homosexuality. That's ridiculous.

        Marriage is a right:
        How about this: We refer strictly to homosexual marriage as having all the current stipulations for marriage. That would be limited but equal, right? Think of it as being the exact same thing as heterosexual marriage, with two unrelated, of age people marrying each other, but as two people of the same gender. The other issues can be dealt with as they come. If brothers and sisters suddenly start wanting to marry then protest that as a separate instance.

        To say that we should not allow gay marriage to pass because it might make other restricted couples want to marry is the same as saying we should ban marriage because it makes those same couples want to marry. They wouldn't want to marry if marriage didn't exist, after all.

        Constitutionality:
        I actually kind of fail to see your point here. What are these American Values you speak of? I live in this the US, and I'm pretty sure we don't buy in to the same values. Funny story.

        The economic problem:
        It's hard enough to find a job as it is. How will having more children do anything for the economy whatsoever? I can't see how overpopulation is a profitable thing. Besides, they can adopt if you really want them 'having children'. It gets kids off the streets and into a situation where they'll become productive to society. And since this is all about money, productivity is all that really matters.

        Producing Children:
        Again, they can adopt. Or, to put it a little less bluntly, they can take the child that a straight couple neglected to take care of and raise them into someone who has a chance at real life. Or does that not count? Obviously there would the same types of people who don't want kids, but since the Thought Police haven't come about yet...

        What about artificial insemination? What about the children?
        Gender roles, gender roles. Now that isn't quite fair, I'd say. Gender doesn't define behavior, and it doesn't necessarily define the type of parenting a person will do. Besides, I would say it's relatively offensive to say that a person can't grow up without the guidance of a person from both sexes. After all, there are a lot of people that were raised by single parents that would like to believe that they're not somehow screwed up.

        You compared homosexuality to what?
        Maybe I'm missing something, but it's seems like you're the ones making the comparisons here.

        Gay marriage is not necessary:
        Marriage is not necessary. I would like to request that nobody ever get married, in this case, because it will probably be expensive.

        The slippery slope argument:
        Again. Please treat these things as separate instances. Please. You can debate about all of these things when it's their time. Right now (if the title is to be believed) we are discussing gay marriage.
        __________________
          #9    
        Old July 28th, 2012 (10:50 AM).
        Esper's Avatar
        Esper Esper is offline
        • Silver Tier
         
        Join Date: Jun 2009
        Location: California
        Posts: 10,651
        Apologies if I repeat anything anyone has already said, but I've only skimmed through most of the responses.

        Tradition
        How ironic that you quote Foucault, who was himself gay. You have reduced the fall of the Roman Empire to its acceptance of homosexuality. Are you saying that their acceptance caused the fall (if so, prove it) or that in their fall they accepted homosexuality? If the latter, there is really no point to this historical anecdote as there is no relation to the two events. You also need to understand, speaking in historical terms, that the kind of marriage we have today (that of marrying someone you love) was not the norm for most of history, and that the idea of homosexuality, or romantic love for that matter, was not the same thing it is today. Marriage in much of history was a business arrangement, something that has changed over time. So marriage's meaning can, and should, have changed since its inception.
        Marriage as a right
        You say that it isn't a right because other forms of marriage are not allowed. Perhaps those other forms of marriages are rights as well, and are similarly being taken away from people. If some place outlawed heterosexual marriage, would you accept that?
        Constitutionality
        You argue that in order to keep DOMA legal we shouldn't let states determine who can be married, and should let the federal government determine it, as DOMA has done. This would be trying to make a loophole around the 14th Amendment. Clearly, the 14th Amendment shows how the Constitution supports the rights of a state to legalize a marriage and the requirement of other states to respect that. Regardless of the fact that DOMA was passed, it should be unconstitutional. Plenty of laws are passed, even by large majorities, that should not be allowed to exist and that is why there are other branches of government, like the courts, to make sure that the majority do not infringe on the rights of minorities. That DOMA hasn't been stricken from law or repealed is just a show of how slow government works and/or the failure of out courts and legislative bodies.
        Producing Children
        You argue that marriage exists for children. Since it's already well established and broadly accepted that people who are sterile, infertile, or otherwise do not plan to have children can marry, the arguments of excluding gay couples from marriage on the assumption that they cannot have children is totally invalid. And what are you talking about, saying that elderly couples marrying is "so rare"?

        Gay people don't have to prove that the states have an interest in letting them marry. States have to prove they have a valid interest in preventing gay people from marrying.

        The argument you're making is getting contradictory, now that you say lesbian couples don't need marriage to have children. Then why do heterosexual people need marriage? You're arguing that marriage isn't actually important for children after all.
        You compared homosexuality to what?
        You're making more procreation arguments, but I've already shown how those don't hold up. Homosexuality is also something you're A) born into, and B) cannot change. Don't compare criminality to homosexuality, by the way. Saying "I was born this way" is a legitimate, honest statement when referring to one's sexual orientation, but laughable when taking about being a crook. No comparison.
        Gay Marriage Is Not Necessary
        Straight marriage is also not necessary. But ya have it, and ya like having it. Let gay people have it, too.
        The slippery slope argument:
        Stop saying the purpose of marriage is procreation. You've already given good arguments yourself why this isn't the case. I've give you more. And if marriage between two men were legal that would not allow marriage among three, five, or anything more than two people. There is no slippery slope. It's a level field and you've just stuck your flag at one point while rational arguments say that the flag should be in another place.

        In conclusion, the arguments you provide rely on the assumption that marriage is primarily for procreative reasons and that homosexuality is a choice. Importantly, you don't address the importance of personal choice as much as you really should. After all, if marriage is for procreative as you say, then why aren't more people forced to get married, forced to have children, or more children? Because we have freedom and choice to live our lives as we want to. Ultimately it harms no one if gay people get married. So why try to stop it?
        __________________
          #10    
        Old August 13th, 2012 (3:50 PM).
        Altix's Avatar
        Altix Altix is offline
        Son of a Snivy and a Zoroark
           
          Join Date: Aug 2012
          Location: Cda' Idaho
          Age: 18
          Gender: Male
          Nature: Docile
          Posts: 71
          I believe the constitution also supports equal rights. If your a thief then there will be a victim, with homosexuality there is no victim.
            #11    
          Old August 13th, 2012 (8:25 PM).
          Original_Blastoise's Avatar
          Original_Blastoise Original_Blastoise is offline
             
            Join Date: Jul 2012
            Location: Goldenrod City
            Age: 22
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Quiet
            Posts: 27
            It's not a choice. It's how they are. So not letting them be who they are. Restricting who they can love is pretty messed up.
            __________________
            3ds FC: 1607 2463 5026
              #12    
            Old August 13th, 2012 (8:54 PM).
            droomph's Avatar
            droomph droomph is offline
            weeb
            • Crystal Tier
             
            Join Date: Sep 2011
            Location: nowhere spectacular
            Age: 20
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Impish
            Posts: 4,291
            Tradition:
            Allowing homosexuality was a effect, not a cause, of their downfall. Though they may have not been too keen on the idea either, the fact that they allowed it wasn't the reason the invaders came.

            Marriage is a right:
            It isn't a privilege to any one sort of person. And you mentioned that first cousins aren't allowed to marry - that is because biologically that is the worst idea to have in reproduction. We then become vulnerable to the same diseases, family diseases can't breed out, and generally it will cost them more money than it's worth. However, in gay marriage, the wors that could happen is being ridiculed by people, which is not so much a government-spending issue as it is intolerance. Therefore, it's up to the gay couples to decide whether or not they want to go through that crap.

            Constitutionality:
            The hell? The constitution has nothing about marriage, much less gay marriage.

            The economic problem:
            Who cares? They'll work it off if it has to come to that.

            Producing Children:
            Two problems...

            1) Lesbian couples can have two offspring at once through artificial insemination. I say that's cool.
            2) Even though I am gay, I will go ahead and say homosexuality is evolutionarily a bad idea. So naturally only a few individuals in every population will be homosexual. That means that the heterosexual couples can more than compensate for the children lost. And because of high poverty rates all around there needs to be somebody solely devoted on adoptions, so that those "surplus" children (not that they're useless though) can be taken care of and receive the same psychological and physiological care a biological parent can do. And gay parents can do just as well as straight - with the advent of formula, breastmilk is not necessary (though it is a better idea). And even so, there are websites in which you can buy breastmilk if you're really that desperate.

            Gay marriage is not necessary:

            Gay marriage isn't necessary, you are correct. But who cares about the loss of money? They have enough money being wasted on bailouts and whatnot, that they could take a tiny sliver off that budget, and it would more than compensate for the costs gay people produce!

            The slippery slope argument:
            Again, you are pretending it is state mandated that we become gay. It isn't sayin that - just as interracial marriage benefited only a small portion of the population, it is the same here. Being a gay dude myself I can tell you it's as natural as boobies to us to like man parts. Preventing gay marriage is like saying eating is immoral. It's a part of us, and the more we (at least me) keep it in, the more it hurts, physically and psychologically. I hate women sexually, so why are you forcing me to do something I hated? I would never force you to be raped (that's what it feels like, honestly), and thus this is something you should just allow us to express. It's not a danger to traditional marriage. If anything, it should make it stronger.

            Just like the suicide topic, I invite you to think about the premises before making an argument.

            Oh and just to tell you straight marriage isn't necessary either. If that was the case every animal would be paired for life. But as you can see, some just mate and split (like snakes or sharks). That's not a marriage; therefore, marriage is not necessary, gay or straight. It is simply something a few species have developed for extraneous purposes, so an extraneous form of marriage shouldn't be morally wrong.
            __________________
            did u no there r 21 letters in the alphabet
            o i forgot 5
            uraqt


              #13    
            Old August 17th, 2012 (10:00 PM).
            Ayutac's Avatar
            Ayutac Ayutac is offline
            Developer who wants your help
               
              Join Date: Dec 2011
              Location: Germany
              Age: 26
              Gender: Male
              Posts: 157
              I'm probably just repeating others, but I will start with my response to the thread opener and respond other opinions later.

              Quote:
              Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
              My secular arguments agaisnt gay marriage.
              Oh, that will be fun...

              Quote:
              Tradition
              Tradition is bad thing, you know? Is bad in bible, bad in Koran and of course in social life. Tradition for the sake of tradition means carrying on the unnecessary and being afraid of changes. Tradition for the sake of it's usefulness is another thing, but this should be proved by your other statements then. We'll see.
              Quote:
              It is tradition that enables people to view their current situation and evaluate it against the past.
              No, my dear. That's what's called history. Tradition is something like "We did celebrate the new year all the last years, so let it do next year again."
              Learning from history is like "Oh, they (politicans without asking the people first) allowed using the Bundeswehr to strike within Germany, last time our army was allowed to do that we started a World War, so someone should go to the politicans and kick the resposible ones (the CDU, a kinda "traditional" party) out of the parlament."

              Quote:
              Marriage is a right {+ proper context}
              Saying "it's not bad since other's aren't allowed it either" is again a very weak statement. So it's not bad that I would get beaten up in Guantanamo because the other prisoners are not allowed to be there without pain either? It's not really different from what you said because negleting the homosexuals (and others as well as you said) the "right" for marriage can hurt them psychially.

              Quote:
              Roughly half of all states do not allow first cousins from marrying, and all do not allow marriage of closer blood relatives, even if said individuals are sterile.
              And why is that a good thing?

              Quote:
              In all states, it is ileagal to attempt to marry more than one person
              2 Minutes of Google. Maybe you were just refering to the USA, but seriously, the USA is not really a democratic state anymore. And well, time is coming I have to fight for Germany not to get in the same misery as the USA...

              Quote:
              Constitutionality
              The USA has a huge problem: They can't change their constitution without breaking it first. Sorry for you.
              Quote:
              Doma was passed the senate on September 10th, (1996) by a vote of 85 to 14. A overwhelming majority. Going against this law would be going against democracy, and American values.
              This may be news for you, but humans can do the wrong things, politicans may not listen to the people, laws could be stupid and Doma could be from a time when people thought of homosexuals very different than you (not being okay with them).
              Well, to give you a better example, Abraham Lincoln was clearly against slavery, but everybody had slaves just like hundred years ago so he was clearly going against democracy and American values. What was that with learning from HistoryTraditions?
              Always funny to find contradictions in one's statements.

              Quote:
              The economic problem
              Without reading further at this point, this will probably the weakest argument so far. *reading* Oh yeah, it is. The same as "Let's not prevent pollution, this will endanger workplaces in fabrics!" You know, don't work against terroism, that will endanger workplaces in the army and weapon industry! Also about costs, weren't slaves a lot cheaper than actual workers? You thinking there is a difference? Then explain the difference between a black person who's restricted in his/her rights and a gay person restricted in his/her rights. Since freedom is valued higher than marriage, let's just assume black people wouldn't be allowed to marry.
              Quote:
              Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage.
              Oh well.
              Quote:
              (B) [race] can not change
              First off, it is possible with surgeons or via deseases (Michael Jackson), second there may be people who can't change their sexual identification either, they just can try to hide it and live unhappyly on. Like jews under nazis.
              Quote:
              and propagation of society is a compelling state interest
              I wouldn't take that as a given. The economy of the USA is broken, their main exports are wars and weapons. For example, the theory of AIDS being developed by human is fearsome and cruel, but thinkable.

              Quote:
              Producing Children
              This is just "Constitution" and "Economics" together, so no real point either.

              Quote:
              What about artificial insemination? What about the children?
              Wasn't going to say anything about that point, but you just had it coming with
              Quote:
              However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development.
              Are you saying that children without both parents get some kind of unnormal. My dear, do you know what takes most parents from children? Weapons. And Americans seem to love weapons. What was that with ensuring proper development? And in addition, doesn't China also give a lot of restrictions to families? Hm....
              Quote:
              The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy
              Is this belief the reason why women are treated like **** in America? Well, then go in the KITCHEN AND MAKE ME SOMETHING!
              Quote:
              so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes
              If a child would only learn from its parents, I could agree with you. But it is not like that.
              Quote:
              Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay
              That sounds like you think the second part would be as bad as the first. What was it with you not being against homosexuals?

              Quote:
              Race is also something that a person is (A) born into [...] Being born with something does not excuse it.
              Do you listen to yourself? The last "argument" had a stupidy over 9000!

              Quote:
              Studies have shown that thieves, and other criminals, have cretin brain differences compared to the average person
              I'm not even saying that it is impossible to prove a person is not a thief and I'm not ranting on the stupidy of the study itself. I'm just saying there is a study that 92.1% of all studies are made up and a study that says 43.3242123% of all studies have a precision they can't reason mathematically. If you don't get the jokes (I wouldn't be judging you – you could be born with it but that doesn't excuses you), I say there exists studies that are made up and this one probably belongs to them. I mean, did you know the USA sell their prisoners to private men and GRANTED A FILL RATE? How to do that? Is there a percentage of USA citizens that is "evil" by default? (Rhetorical question, I know their parlament is full of it ;) ) Did you ever think about why people become criminals? Maybe, because they are poor? Which is because they don't get a job and there isn't an security for them? Yes, poor people are just lazy, I apologize and you are completely right.

              Quote:
              Gay marriage is not necessary
              USA is not necessary. Really, who needs them anyway? Can't remember a country where they brought peace or something. Germany is at least giving a lot of money to poorer countries who probably are just lazy, like Greek. (Man, even after striking it out it sounds sooo stupid.) Well okay, I guess some countries with dictators still need American weapons, I agree on that. (And I know Germany is not much better on that field too, but at least I CARE about that.)
              And regarding the following text I think you didn't got the main point pro homosexual marriage. I will spell it out for you.

              Homosexuals are humans and thus they deserve the same rights other humans have. Equal chances for everyone.

              (And to correct the anti-communists: Communism is "Equality for everyone." If those anti-communists are reading this, right another note: What Russia had and China has, is no communism but dictatorship they call communism to make it sound better. No need to thank me.)

              Quote:
              If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five?
              Yes. Glad you got it. But I think their ignorance will be enough, so don't worry. Also there are a whole lot more homosexuals than of the other groups together, that would be another indicator.


              Ending Resümee (because it sounds so much better): The only countable argument on a real basis were costs for the states and population. But since the states have enough money for banks and humanity is overpopulated anyway, your arguments are invalid.
              __________________
                #14    
              Old August 19th, 2012 (4:32 PM).
              MonsterMMORPG's Avatar
              MonsterMMORPG MonsterMMORPG is offline
              Monster Game Developer
              • Crystal Tier
               
              Join Date: Jul 2011
              Location: Turkey
              Age: 30
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Bashful
              Posts: 256
              If your parents were gay couple or lesbian couple would you be happier or not ? Personally i am totally against this kind of marriage. You will also understand the reasons at the moment you died
              __________________
              F2P Pokemon Style Monster MMORPG Developer
              Looking for volunteer artists. The contributes will be fully credited at this respected game which may greatly help them in the future. Our credits page : MonsterMMORPG Credits

              Basically if you are able to draw and want to get your place, just send me a PM. I have skype, live msn, yahoo msn.
              PC SHOWCASE THREAD
              MonsterMMORPG DeviantArt Group DeviantArt Page



                #15    
              Old August 23rd, 2012 (4:35 AM).
              Oryx's Avatar
              Oryx Oryx is offline
              CoquettishCat
              • Crystal Tier
               
              Join Date: Mar 2011
              Age: 25
              Gender: Female
              Nature: Relaxed
              Posts: 13,204
              Quote:
              Originally Posted by MonsterMMORPG View Post
              If your parents were gay couple or lesbian couple would you be happier or not ? Personally i am totally against this kind of marriage. You will also understand the reasons at the moment you died :)
              Gay couples as fit to adopt as heterosexuals: study

              The government system to take care of children with no parents that want them is miserable and messes up many, many children. Even if we were to go with your highly offensive implication that gay couples aren't as capable of raising a happy child as straight couples, that isn't the option we're looking at here. We're looking at "gay couple adopts child" with "child is raised in care of the government".

              I also find the "children need a straight couple to be raised" personally offensive as a child of a single parent, that has no mental issues and is completely healthy and happy.
              __________________


              Theme * Pair * VM * PM

              Not all men...

              Are all men stupid?

              That's right.

                #16    
              Old August 23rd, 2012 (6:04 AM).
              Kanto_Johto's Avatar
              Kanto_Johto Kanto_Johto is offline
              Never glimpse the truth
                 
                Join Date: Jul 2009
                Location: A Silver Sun
                Age: 25
                Gender: Male
                Nature: Bold
                Posts: 818
                Quote:
                Originally Posted by MonsterMMORPG View Post
                If your parents were gay couple or lesbian couple would you be happier or not ? Personally i am totally against this kind of marriage. You will also understand the reasons at the moment you died
                If my parents had exactly the same personalities that they do now, but they were a straight or a lesbian couple, I can honestly tell you that my life would not be much different than it is now and that I would still be a very happy person. To imply that a gay or lesbian couple are unable to raise a well mannered and happy child is extremely offensive. You didn't even explain your arguments against gay marriage (which is kind of what this thread is supposed to be about).

                The last part of your post implies that gays and lesbians will find out the reasons to avoid gay marriage because they will go to hell when they die. This is also incredibly offensive and isn't true. Why should someone be condemned to eternal damnation because of something that didn't harm/affect anyone else?

                This thread was supposed to be a non-religious debate. Your post references religion and is just plain offensive as a whole. You should feel bad about it.

                Quote:
                Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                Race is also something that a person is
                (A) born into, and (B) can not change
                While homosexuality is something that you chose. Now there are some who say that you are born that way, but you can pretend to be straight, and you can always chose not to act on those homosexual impulses. Being born with something does not excuse it. Studies have shown that thieves, and other criminals, have cretin brain differences compared to the average person as such, if a thief was to say, "I was born this way" they would not be excused.
                I read your post up until here, and then I stopped. I'm not going to bother reading the rest if this is your genuine opinion. Homosexuality is not a choice. And why would any homosexual want to pretend their gay? We live in a society now that embraces homosexuality because there is nothing wrong with it. Also, there's no reason not to act on those kind of impulses because romantic and sexual feelings for a partner is perfectly fine, regardless of the genders involved. And to compare a homosexual acts to criminal acts is ridiculous.

                I find it embarrassing that we live in a society that is still unable to accept gay marriage. It doesn't affect anyone other than those involved in gay relationships, so why does it matter so much that some people decide to make a big deal about it? It makes no sense.
                __________________
                Arrive without traveling
                See all without looking
                Do all without doing
                  #17    
                Old August 23rd, 2012 (10:46 AM).
                Ach7AC's Avatar
                Ach7AC Ach7AC is offline
                   
                  Join Date: Jun 2012
                  Gender: Male
                  Posts: 146
                  Quote:
                  Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                  Since the topic of gay marriage has come up, and some people then to think that gay marriage is only a religious problem, I thought I would make some arguments that have nothing to do with religion!

                  Preface:
                  First of all, I have nothing against homosexuals, and 1) I feel that they have been bullied because of their choice, which is wrong. I believe there is a right and wrong way to life, however I do feel that bulling is absolutely wrong. And as such I would not liked to be bullied myself because of my opposing views. So please try to be mature when replying to any of my arguments, do not take the personal, and try to be nice. If you feel that I am wrong, yelling at me, and calling me names will not help your cause.

                  2) Tradition:
                  "Tradition enables us to isolate the new against a background of permanence, and to transfer its merit to originality, to genius, to the decisions proper to individuals" (FOUCAULT, The archaeology of knowledge)
                  It is tradition that enables people to view their current situation and evaluate it against the past. If the past made a mistake, lets not make the same one, if the past succeeded lets continue with that action.3) It is documented that any ancient civilization fell right at the time, that they started to accept homosexuality. (Romans, and Greek) The most successful society have all started with the concept of traditional marriage, one between a man, and a women.

                  Marriage is a right:
                  4) This statement is not true, people assume that marriage is a right, and that if marriage is a right then gay marriage becomes a civil rights problem. However marriage is limited to hetersexuals as well. Roughly half of all states do not allow first cousins from marrying, and all do not allow marriage of closer blood relatives, even if said individuals are sterile. In all states, it is ileagal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more then one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphillis, or other veneral deieses. Therefore, homosexuality is not the only group to be excluded form marriage.

                  Constitutionality:
                  The 14th amendment and the "Privileges and emmunity clause", along with the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, states that any right given in one state, must be carried over to an other, one said person moves or leaves. As such it is in direct contract with the federal government law, DOMA. Doma (Defense of marriage act) States that no state or authority can be forced to recognize a same sex marriage. But if a person obtains a marriage from one state, he or she can more to another state, and that state would be forced to recognize said marriage because of the 14th amendment, and the privileges and emunitys clause of the amendment. As such Doma is still in effect, and to keep the purity, and purpose of the law, states should not be able to determine marriage. It should be a federal issue. Doma was passed the senate on September 10th, (1996) by a vote of 85 to 14. A overwhelming majority. 5) Going against this law would be going against democracy, and American values.

                  6) The economic problem:
                  When the state recognizes marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

                  7) Producing Children:
                  Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

                  What about artificial insemination? What about the children?
                  One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

                  8) You compared homosexuality to what?
                  Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. Race is also something that a person is
                  (A) born into, and (B) can not change
                  While homosexuality is something that you chose. Now there are some who say that you are born that way, but you can pretend to be straight, and you can always chose not to act on those homosexual impulses. Being born with something does not excuse it. 11) Studies have shown that thieves, and other criminals, have cretin brain differences compared to the average person as such, if a thief was to say, "I was born this way" they would not be excused.

                  9) Gay marriage is not necessary:
                  there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

                  10) The slippery slope argument:
                  The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

                  Ending:
                  As you can see I took a lot of time and effort into this so again, please make mature thought provoking response not simple disillusioned ones.

                  It's been a while since I've seen one of these arguments, anyway, I'll rebut them while being as civil as possible.

                  1) "I feel that they have been bullied because of their choice, which is wrong."
                  Sources? Are you a reputable psychologist to be throwing around these sorts of "facts?" Honestly, when you're arguing for a cause, back your statements with proof. According to the APA, sexual orientation is a matter of several factors put together. This is not simply "a choice."

                  2) "Tradition."
                  Appealing to tradition is a fallacious argument. See the second source. The current status quo is discriminatory against gays and lesbians, and it is our job as human beings to treat each other as we'd like to be treated. Tradition has been used as a justification for racism and slavery, we do not need to repeat such grave abominations committed against our fellow human beings.

                  3) "It is documented that any ancient civilization fell right at the time, that they started to accept homosexuality. (Romans, and Greek)."
                  As a history geek, I facepalm every time I see this. For one, how exactly do you consider the Greeks "falling?" Do you mean when they were conquered by Alexander? Do you mean when Alexander's empire collapsed? Do you mean when the Romans conquered the remains of Alexander's empire? The Greeks have practiced homosexuality for centuries, all while their civilization took great shifts. Not to mention that every civilization will experiences their fall. The Romans also fell to a myriad of reasons (Bad economy, bad harvest, plague, invasions, corruption.) Attributing the fall of classical civilizations to homosexuals is quite an illogical action to take. If you still cling to this belief, then make your statements clearer

                  4) "This statement is not true, people assume that marriage is a right, and that if marriage is a right then gay marriage becomes a civil rights problem."
                  By denying marriage to homosexuals you are denying them over a thousand federal benefits. Yes, we deny marriages to people who want to marry their relatives, but that is to prevent incest and problems caused by inbreeding. If homosexuality causes health issues, then let me know.

                  5) "Going against this law would be going against democracy, and American values."
                  Yes, the United States is a free nation, you do have your rights, but you cannot use your rights to step on rights of others. This was the same case regarding slavery and segregation. The nation was split due to the arguments, and the result was that civil rights triumphed. Not to mention that the Constitution is frequently amended in order to nullify previous decisions, such as the 19th and 21st amendments. Besides, claiming that it goes against American values returns back to the tradition fallacy. Sometimes tradition needs to be broken for society to proceed.

                  6)
                  "The economic problem"
                  Clarify? You're basically advocating discrimination for financial sake. Instead of only discriminating against homosexuals, why not just null marriage in general?

                  7) "Producing Children"
                  As said above, it's discriminatory against homosexuals while allowing sterile couples, single parents, elderly couples, and childless parents to go free. And we shouldn't be removing the rights from a select group on the basis of a murky statistic.

                  8) "You compared homosexuality to what?"
                  As said above, homosexuality is not a choice, not to mention gays and lesbians are fertile via artificial insemination.


                  9) "Gay marriage is not necessary."
                  As said before, take a look at the third link. There are over a thousand federal benefits obtained via marriage. And denying same-sex marriage will be discriminating against these rights.

                  10) "The slippery slope argument."
                  Umm... really?!
                  Are you serious? Why are you basing your argument on a well-known logical fallacy?
                  Yes, we did allow women and African descendents to vote, but of course we are not going to let dogs and babies vote. Yes, we did free the African slaves, no we are not going to claim that we ban the use of electronics on the grounds of robot slavery.

                  11) "Studies have shown that thieves, and other criminals, have cretin brain differences compared to the average person as such, if a thief was to say, "I was born this way" they would not be excused."
                  False analogy. Thieves can deprive others of property, while gays and lesbians do not have any reason to harm third parties. To put it shortly, kleptomania is not comparable with homosexuality.

                  Sources
                  http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
                  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html
                  http://people.howstuffworks.com/marriage1.htm

                  Overall, better than the average Bible-thumper's "Being gay is a sin, period" rant. Research was shown, except you did get a few facts wrong, such as how homosexuality is a choice and how you used a few fallacies. But as said before, this argument is one of the strongest I've seen.
                    #18    
                  Old August 23rd, 2012 (3:31 PM). Edited August 23rd, 2012 by droomph.
                  droomph's Avatar
                  droomph droomph is offline
                  weeb
                  • Crystal Tier
                   
                  Join Date: Sep 2011
                  Location: nowhere spectacular
                  Age: 20
                  Gender: Male
                  Nature: Impish
                  Posts: 4,291
                  Quote:
                  (A) born into, and (B) can not change
                  While homosexuality is something that you chose.
                  no it isn't. Being gay myself I can tell you women is not a thing I could voluntarily get intimate with. Something about them naked or in a bikini just grosses me out. I would never make you have sex with a guy, now would I?
                  Quote:
                  Now there are some who say that you are born that way, but you can pretend to be straight, and you can always chose not to act on those homosexual impulses.
                  As I said, women just gross me out. Yes, it is possible, but if you were to enforce that, it would be the same as torture to pretend to live a life that you don't like, it really is. I've considered that so many times, and I've decided that it isn't worth it. Being straight is great and all, but being constantly shown something you don't want and avoiding people you find attractive is painful, to say the least.
                  Quote:
                  Being born with something does not excuse it. Studies have shown that thieves, and other criminals, have cretin brain differences compared to the average person as such, if a thief was to say, "I was born this way" they would not be excused.
                  Ah, but there's a difference. Thieves are forbidden because at least one side, the victim, is damaged financially and possibly mentally and physically. But in gay marriage, both sides are both the victim and the perpetrator, so if they want to they should be allowed, as nobody is hurt directly.
                    #19    
                  Old August 23rd, 2012 (9:12 PM).
                  NarutoActor's Avatar
                  NarutoActor NarutoActor is offline
                  The rocks cry out to me
                  • Silver Tier
                   
                  Join Date: Jan 2009
                  Location: Brooklyn/Marlboro
                  Age: 24
                  Gender: Female
                  Nature: Bashful
                  Posts: 1,979
                  Quote:
                  then let me know.
                  Sodomy is bacterial ridden, with intercourse from behind, being not healthy at all. AIDS is also statistically higher among homosexuals as well.

                  Quote:
                  Originally Posted by droomph View Post
                  it would be the same as torture to pretend to live a life that you don't like, it really is. I've considered that so many times, and I've decided that it isn't worth it. Being straight is great and all, but being constantly shown something you don't want and avoiding people you find attractive is painful, to say the least.
                  A brother and sister find each other both physcially and emotionally attached, and feel that the same way you do. That not being together would be horrible. However we look down a pound that relationship as well, and the state tries to prevent those kind of relationships.

                  As a side note:
                  Just because you or person A sais they feel that they didn't chose that lifestyle, they are still choosing that choice subconsciously.
                  Even if I was to believe other wise, how can I be sure that person A is telling the truth, or the person A just is not mistaken, or confused.
                    #20    
                  Old August 23rd, 2012 (9:20 PM).
                  Livewire's Avatar
                  Livewire Livewire is offline
                  • Platinum Tier
                   
                  Join Date: Jul 2009
                  Location: Sunnyshore City
                  Gender: Male
                  Nature: Adamant
                  Posts: 14,265
                  Quote:
                  Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                  Sodomy is bacterial ridden, with intercourse from behind, being not healthy at all. AIDS is also statistically higher among homosexuals as well.
                  False, STD's don't discriminate.

                  Also incorrect. While that may be true in this particular country, worldwide & as a whole, the HIV/AIDS epidemic kills heterosexual women more than any other identifiable group.
                  __________________
                    #21    
                  Old August 24th, 2012 (6:01 AM). Edited August 24th, 2012 by Dakotah.
                  Dakotah's Avatar
                  Dakotah Dakotah is offline
                     
                    Join Date: Aug 2010
                    Posts: 903
                    Tradition:
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                    "Tradition enables us to isolate the new against a background of permanence, and to transfer its merit to originality, to genius, to the decisions proper to individuals" (FOUCAULT, The archaeology of knowledge)
                    It is tradition that enables people to view their current situation and evaluate it against the past. If the past made a mistake, lets not make the same one, if the past succeeded lets continue with that action. It is documented that any ancient civilization fell right at the time, that they started to accept homosexuality. (Romans, and Greek) The most successful society have all started with the concept of traditional marriage, one between a man, and a women.
                    Tradition is the poorest excuse for prohibiting same-sex couple from getting married. In fact, US Constitutional law has repeatedly rejected "tradition" as a basis for denying any citizen his or her rights. It was tradition to keep slaves. That was rejected. It was tradition to not consider women persons under the law. That was rejected. So many of society's oldest traditions have been rejected because they cause actual harm to people. And also, there are some cultures which in fact accept same-sex unions traditionally (yes, even in this day and age), so who then gets to decide whose traditions take precedent?

                    Marriage is a right:
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                    This statement is not true, people assume that marriage is a right, and that if marriage is a right then gay marriage becomes a civil rights problem. However marriage is limited to hetersexuals as well. Roughly half of all states do not allow first cousins from marrying, and all do not allow marriage of closer blood relatives, even if said individuals are sterile. In all states, it is ileagal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more then one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphillis, or other veneral deieses. Therefore, homosexuality is not the only group to be excluded form marriage.
                    This argument is far from correct. The U.S. Supreme court on multiple occasions stated that marriage is a fundamental human right and that it is protected via the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. To quote Loving vs Virginia (1967): "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." In Zablocki v Redhail (1978): "Justice Marshall wrote for the majority in a 5-3-1 court holding. Affirming the judgment of the District Court, Marshall concurred with the District Court's reading of marriage being a fundamental right, relying on Loving v. Virginia (1967) and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). -- Source Wikipedia." These are but two examples. There are others, each of which holds that marriage is in fact a civil right. A person's belief that it isn't is irrelevant under the law. So your assertion would be false given legal precedent.

                    Constitutionality:

                    Already addressed above. Marriage is protected via the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.

                    The economic problem:
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                    When the state recognizes marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
                    States are prohibited from denying marriage to any couple who does not wish to, or is incapable of, having children. There never has been a requirement for any couple to have children after getting married. Your assertion to the contrary is false. As an example, marriage is permitted between two people if one or both is incarcerated in a prison. Such a marriage is unlikely to produce any offspring, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held in Turner v. Safley (1987) that a regulation that prohibited inmates from marrying without the permission of the warden, found that it was "not...reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives" and "impermissibly burdened" their right to marry.

                    Producing Children:
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                    Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
                    As I stated above, there is no law on the books which prohibits a couple from getting married if they choose not to, or are incapable of having a child. And if there perhaps is such a law, it is unenforceable due to U.S. Supreme Court rulings. As an example, there are states which still have on the books that prohibit same sex couples from engaging in sexual activity. These anti-sodomy statutes are unenforceable, however, due to a 2003 ruling by the U.S. Supreme court ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas. No state can deny to any couple marriage if they are incapable of having children or have no desire to have any. There are in fact many such marriages as evidenced by the ever decreasing birthrates among married couples.

                    What about artificial insemination? What about the children?

                    Already addressed in above points. Having children is not required for marriage. Never has been, and I expect never will be.

                    You compared homosexuality to what?
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                    Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation. Race is also something that a person is
                    (A) born into, and (B) can not change
                    While homosexuality is something that you chose. Now there are some who say that you are born that way, but you can pretend to be straight, and you can always chose not to act on those homosexual impulses. Being born with something does not excuse it. Studies have shown that thieves, and other criminals, have cretin brain differences compared to the average person as such, if a thief was to say, "I was born this way" they would not be excused.
                    I'm not even going to address this above point because it's an argument that is so full of facilities that logically it makes no sense whatsoever. The above is an example of fear-mongering, and talking-points used by marriage equality opponents and have been debunked time and time again. Fact: being gay is not a choice. Neither is being straight, or being bisexual, or being transgendered. Your assertion that people who are gay choose to be gay is not only blatantly false, it's also extremely insulting. I'd cite many professional papers done by professional groups such as the American Psychological Association but I suspect you'd reject every single one of them.

                    Gay marriage is not necessary:
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                    there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
                    It could equally be stated that heterosexual marriage is not necessary either, for the exact same reasons you stated.

                    The slippery slope argument:
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                    The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
                    The absurdity of the above argument can be explained thusly: "Man walks up to woman on the street and says: 'I'd like to have a child, let's get married.' Woman things for a minutes, appraising this male's suitability as a father and then says: 'okay.'

                    Love plays a huge role in determining whether a couple will get married. In fact, I'd consider it to be the controlling factor. A couple does not get married because they wish to have children. They get married because they love each other and because they wish to share their lives together and to make a life long commitment to each other. Sometimes the result of this union is a child, and sometimes it is a childless union. Both are valid because in the end, it is the love between these two individuals that defines their relationship.
                    __________________
                    DAKOTAH
                    Personal Website
                    YouTube Channel


                    1693-4093-6753
                    Normal Safari
                    Lillipup / Audino / Ditto


                    "...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Obi Wan Kenobi
                      #22    
                    Old August 24th, 2012 (7:47 AM).
                    Esper's Avatar
                    Esper Esper is offline
                    • Silver Tier
                     
                    Join Date: Jun 2009
                    Location: California
                    Posts: 10,651
                    Quote:
                    Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                    Sodomy is bacterial ridden, with intercourse from behind, being not healthy at all. AIDS is also statistically higher among homosexuals as well.

                    A brother and sister find each other both physcially and emotionally attached, and feel that the same way you do. That not being together would be horrible. However we look down a pound that relationship as well, and the state tries to prevent those kind of relationships.

                    As a side note:
                    Just because you or person A sais they feel that they didn't chose that lifestyle, they are still choosing that choice subconsciously.
                    Even if I was to believe other wise, how can I be sure that person A is telling the truth, or the person A just is not mistaken, or confused.
                    Lots of normal things are full of bacteria. That's why we bathe. Also, fun fact: "sodomy" isn't restricted to homosexuals.

                    But what confuses me is your claim of "subconscious choice." Did you choose to be straight? (I'm assuming you are straight.) I would guess that you didn't.
                      #23    
                    Old August 24th, 2012 (8:14 AM).
                    Dakotah's Avatar
                    Dakotah Dakotah is offline
                       
                      Join Date: Aug 2010
                      Posts: 903
                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
                      Lots of normal things are full of bacteria. That's why we bathe. Also, fun fact: "sodomy" isn't restricted to homosexuals.

                      But what confuses me is your claim of "subconscious choice." Did you choose to be straight? (I'm assuming you are straight.) I would guess that you didn't.
                      I'd also add the following to support the contention that people do not choose their sexual orientation, subconsciously or otherwise. They are two studies which compare the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Here are the two studies:

                      October 27, 2004 - Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men (http://www.pnas.org/content/102/20/7356.full.pdf+html)

                      February 27, 2008 - PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/105/27/9403)

                      Lastly, it should also be pointed out that sodomy is not restricted to anal sex, but also includes oral sex, which funny enough includes kissing, since some kissing also includes the penetration of a cavity by a partner's anatomy, namely the tongue.
                        #24    
                      Old August 24th, 2012 (2:18 PM). Edited August 28th, 2012 by droomph.
                      droomph's Avatar
                      droomph droomph is offline
                      weeb
                      • Crystal Tier
                       
                      Join Date: Sep 2011
                      Location: nowhere spectacular
                      Age: 20
                      Gender: Male
                      Nature: Impish
                      Posts: 4,291
                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                      Sodomy is bacterial ridden, with intercourse from behind, being not healthy at all. AIDS is also statistically higher among homosexuals as well.

                      A brother and sister find each other both physcially and emotionally attached, and feel that the same way you do. That not being together would be horrible. However we look down a pound that relationship as well, and the state tries to prevent those kind of relationships.

                      As a side note:
                      Just because you or person A sais they feel that they didn't chose that lifestyle, they are still choosing that choice subconsciously.
                      Even if I was to believe other wise, how can I be sure that person A is telling the truth, or the person A just is not mistaken, or confused.
                      Don't say "statistically" if you don't have any statistics to back it up. I'm not being rude, but I would like to see some references.

                      And while yes, sodomy is full of bacteria, so is normal sex. And by the way, you know not only guys do that right? And also, guys can do other things than butt sex, so please be aware of what you say.

                      And speaking of "bacterially ridden", guess what? Life is full of bacteria. Guess what you touched when you opened your car door? That's right, bacteria. Guess what you ate alongside breakfast? That's right, bacteria. Guess what you are primarily made of? That's right, bacteria. If you had said "diseases", that would have been more acceptable. But nonetheless, you can still get AIDS and STDs through normal sex, so sodomy isn't worse than normal sex.

                      And guess why incest is not allowed? Because through tradition and science, it has been proven that kids conceived from incest are worse-equipped to face dangers in the real world (eg diseases) and thus will cost the government and private medical institutions (so pretty much everyone) more in the long run in medical costs, thus it isn't allowed.

                      However, gay relationships aren't costly at all, since no children can be conceived directly. There is no cost in medical care from resulting diseases or problems from that relationship, since there is none.

                      And subconsciously I think I'm gay? You also subconsciously made the decision that you are straight. Everything not conscious is subconscious, and that is where the sense of attraction to either gender comes from. So saying that I subconsciously made that choice so thus I can't be gay is like saying I should have never been born. It's not something I can control, and being straight is also something you can't control. However, society prefers you, so you're let off for deciding subconsciously while I'm being punished for doing exactly what you're doing.

                      And no, I am not mistaken. You know when you are gay. Being confused happens only because you are told that you must be something you aren't. If we allowed gay marriage, nobody would be sexually confused, because there is nothing holding them back. And no, why would you make a life commitment to be something you're not? There is no need to be "sure" about anybody's sexuality. If they say they are, then let it be. It's none of your business. They've decided to ruin their lives, so be it.

                      Please understand that gay people don't have a choice. We aren't doing that because we hate rules. It is who we are, and it's really as natural as being straight.

                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by Hybrid Trainer View Post

                      When people say "gay marriage" they don't mean that churches will have to allow same sex couples to be wed and that all religions have to cater to homosexuals now. All it means is that when two gay people are officially partnered they will have the same legal rights as regular married people, such as custody over children or if they were to split up their belongings would be distributed the same as they would in a divorce. By just giving a civil partnership more rights would be pointless because then it would make having two ceremonies pointless because it would all have the same outcome.
                        #25    
                      Old August 30th, 2012 (7:09 PM). Edited August 30th, 2012 by Novykh.
                      Novykh Novykh is offline
                         
                        Join Date: Aug 2012
                        Posts: 14
                        Quote:
                        Originally Posted by NarutoActor View Post
                        Sodomy is bacterial ridden, with intercourse from behind, being not healthy at all. AIDS is also statistically higher among homosexuals as well.
                        Sodomy is any copulation sexual act not involving a penis and a vagina. That means the butt, the mouth, the titties... the ear, or wherever it is you all do these days. Not to mention the number of positive carriers amoung the straight community is definitely catching up to the LGBTQ community. Also not to mention this argument is also invalid as where do Lesbian's "do it?" I'm pretty sure they aren't committing very many acts of anal sex, or if they do it is with toy and the spread of STDs through this kind of play is virtually nullified; in the case of asexuals with a gay romantic mindset, the same thing holds true: they can't married, and that's even with their abstaining from sex. So again, not a valid excuse.

                        Quote:
                        As a side note:
                        Just because you or person A sais they feel that they didn't chose that lifestyle, they are still choosing that choice subconsciously.
                        Even if I was to believe other wise, how can I be sure that person A is telling the truth, or the person A just is not mistaken, or confused.
                        To do does not equate desire. That is to say: that even if the 'person A' "chose to be straight" they would not really feel that way. They could live a straight lifestyle even getting married with a member of the opposite sex and having kids as well and not ever letting anyone know. The reason that most don't do this, however, is because they have a genuine attraction to the same gender and just can't truly be happy in a heterosexual relationship. They will go through a lot of strife trying to come out of the closet in a situation like this, they won't truly be happy as their partner is not of the attractive sex. While love is love and you could fall in love with anyone, it is a bit difficult to maintain a relationship when you have no desire to sleep with your partner. Not that you need sex for love, but a relationship encompasses much more than love, sex being one of those things.
                        Closed Thread

                        Quick Reply

                        Join the conversation!

                        Create an account to post a reply in this thread, participate in other discussions, and more!

                        Create a PokéCommunity Account

                        Sponsored Links
                        Thread Tools

                        Posting Rules
                        You may not post new threads
                        You may not post replies
                        You may not post attachments
                        You may not edit your posts

                        BB code is On
                        Smilies are On
                        [IMG] code is On
                        HTML code is Off

                        Forum Jump


                        All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:11 PM.