Homosexuality

[Kanami]

I think all people should have the same rights. In this case the right for people to marry whoever they want, independent of sex. At the same time, I think instances like churches should be able to deny people the possibility of marrying in one. With all I've read about this topic, I come to one important conclusion, those who are against gay marriage are usually against it because they view "marriage", or the act of getting married in a church, is a holy thing. A holy bond. While at the same time, for whatever reason, they believe being gay is not good, or against God's teachings. And that collides with the holiness associated with happiness. As far as I know, most of these people have no issue with same sex couples getting all the tax benefits and whatnots from being married as recognized by the state, as long as it doesn't have to be recognized by the church.

So essentially, religion fucks things up again? "God" is there anything you haven't screwed up?

It's a rather current view you have their though, in the past people just considered it wrong, and that society allowing it would be akin to society condoing homosexuals. If you asked a parent, they'd properly prefer a heterosexual child over a homosexual. But while those attitudes persist, they have become significantly less prominent.

The thing with marriage is, is it's a religious thing which has been ingrained into societys clockwork. IMO religion needs to stay within the confines of religion and stop extending its filthy paws into the other areas like politics, law, and other societal values. Marriage is like an official form of being partnered up. Why people need this "security" is beyond me, but apparently it's a nice thing to have.

Overall it's not so much the "tax benefits" and such that people get riled up over, but the general belief that allowing it would be condoning the action which would lead to an increase in something they don't want happening. Governments in kind are worried about losing power if they legalize it as it's still not accepted completely within the community.

[Excellen Browning]

So essentially, religion fucks things up again? "God" is there anything you haven't screwed up?

It's a rather current view you have their though, in the past people just considered it wrong, and that society allowing it would be akin to society condoing homosexuals. If you asked a parent, they'd properly prefer a heterosexual child over a homosexual. But while those attitudes persist, they have become significantly less prominent.

The thing with marriage is, is it's a religious thing which has been ingrained into societys clockwork. IMO religion needs to stay within the confines of religion and stop extending its filthy paws into the other areas like politics, law, and other societal values. Marriage is like an official form of being partnered up. Why people need this "security" is beyond me, but apparently it's a nice thing to have.

Overall it's not so much the "tax benefits" and such that people get riled up over, but the general belief that allowing it would be condoning the action which would lead to an increase in something they don't want happening. Governments in kind are worried about losing power if they legalize it as it's still not accepted completely within the community.

...Noo... I do not think religion messes things up. I think that if people feel uncomfortable with combining something they see as holy (or good) with something they see as unholy (or bad), they should have the right to be so. There is a difference between accepting something and not minding it or even liking it. In the end most people in the world believe there is a God and obey the teachings of it's/her/his holy books, and that's just something nonbelievers like me will have to accept and learn to live with. The most prominent philosophy on decision making humanity has come to is "the majority is in the right".

[eclipse]

Personally, I don't mind homosexuals when it's a trait someone has. If my best friend told me she was homosexual, I might make a few snarky comments now and then, but nothing our friendship would be weakened by. However I don't like it when they're in your faces constantly reminding you that they're gay. Gay parades in particular are annoying, pointless displays from a group that want the world to know that the fuck the same gender. I'm sure there are more worthy causes to parade and raise funds for.

. . .and with that, the world ends. Sorry, everyone!

Never thought I'd find a day when I wholeheartedly agree with something you post!

[Phoenix Wright]

. . .and with that, the world ends. Sorry, everyone!

Never thought I'd find a day when I wholeheartedly agree with something you post!

It's not hard to.

I mean, even some gay people hate pay parades.

[Death']

I got into an argument about this with a christian homophobic american kid in my women studies class. I have never been so opinionated and pissy at someone IRL before, it was actually kind of scary. Anyway, at one point he said homosexuality is unnatural and a disease of civilisation. So I told him obesity is unnatural and a disease of civilisation. I didn't apologise.

[Death']

Gay parades in particular are annoying, pointless displays from a group that want the world to know that the fuck the same gender. I'm sure there are more worthy causes to parade and raise funds for.

Quoting Elie Wiesel here.

"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

I'm pretty sure gay parades aren't pointless. Plus they give homosexuals a chance to see other people in the same situation as they are, making it easier for them to accept who they are.

[lolDeath]

I dunno, I think some of the parades do more harm than good with the stereotypes they sometimes present. Looking pointlessly flamboyant and such is going to do nothing but strengthen the homophobia so many people have going on, people need to see the true face of homosexuality, the face that looks just like everyone else.

[Death']

I see what youre saying and maybe gay parades would be more acceptable in mainstream society if it were just a bunch of "normal" people walking around.

But it's not like the flamboyantly gay people are faking it. It is an actual subculture. So I'm just asking, why should that be a problem? Why do you think it would be better if only the "normal" homosexuals were accepted & portrayed, and the "flamboyant" ones avoided?

And also the true face of homosexuality bit raises a lot of questions too. Who decides what is the true face of homosexuality? Do you actually think that erasing the gay culture will help the cause? And is there a "true face" of heterosexuality?

Edited November 19, 2010 by Hepatitis A

[lolDeath]

The problem is that the subculture is fucking things up for the whole. People have to be able to accept a gay person who is a normal human being before they can accept someone in a black leather thong wearing a boa skipping down the sidewalk singing Lady Gaga. All they're doing is making the homophobes even more uncomfortable, giving them even more of what they see as solid reasons to latch on to find some issue with any sexuality that is not their own. Hurting their own cause and such, though I honestly don't believe they have the same mindset as anyone who seeks equal rights or basic human respect.

[Death']

I personally don't think it's fucking anything up.

Pride parades. Be proud of who you are. If being flamboyant is what they want to be, then they should be able to express it, especially if they are attending a gay pride parade.

Maybe showing this will hurt the cause of gay rights because some homophobes will be scared.

But I don't see how repressing it will help either. And this time you're not only hurting the gay rights movement, but also humans and individuality as a whole. I think I went off-ish topic here but I hope it makes sense to you.

either way, the point is, I don't think gay pride parades are annoying. And if they really disturb you then it's really not that hard to avoid them.

[lolDeath]

I agree with you and see what you;re saying, I'm just of the opinion that you actually have to make the people with an issue comfortable with something if you want progression instead of, you know, the YMCA dance. Plus I don't even see the whole flamboyancy deal as a gay thing, it's an attention whore thing.

[Phoenix Wright]

I personally don't think it's fucking anything up.

Pride parades. Be proud of who you are. If being flamboyant is what they want to be, then they should be able to express it, especially if they are attending a gay pride parade.

Maybe showing this will hurt the cause of gay rights because some homophobes will be scared.

But I don't see how repressing it will help either. And this time you're not only hurting the gay rights movement, but also humans and individuality as a whole. I think I went off-ish topic here but I hope it makes sense to you.

either way, the point is, I don't think gay pride parades are annoying. And if they really disturb you then it's really not that hard to avoid them.

Why take pride in something you were born with? There's no point. People should be proud of accomplishments and such, but not of their sexuality, religion, race, or whatever else they're naturally born with. Or born into, for that matter. Be that upper-class, country, et cetera. Depending on opinion, it's all just luck/natural occurrence/coincidence/blahblahblah. [Trying to (be)] Being happy for being born into, or learning about that origin is OK in my book, though.

[lolDeath]

Yeah you know I agree, but nobody is ever going to see us eye to eye on that. The idea of being proud of various things that were not a choice is something that every single human being is brainwashed into from birth, give or take freaks like us. National pride, ethnic pride, personality pride, etc. etc.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Death

[Death']

Why take pride in something you were born with? There's no point. People should be proud of accomplishments and such, but not of their sexuality, religion, race, or whatever else they're naturally born with. Or born into, for that matter. Be that upper-class, country, et cetera. Depending on opinion, it's all just luck/natural occurrence/coincidence/blahblahblah. [Trying to (be)] Being happy for being born into, or learning about that origin is OK in my book, though.

I guess it's because homosexuality is depicted as being shameful in most (if not all) cultures, so in an attempt to break away from that they created gay pride, so people who are gay wouldn't be afraid of themselves anymore.

[Kanami]

I'm usually not against attention whoring for a cause, but gay parades are an exception. Because it falls into a small niche of personal issues I have with being the damsel in distress.

Preaching "Look, we're oppressed and victimized by society" will warrant only one response from me, and it's sure as hell not a sympathetic or friendly one. I've said it with religion plenty of times, but keep your damn sexuality(religion) to yourself.

Essentially gays who make a public scene about their sexuality are discriminating against themselves. Contrary to common belief, discrimination isn't always accompanied by negative connotations. Letting the pregnant woman take your seat on the bus is a form of discrimination. The woman could be perfectly fine standing, but due to her status "pregnancy" you've decided to treat her differently. A more common example is the elderly. I've actually seen an old guy get really pissy when a young man offered him his seat persistently when the senior had insisted he was fine standing.

Crying out that you're different, and that you're victimized, is separating yourself from the majority, and asking to be perceived differently, creating special parades for your sexuality is not "equal." While I wouldn't be surprised if there was "sex parades" occurring in private, I haven't had to put up with public displays of heterosexuality and don't see why homosexuality is something to be proud of, it's different sure, but you wouldn't be any less "valueable" even if you were heterosexual.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Equal rights is a myth, there's no such thing. People are different regardless of whether they like it or not, and while I support "fair treatment" the womens movement in developed nations hasn't resulted positively at all IMO. The following example illustrates the stupidity of women.

I was on the bus heading home from college one day when I noticed the couple sitting across from me arguing about something, it seemed relatively peaceful at first but eventually escalated to the point where the two started shouting at eachother, unfortunately the bus driver decided to keep out of their business and five minutes later they were at eachother throats telling eachother all sorts of hateful things. (Was actually pretty amusing from my perspective). Eventually the woman lost her temper and slapped the guy across the face, I'm not talking about a friendly gentle tap, but a full swing, loud smack, and a swollen cheek afterwards.

Obviously the man didn't appreciate this and was raised his hand as well, and the womans response? "You can't hit me, I'm a woman" <_< Apparently, men are expected to be gentlemen even if they are dealing with a complete bitch. The woman then continued to taunt the man with comments like "Are you scared of hitting me?" and "Come on, I dare you, I'll just show your parents what you did to me." Eventually the man got off the bus (probably a few stop earlier then he wanted) while the woman yelled "spineless shit" out the window <_<

Now I'm not saying giving females equal rights was a bad thing, it's just that giving more rights to people without taking something away just doesn't work. In terms of gays, if homosexuals want to date and makeout in normal pubs, and be accepted, they're going to have to broaden their own "gay pubs" to accomodate heterosexuals too. Equal rights is about balancing rights, not levitating ones groups right up to the same level in some areas.

/rant

[Snowy_One]

While I don't really have a place in this discussion, my opinion on the matter is simple. America was founded on the ideal of freedom. It is something engrained into our very culture. We have the freedom to be against gay marriage for whatever reason; be it legit or babbling insanity about gays being invading aliens. However, what is more important is that these freedoms be preserved. It's what our nation was founded on, and to compromise it is to compromise what makes America America. We may have not always been perfect at following this idea, and may even have done the opposite at times, but that does not mean we should stop trying. However, freedom is a double-edged sword. It lets the jew live free of persecution, but it also lets the neo-nazi live free as well. If being gay is a sin in God's eyes, let him be the one to cast them into hell and not us. If it is not, then let us not condemn the innocent. It is more important while we are on this mortal coil that our freedom be preserved than it is that we try to mold a nation into what we feel freedom should be. I have met gay people in my life of both genders, respected some, and held others as close friends. Give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers, and give unto God what is Gods. I give unto America my vote for freedom. My vote to allow gay marriage, but not to force churches to accept them (for to do so is to deny them their own freedoms). I give unto God what is Gods, which is the respect and authority he deserves by not acting as I believe he would or would not act.

Equal rights is a myth, there's no such thing. People are different regardless of whether they like it or not, and while I support "fair treatment" the womens movement in developed nations hasn't resulted positively at all IMO. The following example illustrates the stupidity of women.

I was on the bus heading home from college one day when I noticed the couple sitting across from me arguing about something, it seemed relatively peaceful at first but eventually escalated to the point where the two started shouting at eachother, unfortunately the bus driver decided to keep out of their business and five minutes later they were at eachother throats telling eachother all sorts of hateful things. (Was actually pretty amusing from my perspective). Eventually the woman lost her temper and slapped the guy across the face, I'm not talking about a friendly gentle tap, but a full swing, loud smack, and a swollen cheek afterwards.

Obviously the man didn't appreciate this and was raised his hand as well, and the womans response? "You can't hit me, I'm a woman" Apparently, men are expected to be gentlemen even if they are dealing with a complete bitch. The woman then continued to taunt the man with comments like "Are you scared of hitting me?" and "Come on, I dare you, I'll just show your parents what you did to me." Eventually the man got off the bus (probably a few stop earlier then he wanted) while the woman yelled "spineless shit" out the window

Now I'm not saying giving females equal rights was a bad thing, it's just that giving more rights to people without taking something away just doesn't work. In terms of gays, if homosexuals want to date and makeout in normal pubs, and be accepted, they're going to have to broaden their own "gay pubs" to accomodate heterosexuals too. Equal rights is about balancing rights, not levitating ones groups right up to the same level in some areas.

Equal rights are not a myth. They just take time. The Civil Rights movement 'finished' before the 1970's and there is still much more to be done towards making the 'colors' equal. Just making things legally equal does not make the culture reflect that. Even if tomorrow President Obama was to declare gay marriage legal, and somehow or other it passed through all 50 states without problem, it would take GENERATIONS for people to consider it 'normal'. With woman's rights, even though legally they are the same, that's hardly the case in common culture. You had a culture that was pretty gender segregated trying to move to a equal one. That takes time, even with all the people behind the change. A new balance has to be found that is acceptable to both sides. I recall reading an article that stated that, though women reported abuse at home more, it was men whom were actually more abused. They just didn't report it. Why? Because it was a matter of shame to them, even though there are no legal problems with it. Yesterday, I was reading over the shoulder of a friend in the college library. She was writing a paper on suicide. In the paper she stated that, though women try to commit suicide more than men, men are more successful. Why? My theory is the culture. Even in a simple act like suicide, the two genders differ greatly. Namely men are brought up to expect pain and to be capable of inflicting pain upon themselves while women, aside from childbirth, are not.

Likewise, there is a similar problem with gay marriage. It is not a simple matter of making it legal, but changing a culture to suit the new change. Even if the gays got every change they could possibly need to make them as equal to straight couples as possible, it would take generations for the differing cultures to merge. At the least, you would need to redefine the definition of the nuclear family from a working husband, a wife working at home, and children in school to something more fitting in the new culture. You would need to get rid of gay support groups as well (by this I am referring to groups intending to represent their lifestyle to the community). Now, I do not profess to be a expert in the gay culture, so I am sorry if I am mis-understanding of the intent of the groups. However, one thing that needs to be considered when talking about equality is not the immediate consequences, but how things pan out over the centuries. It took decades for the Catholic Church to take over in Europe, and even then, it often had to mix and mingle and... change.... to come in line with the local beliefs so that it could spread. Any idea needs to do the same.

One way to speed up the process is to actually consider the problems that the anti-gay people have and trying to work with them instead of trying to force homosexuallity/gay marriage down their throats. Both my parents are against gay marriage, yet they are not homophobes. One fear they have is that, if gay marriage is legalized, that the state will force churches to marry gay couples. Regardless of ones opinion on religion, the simple fact of the matter is that this is wrong. The churches are a private organization and forcing them to marry couples against their will is a huge invasion of privacy as well as denying their own rights. Much better it would be for their cause for a gay organization to protect the rights of a church than it would be for them to fight against them. Should the issue come up and they gays try to force churches to marry, they you have given religious folk who are not in favor of the marriages ammunition to fight against. After all, they are trying to disrespect the rights of the church! However, by siding with the church, they turn it into a matter of 'we want equal rights for everyone' and not 'we're here, we're queer, and you need to accept it'. Doing this disarms the argument (after all, are these people who are willing to stick up for equal rights, even for their enemies, really the people that we are trying to demonize?)

Now; I'm not saying that this is some universal answer, or even the answer to a major problem. However, what I am saying is that among the people against gay marriage I know personally, it would go a long way for them to see a gay person showing that they care about the rights of others, not just themselves. Image and presentation are HUGE factors in how well something succeeds. There is a reason why people prefer Coke to Pepsi, and it doesn't have anything to do with flavor (seriously. It doesn't) but rather with image and presentation. My GM on WoW is a lesbian, and she is a likable person. She's happy, upbeat, and doesn't try to force her sexuallity down people's throats. Before I met her, I was a homophobe. After I met her, I started to realize that they weren't all flamboyant... well... gays... like I saw in the pride parades or the lisping people who were overly fashion-sensative like in the movies. It took time, but I started to question my own point of view, and eventually defected to being in support of gay marriage and being in support of homosexual couples. Otherwise you end up with people who see gay people like this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2036

[Original Alear]

One way to speed up the process is to actually consider the problems that the anti-gay people have and trying to work with them instead of trying to force homosexuallity/gay marriage down their throats.

I'd like to shove more than gay marriage down their throats

Both my parents are against gay marriage, yet they are not homophobes. One fear they have is that, if gay marriage is legalized, that the state will force churches to marry gay couples. Regardless of ones opinion on religion, the simple fact of the matter is that this is wrong. The churches are a private organization and forcing them to marry couples against their will is a huge invasion of privacy as well as denying their own rights. Much better it would be for their cause for a gay organization to protect the rights of a church than it would be for them to fight against them. Should the issue come up and they gays try to force churches to marry, they you have given religious folk who are not in favor of the marriages ammunition to fight against. After all, they are trying to disrespect the rights of the church! However, by siding with the church, they turn it into a matter of 'we want equal rights for everyone' and not 'we're here, we're queer, and you need to accept it'.

I agree that it would be bad to force churches to marry gays. However, I haven't seen much evidence that this is something homosexuals want to promote. Moreover, I think this is a separate question of "should gays marry" - it is a question of the separation of church and state in a manner that benefits churches. One can say yes to both easily.

Now; I'm not saying that this is some universal answer, or even the answer to a major problem. However, what I am saying is that among the people against gay marriage I know personally, it would go a long way for them to see a gay person showing that they care about the rights of others, not just themselves.

Doesn't it go both ways? Shouldn't the person in question care about the rights of others as well?

[Anouleth]

Why take pride in something you were born with? There's no point. People should be proud of accomplishments and such, but not of their sexuality, religion, race, or whatever else they're naturally born with. Or born into, for that matter. Be that upper-class, country, et cetera. Depending on opinion, it's all just luck/natural occurrence/coincidence/blahblahblah. [Trying to (be)] Being happy for being born into, or learning about that origin is OK in my book, though.

It's more about rejecting the shame and stigma that comes with being gay. Just like Black Pride or the feminist movement, it's about rejecting shame with pride. Nobody should ever be reluctant to admit to being gay. If that means that they need to be 'proud' of it, then fine. It is better to be too proud than to live a life in shame of something you could never control.

But again, this is nothing new. People have always taken a contradictory pride in the most absurd subcultures. You have 'fat acceptance' (which is hilarious, btw), and people bitching about 'fursecution'.

[Phoenix Wright]

It's more about rejecting the shame and stigma that comes with being gay. Just like Black Pride or the feminist movement, it's about rejecting shame with pride. Nobody should ever be reluctant to admit to being gay. If that means that they need to be 'proud' of it, then fine. It is better to be too proud than to live a life in shame of something you could never control.

But again, this is nothing new. People have always taken a contradictory pride in the most absurd subcultures. You have 'fat acceptance' (which is hilarious, btw), and people bitching about 'fursecution'.

I sniff hypocrisy in your post, brah.

Is it truly okay with you to have a race, sexuality, nationality, ethnicity, or gender fight oppression via "pride," but it's not okay for subcultures such as the ones you mention? What divides the two in terms of oppression? Both have prejudices against them.

My point is that it's really, really dumb to have a negative view on something uncontrollable just because you don't personally agree, and it's just as dumb to fight the prejudice by having unnecessary pride in it.

You might argue that being overweight is controllable, and I agree, but the argument is the same. Exactly the same. Hating or having pride in something that does not matter is stupid. The argument is only amplified when the trait can't be controlled.

What does matter and what does not? Easily defined. If a trait is irrelevant in a particular discussion, obviously it doesn't matter. Controllable traits, then, are clearly going to have times when they're relevant and times when they're not. Just as self-explanatory, uncontrollable traits are never relevant in a discussion.

[Kanami]

It's more about rejecting the shame and stigma that comes with being gay. Just like Black Pride or the feminist movement, it's about rejecting shame with pride. Nobody should ever be reluctant to admit to being gay. If that means that they need to be 'proud' of it, then fine. It is better to be too proud than to live a life in shame of something you could never control.

But again, this is nothing new. People have always taken a contradictory pride in the most absurd subcultures. You have 'fat acceptance' (which is hilarious, btw), and people bitching about 'fursecution'.

Fursecution? XD *Bursts out laughing*

Can't agree with your post though, countering hate with pride doesn't work. If anything I think it emphasizes the "them versus us" mentality. Sure it'll boosts an individuals thoughts at first. But in the long run it really isn't going to help.

A good example of balance is parenting. If your mother spoils you to death, and your father spend his time abusing you verbally/physically. You're not going to even out in between, you're going to be completely dependant on some people, and constantly afraid of others. +100 and -100 doesn't necessarily equate to a perfect neutral.

Forcefully being proud of something also leads to idiocy. Religion being a great example. "God loves gays" just doesn't work. I don't really care who, or what claims to know the "thoughts" of a divine being. But while the bible does hint at "God" hating gays, there's nothing in there about loving them. Frankly, if God loves us all equally, then he hates none of us.... depreciating the value of the love

But even with religion aside, both parties for and against an issue resort to ridiculous remarks to get people to sway to their side. I was reading about a few countries that still follow the "Sunday is rest day, shops are closed" policy. But a few of the remarks were hilarious.

For: People want to go shopping as a family, shopping is a chance for the family to get together and communicate with their wallets and bond.

(Honestly? Shopping? A family bonding experience? Surely there's better activites that can be done on a Sunday other then shopping?... Wait, don't those shops need to be run by workers who... umm you know, have families?) How many of you jump(ed) up in excitement when your parents say they going to do the groceries?

Against: People will focus on going shopping resulting in a diminishing sense of community as less people will participate in social events like local sports matches. Cause obviously, we HAVE to go shopping if the stores are open

(....Who here or anywhere would join their local sports group if the shops were closed 3~4 days a week? And if you played sports and enjoyed it, would it really matter that you can't go shopping on one day?)

Very much off topic now, but the thing is. Saying one thing, just to counter another. Doesn't really balance things out. It's contradicting one groups opinion (even if they're wrong) by laughing in their faces. And it's a "take that" maneuver.

Instructor: Turn Right here

Driver: *Intentionally takes a sharp left*

..... *Fail* XD

Edited November 23, 2010 by Kanami

[grandjackal]

Topic's not a month old yet, and since this is relevent...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/18/5674139-dont-ask-repeal-what-next-

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal has been voted on, and has passed. The ban will take about a year to fully lift, allowing all those formerly under the ban to freely join and serve in military service, along with the benefits it brings.

So yeah, some good news before the holidays.

EDIT: As a note, the last time I had linked to something about Don't Ask Don't Tell, it was unofficial at the time, and most likely did not include things like education and other perks. Now, it's official that the ban will be repealed.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Amaterasu

[Crystal Shards]

Personally I'm happy for the repeal. It's not like gays haven't been serving in the military since before any of us were born. It's not like their sexuality affects the ability to shoot a gun or fill out paperwork or translate. So yeah.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Crystal Shards

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Yes I am aware of forum rules and I am aware this is old but the opportunity to throw my two cents into this argument was too good to pass up. I'll make this as relevant as possible.

I guess you can say that I kind of have no choice to be for gay marriage, considering I'm openly gay. I mean, even if I wasn't I would be for it anyway because of the fact we're arguing human rights here. The arguments against the legalization of same-sex marriage--no, scratch that. Legal same-sex civil unions, that only produce the same benefits as a heterosexual union of the same standing--are so rooted in either stupid homophobia or Christian texts. Without bashing Christianity/Judaism at their roots, I'd like to point out that the Bible says only Jewish straight men deserved power, and everyone else was inferior. According to the Bible, non-Jews, homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals and sinners are all damned. According to the Bible, men were supposed to sell their daughters into slavery, menstruating women were unclean and could not be touched, people with imperfect vision could not go to the altar of God, shellfish were immoral, and God enjoyed the smell of burning animal carcasses. Homosexuality existed before the Bible, and was recognized in Ancient Greece. In fact, the purest form of love was considered to be the love between an older man and a younger boy. Any other form of love including heterosexual love was not considered to be part of Heavenly Love but of Common Love.

The argument has long since strayed from the idea of marriage recognized by some religious institution--I'm a Buddhist myself, and I don't personally want a blessed marriage--I just want equal benefits. Gay people cannot, as of now, be listed as next-of-kin, allowed hospital visitation, file "married" on their taxes, or file together for insurance. There is no "threat" to the institution of marriage, marriage is a religious concept and has always been.

Fact: A religiously blessed marriage does nothing practical. To get the proper tax benefits it is necessary to go and file for a marriage license.

Get over it.

[eclipse]

Uh. . .so tl;dr, you want what? I'm thoroughly confused.

[Phoenix Wright]

He basically said, like many others before him, that it is a right for homosexual people to get married legally. Like many others, again, he pointed out contradictions and absurdities in the Bible that the general populace probably doesn't know about/pay attention to. There was also an anecdote referring to homosexuality in Greece, too, so...yeah. A unique "two cents" in his respect, but his argument has been heard before. I agree with it, of course.