2006-03-30 [T_Pop]: well... actualy i was talking about the other two i made you listen to. remember them? Zao, and living sacrifice. if thats not heavy metal then i'm really confused lmao
2006-03-30 [M_Sinner]: Oh. Lol. I don't remember exactly what they sounded like. Lol. Next time I'm up there!
2006-03-30 [T_Pop]: ok. then you can tell me what they are.
2006-04-02 [Corazie]: Wow. This wiki is really homophobic... Would they allow it if it was something like The White Way where only people who thought that people with pale skin were OK? I don't think so, and I see no difference ¬.¬
2006-04-02 [M_Sinner]: Behavior versus appearance. Big difference there. Perhaps we should start crusading for the rights of serial killers. After all, their just being themselves! I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm just trying to show you an extreme so you understand where one side comes from.
2006-04-02 [M_Sinner]: And before you go all "That's such a bad comparison because homosexuality doesn't hurt others!!!" on me, I'm not saying that it does. I'm just saying that you making the comparison between an appearance and a behavior is ungrounded. I'm not going to get into arguments about why that behavior should be condoned or stopped. Been there, done that. =P
2006-04-02 [T_Pop]: aah yes... the clasic comparison of two completely different things but used anyway to make a point. (like comparing apples and potatos) i will admit that there is A simalarity, and you could probably get 5 (if you streatch and distort things) I beleave that i must agree with Sine on this and respectfuly ask you chose your comparisons a little better in the future. (though i wont hold my breath that my words would be heeded)
2006-04-03 [Blaithin]: Lets put it this way then. The majority of homosexuals are very open to heterosexuals. They're friendly and kind and have many straight friends. Many do not hold prejudices against straight people. Does this make homosexuals better people than heterosexuals because they can rise above differences in opinion as well as being prejudiced against? No, of course not, we're all the same, no matter what our sexual preference may be :)
2006-04-03 [deus-ex-machina]: There is no better comparison. The difference is black people can be empirically proven to be born black. I do not believe gay people are born gay... But the matter in question is - do they choose to be how they are? God condemns homosexuality, so surely, it's a sinful choice faggots make for straight people to use to ridicule them for their whole lives. Heh. We're all humans. Some are gay. Some are fucking stupid. In my opinion, the stupid people are worse, sorry T_Pop. It's a matter of ethical preference. Choice of Bible breeds ignorance amongst the love. Homosexuals are potentially evil... since when? It's a matter of proof. Empirical proof sex can be sinful please?
2006-04-03 [deus-ex-machina]: Basically, in this world, our sad, sorry world... God's supposed word has no actual preference over any other opinion on any other matter. Because I preach something of extremity now means that the long standing Bible holds no preference. If I were to come up with my own philosophy, I would expect something of a resistence. The difference? I would have to go through the same conflict Jesus went through to get my opinion claimed 'true'. I do not come from an age of enlightenment for the masses. I would not expect the sheep to convert. The fact stands that my opinion would be as justified as Jesus' - the difference? A book hundreds of years old posing as valid source.
2006-04-03 [M_Sinner]: Erm... I haven't read everything, and have virtually stopped any debate on these matters, but for the record, no one makes a conscious choice to be sinful. We're all condemned to being sinful according to the Christian faith.
2006-04-03 [deus-ex-machina]: Or whichever ethical system you deal in. :P
2006-04-09 [T_Pop]: aah but sin can be forgiven by Jesus. Blaithin i do see what your trying to say but you should also know that you have just opend the perverbiol door that would reveal a lot more then you would ever want to reveal. this is the question of differenses. if gay's are born gay and they cant change then yes there would be major problems confronting those that think being gay is wrong. but there are also senveral things must be considerd. if its genecti for them to be gay (like DNA or what not) then they would be no different from anyone else and everything that i and everyone else who aren't to hot about gay's have been saying would be for nothing. if its a mental thing that they are born with---
2006-04-09 [T_Pop]: then like wise we have little room to talk for they are born with it, but you would have to consider the other cases that people have overcome or was overcome by there mental differences. (like with dislexia, otisme, and other such thing) it might not be easy for them to chance but its not a normal think in life. there is also the posability that they have some how learned that it was right (or being nurtured to think its ok) this itself basicly sagests that they wornt born with it and are doing what is (whether they think so or not) wrong. now one could try to over look that, but this would bring into question of murderers and robers. they too would have learned to do what they do and ---
2006-04-09 [T_Pop]: would mostlikely think its not a bad thing but its still in the same section is it not. and before you start with this "well gay's don't hurt anyone" thing just consider that some robers and murderers dont think what there doing is wrong either but all of them would have learnd of what there doing at a young age. so to answer your question, just becouse they exept heterolsexuals dosen't make them better or even indiferent. it just means that they either dont see anything wrong with heterosexuals or a number of other reason.
2006-04-09 [deus-ex-machina]: Robbing and murdering can also be justified, but homosexuality doesn't try and justify itself as something that is 'right' as the others would do, it would be more like trying to choose a political party or a sports team and saying your choice over that is right. If it is genetic, which I doubt it is - they would be different. Well, urm, everyone's different. I don't see the point. But they would be able to isolate the 'gay gene'. Another idea is that is while they grow in the womb. A lot of boys who are gay men are very flamboyant from young ages. It's not strictly true, but before their hormones start raging, they're already doing 'gay
2006-04-09 [deus-ex-machina]: things'. In such a way, if you're overdosed with hormone in the womb, or somehow affected, there is a chance you might be 'born gay' although it's not in your genes. And then to the ultimate point... If it can be overcome, why should it? The mind is easily controlled - where do religious people come from? =D It's an issue of whether they should change, or whether it's a sin. Cults can say it's wrong, but other means of thinking say it's perfectly natural. You're using language and faith to persuade others. We all do it... but the things is, pro-homosexual
2006-04-11 [levhole]: You could always use the "homosexuality is against nature and serves no purpose in proliferation of the species" argument.
2006-04-11 [deus-ex-machina]: It's been done. It went full circle.
2006-04-11 [levhole]: as most arguments have i'm sure
2006-04-11 [deus-ex-machina]: So what's your personal reason for being against it?
2006-04-12 [levhole]: I'm just going to say that I don't support it. I could list any one of the hundred or so reasons why I don’t support it, but then you would most certainly post one of the hundred or so reasons for supporting it that would contradict my argument. I am against it simply because I want to be. You can be for it for what ever reasons you wish, but you'll find that mine, ultimately, makes the most sense.
2006-04-12 [deus-ex-machina]: I doubt it, but still, if you don't want to feed my boredom, so be it.
2006-04-12 [Balthizar]: How can you say that your reasons mean the most sense? Who are you to decide?
2006-04-12 [deus-ex-machina]: It's hard not to say things that will get me banned sometimes. =(
2006-04-12 [levhole]: what I am saying is that I beleive that it doesn't matter what I use to support my reason. The fact that I do or don't support something just because I do or don't like it is a very good reason which can't really be refuted in an argument because it is opinion with no tangeble facts attached to it.
2006-04-12 [deus-ex-machina]: Emotivism. Ickie. But yah, you just didn't convey that as your meaning. It sounded like 'fags are evil because God said so'. Thumbs up though, copper outer. =D
2006-04-13 [levhole]: There really is no point in debating something if the two debating parties believe so firmly in their own side of the argument that a compromise can never be reached. And this topic is one in which a compromise is simply out of the question.
2006-04-13 [Blaithin]: Simply because a compromise is out of the question doesn't mean the sides can't voice their opinions. Knowledge is power and even if you don't agree I'm sure you will learn something :)
2006-04-13 [M_Sinner]: But we've all voiced it over and over again! Then the comments get over-ridden... it's realy quite fruitless here. Make a wiki page to paste it at or the like, then it would actually reach an end. Here, it is an endless cycle.
2006-04-14 [Lady_Elowyn]: I agree. That's why I've been absent from the debate. I simply got tired of repeating myself constantly to no avail.
2006-04-14 [levhole]: That is my point exactly.
2006-04-22 [T_Pop]: ...
2006-05-02 [TAKE IT BACK TO SQUARE ONE]:
2006-05-02 [Balthizar]: Wow....you have taken everything we have just said...stomped on it and thrown it away.
2006-05-02 [M_Sinner]: Wow. After being yelled at and degraded by someone who uses ad hominem attacks, I really think that I'm going to re-evaluate my viewpoint!
2006-05-03 [levhole]: Why can people not have a page to express their opinions without ignorant wankers placing their two cents all over it.? I do believe that this page has a disclaimer stating that we do not "bash" homosexuals, its not like we are burning any crosses or lynching people over here... THIS IS A PAGE IN WHICH THOSE OF US WHO DON'T AGREE WITH SAME SEX MARRAGIES, FOR WHATEVER REASON, VOICE OUR OPINIONS. If you can't respect that and join in intelligent discussion then PISS OFF and keep your third tier comments to yourself.
2006-05-03 [Lady_Elowyn]: "QUOTE: Please to all supporters of gay marriage: don't think that the purpose of this wiki is to discriminate, we just want to state our opinions and it is our right to do so. We can still get along even though we have different political stances, ok? THERE IS A REASON THAT WAS POSTED ON HERE, to prevent people ranting on about how CRUEL and RACIST we are being, when all we want to do is say how we feel and have an inteligent discussion! Honestly, could you at least READ THE PAGE before you tell us all off?
2006-05-03 [M_Sinner]: Well, with any luck, they'll be banned for disobeying the uploading art rules. And even if they aren't, they seem to be leaving us alone now. I do find the correlation between her name and what she was attempting to do slightly amusing, though.
2006-05-03 [Lady_Elowyn]: Indeed. Well at least her interuption brought some variety to our conversatiopn. It brought us off in a tangent, rather than continuing in circles...
2006-05-03 [M_Sinner]: Nice she sees us as "neanderthal," but can't seem to understand the difference between "there" and "their." Oh... this is almost as good as the stuff going on at that abortion wiki... someone's trying to argue that all cripples and mentally handicapped people should be killed. They're taking up space, after all.
2006-05-03 [Lady_Elowyn]: wow that's really dumb. Wait where on earth did they get that idea? What wiki is it? I need to see this for myself.
2006-05-03 [M_Sinner]: Give me a second, I'll get the link.
2006-05-03 [Lady_Elowyn]: hmmm... well.. I'm gonna go investigate.
2006-05-07 [T_Pop]: heres a question... who ever know's what they want or who they are??? even if we all where to take every intelegence, phycology, DNA, and every other type of test out there there would be no way for anyone to truely know who they are. so how can someone tell who they are when no one can tell anything like that. don't tell me that you or anyone you know know's the answer to this. its imposable to know that for we know absolutely nothing if you look at the big picture of thing. to gain in wisdom is to begin to understand this and THEN learn of one's self. varry few people know there self so who can say that they know this?? that is why i ask. how can you truely know if your SUPPOSED to be gay-
2006-05-07 [T_Pop]: when you don't take the time to know yourself?
2006-05-07 [deus-ex-machina]: ...Eh? Do you get a hard on when you look at a boy or a girl? You don't need to know yourself to know your sexual orientation. Unless you question your own heterosexualit
2006-05-07 [M_Sinner]: I think that he's going a bit existential and wondering what defines being gay (beyond the hard-on-ness of same-sex-ness). I think that it is quite impossible to truly know yourself, Tom... There are often secrets that your subcoinsious doesn't want you to know. The people who are gay like that are questionalbe as to whether they are actually gay or not (If you don't know you're gay, are you?... If the Nature argument is true, then yes...). Many people do get to know themselves enough to realize that they are gay. Some admit it, some don't. Honestly... I'm barely grasping what you wrote, and I'm not sure that I responded in total...
2006-05-07 [deus-ex-machina]: I know I have certainly forgotten some things due to my ashamed subconscious, lol. And I agree you don't always get to know yourself, but I would say one of the first things you would know is your sexual orientation. Far more people are capable of answering the question 'Could I ever have sex?' than 'Could I ever kill a person?' I'd say the first is an easier question... but it all depends on how easy your environment is. If you'll get disowned for expressing what you feel, I imagine you're far less likely to try it out.
2006-05-25 [Katakuna]: ^^ Hi.. I'd just like to start by saying I've nothing against you stating your opinons. The United States constitution garuntees your right to do so. However it also mentions "certain unalienable rights" and among those, as i'm sure you're aware are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The same constitution that you call on to protect your right to free speech gives everyone the right to pursue their own happiness. Also in the very same ammendment you use, it states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof." Which basically says THE BIBLE ISN'T A VALID LEGAL DOCUMENT.
2006-05-25 [Katakuna]: There goes your "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" argument. And as to your "Don't fix what ain't broken" I agree completly. Marriage has never needed a definition before, why define it now? And honestly how do two members of the same sex getting married destroy the sanctity of marriage any more than Brittany Spears's 6 hour marriage? I understand the point of marriage being between god and blah blah blah, but the fact of the matter is this is not a theocracy it is a democracy and no one has a shred of LEGAL evidence to ban gay marriage.
2006-05-25 [Caritas]: God meant for it to be man and a WOMAN. Not man and man. The reason why God had man marry woman is because women have children and in that, men help with making children which is making the world go on. Men and men can not have babies. Women and women can not have babies. Only can one man and one woman keep God's plan.
2006-05-25 [deus-ex-machina]: Would it be rude of me to ask you to refrain from talking of God as if known fact in a multi-faith community? And his point still stands, legally, 'God' should have no place in a legal issue (assuming we're over calling it 'gay marriage'?). It doesn't make YOU a sinner if your nation allows civil unionship anyway. That's like calling Britain a nation of sinners because it's legalised. It's not going to affect your chances of getting to heaven if YOU don't marry another person of the same gender. Man made the law, not this God type person.
2006-05-25 [Caritas]: Yes man made the law. But, you are forgetting something. God made man.
2006-05-25 [deus-ex-machina]: I'm guessing it was too rude then? ¬.¬ No proof God made man, hence why, I'm guessing, God isn't allowed into a democratic law like that of the United States'. I did not forget anything, but I am well aware on what faith assumptions you base your life on.
2006-05-25 [Balthizar]: awww*Hands [dues-ex-machina] a cookie] its ok
2006-05-25 [levhole]: Its good to see you back deus-ex... you are about the only person who comes up with consitently challenging debate material.
2006-05-25 [Lady_Elowyn]: Oh, but Deus, you did forget one thing. This country was founded by Christians, by those people who fled Europe for the new world because of religious intolerance. Therefore, God SHOULD be allowed into our democratic government, as it was BASED on him.
2006-05-25 [Balthizar]: Actually, your wrong. THe country was founed out of Economic reasons.
2006-05-25 [Lady_Elowyn]: Perhaps. But the point is, God was still a major part of the lives of our founding fathers.
2006-05-25 [Balthizar]: Does not change the fact that the laws were created to make thing equal. Basing the laws off God would not do that, as God is not equal, nor are his laws.
2006-05-25 [Lady_Elowyn]: For what reason do you say God, and his laws, are unequal?
2006-05-25 [Balthizar]: Easy, By God's law Man is dominate over all things,linlcud
2006-05-25 [Lady_Elowyn]: God never said women were below men. Yes, wives should refer to their husbands in the end, but they still have their say in matters. And unmarried women can be as independant, or even more so, than men, as shown in several stories throughout the Bible.
2006-05-25 [Balthizar]: And yet, By societies standards when run by God's laws Men were the ones with the positions in power. Females were not allowed too. Laws created by man can be chaged if a problem arises. Laws by a book over a thousand years old cannot
2006-05-25 [Lady_Elowyn]: I don't know why I continue trying to convince you of my viewpoint. I see it is pointless, so I will stop arging. Besides, this is a debate on civil unions, not on whether God's Law is better or worse than Man's Law. Come to think of it, by saying Man's law is better than Gods law, you are in a sense making man higher than God. And, on another note, God's law can change, and has. The entire old testament law was repealed by the New Testament, which laid down a new law.
2006-05-25 [Balthizar]: The point is this. Because God's law cannot change unless God himself sends some one down here to do it, it should not be in politics. Laws should be done by man as they can be changed when needed. Hence why you cannot say Gay marriage should be banned on the basis God doesnt like it
2006-05-25 [deus-ex-machina]: Is America not better how it is now though? How would the nation be a democracy if it was run by a Church? I'm not saying Christians are greedy people... heh... but I think no faith (or all faiths if you want to look at it on the flipside) is better than one faith. God may not have said a lot of things, but why then do so many Christian denominations exist? They all interpreted the Bible in different ways, so what would be there to stop women becoming inferior if the Church run state said so? Likewise, what if Muslims had landed? Would all women have to wear niqabs?
2006-05-25 [deus-ex-machina]: By definition, God is consistant and benevolent. How can we have objective universal laws if God can't even keep to them? Urm, because man decided to give everyone's favourite fictional character a more cuddlier feel. Joke, partly. It's one view though. If man's law is better than God's law, God can't exist. But hey, God doesn't fiddle in our matters. It doesn't mean to say man's laws can't work better than God's laws in a democratic country though.
2006-05-29 [Kikai]: I think it's rather funny how guys who are against homosexuals still enjoy lesbians doing eachother. That, to me, makes no sense. Guys always ask me if I wanna make out with another girl in front of them just because I like girls instead of guys, but then they get grossed out when I discuss guys who like other guys. I bet there is more than 50 members here that are guys who still like lesbians. You guys are all silly little hypocrites and they don't even know it. Yay! ^_~
2006-05-29 [Kikai]: And another thing: Bush should learn to stay out of other people's bedrooms. XD Done for now. ^^
2006-05-29 [levhole]: my studies of scripture may be out dated but I do beleive that Eve was created because Lilith, Adam's first wife, wanted to "be on top"... she was banished and if you read some of the lost scripture I believe she was the first "vampire" allthough most of that literature has been distorted.
2006-05-29 [levhole]: my poit there was that god's law was so degrading to women that the one that dared to defy him was cast aside for a more efficent model.
2006-05-29 [Kikai]: Wow. That's an interesting way to put it.
2006-05-29 [Balthizar]: Interesting...
2006-05-29 [deus-ex-machina]: I think it's more of a Jewish thing. I'm sure I've heard Jews being scolded in reference to Lilith.
2006-05-30 [levhole]: Deus is correct its in Jewish scripture... its been a very long time since I have read it though.
2006-05-30 [Balthizar]: Ah, Jewish Scripture. That makes more sense, yet at the same time. It brings up somthing that was adressed earlier. We all belong to differant faiths so, How can you use your faith to justify any political decision?
2006-05-30 [deus-ex-machina]: This is a very good argument. Simple answer? They're all arrogant. Christians are the loudest, so they get bitched at the most. Then those who don't bitch complain that their religion is based on love (as they are but this is overshadowed). Hence why many pro-homosexual types dislike malignant religious types. Sometimes they just forget to distinguish between the malignant and loving theist and all war breaks loose.
2006-05-30 [Balthizar]: Well, Human's are generally arrogant. The idea that we could be wrong can spark a war. Political ideas and Religion are simalliar in the fact that both cause arrogance.
2006-05-30 [Caritas]: Nothing is wrong with Christians/Cat
2006-05-30 [Balthizar]: There is nothing wrong with any religion really, only those who beleive in the religion and take it to the extreme.
2006-05-30 [Caritas]: What do you mean by 'exterme'?
2006-05-30 [Caritas]: You just said that. But what do you me be 'extreme'?
2006-05-30 [Balthizar]: Extreme as in Witch burnings, Cross burnings in the yard, killing people who dont agree with your beleifes. As for the double comment, my Internet is acting up, so I dC'ed it in the middle of loading and reconnecting, so it posted twice
2006-05-30 [Caritas]: Oh ok. I thought you meant in like Catholic men/women becoming Sisters Nuns and Priests.
2006-05-30 [Balthizar]: Nope. I am Technically a Priest by Mormon stands, sinse that is my families religion,and I was ordained a Priest. Yet, I do not follow all the Mormon Beleifs.
2006-05-30 [Caritas]: What is the Mormon? Are you Catholic?
2006-05-30 [Balthizar]: Mormons are Christians. We have two bibles in essense, the Bible itself and the Book of Mormon. We beleive there to be living Prophets,who the current one is Gordon B. Hinckley.
2006-05-31 [Caritas]: oh.
2006-05-31 [Balthizar]: Odd, most people have heard of Mormons before.
2006-05-31 [Caritas]: I have not.
2006-05-31 [deus-ex-machina]: ...That IS odd. Anyway, I'm not sure what this thing is with seperating Christianity and Catholicism. http://en.wiki
2006-05-31 [Lady_Elowyn]: I have. My friend is Mormon
2006-06-01 [levhole]: I know a few Mormons as well.
2006-06-02 [deus-ex-machina]: It's better to know what the Mormons believe than to know a Mormon. Of course, if you know a Mormon and know their beliefs, even better, but still...
2006-06-02 [levhole]: I know that they believe a man named Joseph Smith to be their first prophet. I know that they believe that Jesus once visited America and that he will return to establish the kingdom of Heaven in Kansass. Or that is the picture I got from reading through the text rather lighly last year. Can any one back me up, or shoot me down on that?
2006-06-02 [Balthizar]: Nope its good^^ Not promoting...I find alot of things wrong with my families religion.
2006-06-02 [levhole]: Oh, ok wrong usless midwestern state. Thats not to bad though, my last error was regarding Rastafarianisi
2006-06-02 [Balthizar]: Dont feel like an Ass, I dont know much about my own religion,and what i know I dont like a whole lot, hence why I mix it with other religions and belief's.
2006-06-02 [levhole]: Thats the best way to do it for most people... myself included.
2006-06-02 [Balthizar]: Yup.
2006-06-02 [levhole]: Hey hey, it looks like we stopped debating again. It's rather nice when people stop interjecting side comments on to a wiki and allow the intelligent people to hold serious discussions.
2006-06-02 [Balthizar]: Yes, that is always nice.
2006-06-02 [deus-ex-machina]: This isn't meant to be a wiki for debating, apparently.
2006-06-02 [Blaithin]: To bad. Debating is so entertaining.
2006-06-03 [deus-ex-machina]: too* =) Ah well, the owner hasn't told you to leave yet again, so I suppose it is allowed until then.
2006-06-03 [Blaithin]: Stupid too's, I always get them wrong heh. The owner must be on a break, I've never seen a discussion go so long without being told to stop and move because it's too much for all those not involved to read.
2006-06-03 [levhole]: I think its because this discussion is alot more usefull in the long run, if we discuss religion long enough we all ma learn something.
2006-06-07 [Xeroh Kanoe]: Hello?
2006-06-07 [levhole]: yes
2006-06-30 [Lady Evangeline]: hey just happened to find this place, and I got to say this is a wonderful little wiki. I'm against gay marriage myself, but I have plenty of gay and bi friends. Just thought I'd drop a note that I really think it's pretty brave standing up against popular culture like this, it's hard. so in short, you guys are awesome!
2006-06-30 [levhole]: Thank you, you'll find that the people that post on this page often get very involved in heated debates about gay marrage and theology.
2006-06-30 [Lady Evangeline]: not really surprised. although i've found that uhhh "heated debates" generally results in less than what you started with. lol! the more you fight someone over a suject the less willing they are to listen to your story. it's like bible bashing, -- it fosters nothing but discord, dislike and closemindednes
2006-06-30 [levhole]: For the most part our debates take that turn if we don't watch ourselves. Some one calls me a fachist neanderthal, and I in return call them a liberal pussy or pagan, which ever suits me at the moment. It is the way of things.
2006-06-30 [Lady Evangeline]: the way of things huh? sounds set in stone...hope that works out for ya.
2006-06-30 [levhole]: Me too.
2006-07-20 [Mr_McEwan]: WE WIN!
2006-07-20 [deus-ex-machina]: ...What?
2006-07-24 [levhole]: The prize... duh.
2006-07-25 [Lady Evangeline]: what prize?
2006-07-26 [levhole]: Beats me, but I know we got it!
2006-08-18 [Hobbit teen]: Hey I am for both sides! i just want to keep things sacred due to religeon and stuff like that (plus i dont want to go to hell like all of them *i think) I also think if they want to live like that let them...*my land lords are gay thats why i am sortof on both side (natural)*
2006-08-18 [Lady_Elowyn]: Well I won't say I'm on both sides, but I kinda agree with you. I don't think it's right, but I'm not gonna go around persecuting them, cause that wouldn't be right either.
2006-09-16 [Zab]: Can I ask a thing? (generally to the visitors and members here)
Why are you against gay marriage?
Is it because the reason that kids would be unhappy with gay parents? (Here I just have to say that just that reason doesn't have anything with the marriage to do, so I don't see the point there)
Or is it because of religious reasons? And if then, how about non-religeous marriages? (we have that in sweden at least, I assume it's a possibility everywhere) and if so..why?
Is there another reason?
I think they can do what they want, I'm straight but some of my friends are gay. Tho, I'd like to know how you see on the matter and why. Because I'm interested.
2006-09-17 [M_Sinner]: You spin me right round, baby, right round, like a record baby, right round round round...
As for my answer to the question, it's partially religious and partially logical. I think that the religious part is kind of obvious. I believe on faith that it shouldn't happen, and if you've got a problem with my faith, that's fine by me. As for the logical aspect, the only thing that I have against the idea of gay marriage is that two of one personality gender type tends to warp a child's psychology. I couldn't care less if the kid was raised thinking that homosexuality was okay, but generally (there are, of course, exceptions to everything), for a child to develop normally he needs both a father-persona
2006-09-17 [Zab]: About the religious reason; how about non-religious marriage? I actually don't know how it is in other countries, but here you can marry ''borgerligt'' which is without the church or any other religeous aspect. Would that too be against your believe in faith? I can't really understand how you pulled faith into it..?
And the logical reason, as you say, is the reason involving kids. Can't they marry without intending to get kids? And shouldn't that be a matter of adoptions instead of marriage? (I doubt two women or two men are able to get a child by themselves). Or if you're thinking of a situation where one of the persons already is a parent; does marriage change much for the child (compared to if they just live together without marry)? Does it stop it from meeting its real father/mother (that's not married homosexually)?
I want to say that I'm still not out to offend anyone, but I would like a serious, non hostile discussion.
And as a sidenote; my parents divorced. I want to say that to have parents who barely stand each others living under one roof isn't sacrifices for the parents, it's horrible suffering for the child. I was 4 years old when they divirced and it was one of the happiest moments in my life. So, why should the child suffer because the parents think they have to stay together for the childs sake?
2006-09-17 [Balthizar]: I know in the US you can. Instead of being married by a pastor or the sort, you are wed a Justice of the Peace, or a judge.
2006-09-17 [Zab]: Alright, that's what I mean, yes. :)
2006-09-18 [deus-ex-machina]: I would rather have two parents than one. Forgive me, I've grown up in mother/father household which is becoming rarer. I would not want to live with just my mother or my father. I prefer the democracy of two, the financial support of two. I turned out the way I am with them anyway. They are more my friends than my parents now. After 17 years, I would prefer that than have two people who despise each other and act like teenagers. 'Tell your mother...'. If two people love one another, in my eyes, I do not care if that is a woman and a man... of course, I am glad they had sex, witnessed my birth and then kept me around in my case, but I don't think it is important to me now than my dad is a male and my mother is a female. Marriage is a word for one thing. The act is a pointless ceremony for another. Too many people get divorced nowadays for it to mean anything. That is a sore truth, but in the UK, as I hear and see it, marriage is just a symbol... a glorified act of propose love. It does not mean commitment. Because a word exists that reverses all that. 'Divorce'. Love is not sacred. It is not religious. Deep. Spiritual. Because of that word. Everything that makes it lovely, is ruined for that reason.
It's so fucked and raped you might as well let faggots and lesbians do it. Tainted, it is. Shame you think it's worthwhile. People should commit to dissolving the idea of a 'divorce' first, before they want to talk about who can get married. A gay couple together to the day one of them dies? A straight couple which marries and divorces half a year later? Which one is love? Even though their God witnessed only one of them with his full appreciation?
2006-09-18 [Zab]: Of course it's better with two parents than one, but if the both parents does nothing but fighting all the time it's not good for anyone, especially not the child. So in that case a divorce is to prefer for the childs sake.
I won't marry at all, everybody I know who has married has also divorced, which was much more problematic than the marriage was happy. *shrugs* But I do believe that everyone who wants should be able to marry, and that homosexual marriages has nothing to do with homosexuals being parents. That's an adoptions matter most of all in my eyes.
2006-09-18 [Blaithin]: I prefer having my parents divorced. It's opened my eyes to the type of people they really are and in some instances with mom brought me closer while with dad, it's shown me lots of ways that I have no wish to behave like. As for the personality influence subject...if it hasn't appeared to you, most gay couples have a more feminine and a more masculine part. That's how we judge sexuality a lot these days. If the guy is too girly he must be gay while there are still masculine gay men and if the woman is too manly she must be a lesbian yet there are feminine lesbians. I don't think those personalities overly effect a child though.
I've lived over half my life with no good father figure but I'm still doing just fine. I'll be the first to admit that I'm a bit of a committmentpho
Any child raised in a homosexual household isn't going to be at any development disadvantage in my opinion. Even if they are raised by two women or two men, schooling introduces a variety of influential people of both sexes as well as other relatives. If anything, children raised in such an environment will be more open minded and therefore have more opportunities than children raised to ignore and degrade anything or one that doesn't measure up to their standards.
2006-09-18 [Zab]: I agree with you.
But I still don't think that childraising has anything to do with the right to marry:P
2006-09-18 [Blaithin]: That too heh
2006-09-22 [T_Pop]: *gurmble grumble* (now that ET has made the comment boxes bigger everyone's able to type more in one comment. and that makes it a lot harder to keep track of wiki conversations like this... pluse the fact that i've been off ET for a few day's dosen't help matters either) lol
2006-09-22 [M_Sinner]: And it sort of eliminates the cool little battles of "who can type this the fastest and finish their thought before someone interrupts them?!!!" I miss those... they were so much fun...
2006-09-22 [T_Pop]: lmao ya you would becouse you could type like mad but for me it was horrable lol
2006-11-01 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: okay, I've heard some of both sides, and I'm the sort of person that really likes to look at things neutrally before deciding. So, that having been said, I've read some comments here. (not all, oh no, that'd take forever) And I understand a few points. I have agreements, disagreements, and questions. Because I want to hear more from the anti-gay marriage side.
1) I understand the male figure/female figure in a child's life. However, I do not think that divorce is a terrible, terrible thing. I believe that two parents should see a relationship counsellor if they're considering divorce, and try to work it out. This does not hold for abuse. In such a case, the abused should get away from that relationship as fast as possible. I also believe that single parents (not going to mention homosexuals here. Going on the theory part, keeping to the straight side) can raise a child just fine. I think the environment at home needs to be STABLE much more than it needs to have both male and female figures. There are plenty of other adults in a child's life (teachers, councellors, neighbors, friends' parents...) to give examples and balance a child's psychology. We aren't all recluses without outside human contact. XD
2) The "sanctity" of marriage. hm. Now, this raises a few questions. I am a christian, and I do believe that marriage is a union condoned by God (well, provided a priest performs this, and in theory.), but people have lately strayed from this. They think more selfishly. "I love this person." Than praying to God and seeing what answers God has. I was told to get in a relationship with this one guy, but then later to break up with him. God used me in his life to help him, awaken him from a delusion he was having. He's not a christian, but that's all right. I served my purpose.
3) I don't want to argue. I want to gather information, here. So tell me a few reasons why the GOVERNMENT, separate from any church or other religious facilities, should not marry a homosexual couple. Especially, one that has been together 10+ years, and has proven loyalty. I know several reasons TO marry them, but I admit I'm rather uneducated on the other side of things.
4) last question. I will not be offended. You may message me if you don't want it public. Is homosexuality in itself bad, or wrong, in your opinion? If so, why? Or, are you just against the marriage, you don't mind the people? Also, do you consider homosexuality a perversion, a choice, or part of someone's biological/psy
thank you in advance! ^^
....and please, if I ask 'why?' do NOT say 'because' or 'because that's the way it is' or other such answers. These WILL make me think less of you as a human being. If you're not sure, do research. Get information. Or, clarify what, exactly, about your ideas makes you believe this.
2006-11-07 [T_Pop]: ok. sense i seem to be the first to answer then i will try my best with my own point-of-view. (by the way good questions). hhmmm... your right, as long as the child has a few adult figures in there life it dosen't matter if there parents are strait, gay, gone, or whatever. the truth is that it's up to the child and the way they preseave the world that makes then who they are. desent people have been known to come out of bad situations while horrable people from good situations.
i would also have to agree that divorce should be a last resort to a relations ship, if the abuse won't stop through variose means then it is a step that should be taken.
as for marriage itself i too have a slight problem with how its been thrown about lately. people no longer see marriage as a life long thing anymore. instead we get impressed if it lasts 10-20 years. put simply people seem to not care about the meaning of it anymore anymore.
sorry, but polotics aren't my strong sute, so i don't really have an answer for your 3ed one.
i personlay think that homosexuality is a choice that people make. biological theres nothing to indicate a difference between gay and strait people. i mean i'm sure that (not trying to be sick or anything) but if you took a gay guy or girl and had them have sex with the opposite sex they would have the same reactions as a strait person (though they might not want to admit it)... psychologicaly
a good question that still hasn't been, and probably won't be answerd anytime soon is what is love? truthfuly if you want to look at it in a way, i could be considerd bi (however you spell it) for i love both guy's and girls. now that being said that love is the love for one's friends that i have for mine, or the love for one's family. the last "love" being the romantic one i don't have for others, but even then how can you tell if its not really lust. personaly i think that "true love" in a combination of all three and a few things more. the truth is that the world has twisted that word so the "i love this person" becomes varry vage and thus we have people marring others they most likely shouldn't be. to answer the questions about homosexuality and marriage we have to first answer the question of what "true love" is, and how to destinguish it from everything else.
2006-11-07 [deus-ex-machina]: I agree that there is no solid proof that homosexuality is not a choice, but equally, there's no proof it's a choice. I certainly think you overstepped the boundary with your idea that gay people sleeping with the opposite sex... whatever the point was... If you mean they react the same way in that they reach an orgasm, that's almost inevitable with stimulation, but I doubt they would feel as comfortable during sex. It's exactly the same if you asked a straight person to sleep with a member of the same sex... Would you enjoy it as much?
2006-11-08 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: right, I'll agree with deus. Now, it has been seen straight people become gay and vice-versa, and bis just all over the specturm (XD) but...I don't know. In a way, I think that gay people don't exactly choose it, after all, who'd want to put up with everything they have to in life because they're gay, but then on the other hand, you could say the same for schizophrenics or obsessive-comp
I personally know I'm straight. Why? because I like guys. I always have (first crush in kindergarten, ever since then I've had a 'favorite' boy. XD) They are pretty, I mean... I just love them. You know what I mean, obviously. And I can't know what it's like to be gay, because I'm not. But then I consider what I've heard and I wonder, "If I were a guy, and felt the same way, what would I do?" And I can't exactly answer that. I can imagine myself being a guy (I'm a novelist. The main character in one of my novels is male, so it's kind of required), but then I would think I would like girls mostly, and guys a little on the side. But overall, I think I'd look for a guy. Which is kind of the way I am. I love boys, but if my perfect person happens to be a girl, I have no objections. =/
2006-11-08 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: let's take this into the bible now, shall we? XD I have my own interpretation
OK #1 Leveticus is void if you're christian. Jesus came down from heaven and basically said that.
#2: Biblical laws are really "love god" and "love all people". The reason why there's more is to protect people from superstitions. Such as "don't have sex with a woman on her period" (leveticus. Sorry, I forget where) The actual punishment is this: "Both must be exiled, because the man will have found out where the blood comes from" (my modern-day wording, sorry) Well, DUH! at that time, they'd probably accuse the woman of witchcraft to slaughter her unborn child, and kill any woman on her first period under these charges! That's not exactly loving behavior, and would not only make God very sad, but also kill off the Jewish race. =P
So personally? I think God would say, "don't be gay" today. Why? I mean, look at how many people are being hurt because they're gay! That can't be pleasing to God. That's the sort of thing God does all the time. Even taking it into the 10 commandments. "no adultery". can you even imagine what it would be like if everyone slept with everyone else? a woman has a child and goes up to the father of her child. Or even, to all the men she's slept with. *let's be on the smaller end of things and say 15* How many would say, "Yeah, that's my child. I'll help you take care of it." ? NONE. No one wants to take responsibility for something they're not even sure is theirs! Be honest here. You can't argue with that. If I were a man, I'd do the same. So the woman's stuck having to take care of who-knows-how-
2006-11-08 [T_Pop]: sorry deus, i will admit that i did over step a boudary there, and as such i do retract that, but like i said in the comment it's my oppinion that its a choice i mearly chose the wrong way to show it.
Corinthian, i'm going to have to both agree and disagree with your statement. surely God wishes for everyone to live as pure a life as they can, but to say that he doesn't want anyone to suffer is not exactly currect. if so then why did Jesus say that "to follow him we would have to take up our crosses" (sorry don't remember where it was) also christions have been the target for a of persacution and ridicual. i think its safe to say that God wanted the puraty of mankind through those and not the lack of suffering.
2006-11-08 [deus-ex-machina]: On a non-Christian level, where you take God into account as being benevolent, I agree with Corinthian completely. It makes sense. However, the idea of suffering is a huge problem in philosophy... and both major points have been raised already.
As for Corinthian's point about not knowing because you're not... I understand, but I personally believe when someone experiences love, that love is universal no matter who you are. So I think the way a straight woman feels about a man, is the same way a gay man feels about another man... give or take the emotional needs between the genders.
And T_Pop, apology accepted. =) I'm not going to try and change your opinion at all. Can't be bothered with that anymore. =P I'm leaning towards choice nowadays, but a deeply subconscious choice. I believe I remember reading something that during upbringing, contact with the genders and even your image of yourself can influence your sexuality. For example, some men might not have the body they want, so they fall in love with the 'perfect' male body. It goes a lot deeper than that, but I certainly don't know if I believe it. I think when homosexuals talk about not making a choice, they mean it, but I think it could be a very complex subconscious decision.
2006-11-08 [deus-ex-machina]: Interestingly, what I read did not say anything about family upbringing. The absence of one parental figure means nothing, in fact, the opposite, that bad experience and contact with a gender can be an underlying cause. I've heard horrible stories about abused children who 'end up' being homosexuals, transvestites and worse due to abuse. That's surely all in their head.
2006-11-08 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: mm, right. and I appreciate the lack of "It's wrong because it's wrong because it's wrong" people here. That doesn't help anyting ever. Just makes people angry. ^_^
And the whole 'suffering' thing? It's true that to live we have to suffer, but that doesn't mean God likes it. Ideally, there WOULDN'T be suffering. If we go back, and Lucifer hadn't turned against God (which I think we all agree God never wanted), there wouldn't be suffering. But, it happened, so people all have to suffer in their lives. It's all a matter of we are never given more than we can possibly deal with. A lot of people just don't realise how strong they really are. There's a lot of power in the human will. A lot. And even more in God. If we turn to God for help, it may not sometimes SEEM like He's helping, but don't get bitter. If we trudge through it and then look back, I'm sure we'll be able to see His hand. And, just the fact that we got through it. Everything God does is very intricately planned to better those around whom it happens. It's just a matter of if they choose to let it make them better people or not. God won't change a person's mind. =P
2007-01-02 [levhole]: I am glad to see that the "you guys are a bunch of ignorant hicks" type of comments are subsiding. This wiki is almost a legitimate forum for debate now.
2007-01-02 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: ^_^ yeah, that whole sort of comments (the "ignorant hicks") are just as or more idiotic than the other side. XD!
I, at least, say things that are WORTH saying. =P
2007-01-02 [deus-ex-machina]: ...In English? And without wanting to be too mean, your last comment wasn't worth saying at all. Not in essence. It was like reading a preacher's motivational speech rather than reading something that conveys facts. There is optimism, then there is faith. Faith is so many levels beyond optimism it is disturbing. 'God', in the way you put it, is like a human will steroid and sometimes the idea of an adorning God is helpful, but an atheist given the same determination is just as capable. So I will just ignore that part for the sake of my temper. You will only see God when you look back on your life if you want to see God. Thus, moot argument. On top of that, if you can actually believe in Lucifer turning against God, please tell me you believe in UFOs and demons too? Even Christianity itself has expanded upon literal Biblical translations. Suffering exists because it is impossible for everyone to have things they want, or to reach the outcome they wanted. Plus all things eventually break down. It is the selfish nature of humans to feel cheated when they can't do what they wanted, or if someone/someth
2007-01-03 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: mm. =P well, I'll also say this: a lot has happened since that last comment, and I don;t really want to go into it. But, basically, I decided to stop fooling myself. Though it was fun. pfft. *pouts*
2007-01-04 [Fizban]: I have read the comments on this page. And I apologize is that makes me unequipped to join in the debate. But I didn't see any comments made from someone who is living through it, so I thought that perhaps I could offer a different batch of insight.
I am gay, and on the previous statement that [T_Pop] made, that was then rebuttled by [deus-ex-machina], I can clearly say, that if there was ever a time in my life when I could choose, I wouldn't have choosen gay. For christs sake, I would still make the same decision I believe.
I spent 6 years, the first six years I began to realize that I was,...in complete and or utter denial, awake every other night of the week telling myself I wasn't and wishing I wasn't as is, and trying to be like everyone else.
I didn't find out when I was in kindergarten, I didn't start to understand it when I was four, I had no notions of such things at all. I don't know if that supports the idea that there is nuture involved or not just nature. But I can firmly say that I personally believed that it is definetly nature.
(p.s.--Every single gay person I have ever talked to agree's upon this point, and has similar views upon it's origins in the nature side of things.)
2007-01-05 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: I also agree with Fizban. I had this debate a little while ago with a gay friend of mine, when I was wavering on this issue, and was wavering on the side of "hey homosexuality exists, but... let's just let them hold hands and that's it." And he brought up the exact same points.
I'd like to ask anyone else out there, if you think people had a choice, why would they choose the way where you just have to put up with so much more? I mean, honestly!
If you could ask any black person that was alive during or preferably before the civil rights movements if they would have preferred to be white at that time, guess what they'll say?
If you could ask any 'different' person during the holocaust if they would have preferred to be a white, straight, arian german christian, what do you think the answer will be?
Be practical, people.
2007-01-05 [Fizban]: Well, it's kinduv annoying I can't have kids of my own, with yah know...a wife. I would really like one of those. I have that whole,...yah know. Cliche american dream...
A loving wife and 2 kids, a family, a dog, a good not horribly paying job that I love, a two story house, with a white picket fence, and a nice portch to sit and watch the sunset with my wife till we get old.
Yah know, the most cliche dribble you'd ever heard, but some how it's everything I've ever wanted...-_-
Ofcourse, the grass always looks greener. I am sure if I actually got all those things I would still be uncontent...bu
2007-01-05 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: well, you know, adoption agencies are rather... full. find a nice partner, and adopt! =) get the house and dog an job. ^-^ just exchange the wife for a husband, and adopt instead. Just because you're gay, doesn't mean you have to live some freakish life. o.O; you can live a normal life, just with a man instead of a woman.
You can also look up "10 couples" on YouTube. Some of the sweetest stories I've ever heard. I love it. Go ahead, watch. It's great. But watch ALL of them. Each couple has a heart-warming or heart-wrenchin
2007-01-05 [deus-ex-machina]: Fizban, marry me. Sounds like the perfect life. I think you had me at white picket fence. We don't have them here.
2007-01-05 [Fizban]: That's scary!
Where do you live where there are no picket fences?! *gasp*
You need someone to whisk you away from such an unsavory land!
Can you cook? I will clean. Hey, do you wanna be the mean dad? Cause I would love to be the cool dad that gets to do all the fun stuff with the kids, when you have to be the responsible one, that has to yell at and discipline them. XD
2007-01-05 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: o.o' uhm... *scratches head* call me an idiot, but... I think you're being just a little bit paranoid.
They'll love you; trust me. <3 you seem like such a sweetheart.
...but in any case. Where do you live that you see this all? o.O; I live in rich Georgia suburbia. XD I accent the 'georgia' part. A Confederate state. Oops. I can't say that, can I? =P
XD I want to move away from here, soon. to a mountain. o.o where it's windy in summer and cold in winter. <3 and rainy in summer too. o.o =D know of a good place like that? v.v coz I don't get it here. No snow, no winter freezing-my-li
2007-01-05 [Fizban]: lol...do that on a mountain...or new york. I dunno about windy though,...you would get the most of that yes, I suppose on a mountain loyls. But you would know more about georgian mountain ranges then I would lol. We have bunches of mountain in NY ^_^.
2007-01-05 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: or you can move out of the US! =D
Canada's nice this time of year, I hear. (mm snow... ^-^)
2007-01-06 [deus-ex-machina]: Could I ask for less hr tags please? For some reason they're making a lot of writing invisible unless I highlight it. Weird.
LoL, in a near by city, before they even legalised civil unions between gay people they were begging gay couples to adopt. I know what you're saying though. Even in the UK though, I imagine kids getting some stick.
2007-01-06 [Fizban]: "I imagine kids getting some stick" <_< huh? I don't understand.
Oh sorry, >_<, I have had the same thing happen to me before as well with other peoples comments going invisible. Quite strange. I will remember to use less ~hr~'s in these things if it is indeed that to which is causing it.
2007-01-06 [Fizban]: ((Are there any anti-gay marriage people left watching and arguing on this page, or did it get run-over by liberals and everyone just left...I have seen that with far to many lol.))
2007-01-07 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: ........I was thinking something similar, Fizban... XDD I was like, "wow, isn't this conversation turning against the entire point of this wiki? oO;"
....hmmmmmm. I might stop watching here, as, well, I don't need it any more. =) I came here to get opinions, I -sort of- have some of them, and besides, I've decided where I stand on this particular issue. XD
2007-02-28 [MagpieWisdom]: Sorry I'm intruding on your Wiki I'm gay and pro gay marraige; I'm also from the UK, we have gay marraige(kind of) so I don't want to debate something that doesn't really involve me. I just wanted to comment on the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." banner by pointing out the divorce rate for straight marriage in the USA and UK and say that it most definitely is broken.
2007-02-28 [Caritas]: But, the rate for straight married couples who stay together is prolly higher. Which is very good!
2007-02-28 [Zab]: I'm not sure about that... all people I know has divorced at least once, (and often stayed divorced) and the few that are married always fight all the time...>_>
I only know straight people that has married, tho. Not sure if it matters wether you are homosexual or not in that point.
2007-02-28 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: >>; hmm.... want to offer stats? that'd be really nice. ^_^ I love to see good stats and facts. They do so much for an argument.
2007-02-28 [Fizban]: Yeah, I am totally on agreement there.
2007-02-28 [Zab]: The only stats I know is that 100% f those I know has divorced or are unhappy..:P
2007-02-28 [Fizban]: Ummm...yeah,..
So yeah, I can't really think of many who haven't been divorced. I have 2 friends who's parents aren't divorced. Mind you, I am talking about like...20 friends to whom's backgrounds I know here.
2007-02-28 [Zab]: And sometimes it's good to divorce..I'm happy my parents divorced. >_>
2007-02-28 [Fizban]: So am I, totally, they are so much better now lol.
2007-03-01 [dfafadsfasdasf]: i can't belive you guys still talk here lol...
2007-03-01 [Fizban]: lol, no one really has for months, but some new guy came in here and said something soooo.
2007-03-01 [dfafadsfasdasf]: lol
2007-03-02 [MagpieWisdom]: Not that I meant to say that gy marriage would be any better, divorce-wise, mearly that marriage IS broken, it's not perfect and does need fixing. Anyway here are some Statistics for the US:
25% of married couples get divorced
There were 975,164 divorces in 2002, compared with 920,060 in 2003
and the UK
There were 141,750 divorces in 2005, compared with 153,399 in 2004.
Sorry couldn’t find a percentage.
2007-03-02 [Zab]: I think that it's less common to divorce in the US, because people there generally seem more christian, and have the mentality that a true christian never divorce no matter what. At least here not too many people are very seriously christians, they believe in a little different way.
Of course this is only my personal theories, I don't have any kind of facts to support it.:)
(and I doubt i's what this wiki is about anyway, so I'll shut up now.)
2007-03-02 [Fizban]: Um LOL!!...wow,..
2007-03-02 [Zab]: Well, just my theory..x)
2007-03-02 [Fizban]: Lols. The only reason marriage worked in the first place is because people would force themselves to stay with the person for social's sake.
Also, I have a very large theory about alot of thinks. Like I don't think people are actually supposed to live as long as we do. Going on that thesis, in the days of marriage, when people living to be 40 was wonderful in those days, staying with someone for your entire life wasn't as hard. When people don't live that much longer after they get married, it's easy to stay married. We live longer, the social institution is much harder.
Honestly, thats my theory lol.
2007-03-02 [Zab]: yep, we do live too long, we eat too much meat and we are too good at curing illness:P Basicly, we'll destroy the world.^^
2007-03-02 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: actually... look at the stats. XD zab, the US divorce is like 8 times the UK.
I think marriage is nifty. One person doesn't have to carry the burden of supporting a child (by the way, being a housewife/dad is equivalent to multiple full-time jobs. @.@ I forget the numbers, but that's what a psychiatrist said.) So, it's nifty. And beyond raising children... I guess it's not important. It has nifty medical and tax benefits, so that total strangers can't go in and see you before your cousin (XD!) ...and stuff.
I think that the stricter and more "MARRIAGE!" you try to be, the more unhappy couples will exist and the more divorces there'll be. It's so stressful to be that way; I think that's why. So much tension just builds up and builds up and then breaks stuff. And divorces/domes
Notice that strict-law (AKA opressive) governments only work when the masses are either stupid (Medieval Europe) or at gunpoint (uhm, Cuba? Nazi Germany? Something like that. Modern Afghanistan. Yeah, I like that example)
In the US it works more as "it's socially unacceptable". That has surprising influence over people. o.O; weird. <.<;;
2007-03-03 [Fizban]: Umm, Medieval Europe was not comprised of wholly idiotic people. The restriction of schooling was a major problem yes. However, I disagree. There just weren't many choices to be made, good or bad, intelligent or stupid, to change things.
2007-03-03 [Zab]: *has no idea how much people divorce in the UK nor how christian people are there, if to compare with my half-serious theory*
2007-03-03 [dfafadsfasdasf]: ok here's a serious question and i don't expect you people to know the answer but i've been wondering how do you have an atheist wedding
2007-03-03 [Fizban]: LOL...well first of all, weddings don't necessarily need priests. Second of all, the atheists would want the benefits economically of marriage I assume, or else marriage wouldn't be a consideration.
2007-03-03 [Zab]: Atheists may also want the marriage as a sign on their love, just as anyone else would. ;)
2007-03-03 [MagpieWisdom]: Thank you for all being so friendly in responce to be comment, I'm going to stop watching this page now, so bye. I think it just shows that people can still be nice to each other even if their views differ as much as ours, it justs takes a little understanding. Again, thank you all. Much Love, Oliver.
2007-03-04 [dfafadsfasdasf]: i am an athiest thats why i was wondering
2007-03-04 [I'm her Georgia *Peach!*]: ah. >>; well, you can always have a non-denominati
2008-03-06 [*Phoenix*]: can I be a member?? plz!
2008-03-06 [levhole]: Yeah I think you just have to find the members page and add yourself, although they may have protected it.
2008-07-07 [Prissy Gothic Mermaid Man]: They probably have it protected because all of those immature homo/bisexuals that can't accept freedom of speech, so they get mad and decide to erase everything...
2008-07-07 [Fizban]: -_- LOL. Yes, there are immature gay people.
Just like there are immature straight people.
It's not about being straight or gay, its about being people. Everyone can be immature.
One could easily retort what you just said with a "Well those immature straight people act like they know what freedom of speech is, when us gay people haven't had freedom of speech for centuries because of them."
However instead, I would simply like to point out that labeling is what is causing a lot of these problems, so tolerance and understanding should be the goal, for everyone.
2008-07-07 [*Phoenix*]: I agree, Fizban. Labeling is bad grrr....
2009-02-16 [Diiwica]: I would like to be a member please.
2009-02-18 [Fizban]: Good luck.