Immigration Rights for Homosexuals

[Lurker 0]

To name a few Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland etc., these countries have adopted same sex marriage. The result of that (Shown in statistics. Google it), is traditional marriage is almost non-existent now in these countries, and births out of wedlock are on the rise. Of course the births out of wedlock affect the society as a whole, which in turn begets other issues that I will not get into at this time.

I'd be interested to see those "statistics". In fact, a quick google search revealed one major article about heterosexual marriage rates in scandinavia - written by Stanley Kurtz, of which there is a good deal of criticism.

To correct you slightly, none of those countries permits "Gay marriage", but rather same-sex civil unions.

I did a search and yes you are right, I didn't completely get the term correctly.

[Robor007 0]

I think Lurker was saying same sex marriage would somehow reduce what marriage 'means' to society as a whole...

It already means less. Marriage is more of a legal contract these days and less of a vow before God and/or the community. It ought to be the latter but our society has changed.

I agree on the legal contract part (especially considering some choose to have pre-nups) but I disagree on the religious basis. My marriage to my wife is a commitment to her. I know marriage has a religious foundation but I'm one of those heathen agnostic people.

Edited February 10, 2007 by Robor007

[Lewis 0]

In the U.S. the goal of the vocal minority homosexual community is equal "marriage" union rights.

By their constant screeching over the past decades they have garnered the support of the liberal community, who, as history has shown, will "bend over ..... backwards" for any "cause" .... (as a solid "voting bloc" of course).

Anyone opposing this vocal (screeching) minority is labeled a bigot. You know, if you throw something against a wall eventually some will stick -standard propaganda technique refined by the Nazis and Soviets.

After achieving legalized "marriage unions" it is obvious that the next goal will be utilizing the U.S. Immigration Laws to petition for their "significant others" from other countries so they can be "joined together".

K-1 Fiancé Visas for male partners, or would it be Fiancee? - not sure of the wording for two males seeking legal union.

Raising a family is a non-issue since adoptions are considered equivalent to "childbearing".

I don't get your point, are you somehow threatened by the possibility of the scenario you described? How does the scenario specifically relate (with examples) to a "standard propaganda technique refined by the Nazis and Soviets." ?

The immigration problem right now has many problems to fix, and gay unions are not backed by federal law at this time. So what is your point?

A universally applied statement is not a specific example. It is also a false statement which in turn could be labeled as propaganda. Pitiful.

Statement referred to: "Anyone opposing this vocal (screeching) minority is labeled a bigot."

Well, where I live (Close to Portland, OR), if you have any other point of view other then thier point of view, you are label as such. In fact, you could very well be fired (by them finding a reason) for your point of view if it is not in-line with thier own. So next you will say this doesn't happen right? Come to Portland, OR...Hippie ville USA. Pot smoking capital of the world. Also the highest unemployment rate.

Not denying anything, just amazed at the blanket generalizations. I'm sure people get fired all the time everywhere for not being in line with their company's beliefs. I live in the Northeast, I certainly could also make broad generalizations about broad swaths of the population but it would not serve any purpose when it comes to my personal beliefs of gay unions.

[Alex+R 0]

Wow. 3 pages on Saturday.

My view on people who feel so discriminated against and left out because they don't support gay rights... I think they're going to feel really embarrassed 10, 20 years from now when their view is completely unacceptable. But views based on hate I have no tolerance for myself. I don't really mind when people have no tolerance for racist comments either.

OP, please stop cheapening history, you m-ron.

Also Gupt you're freaking me out.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Also Gupt you're freaking me out.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

To name a few Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland etc., these countries have adopted same sex marriage. The result of that (Shown in statistics. Google it), is traditional marriage is almost non-existent now in these countries, and births out of wedlock are on the rise. Of course the births out of wedlock affect the society as a whole, which in turn begets other issues that I will not get into at this time.

I'd be interested to see those "statistics". In fact, a quick google search revealed one major article about heterosexual marriage rates in scandinavia - written by Stanley Kurtz, of which there is a good deal of criticism.

To correct you slightly, none of those countries permits "Gay marriage", but rather same-sex civil unions.

I did a search and yes you are right, I didn't completely get the term correctly.

If you look back at some older threads where same-sex marriage has been discussed - you see that a lot of people who object to it do so initially because its referred to specifically as marriage. Marriage in that context being defined as a religious institution seems to suggest that the government getting involved would mean "forcing the church to change its doctrines" and that churches could be forced to permit homosexuals to wed on their premises.

Civil unions, which would give homsexual couples equal legal rights are secular in nature. Remove religion from the equation and few people seem to object.

[Fandango 1,439]

I've actually become torn on this issue lately.

Not legalizing the unions won't make teh gay go away.

However, someone has a right to not support same sex unions without being labeled all sorts of ridiculous things....I think it's very commonplace when one doesn't agree with the free love & acceptance to have horrible things thrown at them. 'Free love and acceptance as long as you believe as I do'

[Reba 2]

Civil - Unions, marriage, blah blah blah... same shite different pile. All it is, is allowing All The People, the Same Rights And Freedoms. And THAT is what the USA is SUPPOSED to be all about yeah? Or is that only for "normal" people?

I mean for crissakes, women have been able to vote, and black people have been considered People for some time now. How much longer is it gonna be before the government realises that Gay people are People too? They vote, they pay taxes, they live, love and die, just like heteros do. What's the big freakin deal?

Bring us your poor, your tired, your hungry...but only if their straight ???

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Immigration Rights for Homosexuals, - can it be far behind?

pun intended?

[Heracles 417]

Immigration Rights for Homosexuals, - can it be far behind?

pun intended?

:lol:

[eric&gen 0]

Queers are ok they dont bother me as long as they stay far far far away from my behind lol

[JayJay 4]

*creates an atmosphere of mystery using dry ice and dimmed lighting...*

Oh no...surely not...what will the closeted "I'm not gay!" people do then? They will be outnumbered, unable to defend themselves from the infiltration of these "other people" anymore...the world will end as we know it and there will be no continuation of the human race after God pronounces it far too destitute to go on....

*abrupt ending of atmosphere as dry ice runs out and power is restored*

Ahhhh get over it! That's all I have to say! Whatever reason anyone has for bashing someone not inclined the same way they are, stop it, for goodness sakes - we're all adults here... As far as I'm concerned, if anyone is going to use the Bible as a defence (and I have nothing against it) please remember that the book was written many thousands of years ago by human beings (the condensed version we see today having been compiled in approximately 400AD) as a guide to being human back then. When there were not very many humans. And disease wasn't readily treated. And many little humans did not make it past infanthood. Get the drift?

Bah - live and let live. There are people out there who prefer animals to humans - sometimes even trees or even (and I saw this in "American Pie", so it must be true) warm desert foods (!!). Show me where, in the good book, it mentions anything about fornicating with an appple pie, and I will shake your hand (hold on...they weren't invented back then, in ancient Jerusalem or the like...man that throws a spanner in the works!).

I mean honestly, from a moral point of view, had they existed, the Bible would probably have banned sex aids as well. After all, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and 'The great whoopsie ding dong machine" or "Eve and the fabulous and newly improved Rampant Rabbit"! How about "Though shalt not lie with rubber thingies that goes *buuuzzzzzz*"? I mean in terms of ancient culture, having it away with an ergonomically shaped piece of warm plastic wouldn't have done much for population growth.

Let's have a look at bondage then as well, shall we? What would the Bible have said about tying your husband up with yesterday's pantyhose and then whipping him lightly with an egg beater? What about foot fetishes or credit cards or bullfighting or sharpie markers, or vehemently insisting on using all the oil in the world? It's all very well saying "the Bible applies to everything we have here today" but then please, how about putting on a pair of sandals, abandoning the central air and going out to feed the hungry every Sunday afternoon and "living the footsteps of Christ".

B*gger it though - everyone's so busy bombing everyone else and wondering what's on sale this weekend at Herbergers to wonder about what's really "right".

I think the whole thing is hilarious for this very reason: there's so much death and hatred going on in this world - why are we constantly attempting to categorise people through fear and lack of knowledge, instead of just letting people love each other, in whichever way they so choose? Bring on the love, man! We need more of it!

Edited February 11, 2007 by JayJay

[KarenCee 3]

I think Lurker was saying same sex marriage would somehow reduce what marriage 'means' to society as a whole...

It already means less. Marriage is more of a legal contract these days and less of a vow before God and/or the community. It ought to be the latter but our society has changed.

I agree on the legal contract part (especially considering some choose to have pre-nups) but I disagree on the religious basis. My marriage to my wife is a commitment to her. I know marriage has a religious foundation but I'm one of those heathen agnostic people.

So am I Robor007 so you're not alone there. Commitment is commitment. I am committed to my husband even though we went through a marriage ceremony. Even if we hadn't and did a civil union, I would not feel any less committed. Marriage....civil union....it's still showing commitment to someone. What IS the big deal?????

I do wish people would get over it...if a few more people would take care of their own business they wouldn't have time to worry about everyone else's.

Immigration Rights for Homosexuals, - can it be far behind?

pun intended?

Charles!

[Lewis 0]

I've actually become torn on this issue lately.

Not legalizing the unions won't make teh gay go away.

However, someone has a right to not support same sex unions without being labeled all sorts of ridiculous things....I think it's very commonplace when one doesn't agree with the free love & acceptance to have horrible things thrown at them. 'Free love and acceptance as long as you believe as I do'

The converse is also true and if you examine this thread so far you can interpret for yourself if one or many of the mutifaceted sides are "having horrible things thrown at them". The OP has not backed up the initial universal statement with any evidence whatsoever. The point is "anyone" does not = "someone". Catchy headlines and extreme viewpoints tend to be the fashion these days but that does not mean that everyone that absorbs this information agrees with it. No one in this thread has been labled a "bigot" because of their stance on the issue discussed which just demonstrates that the OP was just trying to create another controversial extreme viewpoint thread.

[Caladan 19]

Yeah, it's a little hard to claim "but they called me a bigot" when the thread starts with "you liberals use the techniques of Nazis and Stalin!!!", but I'm sure he's just venting about having to live in Oregon, which sounds like a pretty nice place to me.