Gay Marriage?

The last parts a bit off topic. Btw, I'm interested to know what kind of christian or branch you are (methodist, baptist, jehovah's witness <<--- I don't consider that christianity but o well, etc.)
The virgin mary and divine birth? I know that stuff and it's related to Christianity and what does Christianity teach? Homosexuality is immoral. Ack! Off topic! Sorry moderaters. (I would be glad to debate Christianity and homosexuality but just PM me for that or send me whatever)

So are you agreeing that homosexuals are fighting for civil rights or for their lifestyle (I hate repeating this).

they are fighting for both. civil rights do not only have to pertain to slavery or the right to vote.

offtopic: why is jehovah's witness not considered a christianity?

1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ , based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies

that's from merriam-webster. any religion that is based on teh teachings of christ is christianity, hence the "christ" part. the JWs base their knowledge on the bible also. they teach of christ's examples. that sounds like christianity to me.

DbQaidkrnz wrote:And suppose the world was gay and there was no God. What world? The world would be non-existing and I wouldn't be there because according to science itself (particularly Evolution), any homosexual factors should be eliminated (I am NOT saying we should kill gays) because they cannot produce any form of life.

Obviously, we'd reproduce via cloning.

To be slightly more on-topic, the right to desegregated schools, for example, was decided by a Supreme Court case. Does this mean that equal education ranks only as a lifestyle now? Furthermore, the 13th amendment mentions no race, while the 14th mentions only Indians, and not even in the part about citizens' rights. Lastly, you fail to mention the 15th and 19th amendments. Voting is a civil right too, actually.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people..." In other words, just because it's in the Constitution does not mean that it is not a right.

Cloning? What if that world was during the middle ages or even further back? What cloning? What's cloning?

By definition, Civil Rights only mention 13th and 14th. Read the definition! Don't believe me? Go look up in the Webster.

that was just a simulation so stop arguing about it. guess u guys didnt get the main part of the perspective. btw, i dont think you should be lookin it up in webster. it's too succinct...go look it up in ur ap u.s hist book in the back. it'll tell u more im sure.

DbQaidkrnz wrote:Cloning? What if that world was during the middle ages or even further back? What cloning? What's cloning?

By definition, Civil Rights only mention 13th and 14th. Read the definition! Don't believe me? Go look up in the Webster.

To use AP_Work_R's definition, which seems to be the standard of this argument (and isn't actually in Webster):
"right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality."

"Including especially." Not "including only." Therefore, it could include rights not in the Constitution -- such as, in my example, the rights to equal education as decided in Brown v. Board of Education. Also, "subsequent acts of Congress." This includes the 15th and 19th amendments, which you ignore. Again.

The cloning thing was a joke. Forget about it.

I've got to go to a school thing now, so I won't be replying any more for at least a couple hours.

I know it's a simulation just trying to point out the possibility. 15th and 19th seems like civil rights but it doesn't mention anything about homosexuals. Hmm...
15th:
1. The right of the citizens of the U.S. to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the U.S. or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th:
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall nont be denied or abridged by the U.S. or by any State on account of sex.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Hmm. I see nothing about sexual orientation in these amendments. Btw escaapi, read the 14th amendment think your wrong on that.

DbQaidkrnz wrote:I know it's a simulation just trying to point out the possibility. 15th and 19th seems like civil rights but it doesn't mention anything about homosexuals. Hmm...
15th:
1. The right of the citizens of the U.S. to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the U.S. or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

19th:
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall nont be denied or abridged by the U.S. or by any State on account of sex.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Hmm. I see nothing about sexual orientation in these amendments. Btw escaapi, read the 14th amendment think your wrong on that.

I was just pointing out that you were being rather narrow in your definition of what a civil right was. You seemed to think that it could only be a civil right if blacks lobbied for it; the 19th amendment has literally nothing to do with race. In addition, you implied that civil rights were limited to those enumerated in the 13th and 14th amendments, while the 9th amendment clearly states that there are other rights than those.

As for the 14th amendment, I'm going to assume that you thought I meant that it dealt only with Indians. What I actually meant was that the only mention of race made in it was that Indians don't count when you're determining how many representatives each state gets.

Basically, the point I was making was not that these amendments specifically endorsed gay marriage, but that your definition of civil rights was far too specific. I apologize if I was in any way unclear. But to get back to the matter at hand, and leaving aside all moral judgements, the 14th amendment could easily be interpreted to mean that marriage could not Constitutionally be denied to gay couples.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

See what I mean?

PS: If you'd like to define marriage as a privilege, and not a civil right, I'm down with that.
(edited for typos)

About this gay marriage thing... I'm seeing this from moral perspectives...

Before anyone flames me, please just read my response with open mind instead of advocating your own :). I'd like to say that homosexuality is a choice. It's same thing for a guy to like a girl. The guy chose the girl out of the rest. Likewise, gay people choose to be gay. Okay, okay. There are scientists who performed tests to state that homosexuality can also tie into genes that pass down from generations of family. Yet, how do you explain families who had never had homosexuals in the family line (from both mother's and father's side) suddenly has one? Does that factor into genes too? When I look at hot girls (:D), there are ones I like and be friends with, and ones I dislike greatly (with passion). I choose who I hang around with and who I go out with, etc.

When we look homosexuality from the viewpoint of science, it's wrong. Like DbQ said. Evolution does state that homosexuality must be eliminated in order for organisms to reproduce. So, if you're not a Christian but an atheist/agnostic/etc. who believe in Big Bang Theory, Super String Theory, Evolution, etc., and advocate homosexuality, then why does it contradict your own beliefs? In order for any organism to survive and flourish, it requires reproduction (self or mate) and a stable community. If homosexuality enters the community and influences system, the community would decline since reproduction rate would slow. What if the endangered Pandas became gay (cry). Suppose genes play into this and the remaining pandas were all gay. Would there be reproduction? Not really, unless humans force these pandas to mate. Even so, the traits would be passed down wouldn't it? Additionally, do animals choose to be gay?

From Christian perspectives, homosexuality is downright wrong. Why? First of all, it's forbidden to be gay since God told us not to practice it. Key word: practice. That means exercise or carry out. Now do you choose to carry out/exercise anything or does your genes or uncontrollable self does it for you? Secondly, family ties into this. How is a child born? Via man and woman. So, if man and man or woman and woman gets married, would they really be able to reproduce? No, unless they adopt or women gets insemination... It is abnormal to see a "family" of two gay men/women; un-natural to the society. If children are grown with the influence that homosexuality is right, many would turn gay, since, after all, homosexuality is a choice. If such event occurred, imagine how the society would turn out... What happened to man and woman family? Why is it suddenly "okay" to start cloning or having babies unnaturally (because gay couples can't have children)? What about the children who has gay parents? How would they feel when they realize that their parents are only "parents" by law but in reality, not related to the father, mother, or neither?

Just asking for responses. And I believe that marriage is not a civil right but a privilege and ties in with lifestyle. After all, you choose to marry don't you? Not let some unknown force do it for you :).

*Edit: Well, most of us would choose to marry right? I'm not counting those who have to have their marriages "arranged" by their parents (not unknown but they're at least forces). Sad...for them...poor peeps... :(

Have you ever taking a biology or genetics class?

There is something called a gene which "codes" for a polypeptide (protein). Some genes are recessive and some are dominant. ;) Need I explain in detail?