Scratch

J0j2 · 2011-06-27 16:03:10

Hey everyone!

I'm sure everyone's heard the news about the Same-* Marriage law passed in New York. If either you haven't, don't know what the real definition of Marriage or Civil union is, or you're interested in learning a little more about it, read this article:

After going to a Gay Pride Parade this weekend and reading several articles about the new Same-* marriage legislation in New York, I began realizing I didn’t entirely know what Marriage was defined as, what a Civil Union was per se, what the difference is between the two and was amazed at how much I barely knew. So, I started searching for information the way most people do now. The Google bar.

Definition of Marriage as according to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law:

1 : The state of being united to a person of the opposite * ashusband or wife in a

legal, consensual, and contractualrelationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

2 : The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

This definition of Marriage is from 1996, and the recently passed New York same-* Marriage law makes this definition seem even more out-dated. But despite the New York law, if you type ‘Marriage’ into Google, you’ll find similar definitions that are recent...(read the rest here!)

Thanks for reading! This article is from Our Generation, young voices being heard.

Last edited by J0j2 (2011-06-27 18:35:18)

svinnik · 2011-06-27 16:10:31

J0j2 wrote:
Hey everyone!

I'm sure everyone's heard the news about the Same-* Marriage law passed in New York. If either you haven't, don't know what the real definition of Marriage or Civil union is, or you're interested in learning a little more about it, read this article:

After going to a Gay Pride Parade this weekend and reading several articles about the new Same-* marriage legislation in New York, I began realizing I didn’t entirely know what Marriage was defined as, what a Civil Union was per se, what the difference is between the two and was amazed at how much I barely knew. So, I started searching for information the way most people do now. The Google bar.

Definition of Marriage as according to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law:

1 : The state of being united to a person of the opposite * ashusband or wife in a

legal, consensual, and contractualrelationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

2 : The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

This definition of Marriage is from 1996, and the recently passed New York same-* Marriage law makes this definition seem even more out-dated. But despite the New York law, if you type ‘Marriage’ into Google, you’ll find similar definitions that are recent...(read the rest here!)
Thanks for reading! This article is from Our Generation, young voices being heard.

SAME-* MARRIAGE FTW! I'm from Massachusetts and I'm happy this is spreading. There is no chance for this to happen in the Bible belt. Also, could you get on Gmail?

J0j2 · 2011-06-27 16:20:35

svinnik wrote:
SAME-* MARRIAGE FTW! I'm from Massachusetts and I'm happy this is spreading. There is no chance for this to happen in the Bible belt. Also, could you get on Gmail?

Yea, I'll get on now. I'm really glad about the New York law passed. big_smile I have a some GBL friends and I'm so happy. Now there's one more place where they can get married.

Last edited by J0j2 (2011-06-27 16:21:36)

werdna123 · 2011-06-27 16:25:45

So until recently it wasn't aloud? That surprises me. Anyway, that's pretty good I suppose.

Necromaster · 2011-06-27 17:18:23

Yay! I'm unitarian, so, I'm all for gay rights!

AtomicBawm3 · 2011-06-27 17:24:59

Not to start an argument, but it just doesn't make sense to me...for one, it's actually a ton more hazardous to one's health. For another, it defies the "laws" of evolution. And also it has not been proven that it is natural. That is, there is no "gay" gene to use popular terminology, though I don't like to. As far as we know, it is environmentally influenced, mainly from parents. Actually, it is mainly due to a fatherly influence, such as an abusive father, an absent father, etc.

The_Dancing_Donut · 2011-06-27 17:29:37

Cool, equality is coming! big_smile
Hopefully it will make some people see that being gay is not a negative thing.

I have a gay friend called Kane smile

J0j2 · 2011-06-27 18:19:00

AtomicBawm3 wrote:
Not to start an argument, but it just doesn't make sense to me...for one, it's actually a ton more hazardous to one's health. For another, it defies the "laws" of evolution. And also it has not been proven that it is natural. That is, there is no "gay" gene to use popular terminology, though I don't like to. As far as we know, it is environmentally influenced, mainly from parents. Actually, it is mainly due to a fatherly influence, such as an abusive father, an absent father, etc.

Sexual Orientation isn't really implied in your genetic material (you're right, there is no gay gene) or logical in nature, but it exists. There's a large difference between reproduction and sexuality. Every human has a reproductive organ of some kind, and every human has a different orientation. There are several of them, GBL and sometimes a-sexual. You cannot change one's sexuality I'm pretty sure and I don't believe that in sexuality there is such thing as a fatherly influence.

How so is it hazardous to one's health?

(Let it be noted this is not an argument, it is a discussion.)

sanddude · 2011-06-27 18:24:55

All the arguments against gay marriage are very poorly constructed. I think that everybody should have the right to marry who they want, as long as it's two consenting adults.

@AtomicBawm3: Actually, evolution supports homosexuality. There have been Jac's and Zac's since the beginning of humanity. It's been observed in other animals too. It is natural. Homosexuality can come from your surroundings, but it can also come from biology.

@Joj2: I think he thinks that because of AIDS/HIV. But that's both a hetero and homo disease, so the arguments invalid.

Last edited by sanddude (2011-06-27 18:26:21)

AtomicBawm3 · 2011-06-27 18:53:04

sanddude wrote:
All the arguments against gay marriage are very poorly constructed. I think that everybody should have the right to marry who they want, as long as it's two consenting adults.

@AtomicBawm3: Actually, evolution supports homosexuality. There have been Jac's and Zac's since the beginning of humanity. It's been observed in other animals too. It is natural. Homosexuality can come from your surroundings, but it can also come from biology.

@Joj2: I think he thinks that because of AIDS/HIV. But that's both a hetero and homo disease, so the arguments invalid.

Even though they are both hetero and homo, in homo, the risk is much much higher. Homosexuality cannot come from your biology, though you can be predisposed to that orientation. It is not supported by evolution, because evolution is about the advancing of the better species and if a species is predisposed to a homosexual orientation that does not allow for reproduction, the species is clearly not the one that should survive, because it has refused the most basic and logical approach to becoming the top specimen.
Another point I'd like to make is that if it's alright as long as the adults consent, why not multiple? Why not have one guy marry 20 girls? Or a guy marry his brother or sister? Or his mom or dad? If there's a line to be drawn, then draw it at the right place, not in the middle where you want it.

sanddude · 2011-06-27 19:02:41

AtomicBawm3 wrote:
sanddude wrote:
All the arguments against gay marriage are very poorly constructed. I think that everybody should have the right to marry who they want, as long as it's two consenting adults.

@AtomicBawm3: Actually, evolution supports homosexuality. There have been Jac's and Zac's since the beginning of humanity. It's been observed in other animals too. It is natural. Homosexuality can come from your surroundings, but it can also come from biology.

@Joj2: I think he thinks that because of AIDS/HIV. But that's both a hetero and homo disease, so the arguments invalid.
Even though they are both hetero and homo, in homo, the risk is much much higher. Homosexuality cannot come from your biology, though you can be predisposed to that orientation. It is not supported by evolution, because evolution is about the advancing of the better species and if a species is predisposed to a homosexual orientation that does not allow for reproduction, the species is clearly not the one that should survive, because it has refused the most basic and logical approach to becoming the top specimen.
Another point I'd like to make is that if it's alright as long as the adults consent, why not multiple? Why not have one guy marry 20 girls? Or a guy marry his brother or sister? Or his mom or dad? If there's a line to be drawn, then draw it at the right place, not in the middle where you want it.

Maybe homosexual couples can't reproduce, but neither can old or infertile couples. And we're still letting them marry. So why not the same for gay couples. Plus gays are helping tremendously because they adopt.

And one guy marrying 20 girls is not okay, because he probably doesn't truly love all of them. Someone marrying a relative doesn't work out, because they aren't naturally attracted to each other. It can come from your biology. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true.

And maybe the rate is higher, but that's not because of any natural reason. It's just because there isn't as much protection available for homosexual behavior. Once that problem is fixed, it's not as much of a problem.

Necromaster · 2011-06-27 19:04:46

AtomicBawm3 wrote:
Not to start an argument, but it just doesn't make sense to me...for one, it's actually a ton more hazardous to one's health. For another, it defies the "laws" of evolution. And also it has not been proven that it is natural. That is, there is no "gay" gene to use popular terminology, though I don't like to. As far as we know, it is environmentally influenced, mainly from parents. Actually, it is mainly due to a fatherly influence, such as an abusive father, an absent father, etc.

People think what they think, they do what they do, and you can't stop them. This goes with gay people too.

AtomicBawm3 · 2011-06-27 19:13:42

sanddude wrote:
AtomicBawm3 wrote:
sanddude wrote:
All the arguments against gay marriage are very poorly constructed. I think that everybody should have the right to marry who they want, as long as it's two consenting adults.

@AtomicBawm3: Actually, evolution supports homosexuality. There have been Jac's and Zac's since the beginning of humanity. It's been observed in other animals too. It is natural. Homosexuality can come from your surroundings, but it can also come from biology.

@Joj2: I think he thinks that because of AIDS/HIV. But that's both a hetero and homo disease, so the arguments invalid.
Even though they are both hetero and homo, in homo, the risk is much much higher. Homosexuality cannot come from your biology, though you can be predisposed to that orientation. It is not supported by evolution, because evolution is about the advancing of the better species and if a species is predisposed to a homosexual orientation that does not allow for reproduction, the species is clearly not the one that should survive, because it has refused the most basic and logical approach to becoming the top specimen.
Another point I'd like to make is that if it's alright as long as the adults consent, why not multiple? Why not have one guy marry 20 girls? Or a guy marry his brother or sister? Or his mom or dad? If there's a line to be drawn, then draw it at the right place, not in the middle where you want it.
Maybe homosexual couples can't reproduce, but neither can old or infertile couples. And we're still letting them marry. So why not the same for gay couples. Plus gays are helping tremendously because they adopt. The old had a chance to reproduce, and if they took it then great, if not, that was their choice. As for adoption, would that really change the statistics if they were not "gay"? Why wouldn't they still adopt?

And one guy marrying 20 girls is not okay, because he probably doesn't truly love all of them. Someone marrying a relative doesn't work out, because they aren't naturally attracted to each other. It can come from your biology. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not true. You said consent, that doesn't mean love. And who are you to tell someone they can't love 20 people? My teacher knew a friend who carried on an affair with his sister for 20 years and then finally left his wife for the affair. So far you've just said that it can, you haven't told me how...just that since I don't like it doesn't me it's not true. You're simply dismissing my argument and thinking that automatically means yours is correct with or without proof.

And maybe the rate is higher, but that's not because of any natural reason. It's just because there isn't as much protection available for homosexual behavior. Once that problem is fixed, it's not as much of a problem.There is the same amount of protection as there is for "straight" couples, why should "gay" couples get a special right that allows them access to safer situations than "straight" couples?

rabbit1131 · 2011-06-27 19:14:14

Sorry TDD. That is somewhat... Different to my beliefs. It just is.

wiimaster · 2011-06-27 19:14:25

Really?
That is great news big_smile

I am a strong Gay Rights supporter smile

PandaGuy · 2011-06-27 19:15:43

I think marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. First of all, two men can't possibly have children, unless adopted, but, even though there already is a surplus population, I think it's only right and just that more children be added to the world. Every, little thing counts, which, in this case, every person counts and lessens the difficulty of the struggles so prevalent in our society. I do agree that we all have rights, but I find gay marriage a step down in civilization. It just kind of seems our morals are sinking each day. Gay marriage, in my opinion, just shouldn't be happening. Now, however, that doesn't mean I should go up to one and start bullying him just for his sexual orientation. Everyone has a choice and I do believe so, but, like I said earlier, I just don't like the idea. As a Christian, gay marriage is sin, but, again, everyone has a choice and I respect that. I hope I didn't offend anyone. hmm

AtomicBawm3 · 2011-06-27 19:16:24

Necromaster wrote:
AtomicBawm3 wrote:
Not to start an argument, but it just doesn't make sense to me...for one, it's actually a ton more hazardous to one's health. For another, it defies the "laws" of evolution. And also it has not been proven that it is natural. That is, there is no "gay" gene to use popular terminology, though I don't like to. As far as we know, it is environmentally influenced, mainly from parents. Actually, it is mainly due to a fatherly influence, such as an abusive father, an absent father, etc.
People think what they think, they do what they do, and you can't stop them. This goes with gay people too.

That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to voice my own opinion, which is what the "gay" community wants to do. They want to make any speaking out against homosexuality a hate crime.

PandaGuy · 2011-06-27 19:17:22

Also, don't you think this is a bit too mature to be discussing in Scratch?

cheddargirl · 2011-06-27 19:18:43

PandaGuy wrote:
Also, don't you think this is a bit too mature to be discussing in Scratch?

I got a report from an ST member asking other mods to watch this in case it explodes into flames; basically, it get's closed when it's too hard to handle and the discussion is better dealt elsewhere (ie. opt to move to a debate-themed forum tongue )

Last edited by cheddargirl (2011-06-27 19:20:24)

jfmlove6 · 2011-06-27 20:24:39

J0j2 wrote:
Hey everyone!

I'm sure everyone's heard the news about the Same-* Marriage law passed in New York. If either you haven't, don't know what the real definition of Marriage or Civil union is, or you're interested in learning a little more about it, read this article:

After going to a Gay Pride Parade this weekend and reading several articles about the new Same-* marriage legislation in New York, I began realizing I didn’t entirely know what Marriage was defined as, what a Civil Union was per se, what the difference is between the two and was amazed at how much I barely knew. So, I started searching for information the way most people do now. The Google bar.

Definition of Marriage as according to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law:

1 : The state of being united to a person of the opposite * ashusband or wife in a

legal, consensual, and contractualrelationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law

2 : The ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

This definition of Marriage is from 1996, and the recently passed New York same-* Marriage law makes this definition seem even more out-dated. But despite the New York law, if you type ‘Marriage’ into Google, you’ll find similar definitions that are recent...(read the rest here!)
Thanks for reading! This article is from Our Generation, young voices being heard.

Yeah,heard about that on news! I love how scratch blocks * even though you used it in a different context tongue

soupoftomato · 2011-06-27 20:26:49

AtomicBawm3 wrote:
Not to start an argument, but it just doesn't make sense to me...for one, it's actually a ton more hazardous to one's health. For another, it defies the "laws" of evolution. And also it has not been proven that it is natural. That is, there is no "gay" gene to use popular terminology, though I don't like to. As far as we know, it is environmentally influenced, mainly from parents. Actually, it is mainly due to a fatherly influence, such as an abusive father, an absent father, etc.

+1

I don't support it but seeing as this is a place for opinions don't flame me. Same-* people think they belong with that person but I think that God (or evolution if that's how you see it) would have given them the ability to make offspring if they did. And it's just against my religion anyway.

TVflea · 2011-06-27 20:32:34

i hate same-asterisk marriages.

AnimeCreatorArtist · 2011-06-27 20:36:53

Uh Oh, teaching, adopting, makes all our kids turn gay. Bring it up on judgement day.

Anyway, I'm christain, and believe that gay marriage is COMPLETELY WRONG.
not to offend anyone hmm

GirWaffles64 · 2011-06-27 20:40:32

I strongly support the same-sęx marriage movement.

johndo77 · 2011-06-27 20:41:35

AnimeCreatorArtist wrote:
Uh Oh, teaching, adopting, makes all our kids turn gay. Bring it up on judgement day.

Anyway, I'm christain, and believe that gay marriage is COMPLETELY WRONG.
not to offend anyone

NOT TO OFFEND ANYONE?!?!?!?!?
You're offending me and I'm no even gay.

Scratch

archived forums

#1 2011-06-27 16:03:10

Marriage in New York

#2 2011-06-27 16:10:31

Re: Marriage in New York

J0j2 wrote:

#3 2011-06-27 16:20:35

Re: Marriage in New York

svinnik wrote:

#4 2011-06-27 16:25:45

Re: Marriage in New York

#5 2011-06-27 17:18:23

Re: Marriage in New York

#6 2011-06-27 17:24:59

Re: Marriage in New York

#7 2011-06-27 17:29:37

Re: Marriage in New York

#8 2011-06-27 18:19:00

Re: Marriage in New York

AtomicBawm3 wrote:

#9 2011-06-27 18:24:55

Re: Marriage in New York

#10 2011-06-27 18:53:04

Re: Marriage in New York

sanddude wrote:

#11 2011-06-27 19:02:41

Re: Marriage in New York

AtomicBawm3 wrote:

sanddude wrote:

#12 2011-06-27 19:04:46

Re: Marriage in New York

AtomicBawm3 wrote:

#13 2011-06-27 19:13:42

Re: Marriage in New York

sanddude wrote:

AtomicBawm3 wrote:

sanddude wrote:

#14 2011-06-27 19:14:14

Re: Marriage in New York

#15 2011-06-27 19:14:25

Re: Marriage in New York

#16 2011-06-27 19:15:43

Re: Marriage in New York

#17 2011-06-27 19:16:24

Re: Marriage in New York

Necromaster wrote:

AtomicBawm3 wrote:

#18 2011-06-27 19:17:22

Re: Marriage in New York

#19 2011-06-27 19:18:43

Re: Marriage in New York

PandaGuy wrote:

#20 2011-06-27 20:24:39

Re: Marriage in New York

J0j2 wrote:

#21 2011-06-27 20:26:49

Re: Marriage in New York

AtomicBawm3 wrote:

#22 2011-06-27 20:32:34

Re: Marriage in New York

#23 2011-06-27 20:36:53

Re: Marriage in New York

#24 2011-06-27 20:40:32

Re: Marriage in New York

#25 2011-06-27 20:41:35

Re: Marriage in New York

AnimeCreatorArtist wrote:

Board footer