same sex marriage

Generally we love our body,but when we stood in front of a mirror ,naked, we find nothing interesting, but at the same time when we The Men see a naked woman in front of us our sense of gratification arises, why? because we never touched a bosom,never touched the beauty that they have. so we are interesting in theirs body to feel the pleasure of intercourse,because we never experienced it earlier, but if we can experienced it day and night,if we can touch a bosom day and night it became common like our own naked body.

Now same sex became the same matter of experienced one's own body. This is nothing but a mental disorder,though it is a mental disorder but we have to respect it because above all love is the matter that exist,now whether it is physical or spiritual it is theirs matter. same sex is not possible,if somehow they find some way to please themselves let them be happy because it does not disperse bacteria or virus. If you are not interested stay apart.

thank you very much

TIBRAJYOTI DUTTA (INDIA)

"but at the same time when we The Men see a naked woman in front of us our sense of gratification arises"

Err, no, if you are gay you don't feel attraction to the opposite sex. That's sort of what being gay is about.

And being attracted to another person is nothing like loving your own body. Just like listening to somebody else speak is rather different than listening to the voices in your head.

"This is nothing but a mental disorder"

Back in 1990, the World Health Organization decided to the contrary.

Homosexual-rights agitators all over the world are campaigning to gay up marriage -- and, in one nation after another, they are winning.

If there's a more obvious way for a nation to rebel, fist in the air to God, I don't know what it would be.

To recognize something as patently deviant as homosexual couplings, honor it side by side with a sacred union that we're now going to have to call "straight" or "opposite sex" marriage is beyond bizarre and beyond the pale of American law and jurisprudence.

All of us should be outraged. We are watching what used to be called Christian values or Western values collapse in front of us, and we are apparently too scared to do or even say anything about it.

Unfortunately, the above posts are so diminished that I cannot agree with either of them. May God have mercy on us all.

You sound like a barrel of laughs at parties, darling.

This doesn't have anything to do with political parties or party loyalty. We as human society are rationalizing the irrational, normalizing the abnormal, and conflating that which is holy with that which is unholy. What we have already done is dreadful and ghoulish, but to cap it off with this is particularly demonic and barbaric. Basically, Henry VIII seized the power to regulate marriage from the Catholic Church about 500 years ago because Pope Clement VII wouldn't allow him to divorce Catherine of Aragon. Henry became Fidei Defensor, the Defender of the Faith. Well, it's 2013, and nobody wants to defend the faith any more.

Good, the faith is barbaric, silly-headed and ridiculous.

I will probably regret asking, but what exactly is "irrational" about wanting to allow two men or two women who are in love with one another having the same legal protections and status from the state as opposite sex couples are currently able to?

Because it's defined by deviance.

There are many distinct types of "love" -- platonic, familial, patriotic, compassionate, and so forth, but the plain fact that two persons are bedmates ("hedonistic?") does not in and of itself confer any rights or privileges whatsoever (though one would logically think of clinic test results?) insofar as society and the law is concerned.

Everything I have learned on the subject of English history tells me that group rights are a mistake. Royals and nobles tend to be undeserving of them, while minorities simply don't need them or grow from them.

Political realities place a premium on population growth (and deficit spending means we've already spent the additional tax revenue) so for generations tax laws have favored couples and families. In the USA, that quirk has created the angle that I think the gay mob will use to destroy marriage.

I don't know. Heterosexual sex acts appear to be pretty deviant to me, and yet there are special rights given to people who engage in these acts. I really fear that the heterosexual mob has used their sex acts to destroy marriage. have you seen what those who engage in heterosexual sex acts have done to marriage? But I guess that is to be expected? They do unnatural sex acts and abuse that privilege and then ask the state to dissolve their relationships because the male urges cannot be left to just one individual.

I'm going to have to take exception to you blaming men exclusively for marriage breakdowns, Laura. I've seen enough instances where women were the ones who broke marriage vows.

Yes, we do our fair share. I admit.

You said that "[H]eterosexual acts appear to be pretty deviant to me," yet this is a biological necessity. That which is necessary must be legal. Having said that, gay sex has killed well over 100 million human beings and it hasn't saved anyone yet.... soooo.... "equality" is a non-sequitur. Buyer beware of *anyone* promoting "equality" first and foremost; it's the best trick the Communists and Socialists ever employed. Always do what is right and moral rather than "equal." Refrain from calling something that is pure, "corrupt," or that which is contaminated, "pure." God have mercy on this poor sinner, and heal her mind and spirit.

Somebody pass the popcorn. Please?

I'm heterosexual, but I've — thankfully — overcome the prejudices which the Abrahamic religions indoctrinate people with. Crying that homosexuality is 'deviant' is irrational and a denial of the readily-observed spectrum of animal behaviour. Or, are you going to deny that human beings are simply "smart mammals"?

It's no different from asserting coloured people are less-intelligent, or prone to 'sub-human' behaviour, than caucasians.

Your opinion of homosexual acts is what I find "irrational". If you don't like the way the society you live in is developing, then move where your views are acceptable. The tyranny of a minority with a 'dark-ages' mentality is not something I'll accept in my society; nor will the majority in most progressive democracies.

Might I suggest Saudi Arabia as your new home?

Progressivism is itself a disturbing plot from 130 or so years ago. Its fruits include the income tax, abortion on demand, the citizen initiative, genetic purification, and the false theory of separation of church and state. Progressives rallied under the banner of "equality" for women's suffrage -- but only because they felt women were "psychologically" more suited to their social messages. Just FYI.

Where are you living? Abortion on demand? I want to move there! (Well, there is always abortion on demand, even in places where abortion is illegal. They are called illegal abortions. They will happen regardless of whether or not the law says no. As a lover of life, I would prefer abortions remain safe, legal and rare... rather than unsafe, illegal and deadly for mother and child. On the other hand, as a lover of life, I want the government to assist families by improving public transport, having socialized medicine, improving schools, and paying for childcare for working families. This would dramatically reduce the need for elective abortions because of economic reasons.) Alas, I live in a different world from you.

Also, why the hating on men? What do you have against men?

Although on first read I could not understand your statement, "[w]hat do you have against men?", it is possible that you are not familiar with the word "suffrage." This refers not to pain but to voting.

America has killed over 50 million babies in the last 40 years since Roe v. Wade was decided without a single vote from Congress, by nine Supreme Court members who are all dead now.

Communist China has killed over 500 million babies, according to published reports, with its "one child" policy.

Almost half the time an abortion is committed, the child killed is male. So I'm certainly not "hating" on men or women when I posit that one of the offspring of the progressive movement is the notion of abortion on demand (which is not law in the USA as of today, but it is a goal.) The same liberal Supreme Court justices who are happy to consult foreign law when formulating their decisions should probably be aware that only 5 countries out of 193 permit abortion on demand and certainly none of Europe.

But we're talking about perversity in marriage, which we never permitted among Indian tribes wishing to gain citizenship. Likewise. the 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act banned Mormons from practicing their version of "marriage equality." The Supreme Court has already found that laws banning polygamy are constitutional.

P.S., Please, please, don't tell us that you want to get pregnant solely to have an abortion, just for the experience and/or thrill of it. Yikes.

How many children do you kill every time you masturbate? That is as-ridiculous as most of the fundamentalist opposition to abortion.

Now, this is not to say there is no need for a sane discussion on reducing the point at which elective abortions can be performed; medical science has advanced dramatically since Roe vs Wade, but only misogynistic ideologues demand zero abortion.

I think again we are parsing words because we live in a sound-bite world where the winner of the argument tends to be the one who can hang the best nametag on his team or goal.

Abortion kills human beings. Saying "fetus," which is Latin for baby, instead of "baby," is papering over the issue. Calling it "choice" when a woman decides to terminate her unborn baby's life and "anti-choice" when there are any limits applied, is doublespeak. Saying "marriage equality" instead of "homosexual marriage" or "marriage between two men or two women" likewise is weasel-wording, just as the news media sides against Israel every day by calling Bethlehem and Judea "the West Bank" (which is what Trans-Jordan started calling it in 1948).

I don't demand *zero* abortion, but in modern times there are not many cases where the mother's life is truly in danger and can only be saved by destroying her child. Whereas, those in opposition seem to honestly believe that a twelve-year-old girl should be able to get an government-funded abortion immediately with no questions, no counseling, and her parents don't need to be consulted.

Oh, and FYI, deeming your opposition *insane* comes at the end of a conversation, or at the beginning of a war.

You are the one starting to 'assume bad faith'; my remarks about the quality of debate were not aimed at you. But, at the "ideologue's" position you seem to back.

And I for one am sick of the straight-but-not-narrow B.S. that passes for politically correct these days. Holier-than-thou, meet more-tolerant-than-thou. Except of course that tolerant isn't tolerant if it is intolerant of intolerance. Which it is. And tolerance of vice is no virtue.

I will stipulate that monkeys and many other animal species commit homosexual deeds. They also fling their feces at one another. These acts are not examples of superior behavior.

Of course there are generational shifts in social paradigms. But the assertion that an idea must be good because it is old (appeal to tradition) is no more a fallacy than appeal to modern thinking is a fallacy. Opposing new ideas is a valid exercise! So, why should I move? Why don't *you* move?

Ah, memetic warfare!

Ideas are beautiful and fragile things; attack people, not ideas.

And if you think that's an incitement to violence, I've a bridge you might be interested in buying.

Phooey. The clash of opposing ideas makes us think, and thinking makes our ideas better. Those whose arguments don't hold water, don't want to get wet.

Oh, and P.S., attacking the messenger instead of the message is called ad hominem (and, of course, it is a formal fallacy.)

How will same-sex marriages affect our nation? In our beloved country of Canada, the original laws remain in effect in the medical system and justice system. In the next few years, how many elite families will survive to rule the democracy of our nation?

What is considered a "good family"? What is the value of coming from a functional family, in the sense of a traditional family? It would be noteworthy to hear from the professional side what they see when they council their clients. The law courts see a certain pattern of peoples. The public schools could tell us the story from their standpoint.

What makes a strong and united nation? We feel secure that our country is guarded and protected on the outer front. Many people give of themselves to maintain the safety of the nation.

How can we undergird our security from deep within our nation? We value our rights. Do we ponder our responsibilites? First to our own person, then to the world about us, we breathe values.

In the end, it is the jewel inside each person, irrespective of family background, that glistens. We keep our personal jewel polished while basking in our priveleges of daily life, and weathering the storms of daily life.

Many jewels unite to establish a crowned country.