Since the word 'marriage' is already taken for hetero couples, is it really so bad to disallow 'gay marriage' as long as a Civil Union or Civil Partnership offers the same rights to homo coupls?
Gay Marriage
Civil union is fine, but the desecration of the holy establishment that is marriage should not happen.
Again, civil union with the benefits of marraige. Don't label it marriage, God will be displeased.
Again, civil union with the benefits of marraige. Don't label it marriage, God will be displeased.
We pretty well beat the snot out of this dead horse in "Elton and partner 'tie the knot'".
god has more things to deal with than semantics.
yah they can have marriage benifits, as long as they dont say they are married in a true sense
Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity.
| wolfhnd wrote: |
| Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity. |
It's not nice to write posts just to confuse everyone!!!
| wolfhnd wrote: |
| Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity. |
excellent. I often wonder why there isnt an alert through the media everyday about over population. Unfortunately, i know the answer.
| anathematic wrote: | ||
excellent. I often wonder why there isnt an alert through the media everyday about over population. Unfortunately, i know the answer. |
The important thing is not population, but productivity per populist. We have six billion now and half of us are suffering from some form of malnutrition. In ten years if we have ten billion….dandy, as long as less than half are starving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
I don't like the term 'gay marriage', since this is assigned to hetero couples. And I personally don't like gays or lesbians for a reason (not discrimination, if you believe): they're too self merciful (don't know if this adjective is applicable in English). Most of them like being homos, but they hate the status, dispite claiming to be happy and worry-free about any type of comments. Also, homossexuality is ridiculous by other reason: it's not deniable that gays existed since the man's existance, overall the greek soldiers and some emperors from Rome, but the homossexualism is being treated as something fashionable (in my country this is evident). When there are gay parades, the media covers everything, interviews transsexuals and the reporters smile. It seems that being gay is the most beautiful thing in the world. And last, but not least, adding this to the mercy subject, when the "Big Brother reality show" took place here in Brazil, there was a gay in there. All the gay and lesbian community made a enourmous effort to vote for him, not because of other qualities, but just for being gay. Then, he earned a million Reais. (1 USD, today = 2,3 Real).
Also, it is horrible for the children that see a gay couple. Why? Because this can, in the future, stimulate the legislators to allow the 'gay civil union' with the right to adopt children. It is proven that children that grew up without mothercare have an alterated mind state regarding to the lowlevel/lack of serotonin, that combined with high testosterone may result in a impulsive man, even a serial killer.
Yes, It all seems bullshit. But I haven't questioned any opinion here posted, an the hormone subject can be easily verified in searches like, for example, wikipedia.
Also, it is horrible for the children that see a gay couple. Why? Because this can, in the future, stimulate the legislators to allow the 'gay civil union' with the right to adopt children. It is proven that children that grew up without mothercare have an alterated mind state regarding to the lowlevel/lack of serotonin, that combined with high testosterone may result in a impulsive man, even a serial killer.
Yes, It all seems bullshit. But I haven't questioned any opinion here posted, an the hormone subject can be easily verified in searches like, for example, wikipedia.
| Da Rossa wrote: |
| Also, it is horrible for the children that see a gay couple. Why? Because this can, in the future, stimulate the legislators to allow the 'gay civil union' with the right to adopt children. It is proven that children that grew up without mothercare have an alterated mind state regarding to the lowlevel/lack of serotonin, that combined with high testosterone may result in a impulsive man, even a serial killer. |
First of all, they do get mothercare. If they have two female parents, one will play the role of the father, the other of the mother. If they have two male parents, again, one will play the role of the father, the other of the mother.
Secondly, that was a comparison between a child with a mother and father and one with only a father, a one-parent situation. This isn't the case for children adopted by gay couples.
No, sorry but it is not the same thing.
A child grown in a male-couple environment will find it weird to watch its friends being raised by a hetero couple, as he/she will begin to wonder how the life would be if he/she is taken care by a woman. No man can play a mothers role. It would be a illusionary theatre. Also, the adopted child will certainly, one day, want to meet his bioparents, like almost every adopted child.
A child grown in a male-couple environment will find it weird to watch its friends being raised by a hetero couple, as he/she will begin to wonder how the life would be if he/she is taken care by a woman. No man can play a mothers role. It would be a illusionary theatre. Also, the adopted child will certainly, one day, want to meet his bioparents, like almost every adopted child.
| Da Rossa wrote: |
| No, sorry but it is not the same thing.
A child grown in a male-couple environment will find it weird to watch its friends being raised by a hetero couple, as he/she will begin to wonder how the life would be if he/she is taken care by a woman. No man can play a mothers role. It would be a illusionary theatre. Also, the adopted child will certainly, one day, want to meet his bioparents, like almost every adopted child. |
Lmfao, out what of primitive country do you come from, lol.
Gay couples can adopt childeren here, I know a guy which has 2 dads this way and he definately aint a serial killer or anything, he doesn't find it weird to have 2 dads and how others have a dad and a mom. And I asked him once whether he wants to meet his bioparents, to which he replied with: "for me my 2 dads are my bioparents".
There is practically no difference between a gay couple raising a kid or a hetero couple raising a kid. And besides that, what does tend to happen in gay couples is that only 1 works and 1 stays at home to do the house and such. Whilst with hetero couples both parents work and the kid gets ditched in daycare. I think the child in a gay couple will on average get more attention by its parents this way than any other child
.
As for gay marriage, it is allowed where I live already and hardly anybody has a problem with it. I don't see why other countries are prohibiting it from happening, imho it's just enforcing public discrimination by giving gay people not the same rights as hetero sexual people. If discrimination is something which those countries try to promote then for sure they'll have a lot to learn.
| wolfhnd wrote: |
| Now that humans have proven they can fill every corner of the world. Maybe it would be a good idea to encourage a form of sexual conduct that doesn't add to overpopulation and at the same time reduces promiscuity. |
I´ve never thought of it like that, but it does sound like a good idea.
As for what you should call it i think Marriage is fine. The marriage is the same thing regardless of the couple being homosexual or not. If you call a gay couples marriage for "Gay Marriage" then why aren´t heterosexual couples marriages called "Straight Marriages"?
Why shouldn't gay couples mary if they want to?
If marriage really is a holy union under God, then it can't be changed by the lawmakers, can it? God will bless it or not according to the paramaters He has laid out?
So what does the religious establishment care about the legal establishments view? They are not the same thing. They never have been?
Otherwise, marriage already been "desecrated" by the high rates of divorce and abuse etc. etc. If there's been no outrage about that, then there is no right to complain about this. THis is pure bigotry and a shining example of the misapprpriation of the institution of the church... which was designed originally to spread Christs love... not the establishment's judgment.
Harsh words perhaps. But I should probably reveal myself now as a Bible, thumping, church going Christian.
I am very concerned about Gods view of marriage. The law is irrelevant to me. And if you are not a Christian, then God's law will be irrelavant to you.
We have been instructed to love. How about we quit our "poor me, what about my rights" whining and shouting and yelling... and do what He told us to do!
So what does the religious establishment care about the legal establishments view? They are not the same thing. They never have been?
Otherwise, marriage already been "desecrated" by the high rates of divorce and abuse etc. etc. If there's been no outrage about that, then there is no right to complain about this. THis is pure bigotry and a shining example of the misapprpriation of the institution of the church... which was designed originally to spread Christs love... not the establishment's judgment.
Harsh words perhaps. But I should probably reveal myself now as a Bible, thumping, church going Christian.
I am very concerned about Gods view of marriage. The law is irrelevant to me. And if you are not a Christian, then God's law will be irrelavant to you.
We have been instructed to love. How about we quit our "poor me, what about my rights" whining and shouting and yelling... and do what He told us to do!
Marriage isn't a holy union under god, marriage is just a word which has been given a certain meaning. One of the defenitions of marriage is:
by: MWD
As you can see, by law, not by God.
Remember that you do not have to marry in a church and there are a lot of people which don't. Why pay for some crappy bishop or whatever to give you the extra words of "God bless this union", can better spent more money on your honeymoon instead
.
We're living in modern times after all, this fairytale figure named God is slowly being kicked out of real life business by certain people.
| Quote: |
| 1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law |
by: MWD
As you can see, by law, not by God.
Remember that you do not have to marry in a church and there are a lot of people which don't. Why pay for some crappy bishop or whatever to give you the extra words of "God bless this union", can better spent more money on your honeymoon instead
.
We're living in modern times after all, this fairytale figure named God is slowly being kicked out of real life business by certain people.
By certain people, well said. People like you, that believe in nothing therefore you cannot reach the fullness of happiness. Every criminal has this lack of reference, as they believe and fear nothing, they feel free to go futher in the life of crime.
The Bible is sometimes treated as an "old book", by the ones who claim that "we live in modern times", in a distorted idea that the values of the Christianism are fading. The Bible is an eternal book, the situations exposed in the books date from a fairly distant past, but nothing has changed from there to now regarding to values. This was not supposed to get the religion context, but someone mentioned "God" above.
The Bible is sometimes treated as an "old book", by the ones who claim that "we live in modern times", in a distorted idea that the values of the Christianism are fading. The Bible is an eternal book, the situations exposed in the books date from a fairly distant past, but nothing has changed from there to now regarding to values. This was not supposed to get the religion context, but someone mentioned "God" above.
so you want to play the "words have no meaning" game? ok, "you are a ****** tard and I hope you explode". eh eh eh you can't be offended. remember words have no meaning
| gonzo wrote: |
| so you want to play the "words have no meaning" game? ok, "you are a **** tard and I hope you explode". eh eh eh you can't be offended. remember words have no meaning |
Was this to me?
| gonzo wrote: |
| so you want to play the "words have no meaning" game? ok, "you are a **** tard and I hope you explode". eh eh eh you can't be offended. remember words have no meaning |
Words have the meaning which are assigned to them and in some cases these meanings are multiple. That's why it's also complete bullshit why certain words like f u c k in example tend to be sensored out. It's a miracle bullshit aint being sensored out yet for containing shit, yet f u c k is already being gone rid of here. The words get a specific meaning though when used in a certain combination of words, it's not the word which forms the meaning to it, it's the context.
So if you talk about marriage this on itself has nothing to do with God, it's just in which context you place it.
@Da Rossa: Cut the crap with not being able to reach the fullness of happiness if you don't believe in god and especially saying that every criminal has this lack of reference. Child molestation is something which happens frequently within churches in example by bishops or whatever, now does this make the entire believers nothing more than a bunch of hypocrits? Well, for what all they do in general I would easily answer that with yes, since just about absolutely none of them follows the bible by heart.
Just putting it up for show and going to church and getting married in a church doesn't make you a believer, that's what forms you into a hypocritcal lier.
This does not apply to me. I'm a Catholic, not a hypocrat.
I mean it, every criminal has a lack of reference, as they fear not the punishment, in the scope of God or even in the human laws. That's why some people keep killing around, raping, kidnapping even with the death penalty there.
Yeah, there are several cases of child abuse in churches and other religious environments, that's a shame, I feel for the victims. But it does not deny the authenticity or the seriousness of the instituition. Perverted priests were not supposed to be ordered. In fact they should be excecuted, very fair.
Besides, my statement about the profile of a gay couple raised child is not based in rumors or imaginations. It is scientifically proven. See Professor Lord Robert Winston's arcticles if you want.
I mean it, every criminal has a lack of reference, as they fear not the punishment, in the scope of God or even in the human laws. That's why some people keep killing around, raping, kidnapping even with the death penalty there.
Yeah, there are several cases of child abuse in churches and other religious environments, that's a shame, I feel for the victims. But it does not deny the authenticity or the seriousness of the instituition. Perverted priests were not supposed to be ordered. In fact they should be excecuted, very fair.
Besides, my statement about the profile of a gay couple raised child is not based in rumors or imaginations. It is scientifically proven. See Professor Lord Robert Winston's arcticles if you want.
Okay, I suppose this is a bit getting serious with all the accusations being thrown about the way I see it. Let's all just agree that we have different opinions, the way I see it we'd rather have our own stand.
Here's the way I see it, of course, not every priest or members of religious organziations are guaranteed not to make the gravest of sin be it molestation, or what not, but it should not devalue the works of years of religion. They should be put on trial, the person itself, not the institution.
As with gay marriage, well why do you need to actually go to a church to be wed, when you're already receiving the rights and benefits as a partner, you don't need the chruch ceremony or civil ceremony of a marriage to make it real.
The way I see it and my stand is Matrimony is for a man and a woman to celebrate their union, there is no gray area.
Real commitment from both parties, whether is a straight or same sex relationships is the only ceremony both needs to have their partnership fullfilled not a ceremony or a piece of paper.
Here's the way I see it, of course, not every priest or members of religious organziations are guaranteed not to make the gravest of sin be it molestation, or what not, but it should not devalue the works of years of religion. They should be put on trial, the person itself, not the institution.
As with gay marriage, well why do you need to actually go to a church to be wed, when you're already receiving the rights and benefits as a partner, you don't need the chruch ceremony or civil ceremony of a marriage to make it real.
The way I see it and my stand is Matrimony is for a man and a woman to celebrate their union, there is no gray area.
Real commitment from both parties, whether is a straight or same sex relationships is the only ceremony both needs to have their partnership fullfilled not a ceremony or a piece of paper.
To start, you obviously aren't looking at this from an unbiased opinion as you refer to homosexuals as "homo's".
Seccondly - marraige is the union of two people who are in love - of any race or denomination.
How would you like to only have something as cold as a Civil "Union" or "Partnership" with the love of your life.
Attraction to the same sex is not a choice - you're born with it. I don't know the exact science, but it's some-how to do with chemical balance and hormone levels.
They aren't hurting anyone, and it wouldn't be skin off anyone's back to allow them something as simple as marraige.
If you want to look at this from a religious perspective, God obviously has no issue with homosexuality - or he would not have created people as such. Again, it's not like they choose to be as they are.
Many homosexuals are incredibly religious, and most wish the world only good - no matter that it's full of biggots slandering who they are.
Those who are religious want to be wed in the eyes of God. It's not just about the legalities and rights.
How cold must the world be to deny something so simple, that provides a couple so much happiness? "Metro" or "homo"?
=> Jess Black
Seccondly - marraige is the union of two people who are in love - of any race or denomination.
How would you like to only have something as cold as a Civil "Union" or "Partnership" with the love of your life.
Attraction to the same sex is not a choice - you're born with it. I don't know the exact science, but it's some-how to do with chemical balance and hormone levels.
They aren't hurting anyone, and it wouldn't be skin off anyone's back to allow them something as simple as marraige.
If you want to look at this from a religious perspective, God obviously has no issue with homosexuality - or he would not have created people as such. Again, it's not like they choose to be as they are.
Many homosexuals are incredibly religious, and most wish the world only good - no matter that it's full of biggots slandering who they are.
Those who are religious want to be wed in the eyes of God. It's not just about the legalities and rights.
How cold must the world be to deny something so simple, that provides a couple so much happiness? "Metro" or "homo"?
=> Jess Black
I think my point is that there is such a thing is a legal contractual marriage that is completely distinct from the other sort of marriage. WHich does also exist (whether you like it or not)
Now, the first type ought to be available to anyone as far as I am concerned.
It is a Godless union for people who are unconcerned with God. Why should anyone stop them from it?
The second... a marriage in the eyes of God, is available to those who want it, and to those who believe in GOd, and live accordingly (yes, I understand that this means someone has to decide what this means... but each religion should have the right to decide what it believes and live accordingly.)
Why does everyone have such a problem with that? Why does everyone want to make it so complicated.
I suspect it's not really about the marriage issue at all... but about people being mad at each other for years and years of wrong treatment... and just latching on to an issue as an excuse to argue, yell, and generally bash one another.
Now, the first type ought to be available to anyone as far as I am concerned.
It is a Godless union for people who are unconcerned with God. Why should anyone stop them from it?
The second... a marriage in the eyes of God, is available to those who want it, and to those who believe in GOd, and live accordingly (yes, I understand that this means someone has to decide what this means... but each religion should have the right to decide what it believes and live accordingly.)
Why does everyone have such a problem with that? Why does everyone want to make it so complicated.
I suspect it's not really about the marriage issue at all... but about people being mad at each other for years and years of wrong treatment... and just latching on to an issue as an excuse to argue, yell, and generally bash one another.
| horseatingweeds wrote: | ||||
The important thing is not population, but productivity per populist. We have six billion now and half of us are suffering from some form of malnutrition. In ten years if we have ten billion….dandy, as long as less than half are starving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population |
the last thing we need is more, polluting stupid, americans.
When folks talk with a gay couple will they ask, "Are you civilly united?" Heck no, they're going to ask, "Are you married?" Marriage is a concept held by many different cultures and religions, often quite differently. So now, should we ban traditional Indian marriages because they are arranged? Or perhaps because they aren't Christian? The whole thing is frickin' silly. Marriage is a union between two people. Good 'nuff for me. Hell, there are people who worship Satan who can get married, but now two same-sex folks who are otherwise "normal" can't? WTF?
If you think all gay people who want to be married are unreligious, you'd be very mistaken. Many gays want a place in their religious community as well, and many religious leaders are willing to give them one. Obviously, more are not.
There's something insincere about the sanctity of 'marriage' when the divorce rate in the US is like 50%. What institution are we trying to uphold? Apparently, Gay "partners" on average stay together more often. Interesting.
All the morals of the bible are still as valid today as they were back then? All of them? Including the right to own slaves? Or that if your wife cannot produce a child, you may have one with a slave instead? Or countless others that we don't use anymore because we decided that some things weren't proper for our society anymore. Some things do change.
There's something insincere about the sanctity of 'marriage' when the divorce rate in the US is like 50%. What institution are we trying to uphold? Apparently, Gay "partners" on average stay together more often. Interesting.
All the morals of the bible are still as valid today as they were back then? All of them? Including the right to own slaves? Or that if your wife cannot produce a child, you may have one with a slave instead? Or countless others that we don't use anymore because we decided that some things weren't proper for our society anymore. Some things do change.
| riv_ wrote: |
| If marriage really is a holy union under God, then it can't be changed by the lawmakers, can it? God will bless it or not according to the paramaters He has laid out? |
| heath wrote: |
| Since the word 'marriage' is already taken for hetero couples, is it really so bad to disallow 'gay marriage' as long as a Civil Union or Civil Partnership offers the same rights to homo coupls? |
| anathematic wrote: | ||||||
the last thing we need is more, polluting stupid, americans. |
Yeh, more, polluting stupid, Europeans is better.
By the way, we like intelligent posts here. Not angry rantings. If you genuinely feel that Americans, in general, pollute more than the rest of the world and are less intelligent, then back it up with some substance.
I think that being gay is unnatural. Wierd. Odd. Men have a**es for one reason and one reason only - To sit down on the sh***er and let loose. It's an exit, not an entry.
I think that governments should do away with the word marriage and use civil union. Leave marriage up to the different religions and churches out there.
| Da Rossa wrote: |
|
As for gay marriage, it is allowed where I live already and hardly anybody has a problem with it. I don't see why other countries are prohibiting it from happening, imho it's just enforcing public discrimination by giving gay people not the same rights as hetero sexual people. If discrimination is something which those countries try to promote then for sure they'll have a lot to learn. |
I might live in the same country (holland) nothing is prohibited here (weed gay mariage...) and I am not christian but I am also against gay mariage. And I don't think it is discrimination. You give them exactly the same rights it doesn't matter if someone is gay or not they may al have a happy mariage BUT NOT WITH THE SAME SEXE. Gay's are not discriminated. They have the same rights, they may marry.
Or you should also be able to marry your cat. We are discriminating the people who love there pet. I love my fish and I want to marry her. Why can't I?
| rvec wrote: |
| Or you should also be able to marry your cat. We are discriminating the people who love there pet. I love my fish and I want to marry her. Why can't I? |
Sounds like the same arguments that were made about blacks and whites not being able to marry in some parts of the United States during more than the first half of the last century. The ol' "if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile" argument. While that's certainly a concern (I think a line must be drawn at least at the species level) I don't think it applies here anyway.
Here, we are already allowing these two people to partner together, in many countries we even allow them 100% of the same legal rights as man-woman couples. But, we won't let them "say" they are married, because... well.. because. It's a word. I think folks need to "get over it."
| Marston wrote: | ||
|
Agreed. That said, the roots of the Christianity go back to "long before the Bible was even thought of".
I'm merely arguing from the Christian perspective beacause, where I come from, the Christians seem to be the ones who are all upset over the gay marriage issue. As a Christian who is not opposed to gay marriage, I would present my point of view from the Christian perspective
I agree that marriage can be viewed as a secular union, defined purely by culture and law. I have no problem with that. As such, I agree, that it should be viewed as a lawful union between 2 people. Period.
But there is, like it or not, another kind of union that does occur. Some people choose to be married in a church by a priest. This is a different thing. This is a union under God.
If a homosexual couple wants to pursue the second kind of union, there may be issues. SOme churches can't marry homosexual couples because they don't believe that God sanctifies such unions. Fair enough. (Currently, some churches also won't marry people who aren't members of their church, or who have been divorced etc.)
I just think the legal issue is separate from the religious issue, and the religious community should back off about the law.(If I believe in God, what difference does it make to me that you don't?) And the legal community should back off about the religion. (If you don't believe in God, what difference does it make to you that I do?)
| madsencarl wrote: |
| I think that being gay is unnatural. Wierd. Odd. Men have a**es for one reason and one reason only - To sit down on the sh***er and let loose. It's an exit, not an entry. |
| anathematic wrote: |
| god has more things to deal with than semantics. |
Amen!
| Quote: |
| If it's unnatural, why are people born homosexual? |
Are they really born or are they actually made. There are some certain studies that claims this. I mean I'm no psycho-analyst. But I believe that up to a certain point society and a persons immediate environment has something to do with a persons particular sexual orientation.
| Marston wrote: | ||
|
Humans are ment to be the smarter race but some people ask unnatural weird questions
sorry i just wanted to say it. But there are also people born withoud legs or arms do you means tha't natural? It might be but it's nog good. I think the same about homosexuals. It isn't right.
I dont think anyone could ever convince me to change my viewpoint on this ever because I think it is so wrong
God mad Adam and Eve........not Adam and Steve
and I know i probably spelled this wrong but
what about sodom and gommora? someone probably knows what these cities were destroyed for... *bump*
I dont see why they leave marriage alone that isn't right to allow gays to be married really...... but thats just my opinion
God mad Adam and Eve........not Adam and Steve
and I know i probably spelled this wrong but
what about sodom and gommora? someone probably knows what these cities were destroyed for... *bump*
I dont see why they leave marriage alone that isn't right to allow gays to be married really...... but thats just my opinion
they did not exactly turn Sodom and Gamorrah into a pillar of salt because people were doing what you're implying they're doing.
They were done for because they didn't respect the angels that God sent to them in order to try and save the city.
marriage should definitely be out of the question as someone in the same thread previously stated they should leave the matrimonial ceremony alone and call them civil union, and thereby having the same rights as man and woman who were wed.
But it is indeed unfair for us to say that they're were born that way. it's just isn't right. Let's just respect who they are as persons not judge them on their sexual orientation.
They were done for because they didn't respect the angels that God sent to them in order to try and save the city.
marriage should definitely be out of the question as someone in the same thread previously stated they should leave the matrimonial ceremony alone and call them civil union, and thereby having the same rights as man and woman who were wed.
But it is indeed unfair for us to say that they're were born that way. it's just isn't right. Let's just respect who they are as persons not judge them on their sexual orientation.
| MalvagioAddict wrote: | ||
Are they really born or are they actually made. There are some certain studies that claims this. I mean I'm no psycho-analyst. But I believe that up to a certain point society and a persons immediate environment has something to do with a persons particular sexual orientation. |
And what about the homosexual penguins at the zoo in Mass.? I really don't think that environment plays a big role. People are born that way.
We need to come into the 21st century where we are not a god fearing society. Any way it's proved that it is not so much a choice as just as homosexuals find the normal way. We have to stop being scared of what could happen. It is not a desecretion! and as holy as it may be it is not made by god. Let us be liberated by what we should do. I am sick of people saying that it is not natural. Who are we to say what is natural. Who are we to tell people they can not be married because they are offensive to the 'true image'. Grow up.
Some people are born with both sexes. Some are born with indeterminate sexes. Not far fetched to see that some are born different sexes mentally versus physically. There's a lot of variation, from the most alpha of physical and mental males to the most feminine girly girls and everything in between. Mistakes? Maybe. I mean, obviously two same sex folks are going to create offspring to continue their genetic variation. But why not allow them to enjoy the life they've been given.
For marriage, it's just a word. Get over it.
I've been on both sides of this argument. I used to think that homosexuality was "wrong". I believed that sure, maybe they were born that way, but they should resist their deviant urges. I even compared them to folks who were born with suicidal and even homicidal tendencies. We expect such folks to resist their urges to fit into society or be punished. We don't allow people to kill other people or even themselves just because they were born that way.
Then, I came to the realization that homosexuality causes absolutely no harm to others, at all, whatsoever. It isn't all that much different from liking blondes over brunettes, or curvy women over petite, or muscular guys over stout. Consenting adults, no physical harm, seems fine to me. The only "harm" done is simply the perception of others. And they just need to "get over it."
For marriage, it's just a word. Get over it.
I've been on both sides of this argument. I used to think that homosexuality was "wrong". I believed that sure, maybe they were born that way, but they should resist their deviant urges. I even compared them to folks who were born with suicidal and even homicidal tendencies. We expect such folks to resist their urges to fit into society or be punished. We don't allow people to kill other people or even themselves just because they were born that way.
Then, I came to the realization that homosexuality causes absolutely no harm to others, at all, whatsoever. It isn't all that much different from liking blondes over brunettes, or curvy women over petite, or muscular guys over stout. Consenting adults, no physical harm, seems fine to me. The only "harm" done is simply the perception of others. And they just need to "get over it."
Well, I actually did not know that there were gay chimpanzees and penguins, it seems that we learn something new everyday.
Well one has to admit, that a lack of father figure in some cases would probably predispose a person to be gay, I mean when you have no one but a mother to be there without having at least masculine influence either in the form of uncles or cousins, I do think that they'd be more than likely to develop the tendencies. as with growing up with a bunch of sisters. like when you're an only girl with a bunch of brothers you develop some tomboyish tendencies.
amen
Well one has to admit, that a lack of father figure in some cases would probably predispose a person to be gay, I mean when you have no one but a mother to be there without having at least masculine influence either in the form of uncles or cousins, I do think that they'd be more than likely to develop the tendencies. as with growing up with a bunch of sisters. like when you're an only girl with a bunch of brothers you develop some tomboyish tendencies.
| Quote: |
| Then, I came to the realization that homosexuality causes absolutely no harm to others, at all, whatsoever. It isn't all that much different from liking blondes over brunettes, or curvy women over petite, or muscular guys over stout. Consenting adults, no physical harm, seems fine to me. The only "harm" done is simply the perception of others. And they just need to "get over it." |
amen
I imagine not having a father figure probably isn't any worse than growing up a single-parent or parents that go through a divorce---which is to say: not necessarily bad at all.
It's been shown that there are plenty of nice, tolerant children from gay parents who are just fine.
Why would anyone choose to be homosexual because their parents were? There is still a lot of hate in the world; it's a whole lot easier to be straight.
Why were the gays back when they were continuously beaten, lynched, or killed for expressing their preferences? To think someone would willingly endanger themselves in a homophobic society doesn't really make sense. It's just a part of them, a part that doesn't hurt anyone (amen). It's not a threat to the "family unit" because people who are straight will continue to be straight and have families. This "threat" implies homosexuality as a subversive culture intent on destroying the rest of humanity. Ew, yeah right.
It's been shown that there are plenty of nice, tolerant children from gay parents who are just fine.
Why would anyone choose to be homosexual because their parents were? There is still a lot of hate in the world; it's a whole lot easier to be straight.
Why were the gays back when they were continuously beaten, lynched, or killed for expressing their preferences? To think someone would willingly endanger themselves in a homophobic society doesn't really make sense. It's just a part of them, a part that doesn't hurt anyone (amen). It's not a threat to the "family unit" because people who are straight will continue to be straight and have families. This "threat" implies homosexuality as a subversive culture intent on destroying the rest of humanity. Ew, yeah right.
| rvec wrote: | ||
I might live in the same country (holland) nothing is prohibited here (weed gay mariage...) and I am not christian but I am also against gay mariage. And I don't think it is discrimination. You give them exactly the same rights it doesn't matter if someone is gay or not they may al have a happy mariage BUT NOT WITH THE SAME SEXE. Gay's are not discriminated. They have the same rights, they may marry. Or you should also be able to marry your cat. We are discriminating the people who love there pet. I love my fish and I want to marry her. Why can't I? |
Because you're cat isn't another human being - and I think you're a pig for what you just said. People don't choose to be homosexual or lesbian - you're born that way and there's nothing you can do to change it. Asking a gay man to love a woman would be the same as asking you to love another man.
If you're against gay marraige, then you have every right to state your opinion, but what you said's disgusting - degrading innocent people to the level of those who have intercourse with "inferior" animals.
I'm not even being harsh in saying you disgust me - even through only that post.
Jess Black.I totally agree gay marriage. In the future, there may have some high technologies which allow mans to have babies.
| mota wrote: |
| I totally agree gay marriage. In the future, there may have some high technologies which allow mans to have babies. |
I doubt it. Homosexuality has already been deemed unnatural by most people, and therefore not many people condone it. How do you think people will react to news like that?
I don't think it will happen, at least anytime soon.
As for the marriage thing? No, not marriage. A civil union with the same legal benefits of marriage would work, but the institution of marriage should not be desecrated like that. Whether you believe it or not, marriage is a religious thing, whether you are married in a church or not, it's a religious thing.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| As for the marriage thing? No, not marriage. A civil union with the same legal benefits of marriage would work, but the institution of marriage should not be desecrated like that. Whether you believe it or not, marriage is a religious thing, whether you are married in a church or not, it's a religious thing. |
Marriage is by definition a civil union. If you are talking about a civil union with the same benefits of a marriage, then why not call it marriage?
By the way, some American tribes (the real Americans
) treated gay man as women. They had to sit while peeing, had to wear a skirt and they married other men. There are plenty of other examples on every continent available. Here is what wikipedia says about it.
| Quote: |
| Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence. In North America, among the Native American societies, it has taken the form of two-spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these two-spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage |
And even if it would be a religious thing, then why shouldn't gay marriage be allowed? There are plenty of churches in America and at least a few of them accept gay marriage. Just to give you an example: http://www.uua.org/news/2003/031118.html .
| Quote: |
| We enthusiastically applaud today's ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in favor of same-sex marriage. |
Or aren't lieberals allowed to have a religion?
| Bondings wrote: |
| Or aren't lieberals allowed to have a religion? |
Huh? Slipping into S3nd Keys-speak there?
when people talk of christian morals and the holy gods way of things, pretty much christianity has just been derived from other religions, and ast the roots it's really been our morals, human morals that have molded religion, not god giving us morals. Religion has taken much of life and written it down in association with thier god. I suppose everyone would say god created us and the morals we have, but the way i see it, religion has been molded to cope with the current social status and whats exceptable. Homosexuality is just something which as of yet hasnt been unwritten as an evil act. In the times the bible was written everyone believed in whitches. Do we now? Whitches arent mentioned as evil by the church anymore because no one believes in them. The Church will keep changing with the flow of science etc. and it will be a happy day when they forget this quarrel of homosexuality.
| Da Rossa wrote: |
| No, sorry but it is not the same thing.
A child grown in a male-couple environment will find it weird to watch its friends being raised by a hetero couple, as he/she will begin to wonder how the life would be if he/she is taken care by a woman. No man can play a mothers role. It would be a illusionary theatre. Also, the adopted child will certainly, one day, want to meet his bioparents, like almost every adopted child. |
<censored, please read the forum rules - insulting other people or groups of people is not allowed>
| Quote: |
| This Can Be A Reason.. But I Think Thank Gay Marriage Shouldnt Even Be Allowed.. Whats So Good Of A Man Sticking His D*** Up Another Mans A**... Cmon.. Thats Just Sick... The World Should Have Stayed With Man/Woman... And Now Its Not Even Co - Op Relationships.. Really Disgusting If You Ask Me... |
That is a rediculous narrowminded view to take, just because you are heterosexual and have no attraction to the same sex, you think it's disgusting and shouldn't be done. That is worse in my opinion than a simple religious view of it.
| prongs_386 wrote: | ||
That is a rediculous narrowminded view to take, just because you are heterosexual and have no attraction to the same sex, you think it's disgusting and shouldn't be done. That is worse in my opinion than a simple religious view of it. |
No Actually Your Wrong.. In My Opinion I Think It Shouldnt Be Done.. But I Dont Really Care If It Happens As Long As It 1. Dont Happen To Me.. And 2. No Gay Person Starts Acting Gay With Me.. Im Serious.. I Would Not Like To Be Touched In A Gay Way By The Same Sex.. Now If It Was A Girl I Liked.. Then We Dont Got A Problem Lolz....
i don't think it should matter, if a girl touches you and you don't like it then you tell them to back off, exactly the same as a guy. It's sexual assault whether its a guy or a girl so it shouldn't matter.
| prongs_386 wrote: |
| i don't think it should matter, if a girl touches you and you don't like it then you tell them to back off, exactly the same as a guy. It's sexual assault whether its a guy or a girl so it shouldn't matter. |
| Quote: |
| This is totally unrelated to the rest of the thread... Keep it pertinent, man. |
But it is related, the issue isn't just gay marriage, it is equality for homosexuality. Marriage is just one of the things people have been talking about.
Hey dudes, i think there really isn't much point talking or debating our heads off here if we are missing the big picture.
The truth and stats are in your face if you would do some research. There is really a huge number of gays out there and (sometimes i really wonder they were BORN gay or they BECAME gay, but this is out of this forum) if you think that your community is clean of gays, you could be so wrong. In fact, many of us might even have kids who are gays no matter how much parenting we put into it. Its just happening despite all the suppression and stuff in many places. Why??
Many "gays" are not born gays, they simply think that its cool just to be one, cool to be this sensitive new person, a person of the new age. I'm not kidding, this is what they told me: as a gay you fell more "free" in your thinking, you are no longer bound by traditional you are a guy, you are a girl mentality. This is what makes its cool.
As long as this thinking is encouraged (indirectly by the traditional values and suppression and literature and movies), the number of people becoming gay add to those who are born gay is bound to increase exponentially no matter what laws or nonsense people do.
This is how REVOLUTIONS take place people, can you see it coming, thinking spread beneath suppression, finally too many people share the common vision and a revolution sweeps us all.
Although i don't like gays, but well at this rate we are going(stupid laws and suppression as opposed to respect and "de-cool"ing it), the tipping point could be in my lifetime.
The truth and stats are in your face if you would do some research. There is really a huge number of gays out there and (sometimes i really wonder they were BORN gay or they BECAME gay, but this is out of this forum) if you think that your community is clean of gays, you could be so wrong. In fact, many of us might even have kids who are gays no matter how much parenting we put into it. Its just happening despite all the suppression and stuff in many places. Why??
Many "gays" are not born gays, they simply think that its cool just to be one, cool to be this sensitive new person, a person of the new age. I'm not kidding, this is what they told me: as a gay you fell more "free" in your thinking, you are no longer bound by traditional you are a guy, you are a girl mentality. This is what makes its cool.
As long as this thinking is encouraged (indirectly by the traditional values and suppression and literature and movies), the number of people becoming gay add to those who are born gay is bound to increase exponentially no matter what laws or nonsense people do.
This is how REVOLUTIONS take place people, can you see it coming, thinking spread beneath suppression, finally too many people share the common vision and a revolution sweeps us all.
Although i don't like gays, but well at this rate we are going(stupid laws and suppression as opposed to respect and "de-cool"ing it), the tipping point could be in my lifetime.
If you think homosexuality is wrong, don't do it.
If you think same sex partnerships are wrong, don't get involved in one.
If you don't want your child to be gay, pray to God not to give the kid a combination of genes that will make him or her predisposed to homosexuality. Or adopt a child that's old enough that they already know whether they're gay or straight.
If your child turns out to be gay anyway, either...
1. Try to force them to be straight, thereby guaranteeing that they will eventually not only rebell against you and be gay anyway, but that they will hate your religion and everything else you stand for.
2. Interpret the fact of their gayness despite your prayers as a message, or challenge, from God. Raise the child with love and acceptance, to fulfill their own potential instead of your plans for them.
If you think same sex partnerships are wrong, don't get involved in one.
If you don't want your child to be gay, pray to God not to give the kid a combination of genes that will make him or her predisposed to homosexuality. Or adopt a child that's old enough that they already know whether they're gay or straight.
If your child turns out to be gay anyway, either...
1. Try to force them to be straight, thereby guaranteeing that they will eventually not only rebell against you and be gay anyway, but that they will hate your religion and everything else you stand for.
2. Interpret the fact of their gayness despite your prayers as a message, or challenge, from God. Raise the child with love and acceptance, to fulfill their own potential instead of your plans for them.
| prongs_386 wrote: | ||
But it is related, the issue isn't just gay marriage, it is equality for homosexuality. Marriage is just one of the things people have been talking about. |
Gay marriage is a choice, not a priviledge. They should have the right, just like we have the right to marry people we want to spend the rest of our life with. This is just getting out of hand I think everyone should be equal and have the same rights and homosexuals have that lifestyle because thats the way they chose to live their life, it's none of our business to interfere with that.
| horseatingweeds wrote: | ||||
The important thing is not population, but productivity per populist. We have six billion now and half of us are suffering from some form of malnutrition. In ten years if we have ten billion….dandy, as long as less than half are starving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population |
Overpopulation is a myth. Consider the dimensions of the state of Texas in relation to the world's population. We could comofortably fit every single human being in the state of Texas and it would be less dense than the State of New York. Most of the world's starvation is cause by dictators and tyrants who don't allow food supplies into their starving nations.
As far as the Gay Marriage, all marriges should be Gay (happy), but cannot be marriage if it is homosexual/lesbian. You really cannot call a bicycle a car, if you did, you would be lying--even if you belived it to be true.
| joscode wrote: |
| As far as the Gay Marriage, all marriges should be Gay (happy), but cannot be marriage if it is homosexual/lesbian. You really cannot call a bicycle a car, if you did, you would be lying--even if you belived it to be true. |
Please... marriage is, at its simplest, "an intimate or close union". You have attributed your own narrow meaning to the word rather than its general usage. Marriage can even be used with reference to completely inanimate, inorganic objects. Heck, it's even used for vague concepts. "The Palm V is a great example of a marriage of form and function."
Your bicycle/car analogy just doesn't equate. Perhaps bicycle/car both being vehicles would be better.
[Also, for completeness: "Lying" connotates intent, so when one doesn't know they are telling an untruth, we don't usually say they are "lying" but rather that they didn't know, or were misinformed, perhaps even ignorant, but not a lier.]
I was raised in a two parent family - one mother and one father. My parents have been married for over 35 years now. Both of my parents worked and I had about as much "alone" time with one parent as I did with the other. I also have a brother and a sister. All that being said, I am a gay man. I was attracted to men before puberty. I certainly did not choose to be gay. Why would anyone choose to be discriminated against, to live in fear of being gay bashed, and to not have the same basic rights that heterosexuals have? Even today in 2006 my employer can fire me just for my sexual orientation.
I agree that the media has made being gay out to be glamorous but I can tell you that it has not been glamorous for me. I was brought up in a Southern Baptist church being told my whole life that being gay is wrong. This is why suicide among gay teens is higher than any other group. I prayed MANY times to be straight. I thought that I was destined to be celebate but why should I not enjoy the companionship of another person just because of my sexual orientation?
Many religious groups refer to Leviticus and the destruction of Sodom and Gamora as evidence of homosexuality being "wrong". The same chapter that talks about a man lying with a man being an abomination to God also talks about a man having sex with a woman during her period and several other unclean acts. Much more is said about these acts than about a man lying with a man. No one ever seems to mention this though. Sadam and Gamora was destroyed (as previously noted) because the residents did not respect the angels. These men tried to force themselves on the angels. This constitutes rape not consentual sex. And, let's not forget that the Bible was written my men and translated NUMEROUS times by men.
Whether marriage started off as a religous ceremony or not is irrelevant today. Marriage is now a legal issue. Couples are married not only by priests and pastors but also by justices of the peace. A marriage ceremony may be in a church, in a home, in Vegas, or numerous other places. A marriage done by a priest in a church is legally EXACTLY the same as a marriage done by a justice of the peace in a casino. Mr. Bush and the conservatives like to throw around "protecting the sanctity of marriage". Sanctity refers to religion and Mr. Bush has no business mixing religion and marriage.
Straight men seem to have more issues with gays than straight women. I do not want to have sex with ANYONE who does not want to have sex with me. There is no need for straight men to be uncomfortable around gay men. Gay men are not going to rape them.
From what I hear, straight men like to have anal sex with straight women. Why is this practice so accepted in the hetero community when sex between two men is not? I can not speak for most gays but my partner (of 8 years) and I rarely have anal sex. We provide pleasure to each other in other ways.
Gays often get blamed for child molestation when it is straight men who commit the vast majority of molestations. Anybody who is perverted enough to force themselves on another person - especially a child, should be put under the jail.
I do not want to offend anyone in these forums. I just want to clear up some of the misconceptions that people have.
I agree that the media has made being gay out to be glamorous but I can tell you that it has not been glamorous for me. I was brought up in a Southern Baptist church being told my whole life that being gay is wrong. This is why suicide among gay teens is higher than any other group. I prayed MANY times to be straight. I thought that I was destined to be celebate but why should I not enjoy the companionship of another person just because of my sexual orientation?
Many religious groups refer to Leviticus and the destruction of Sodom and Gamora as evidence of homosexuality being "wrong". The same chapter that talks about a man lying with a man being an abomination to God also talks about a man having sex with a woman during her period and several other unclean acts. Much more is said about these acts than about a man lying with a man. No one ever seems to mention this though. Sadam and Gamora was destroyed (as previously noted) because the residents did not respect the angels. These men tried to force themselves on the angels. This constitutes rape not consentual sex. And, let's not forget that the Bible was written my men and translated NUMEROUS times by men.
Whether marriage started off as a religous ceremony or not is irrelevant today. Marriage is now a legal issue. Couples are married not only by priests and pastors but also by justices of the peace. A marriage ceremony may be in a church, in a home, in Vegas, or numerous other places. A marriage done by a priest in a church is legally EXACTLY the same as a marriage done by a justice of the peace in a casino. Mr. Bush and the conservatives like to throw around "protecting the sanctity of marriage". Sanctity refers to religion and Mr. Bush has no business mixing religion and marriage.
Straight men seem to have more issues with gays than straight women. I do not want to have sex with ANYONE who does not want to have sex with me. There is no need for straight men to be uncomfortable around gay men. Gay men are not going to rape them.
From what I hear, straight men like to have anal sex with straight women. Why is this practice so accepted in the hetero community when sex between two men is not? I can not speak for most gays but my partner (of 8 years) and I rarely have anal sex. We provide pleasure to each other in other ways.
Gays often get blamed for child molestation when it is straight men who commit the vast majority of molestations. Anybody who is perverted enough to force themselves on another person - especially a child, should be put under the jail.
I do not want to offend anyone in these forums. I just want to clear up some of the misconceptions that people have.
i don't know what the hell the big deal is. as far as I am concerned do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't have an adverse effect on anyone's physical, mental and spiritual well-being. now how the hell is two dudes getting married going to kill me? you know what i mean. yes i understand the whole sanctity of marriage and all that good stuff. but don't we all have the right to have a share of that sanctity or whatever. i think it's just selfishness. A simple attitude of, "no, this is mine and you can't have any of it".
besides most hetero couples out there don't even know that there is a sanctity to marriage. look at the divorce rates!! Gay people would probably respect marriage more because it means a whole lot more to them. it's not an automatic given. They have to overcome a lot more to get married, therefore they would appreciate it more.
Also, my theory is, if you are sooo homophobic, take a very good look at yourself. There might just be a closet trying to kick you out, so to speak. So you might need to get out of it!!
besides most hetero couples out there don't even know that there is a sanctity to marriage. look at the divorce rates!! Gay people would probably respect marriage more because it means a whole lot more to them. it's not an automatic given. They have to overcome a lot more to get married, therefore they would appreciate it more.
Also, my theory is, if you are sooo homophobic, take a very good look at yourself. There might just be a closet trying to kick you out, so to speak. So you might need to get out of it!!
To crdowner,
Anyone offended by a post as genuine and reasonable as that shouldn't be on these forums.
Anyone offended by a post as genuine and reasonable as that shouldn't be on these forums.
| rvec wrote: | ||||
Humans are ment to be the smarter race but some people ask unnatural weird questions
sorry i just wanted to say it. But there are also people born withoud legs or arms do you means tha't natural? It might be but it's nog good. I think the same about homosexuals. It isn't right. |
Oh okay, so everyone born with a "handi-cap" should be discriminated against and have laws passed against their ever getting married.
And of course, it would make all the logical sense in the world if people without arms or legs couldn't get married.
Also, would you consider someone without an arm - in the exact wording - "not right"?
I find it slightly odd that folks in favor of "civil unions" aren't in favor of just letting them say they're "married". What do you think they are going to tell people? "We are civilly united?" What do you think their friends are going to refer to them as? If they are celebreties, what do you think reporters with refer to them as? Maybe.... married? Then what? Start a trademark infringement lawsuit or something?
160. The people of Lut rejected the apostles.
161. Behold, their brother Lut said to them: "Will ye not fear ((Allah))?
162. "I am to you an apostle worthy of all trust.
163. "So fear Allah and obey me.
164. "No reward do I ask of you for it: my reward is only from the lord of the Worlds.
165. "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males,
166. "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"
167. They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!"
168. He said: "I do detest your doings."
169. "O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!"
170. So We delivered him and his family,- all
171. Except an old woman who lingered behind.
172. But the rest We destroyed utterly.
Qur'an (The Poets 26)
The English Translation Of The Holy Qur'an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.
http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/Quran/
Last edited by diyarbekri on Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:14 am; edited 1 time in total
161. Behold, their brother Lut said to them: "Will ye not fear ((Allah))?
162. "I am to you an apostle worthy of all trust.
163. "So fear Allah and obey me.
164. "No reward do I ask of you for it: my reward is only from the lord of the Worlds.
165. "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males,
166. "And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!"
167. They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!"
168. He said: "I do detest your doings."
169. "O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!"
170. So We delivered him and his family,- all
171. Except an old woman who lingered behind.
172. But the rest We destroyed utterly.
Qur'an (The Poets 26)
The English Translation Of The Holy Qur'an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.
http://web.umr.edu/~msaumr/Quran/
Last edited by diyarbekri on Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:14 am; edited 1 time in total
Haven't you just committed a sin by posting this?
It's not in the original Arabic! You have altered the Inalterable Word.
It's not in the original Arabic! You have altered the Inalterable Word.
gays should be allowed to marry. if it weren't for all those stupid republicans in the south who say it is against the bible. First thing it doesn't sya anything abotu gay marrage it says that they can't "do it" (im not against that either). Second thing if heterosexual couples are allowed to marry why nto homosexuals too? Lastly the bib;e was written almost 2000 years ago do you really think that what people believed then should still be believed now. people learn from their mistakes.
| nealio1000 wrote: |
| people learn from their mistakes. |
LOL. Some people. And to learn from mistakes, they first have to get used to admitting that they make them.
Sigh.
Well, all I can say is that anybody will be allowed to marry anybody else on my little renewably-powered, self-sufficient survivalist compound (someday when I build one).
And anybody who doesn't like it will be welcome to live on the outside with the other idiots who thought divine intervention or economic forces they don't even understand properly would take care of them.
Well, all I can say is that anybody will be allowed to marry anybody else on my little renewably-powered, self-sufficient survivalist compound (someday when I build one).
And anybody who doesn't like it will be welcome to live on the outside with the other idiots who thought divine intervention or economic forces they don't even understand properly would take care of them.
The government data bases are all fouled up with one man and one woman in the marriage so if they combine man to man and woman to woman it will hide the errors in their data base even better.
It is an Enron kind of thing...
It is an Enron kind of thing...
| joscode wrote: | ||||||
Overpopulation is a myth. Consider the dimensions of the state of Texas in relation to the world's population. We could comofortably fit every single human being in the state of Texas and it would be less dense than the State of New York. Most of the world's starvation is cause by dictators and tyrants who don't allow food supplies into their starving nations. As far as the Gay Marriage, all marriges should be Gay (happy), but cannot be marriage if it is homosexual/lesbian. You really cannot call a bicycle a car, if you did, you would be lying--even if you belived it to be true. |
Well said jascode. It must be a key to such dictators, as well as their goons to keep the population too weak to fight back.
As for what you say about gay marriage and bicycles, … You ignorant bigot!!!! Bicycles are machines just like every other machine. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s wrong!!! Hating bicycles is wrong. Bicycles deserve the same rights as cars and black people!!! They were born that way.
i dont think gay marriage should be allowed since its just disgusting in my veiw...
While gay people must have rights to, marriage (whether you believe it or not) is a religions institution and should not be desecrated. If same-sex people would like to "marry," why not make a civil union give the same legal benefits as marriage?
That would be the best thing in my opinion. It would satisfy both sides. They aren't married, but they are united, and enjoy the legal benefits of marriage without actually being married... but they're united.
I hope this makes sense.
That would be the best thing in my opinion. It would satisfy both sides. They aren't married, but they are united, and enjoy the legal benefits of marriage without actually being married... but they're united.
I hope this makes sense.
Hi soulfire,
I have no problem with civil unions but let me ask you something. How is a "marriage" that is performed by a justice of the peace or some other secular person a religious institution? If gays should only be allowed to have civil unions, let's call "marriages" performed by secular persons civil unions as well. I wonder if heterosexual couples would feel discriminated.
I have no problem with civil unions but let me ask you something. How is a "marriage" that is performed by a justice of the peace or some other secular person a religious institution? If gays should only be allowed to have civil unions, let's call "marriages" performed by secular persons civil unions as well. I wonder if heterosexual couples would feel discriminated.
| crdowner wrote: |
| Hi soulfire,
I have no problem with civil unions but let me ask you something. How is a "marriage" that is performed by a justice of the peace or some other secular person a religious institution? If gays should only be allowed to have civil unions, let's call "marriages" performed by secular persons civil unions as well. I wonder if heterosexual couples would feel discriminated. |
It’s rely not as complicated as our relentless double posting on this subject, the colorful parades, and rhyming redirects would make is sound.
Marriage: a union between a man and a woman.
Symmetrical: having mirrored like sides.
Homosexual: having a sexual drive to attempt procreation with your own sex.
Square: having four equal sides.
Double: increasing by two.
These are all words. Only words. However, these are words that many very important things are hinged upon.
If someone is really concerned about “gay rights”, as our friend Soulfire has pointed out,
| soulfire wrote: |
| While gay people must have rights to, marriage (whether you believe it or not) is a religions institution and should not be desecrated. If same-sex people would like to "marry," why not make a civil union give the same legal benefits as marriage? |
they would be concerned about “gay rights”. In other words, they would be concerned about equality between two separate types of unions. One, a union between man and woman, and two, a union between two humans.
This argument only reduces the credibility of homosexuals and their “gay rights”.
This is all only my opinion though.
Source: Merrimn-Webster online dictionary
Marriage:
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Homosexual:
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
Note that marriage is recognized by "law" not religion.
Note that homosexual is about desire (or attraction) not about procreation.
If you are going to debate a topic, try to use correct information that supports your opinion(s).
Marriage:
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Homosexual:
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
Note that marriage is recognized by "law" not religion.
Note that homosexual is about desire (or attraction) not about procreation.
If you are going to debate a topic, try to use correct information that supports your opinion(s).
| crdowner wrote: |
| Source: Merrimn-Webster online dictionary
Marriage: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage Homosexual: 1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex Note that marriage is recognized by "law" not religion. Note that homosexual is about desire (or attraction) not about procreation. If you are going to debate a topic, try to use correct information that supports your opinion(s). |
GOOD WORK crdowner!!! A+ for googling
However, please read whole post.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
|
This is all only my opinion though. |
Extra special technical definitions have little to do with my point. My point was of general definition.
Additionally, thank you for making the point that mariage is important outside of religion. I would continue with this and that about peoples need ing marriage in their societies to survive and so mariage have been a sacred (no religious) instituation forever, for important reasons.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| marriage (whether you believe it or not) is a religions institution and should not be desecrated |
Ah, but you see that is your belief and is not upheld in today's society en-masse. Now, if you said baptism is a religious institution, no problems there as that is generally accepted. But to say marriage is wholly religious is already no longer a true statement in society.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| If same-sex people would like to "marry," why not make a civil union give the same legal benefits as marriage? |
Because, quite simply, you are now just trying to take a word from someone. "Your union is 100% equivalent to mine, but you can't say you're married." Why not?
But furthermore, do you really think civilly united couples are going to say they are civlly united, or do you think they will say they are married? And that they'll be referred to as being married by all those who know them? And, what can be done to keep them from saying they are married anyhow? In legal terms, the trademark "marriage" is so diluted as to be indefensible.
| strfry wrote: | ||
Ah, but you see that is your belief and is not upheld in today's society en-masse. Now, if you said baptism is a religious institution, no problems there as that is generally accepted. But to say marriage is wholly religious is already no longer a true statement in society. |
| XxGunner wrote: |
| i dont think gay marriage should be allowed since its just disgusting in my veiw... |
WOw, crdowner, thanX for clearing the air for us.
What a lot of people are seeing are just their own selfish and egocentric views, they just don't see that gays are just the same as anyone of us, you guys also have FEELINGS and emotions.
Do spare some empathy and understand how its like.
I mean they just happen to like guys just like how i happen to like this gal across the street. There isn't even much sexual attraction involved, its just, erm like that...
Haha, the stuff about how they are going to rape you or enter each other's backdoor is probably all in your "disgusting" imagination. Its all conceived by this filthy mind that tried to judge someone else's life.
About marriage, love should be in the centre of a marriage (ideally), so as long as that * element is there i don't see a problem calling it a union no matter what kind of sematics, law or religious "rules" there are.
What a lot of people are seeing are just their own selfish and egocentric views, they just don't see that gays are just the same as anyone of us, you guys also have FEELINGS and emotions.
Do spare some empathy and understand how its like.
I mean they just happen to like guys just like how i happen to like this gal across the street. There isn't even much sexual attraction involved, its just, erm like that...
Haha, the stuff about how they are going to rape you or enter each other's backdoor is probably all in your "disgusting" imagination. Its all conceived by this filthy mind that tried to judge someone else's life.
About marriage, love should be in the centre of a marriage (ideally), so as long as that * element is there i don't see a problem calling it a union no matter what kind of sematics, law or religious "rules" there are.
I for gay marriage, 'cause of one simple reason.
We, and society, has got nothing to do interfering and managing peoples private lives. Now I my self am not attracted do the thought of marrying another man, but that’s my opinion, and I can't demand to have it forbiden for that reason.
I do not like techno, should we forbid it? NO
If people want to do something, and it does not hurt anybody, let dem and leave them alone!
We, and society, has got nothing to do interfering and managing peoples private lives. Now I my self am not attracted do the thought of marrying another man, but that’s my opinion, and I can't demand to have it forbiden for that reason.
I do not like techno, should we forbid it? NO
If people want to do something, and it does not hurt anybody, let dem and leave them alone!
I really think that legalizing gay marriage is great for the economy. I think it's only fair because love is love.
| anathematic wrote: |
| semantics. |
Pedantic as I'm sure you'll miscontrue this that word is not properly perjorative. Perhaps you're familiar with the common phrase "God is in the ______s"?
| Genesis wrote: |
| 27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." |
And that's human nature. I see the issue as unnatural.
| Lennon wrote: | ||
And that's human nature. I see the issue as unnatural. |
Although I'm sure I've already said this - if same sex attraction were somehow offensive to God, then he would not have children born with the chemical make-up such that they would later be attracted to the same sex.
Stop quoting the bible, and look at how He works in the world as it is now... alot has changed over the past few thousand years, believe it or not.
If you've only heard the ancient word, then clearly you are deaf to him when he speaks to you now.
I'm not religous - because for all religion's merits it has been corrupted by men over time - but I have faith.
Do homosexual people have faith? I'd say no more or less than heterosexuals.
Should homosexuals be allowed to marry the one they love in the eyes of the God they believe in? Of course so... I mean, why the hell not?
Homosexuallity is not a result of chemical reactions. It's the environment you've been raised in, where you find your role models, where you learn your values, your environment, from day 1 to your adult years. Psychology. I could say that we learn mistakes from others, and we misinterpret people, we misinterpret our own feelings, and we can have conflicting and confusing values e.g. feelings versus reason.
| Lennon wrote: |
| Homosexuallity is not a result of chemical reactions. It's the environment you've been raised in, where you find your role models, where you learn your values, your environment, from day 1 to your adult years. Psychology. I could say that we learn mistakes from others, and we misinterpret people, we misinterpret our own feelings, and we can have conflicting and confusing values e.g. feelings versus reason. |
I believe in attraction to the same sex but I don't believe it's natural. Animals only act on instinct, including attraction. But we have intellect that can distinguish instinct from purpose.
| Lennon wrote: |
| I believe in attraction to the same sex but I don't believe it's natural. Animals only act on instinct, including attraction. But we have intellect that can distinguish instinct from purpose. |
Only on instinct, exactly right. What is instinct but preprogrammed natural behaviors?
And just quickly, as long as I'm posting, for all those people using the "descration of marriage" argument: You're wrong. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is an institution of the state. Thus, with the whole "seperation of church and state", your argument doesn't work.
| Valleyman wrote: | ||
And just quickly, as long as I'm posting, for all those people using the "descration of marriage" argument: You're wrong. Marriage is not a religious institution, it is an institution of the state. Thus, with the whole "seperation of church and state", your argument doesn't work. |
Indeed, but must I reminder you again my friend that, If a state's (state meaning social entity) population due to their religious beliefs, deem something sacred (sacred not meaning religious) the state must also. That fact that an institution is important to a religion does not negate the states responsibility.
Also, I am glad that you make the point the marriage is not simply a religious institution. That fact that "marriage" is a political, social, legal or religious institution and defined very specifically is well enough to demand its definition to be maintained.
If an individual is genuinely concerned about the rights of those finding themselves in love and committed to an individual of their own sex would not waste their time and credibility on changing some definition but would fight to add rights to civil unions.
| Lennon wrote: |
| I believe in attraction to the same sex but I don't believe it's natural. Animals only act on instinct, including attraction. But we have intellect that can distinguish instinct from purpose. |
How can wat get's your blood boiling not be natural?
And so what, homosexuals should just lead unhappy, loveless lives because they have intellect enough to "know" that they're "unnatural"?
I see homosexuality as a problem, not a right.
Need a Reason...
Natural selection involves a purpose with direction, homosexuality serves no purpose to the global community and is unnatural. the only purpose it serves is instead just between the two concerned. If anyone feels these tendencies then I see opportunity to work on those feelings and not to be overwhelmed by them. Attraction is a good way to build relationships, it helps us form bonds with other people. Hence we have "girl-stuff" and "it's a guy thing" for same sex bonding, which I think is a healthy expression of your gender roles. When people are overwhelmed by masculinity or femininity of the other person there's an oppurtunity to learn these roles, they become role models. homosexuals may become confused by these roles, or just may never learn these roles in the first place.
Even though i see it as a problem based on psychology, science and religious morals, I cannot deny the right to feel attraction towards the other. I encourage those feelings to be embraced, in the right circumstances and in a controlled and reasoned fashion. Anger should not be bottled up, rather allow it to be released in control bursts. These same sex feelings should be expressed in a friendly, non-sexual context.
Need a Reason...
Natural selection involves a purpose with direction, homosexuality serves no purpose to the global community and is unnatural. the only purpose it serves is instead just between the two concerned. If anyone feels these tendencies then I see opportunity to work on those feelings and not to be overwhelmed by them. Attraction is a good way to build relationships, it helps us form bonds with other people. Hence we have "girl-stuff" and "it's a guy thing" for same sex bonding, which I think is a healthy expression of your gender roles. When people are overwhelmed by masculinity or femininity of the other person there's an oppurtunity to learn these roles, they become role models. homosexuals may become confused by these roles, or just may never learn these roles in the first place.
Even though i see it as a problem based on psychology, science and religious morals, I cannot deny the right to feel attraction towards the other. I encourage those feelings to be embraced, in the right circumstances and in a controlled and reasoned fashion. Anger should not be bottled up, rather allow it to be released in control bursts. These same sex feelings should be expressed in a friendly, non-sexual context.
| Lennon wrote: |
| I see homosexuality as a problem, not a right.
Need a Reason... Natural selection involves a purpose with direction, homosexuality serves no purpose to the global community and is unnatural. the only purpose it serves is instead just between the two concerned. If anyone feels these tendencies then I see opportunity to work on those feelings and not to be overwhelmed by them. Attraction is a good way to build relationships, it helps us form bonds with other people. Hence we have "girl-stuff" and "it's a guy thing" for same sex bonding, which I think is a healthy expression of your gender roles. When people are overwhelmed by masculinity or femininity of the other person there's an oppurtunity to learn these roles, they become role models. homosexuals may become confused by these roles, or just may never learn these roles in the first place. Even though i see it as a problem based on psychology, science and religious morals, I cannot deny the right to feel attraction towards the other. I encourage those feelings to be embraced, in the right circumstances and in a controlled and reasoned fashion. Anger should not be bottled up, rather allow it to be released in control bursts. These same sex feelings should be expressed in a friendly, non-sexual context. |
Lmfao - don't you people get it?
Lennon - how about you NEVER masturbate, or have sex EVER in your life, unless you are having sex with your partner for the SOLE purpose of having a child. Let's say 4 times in your ENTIRE lifetime.
Because, if you indulged, it would (of course) only benefit the two (or should I say one) involved, not the entire species.
No matter what ignorant conservatives might throw at you, there is always going to be sexual attraction between people. If a man is born with a set of hormones that mean he finds other men attractive - then that's how he's born.
Even if he's brought up right, and ends up marrying a woman, he wil still never be truly sexually fulfilled. Because if he had been allowed to explore his sexuality - he would have found the sex much better. Also, a forced heterosexual relationship often leads to emotional issues later in a relationship. Often a divorce when the homosexual partner "realises" their sexuality.
It's as absurd to say a homosexual doesn't have the right to love someone of the same sex, as it would be to say that YOU have no right to love someone of the same sex.
And ontop of what I've said above - it isn't just physical attraction that a homosexual finds in someone of the same sex - it's emotional.
Step into their shoes. Imagine you're trapped in the body of someone of the opposite sex. Pretend someone's telling you what is and isn't allowed to turn you on. That you'll never be allowed to have true love of marry. That you saw someone post half the posts you just posted, bullshitting about it only being about the way "you were brought up".
Last edited by blackheart on Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:38 pm; edited 2 times in total
come on guys we need some homosexuals in this world, WE HAVE A POPULATION CRISES ON OUR HANDS LOL
| Lennon wrote: |
| I see homosexuality as a problem, not a right.
Need a Reason... Natural selection involves a purpose with direction, homosexuality serves no purpose to the global community and is unnatural. the only purpose it serves is instead just between the two concerned. If anyone feels these tendencies then I see opportunity to work on those feelings and not to be overwhelmed by them. Attraction is a good way to build relationships, it helps us form bonds with other people. Hence we have "girl-stuff" and "it's a guy thing" for same sex bonding, which I think is a healthy expression of your gender roles. When people are overwhelmed by masculinity or femininity of the other person there's an oppurtunity to learn these roles, they become role models. homosexuals may become confused by these roles, or just may never learn these roles in the first place. Even though i see it as a problem based on psychology, science and religious morals, I cannot deny the right to feel attraction towards the other. I encourage those feelings to be embraced, in the right circumstances and in a controlled and reasoned fashion. Anger should not be bottled up, rather allow it to be released in control bursts. These same sex feelings should be expressed in a friendly, non-sexual context. |
I would also like to add that allowing babies with deformities or dissabilities is bad for the evolution/natural selection of our species as a whole as well. (Because they grow up, and mostly breed with the rest of us, which then over the next half millenia passes the "bad" gene though the better half of the species. Weakening our genetic make-up as a collective whole.).
You against letting them live and have sex, as well? Should we just knock'em'down at birth coz it's the best thing to do for the rest of us?
My christian view of love is the desire to do the right thing for yourself, for your friends/partner/family, and for God. Love is gentle, love is patient, love is kind. Love is not just feelings of attraction, it is a complete self-giving of your feelings, your time, your guidance, your support, your faith in God, for better and for worse.
These same-sex feeling are truly love of your neighbour/friend, and that involves emotions and physical feelings. Any notions of SAME-SEX SEXUAL ATTRACTION ARE SELF-CONCEIVED by false interpretation of your feelings. You have a right and a need to love those people your attracted too.
There are hormones for being attracted to women and men, the exact same hormones, not separate hormones that you're stuck with for life. it's how the hormones are turned on. hormones are stimulated by impulses in the brain, interrelated with psychology that is yet undefined. this psychology is where the problem lies.
I'm not saying that a married couple should only have sex in order to procreate. It's there for taking anytime and it's the ultimate bonding experience, and should be used wisely. It doesn't have to be used for procreation, in marriage it can also be used anytime to express those deep feelings. The concept religion teaches is not to abuse the gift of sexuality.
These same-sex feeling are truly love of your neighbour/friend, and that involves emotions and physical feelings. Any notions of SAME-SEX SEXUAL ATTRACTION ARE SELF-CONCEIVED by false interpretation of your feelings. You have a right and a need to love those people your attracted too.
There are hormones for being attracted to women and men, the exact same hormones, not separate hormones that you're stuck with for life. it's how the hormones are turned on. hormones are stimulated by impulses in the brain, interrelated with psychology that is yet undefined. this psychology is where the problem lies.
I'm not saying that a married couple should only have sex in order to procreate. It's there for taking anytime and it's the ultimate bonding experience, and should be used wisely. It doesn't have to be used for procreation, in marriage it can also be used anytime to express those deep feelings. The concept religion teaches is not to abuse the gift of sexuality.
| Lennon wrote: |
| My christian view of love is the desire to do the right thing for yourself, for your friends/partner/family, and for God. Love is gentle, love is patient, love is kind. |
Did I say it wasn't?
| Lennon wrote: |
| Love is not just feelings of attraction, it is a complete self-giving of your feelings, your time, your guidance, your support, your faith in God, for better and for worse.
|
Why cannot a woman feel this for a woman, or a man for a man?
| Lennon wrote: |
| These same-sex feeling are truly love of your neighbour/friend, and that involves emotions and physical feelings. Any notions of SAME-SEX SEXUAL ATTRACTION ARE SELF-CONCEIVED by false interpretation of your feelings. You have a right and a need to love those people your attracted too. |
No. If you were homosexual, false interpretation would be forcing yourself to love someone