First, I'd like to apolygize if this thread was already made. I searched the forums couldn't find anything. Well anyway... I don't mean to offend anybody or anything, but I think that for once Bush is doing something right.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage/
| Quote: |
| President Bush indicated Wednesday he opposes extending marriage rights to homosexuals, saying he believes marriage "is between a man and a woman." |
I know I'm 14, but I'm very concerned. I hope that U.S., unlike Canada does not allow gay marriage. Moved to Discuss World News forum
But this story is from October 28th 2003, so I'm not sure quite how relevant it is.
Sounds Interesting...
This is a good news for hetro's and ofcourse a bad news for G's.
In my personal opinion, Like charges should always repel and Unlike charges should attract. This is the Fact - and a Universal Law too.
Many things would have been practicesed offline. But making it a law will create enthusiasts and lay a way not only for homo promoters buy also will act as an Scene for the Future Community which may fall into this.
Keep Smiling 
I thought I'd come here to argue that gay sex should be legal, but there should be no gay "marriage" -- but none here yet disagree.
I'm surprised, but also pleased.
Demographics are destiny. The US and the world need more upper and middleclass folk to make less money, and make more babies.
Japan could lose half its population in 50 years. The US is replacing its pop with immigrants. Europe is getting Muslim immigrants, big time.
These are likely to be huge problems in the future.
| indianinworld wrote: |
Sounds Interesting...
This is a good news for hetro's and ofcourse a bad news for G's.
In my personal opinion, Like charges should always repel and Unlike charges should attract. This is the Fact - and a Universal Law too.
|
Why was that good news for heterosexuals? It has no effect on heteros at all. It was good news for homophobes, not heteros in general. And your use of the like charges thing seems a bit silly and arbitrary. I mean, why pick sexual orientation? Why not hair color? Blondes shouldn't marry blondes because like charges should always repel. Sounds silly doesn't it? So, why is the "universal law" valid in only some cases?
| Quote: |
Many things would have been practicesed offline. But making it a law will create enthusiasts and lay a way not only for homo promoters buy also will act as an Scene for the Future Community which may fall into this.
|
Sorry, but you completely lost me there. What did that mean?Gay marriages are quite common in this part of Europe. If you grasp that two men -or two women- can love eachother, it's only a logical next step to provide them with the same legal security as a couple than what straight couples get.
@indianinworld:
It wont increase the number of gay people. It wont change anything about straight marriages either. It's not publicity and it -most certainly- will not be the cause of the perishing of our civilisation.
My personal feelings on the issue are that any group of mature adults who want to come togerther as a family (emotionaly and economicly) should be allowed to do so regardless of gender or number.
In secular law marriage should be viewed as a contract between consenting adults, nothing more.
Any other restrictions are religious ones and should be kept between the people getting married and their church.
The main objection to Gay marriage is a hang-up of the Church. OK, fine, if you are a Christain man, don't marry another man. It's that simple. In the mean time, keep your nose out of other people's lives.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are two parts to a marriage - the legal binding contract according to secular law, and the religious contract which involves promisses made between the people involved and their God (or Goddess).
The secular contract should be made open to anyone - there are no laws that stop anyone other than a minor from entering into other types of contracts.
If a church refuses to administer the (optional) religious ceremony, that would be completely their call.
One thing I am for with conservative governments is the care they have for values and the family (as it was ment to be). I am not against homosexuals but making legal gay marriage will trigger an scalade that will distort the society. First they get legal approval, next they want to adopt children then perhaps those kids will be unable to make a traditional family and who knows what else.
I would like to point you to my thread:
12 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
(Please note the use of sarcasm, it will drastically impact the meaning of the article).
I am for gay marriage.
