Same sex marriages. Do you agree?

[Alec_85]

What a pile of elitist bollocks. What gives you the right to deny other people the right to pass on their heritage.

I voted, yes, they should be allowed to, and get all the benifits of straight couples.

Umm wtf happened to your post count? Good post btw.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Zing! I'd also like to suggest...

Civil servants, Lord Butler, Prince Charles, Busted and crap teachers.

As a disclaimer, whilst I agree a better breed of humans is a good thing, I don't agree with sticking those who don't fall in with that in a gas chamber.

/me sighs :stare:

Mmmm amateur eugenics

 

[craig]

yes it would be bad ...because it implies a set of distinct rules for gay people

not at all.

As far as I am concerned marriage is for a man and a woman only.

There are no 'rules' when it comes to marriage, other than to be faithful to the one you're married to (that most people married can't seem to abide by), and I assume would be the case with a homosexual marriage.

Some form of union with a different name fair do's, but marriage, no way!

 

[CptStern]

not at all.

As far as I am concerned marriage is for a man and a woman only.

There are no 'rules' when it comes to marriage, other than to be faithful to the one you're married to (that most people married can't seem to abide by), and I assume would be the case with a homosexual marriage.

Some form of union with a different name fair do's, but marriage, no way!

I dont understand ...if a justice of the peace can use the exact same words to marry a straight couple and a gay couple, what's the difference?

 

[MrWhite]

not at all.

As far as I am concerned marriage is for a man and a woman only.

There are no 'rules' when it comes to marriage, other than to be faithful to the one you're married to (that most people married can't seem to abide by), and I assume would be the case with a homosexual marriage.

Some form of union with a different name fair do's, but marriage, no way!

Well, I'm bisexual and I must say that I could see that calling it something else other than marraige would be fine because... in the bible it does state that marraige is between a man and a woman and I respect other people's religions and beleifs and if that's what they want then I would not overstep my boundries.

Have respect for other people... that includes everyone

 

[CptStern]

Well, I'm bisexual and I must say that I could see that calling it something else other than marraige would be fine because... in the bible it does state that marraige is between a man and a woman and I respect other people's religions and beleifs and if that's what they want then I would not overstep my boundries.

yes but in all religions it is called marriage...it's not mutually exclusive to christianity

 

[craig]

Well, I'm bisexual and I must say that I could see that calling it something else other than marraige would be fine because... in the bible it does state that marraige is between a man and a woman and I respect other people's religions and beleifs and if that's what they want then I would not overstep my boundries.

Have respect for other people... that includes everyone

To be honest though, all this debating is pointless. Homosexual's will get the right to marry same as everyone else (whether I want them to or not)...

... I'm curious though. Would a bi-sexual person be able to marry twice (a man and a woman)?

 

[CptStern]

To be honest though, all this debating is pointless. Homosexual's will get the right to marry same as everyone else (whether I want it to or not)...

... I'm curious though. Would a bi-sexual person be able to marry twice (a man and a woman)?

it's already legal in canada, but I doubt it will be passed in the US, not as long as Bush is in office

edit: craigweb: homosexual before black ...hell ...a woman before a black person

 

[craig]

... oh, and which do people think will come first.. a homosexual president (ignoring bush, who probably is anyway), or a black one?

 

[Alec_85]

craigweb: Some day perhaps. Isn't illegal atm to marry 2 persons? Well in most religions at least.

 

[craig]

craigweb: Some day perhaps. Isn't illegal atm to marry 2 persons? Well in most religions at least.

Well thats what I mean. How would you choose...

 

[DarkStar]

For all those people against homosexuals adopting kids...

Are you also against single parents adopting kids?

 

[craig]

For all those people against homosexuals adopting kids...

Are you also against single parents adopting kids?

I live with a single parent (my mother) and have done my whole life. Living with just one parent (however loving) isn't the way it's supposed to be, so even though I'm in that situation, in hindsight I'd say no, single parents should not be allowed to adopt.

 

[Brian Damage]

Never seen any problem with it. I've always just regarded marriage as a symbol of the bond between two people, anyway. Never seen it in a religious light.

 

[Foxtrot]

Singe parents shouldn't adopt, they wouldn't have the time to support the kid and spend time with them.

 

[CptStern]

well, having been around a lot of new fathers I can say with some certainty that men dont do jack when it comes to raising their infant kids. I had so many comments from fathers such as "you change diapers? what does your wife do?" ...I also met many great fathers who are involved with every aspect of child rearing

 

[RMachucaA]

If gay or lesbian couples want to live together fine... if they want to form a tag team for a wrestling event, fine.... but to be married, absolutely not. Marriage is sacred...

 

[craig]

If gay or lesbian couples want to live together fine... if they want to form a tag team for a wrestling event, fine.... but to be married, absolutely not. Marriage is sacred...

/me thinks back to the Legion of Doom and wonders if....

grr, damn yous!

CptStern, yeah, most men are useless as parents putting weight to my theory that male humans after conception should just move on (like some species do), from colony to colony sharing the love

 

[CptStern]

If gay or lesbian couples want to live together fine... if they want to form a tag team for a wrestling event, fine.... but to be married, absolutely not. Marriage is sacred...

so sacred that more than 50 % end in divorce. Marriage is not strictly a christian institution ...for example the United church of canada (a christian religion) allows same sex marriages


craigweb: maybe they should do what male spiders do ...eat their offspring ..hey at least they'd save on school supplies

 

[Someone]

Could be a heated topic for some

Since I believe people are born the way they are, and don't choose to live their lives a certain way, I am completely for it.

Along with adoption. Too many homeless kids in the world who need a loving home and I certainly believe gay couples can be just as good as straight couples when it comes to kids. And I don't buy the "but the kids will turn gay!" argument.

 

[PvtRyan]

If gay or lesbian couples want to live together fine... if they want to form a tag team for a wrestling event, fine.... but to be married, absolutely not. Marriage is sacred...

Heh, sacred.. that made me chuckle.

It's not 'till death do us part' anymore these days, it's 'till a lawyer declares us divorced'. Half of all marriages end in divorce, so what's so "sacred" about it? I don't see it.
And if a gay couple decides to get married for whatever reason, then fine, why the hell not?

 

[qckbeam]

The fact that allowing homosexuals to marry bothers people scares me. Who in the hell cares? So two guys or girls love each other and want to get married? Their love harms no one, their expression of love harms no one, their being entitled to all the benefits of a heterosexual couple harms no one...what is there to debate exactly? Oh no, homosexuals are being allowed to marry! Raise the alarm! Our sacred institution is about to be destroyed! Well, marriage is far from sacred today, and whatever sacred aspect there may have been to it has been destroyed by, that's right, the very large divorce rate in heterosexual marriages. Let's face it, those who say allowing homosexuals to marry would somehow cause harm to Americas family values, or some other bullshit, are making excuses to cover up their own insecurities. People are afraid of change, in this case, people are afraid of a society that's accepting of gays. They think gay marriage is the first step towards that society, and want to stop it with some ridiculous amendment to the constitution. To those people, touch luck. You lead your life, I'll lead mine; it's that simple.

As for the adoption issue, why not? Marriage isn't about making babies, and raising a child isn't just about passing down your genetic makeup. A homosexual couple could show love and affection for their child just as well as any heterosexual couple. People are once again uncomfortable with this because it would lead to a society more accepting of gays. Some people are really uncomfortable with that, but their insecurities should not deprive others of their rights.

 

[oldagerocker]

In my opinion homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry. Marriage should be kept for men & women only.

Fair enough, there are lots of gay couples and there probably always will be, so they should have the right to mortgages, and general stuff that couples have rights to.

Saying that not allowing them to marry is a human right's violation is bullshit too.

I give this thread ten more posts before it starts being a flame also.

I agree with you, i dont have a religion that forbids gay marraige but... i just dont see the point or the reason behind it, and there wont be when the law recognises gay couples. The problem is, is that people will commit fraud, saying they are a couple when they aren't, there's no legal binding, as is with a marraige. Hence, government beind cautious, despite the pressure groups.

 

[MrWhite]

The fact that allowing homosexuals to marry bothers people scares me. Who in the hell cares? So two guys or girls love each other and want to get married? Their love harms no one, their expression of love harms no one, their being entitled to all the benefits of a heterosexual couple harms no one...what is there to debate exactly? Oh no, homosexuals are being allowed to marry! Raise the alarm! Our sacred institution is about to be destroyed! Well, marriage is far from sacred today, and whatever sacred aspect there may have been to it has been destroyed by, that's right, the very large divorce rate in heterosexual marriages. Let's face it, those who say allowing homosexuals to marry would somehow cause harm to Americas family values, or some other bullshit, are making excuses to cover up their own insecurities. People are afraid of change, in this case, people are afraid of a society that's accepting of gays. They think gay marriage is the first step towards that society, and want to stop it with some ridiculous amendment to the constitution. To those people, touch luck. You lead your life, I'll lead mine; it's that simple.

As for the adoption issue, why not? Marriage isn't about making babies, and raising a child isn't just about passing down your genetic makeup. A homosexual couple could show love and affection for their child just as well as any heterosexual couple. People are once again uncomfortable with this because it would lead to a society more accepting of gays. Some people are really uncomfortable with that, but their insecurities should not deprive others of their rights.

Amen, father qckbeam

 

[marksmanHL2 :)]

The fact that allowing homosexuals to marry bothers people scares me. Who in the hell cares? So two guys or girls love each other and want to get married? Their love harms no one, their expression of love harms no one, their being entitled to all the benefits of a heterosexual couple harms no one...what is there to debate exactly? Oh no, homosexuals are being allowed to marry! Raise the alarm! Our sacred institution is about to be destroyed! Well, marriage is far from sacred today, and whatever sacred aspect there may have been to it has been destroyed by, that's right, the very large divorce rate in heterosexual marriages. Let's face it, those who say allowing homosexuals to marry would somehow cause harm to Americas family values, or some other bullshit, are making excuses to cover up their own insecurities. People are afraid of change, in this case, people are afraid of a society that's accepting of gays. They think gay marriage is the first step towards that society, and want to stop it with some ridiculous amendment to the constitution. To those people, touch luck. You lead your life, I'll lead mine; it's that simple.

As for the adoption issue, why not? Marriage isn't about making babies, and raising a child isn't just about passing down your genetic makeup. A homosexual couple could show love and affection for their child just as well as any heterosexual couple. People are once again uncomfortable with this because it would lead to a society more accepting of gays. Some people are really uncomfortable with that, but their insecurities should not deprive others of their rights.

*Clap Clap*


Well put mate.

 

[Bio]

They can do what ever they want as long as im not involved. :thumbs:

 

[Lethal8472]

I think its ok, as long as kids aren't dragged into it. If they get together and decide to adopt a baby, that kid will have to grow up under constant torment of belonging to a homosexual couple. "OMG YOUR PARENTS ARE QUEERS/LESBIANS! YOUR GAY YOU CANT BE MY FRIEND!" I wouldnt want to put any kid through that. If they get together, they should accept the fact that any kids they get will go through a living hell and they shouldnt get one.

 

[oldagerocker]

I dont agree with gay couples adopting, it just isn't normal for the child. Unless they bring the child up to be mature and understand that same sex relationships aren't a way to make babies, i think children should be atleast slightly encouraged by parents to be heterosexual, and a childhood of just being bought up by Men or just Women, would really confuse a child when they get to school and go on in life.

It isn't a 'right' to have a child.

 

[SillyBilly]

It isn't a 'right' to have a child.

- a very good point, I don't think that it is a particularly good thing though for a homosexual couple to adopt and rise children, the same way as I don’t think that divorced heterosexual should either – I don’t mean that if two people divorce they should ‘lose’ their kids – I think people need to take more responsibility whenever it comes to sexual relationships and not ‘commit’ themselves to family life unless they are prepared to see it through – ‘til death.
Rising a child in a homosexual household is not natural – and lets not start – awh, its 2004 for God’s sake – it was never intended to be – its not physically possible for starters!
Children would be brought up in a household where morals wouldn’t exist – where sex is simply seen as recreational – rather than, as it should be, a true and honest bond between two people who love each other. I accept that one man can love another – but it makes a mocary of everything.
If I met a homosexual in the street I wouldn’t think twice – its their decision and there is very little that I or anyone else can do to change that – I don’t think that homosexual households, rising children, is a good idea – they made the decision to enter into a homosexual relationship, which means they cannot physically have children – that’s a fact, wither you are religious or not.
When kids are involved a stable heterosexual mother and father caring for it is the best way for them to mature and make their own decisions in the world, that may seam like a very religious, optimistic outlook but it is true. That’s not saying that all heterosexual parents are good parents – I doubt very much that those who are crap parents thought too much about family planning.

Straying from the topic a bit – marriage and homosexuals. Marriage I do not believe to be a religious ceremony anymore – governments encourage marriage and thus provide benefits to those who are married – this means that single sex partners want to get married to – well – survive and not be put out compared to their heterosexual counterparts.
Being a heterosexual myself – I can’t emphasize with any homosexuals – these are only my opinions – although I believe them to be right. I don’t agree with homosexuality from both a physical and religious perspective, although if one chooses to be gay then that is their choice – should they get married? In a religious sense then defiantly not, then again neither should heterosexual couples who aren’t religious.
To register themselves and such, in a non-religious sense – to receive benefits the same as heterosexual couples who may not be religious either – I fail to see the difference…

-woo – long post, lol – that’s about all I have to say me thinks

 

[^Ben]

Children would be brought up in a household where morals wouldn’t exist ! LOL!

 

[thenerdguy]

Im sorry if i offend someone but I do agree. I do not hate gays themselfs. I hate there lifestyle.

In the bible god destroyed hole cities because of a gay life style. I may sound mean but I fully do not agree! \

Thats all I am going to say in this thread.

 

[SillyBilly]

Children would be brought up in a household where morals wouldn’t exist ! LOL!

hey - less bashing me post - more provocative replies

 

[^Ben]

God did not destroy citys because of gay people. He destroyed citys because of corruptness(not gay)

 

[gh0st]

disagree, religious and moral reasons. im going to go with nerd and stay away from this one though.

 

[SillyBilly]

God did not destroy citys because of gay people. He destroyed citys because of corruptness(not gay)

Well (this’ll be my very last post on the topic – btw, as it’s one that you could argue about one way or the other forever) the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was kinda about guys after kinky mansex with angels who visited Lot – you can read it here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-...ook=Gen&chapter=19&version=nltp&Go.x=7&Go.y=5

Now – time to leave this thread and offend other minority groups! Only kidding, but think this thread will linger on a while of people just repeating themselves – perhaps it should be locked and the key thrown away!? :sniper:

 

[craig]

perhaps it should be locked and the key thrown away!? :sniper:

Quoted for emphasis!

Both points are valid from different standpoints, and no conclusion can be reached through debating, so lockeh!

 

[lePobz]

Sure they should, it's a free world.... although I don't think it'd be nice to see gay couples being gay in public. Maybe they should move to a country for gays - somewhere out of the way, like australia.

 

[CptStern]

sigh ...why do the bible thumpers only come out at night?

once and for all ...this has nothing to do with religion. Marriage is a institution that is celebrated in the same way across multiple faiths. Marriage is just as valid in front of a justice of the peace as it is in front of a religious figure.

 

[gh0st]

bible thumbers? if somethings against ones religion you need to respect that, just like we're respecting yours.

 

[CptStern]

look ...I respect religion ...to a point. I cant respect a religion that villifies someone because of a lifestyle that they had no part in choosing