ElGringo17
Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Gay marriage
Homosexuality is by very definition abnormal.
Homosexuality is by very definition abnormal.
shuamort said:Now, I'm curious, where am I being impartial? You do realize that I'm the "gay moderator", right?
Zyphlin said:First off, please show me proof its been "scientifically proven" that it is only something born into? I am curious here
Second off, I think "marrige" as a term should be pulled completely from the government. I believe that the government should simply replace all terms of "marrige" in its laws with "union". By presenting a note from a religious organization stating you are "married" is one way to apply for a "union" under the government. Having a "civil union" under the government...be it straight or gay, but basically between any two consenting people...is another way for a "union" to happen.
Marrige should be a religious institution, and as such, should not be forced to change from how it is. Marrige, in the religious terms, IS between a man and woman. HOWEVER, because the government uses the term as well, it gets sticky. This is why I think the government should replace the word marrige with union in its laws.
This way any two consenting people that wish to live and spend the rest of thier life together can get the tax breaks and benifits under the law that make life easier for them. However it doens't infringe upon the "sanctity" or religious marrige.
If homosexuals still demand...even if that happened...to be allowed to marry, then that is simply trying to change religion and they can do it through the religious people and not the government as its not the governments place to regulate religion.
Personally I think that is the best option. I do not believe homosexuals should be able to enter into a christian marrige, however I DO believe they should gain the benifits of a civil union under the law.
The polygamoy quesiton is a good one though, i'll think on that
Zyphlin said:Seriously. Reposting this. ANYONE ((besides the one that predicted no one would respond to it because it is sensible)) want to give like...any kind of opinion on it?
Why,why not?
What's your thoughts?
Zyphlin said:Originally Posted by Zyphlin
First off, please show me proof its been "scientifically proven" that it is only something born into? I am curious here
Second off, I think "marrige" as a term should be pulled completely from the government. I believe that the government should simply replace all terms of "marrige" in its laws with "union". By presenting a note from a religious organization stating you are "married" is one way to apply for a "union" under the government. Having a "civil union" under the government...be it straight or gay, but basically between any two consenting people...is another way for a "union" to happen.
Marrige should be a religious institution, and as such, should not be forced to change from how it is. Marrige, in the religious terms, IS between a man and woman. HOWEVER, because the government uses the term as well, it gets sticky. This is why I think the government should replace the word marrige with union in its laws.
This way any two consenting people that wish to live and spend the rest of thier life together can get the tax breaks and benifits under the law that make life easier for them. However it doens't infringe upon the "sanctity" or religious marrige.
If homosexuals still demand...even if that happened...to be allowed to marry, then that is simply trying to change religion and they can do it through the religious people and not the government as its not the governments place to regulate religion.
Personally I think that is the best option. I do not believe homosexuals should be able to enter into a christian marrige, however I DO believe they should gain the benifits of a civil union under the law.
The polygamoy quesiton is a good one though, i'll think on that
Marriage is a instution for one man and woman.Marriage provides a envirmoent which a child can have both a mother and father.The father teaches the child how men are supposed to behave and the mother teaches the child how women are supposed to behave.Over the years due to no fault divorce and other liberal policies marriage has basicly been weakened as a institution in this country.Hollywood bastardizes marriage everyday with joke marriages.I beleave divorce should have serious consiquences such as imprisonment.
Zyphlin said:Seriously. Reposting this. ANYONE ((besides the one that predicted no one would respond to it because it is sensible)) want to give like...any kind of opinion on it?
jamesrage said:Over the years due to no fault divorce and other liberal policies marriage has basicly been weakened as a institution in this country.Hollywood bastardizes marriage everyday with joke marriages.I beleave divorce should have serious consiquences such as imprisonment.
jamesrage said:I am against gay marriage,civil unions and domestic partnerships.Marriage should only be reserved those who meet the requirements for marriage instead of changing the definition and what marriage is.
MrFungus420 said:I agree, why not polygamy? If it's between consenting adults who want to form a larger family unit, why not.
Can you give any reason not to allow it?
First Off What ****ing right does the government have over marriage. They should NEVER have had that to begin with.. I am so glad that Americans understand SO LITTLE about their rights. Thanks for throwing mine in the trash. That is why I hate so many of you.
Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:First Off What ****ing right does the government have over marriage. They should NEVER have had that to begin with.. I am so glad that Americans understand SO LITTLE about their rights. Thanks for throwing mine in the trash. That is why I hate so many of you.
Why should we punish people for getting a divorce?
What are the requirements for marriage?
And what is the problem of expanding the definition oif marriage?
jamesrage said:Perhaps to keep the idiots like britney spears and other individuals from bastardizing marriage.
jamesrage}One man and one woman of no blood relation.[/QUOTE said:Why should it be a man and a woman? Why can't a man and a man, or a woman and a woman be allowed the same chance to commit to each other?
jamesrage said:This sound like something a little kid would say"why can't you change the rules for me"
Yes, I suppose it does. But still, homosexuals are people too, with feelings and the ability to consent. Why should they not be allowed to marry?
ScottMarian said:When the state puts it's stamp of approval on anything it follows that the use of that product will expand. For example with dope illegal do not many refuse to use it for fear of the consequences? If it is legalized does it not follow that many who never used dope will then try it or use it once in a while or frequently. Look at the Dutch economy to see the results of legalized drugs. The Netherlands, the Dutch, have the worse economy in Europe out of twenty four nations. Marriage between a man and woman has the government stamp of approval because it benefits society. How? By producing future generations, future tax payers and warriors to protect the society. Likewise if the government gives it's stamp of approval to same sex marriage, how would it then benefit society? It does not. It does not produce future generations, future taxpayers or future warriors to protect the society. So not even getting into the moral implications of same sex unions it is not advantageous to permit same sex marriage.
So I guess you don't like conservatives.Perhaps to keep the idiots like britney spears and other individuals from bastardizing marriage.
Only it hasn't always been that, marriage has also been between multiple people. If you are only talking about in the history of the US then you must think that interraical marrage should have remained illegal.One man and one woman of no blood relation.
No actually its little kids that think rules should be followed all the time. Adults can decide in what cases the rules should be broken and if rules are unjust.This sound like something a little kid would say"why can't you change the rules for me"
Only it hasn't always been that, marriage has also been between multiple people. If you are only talking about in the history of the US then you must think that interraical marrage should have remained illegal.
No actually its little kids that think rules should be followed all the time. Adults can decide in what cases the rules should be broken and if rules are unjust.
Yes, I suppose it does. But still, homosexuals are people too, with feelings and the ability to consent. Why should they not be allowed to marry?
So people make mistakes...what about if people just no longer love each other...that happened to a friend of mine. She should be imprisoned for loving someone who she later didn't?
Why should it be a man and a woman? Why can't a man and a man, or a woman and a woman be allowed the same chance to commit to each other?
Just like a liberal to confuse race and behavior as though they were the same thing.
Race and behavior are not the same thing and there are many people who get angry everytime some homosexual tries to compare their quest to bastardize marriage to that of a black man who has through out the years won equal rights.
They are allowed the same rights to marry anyone of the oppsitte sex just the same as normal people are.
It's a psychology thing, if you ask kid if a man should steal medicine to save his child they would say no assuming they're in the lowest stage of development. Children in the lowest stage don't consider the situation and just say that because the law says stealing is wrong it's wrong while older people would at least consider if more good than harm would come from the action.I have a better chance of finding a asian woman with DD size breast than I do finding a kid who thinks rules should be followed all the time.Hell if you can
find a child who thinks rules should be followed all ther time then perhaps that child's parents deserve parents of the year award.
Most kids think the rules should be bent or changed to suit them.
There is no proof that children need a male and female parent to turn out fine. Do you think we should stop infertile couples from marrying? Should we confiscate the children of a parent who's spouse died since they won't have a male and female parent?That is the standard of marriage in this country and many other countries.Men and women can breed and produce children and provide male and female role models to their children.Same sex couples can not do do that on their own.
Just like it was wrong to discriminate on race because it cannot be chosen or changed it is wrong to discriminate based on sexuality because it can be chosen or changed.
There is no proof that children need a male and female parent to turn out fine. Do you think we should stop infertile couples from marrying? Should we confiscate the children of a parent who's spouse died since they won't have a male and female parent?
jamesrage said:They are allowed the same rights to marry anyone of the oppsitte sex just the same as normal people are.