Gay marriage - Discuss it here :P
I think everyone should be allowed to marry anyone (if it's a real person).
ditto
I have nothing against gay people themselves. But Gay marriage just isn't natural. I mean, how often do you see two stallions together in that way? Or two female chickens? Have you noticed that it's only humans (other then snails, but they don't count. They can't help it) are ever homosexual? That's my 1 cent worth. I could say more, but to avoid offending those people on this site who are, indeed, homosexual, I won't.
Marriage itself isn't natural.
And look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
Okay, so two same sex animals are not allowed to be seen with each other, or they're considered homosexual? So I'm homosexual if I'm seen with other males (we don't sniff, just to be sure you know that! :P)
This is where I stand. I can do no other.
did you read the article? if not, do. they're clearly not just "together".
on a sidenote: since when is animal behaviour supposed to dictate what's acceptable for human beings? I just saw my dog eating her own poo. I'm gonna go throw up now and be right back. >.<
Gay marriage is not natural. Acording to who???
Can you please tell me what do you think about war, or tell me about sexual abuse or racial discrimination...
Men, there are a lot of things that are horrible and people seems to accept as normal for an unknown reason, but when they are questioned about gay marriage (and gay rights in general) the most common response is "that's not natural"... Why???
Only straight people has the right to marry the people whom they love?
Am I wrong if I want to marry and spent the rest of my life with the man that I love just because some people think that it's not natural?
Sorry but the answer "it's not natural" is just stupid, give me a real answer of why gay marriage is wrong.
It's just about love.
Everyone has the right to be happy.
Quote from: piutebob on December 04, 2009, 02:06PM
Okay, so two same sex animals are not allowed to be seen with each other, or they're considered homosexual? So I'm homosexual if I'm seen with other males (we don't sniff, just to be sure you know that! :P)
This is where I stand. I can do no other.
Based on you comment I assume that you didn't read the whole article that Larcetin posted before, and if you read it probably you didn't understand it...
Im for it, why not if its two consenting adults.
Quote from: piutebob on December 04, 2009, 01:45PM
But Gay marriage just isn't natural. I mean, how often do you see two stallions together in that way? Or two female chickens? Have you noticed that it's only humans (other then snails, but they don't count. They can't help it) are ever homosexual?
No, thats wrong like someone pointed above there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Theres been many studies of this. You should really educate yourself.
Quote from: Larcetin on December 04, 2009, 01:53PM
Marriage itself isn't natural.
True. Many animals go from mate to mate or have multiple mates at the same time.
I dont see how gay marriage is unnatural, marriage is just a union both social and legal between two people. How do gay couples not fit into this? The only thing that supposedly says its wrong is some religous texts that shouldnt even be considered when talking about changing laws, especially in a country were we are suppose to have separation of church and state.
Quote from: nodoubt_jr on December 04, 2009, 02:27PM
How do gay couples not fit into this? The only thing that supposedly says its wrong is some religous texts that shouldnt even be considered when talking about changing laws, especially in a country were we are suppose to have separation of church and state.
Well, if we are seperating church and state, why even have marriage? Marriage is a church institution, NOT a state institution. So why is the state governing it?
I respect your opinions, but that's where I stand.
actually, that does make sense. the government really has nothing to do with our personal decisions. there should only be civil union for all. let each religion decide on their own who they'll allow to get married.
Quote from: piutebob on December 04, 2009, 02:52PM
Well, if we are seperating church and state, why even have marriage? Marriage is a church institution, NOT a state institution. So why is the state governing it?
I respect your opinions, but that's where I stand.
Because marriage has evolved from a religious thing to a social norm. Many people get married not even considering god or the church or whatever. Atheists get married. So if some people can get married, why cant others?
In the past interracial couples couldn't get married because some saw it as unnatural and going against god or whatever. Now most people think it's crazy that they weren't allowed to marry in the past. I'm sure in the future our kids will look back and think how backwards we were at this time to deny people rights.
Just to clear up my stand, I think the government should allow gay people to marry. To have the same rights other married couples have. I'm not for forcing churches or other religious institutions to be forced to marry them. They have their believes and traditions and I respect that, I completely disagree with them though.
true true. marriage has taken another meaning, not just the religious one. but, in the end, it's all a matter of semantics. the main point is that religion and state should be completly separate and the state is constitutionaly obliged to give all citizens the same rights.
It was, in fact, going to the point where, in California at least, if a pastor refused to marry two men (or more) he could be put in jail. And is it right in your opinion to have group marriages? Imagaine having 2 husbands
and 2 wives at the same time. Is that right? It's the same basic principle.
Quote from: nodoubt_jr on December 04, 2009, 02:27PM
You should really educate yourself.
Oh, I do indeed educate myself. That's why I'm an independent student.
actually I'm pro polygamy too. it's not for me, but if it makes them happy and is not really invading anyone elses right to happiness, any path is valid. but that's a whole other debate.
as for the pastor case, I agree. since it's a religious thing, he does have the right to deny marrying people, each religion has it's own beliefs. but when it comes to a judge, this law should apply.
No its not. Its the same basic principle.
After being attacked for a stupid joke about gay marriage in another topic I thought it may be important to point out here.... That it is very easy to have an opinion on the other side of the fence. How many people in this thread have been beaten and raped for their opinion on this topic? The church can say what they want but as long as this ridiculous facade continues it does nothing but give idiots a reason to feel justified hurting someone. How many rednecks think gay-bashing is fun? How many of them feel that God isn't mad at them for it? Honestly sicker stuff goes on in straight marriages! And in churches! After everything the church has done to homosexuals (and how many small boys they've done), why does their opinion still count? And after all the scandals and hoopla.... same for the government?
After both of their respective track records, how much does what they think is wrong matter to me?
exactly, it doesn't matter what they think! that's why the state should not be influenced by religion. yet, we should respect other peoples rights to their own beliefs, even if we disagree with them, which is my case. of course it's wrong to mistreat gay people (or any other people for that matter). I don't belive anyone here thinks it's right to do that. In most religions one of Gods most sacred rules is to be kind to others. Treat others as you wish to be treated.
Quote from: piutebob on December 04, 2009, 04:29PM
It was, in fact, going to the point where, in California at least, if a pastor refused to marry two men (or more) he could be put in jail. And is it right in your opinion to have group marriages? Imagaine having 2 husbands and 2 wives at the same time. Is that right? It's the same basic principle.
Oh, I do indeed educate myself. That's why I'm an independent student.
As long as it's happy, age legal, consenting adults I don't care if they want to have 3 or 4 wives. Why should we care how others are living? As long as they are not hurting anyone and are happy living the way they are how does that concern you? It's only wrong when some Mormon communities force young girls to get married to these old perves.
And good to know that you educate yourself, between your comment on there being no homosexual animals and your comments about Halloween I was afraid that you automatically believe whatever your were told and never actually did the research.
Quote from: piutebob on December 04, 2009, 04:34PM
No its not. Its the same basic principle.
no, it's not. there's a HUGE difference between religion and civil rights movements. a pastor is affiliated to some church, that has their own beliefs about marriage and homossexuality, and have all right to discriminate, since noone is forced into any religion, it's a choice. judges have nothing to do with any church. they work for the government and the goverment should give everyone the same rights as we are all subjected to it's laws, no matter what we choose.
Quote from: hulkpants on December 04, 2009, 04:35PM
After being attacked for a stupid joke about gay marriage in another topic I thought it may be important to point out here....
You just don't get it. First of all you weren't attacked, seriously you consider that being attacked? Second you weren't moderated because of the joke, you were moderated because of double posting. It had nothing to do with your joke.
And before you derail another thread, if you want to continue this do it through private messages.
Having not looked at another post in this topic, let me just say that I consider this to be a way too touchy subject to discuss in a predominantly casual site like this. It's more likely to bring up poorly thought arguments and personal insults rather than anything worthwhile.
Quote from: Gevth on December 04, 2009, 05:07PM
Having not looked at another post in this topic, let me just say that I consider this to be a way too touchy subject to discuss in a predominantly casual site like this. It's more likely to bring up poorly thought arguments and personal insults rather than anything worthwhile.
That is what i expressed in another thread (only you put it way better than i did :)) I still feel the same way.
I thought so at first. but now I'm kinda liking it. it's nice to debate more serious stuff and exchange info and points of views with our peers. everybody gets more well-informed.
I agree with Nowhere (his latest post :)).
I also agree it is bad to beat Gay people.
But seriously, most gay people aren't happy, thus they named themselves "Gay" to imply that they're happy.
Quote from: nodoubt_jr on December 04, 2009, 04:43PM
As long as it’s happy, age legal, consenting adults I don’t care if they want to have 3 or 4 wives. Why should we care how others are living? As long as they are not hurting anyone and are happy living the way they are how does that concern you? It’s only wrong when some Mormon communities force young girls to get married to these old perves.
I am talking about when, say, 5 guys get married to each other at the same time, not when someone has 4 wives. That is polygamy, which is illegal in most states. I agree it is wrong when Mormons force their children upon old men, however. I sincerely hope TC won't do that with his daughter when she's old enough (hint hint, TC! :))
Quote from: nodoubt_jr on December 04, 2009, 04:43PM
And good to know that you educate yourself, between your comment on there being no homosexual animals and your comments about Halloween I was afraid that you automatically believe whatever your were told and never actually did the research.
I will indeed research more often from now on, to be sure I have got it right. But anyone can edit Wikipedia (a music artist, David Crowder, hates it when people do that to his wikipedia page!)
Quote from: piutebob on December 05, 2009, 11:02AM
But seriously, most gay people aren't happy, thus they named themselves "Gay" to imply that they're happy.
where did you get that information from? they would be unhappy if they were forced to live a lie their entire lives, that's unhappy. plus, the main reason why gay people are unhappy is narrow-minded people discriminating them all the time. not the fact that they're gay.
Okay, whatever. But believe me when I say I am not one of those people who are total jerks and are totally mean and mocking the gays.
I believe you. The fact that you are open-minded enough to debate already shows that you are willing to learn more and defend your ideas peacefully, and that's the most important thing.
Quote from: piutebob on December 05, 2009, 11:02AM
But seriously, most gay people aren't happy, thus they named themselves "Gay" to imply that they're happy.
I will indeed research more often from now on, to be sure I have got it right. But anyone can edit Wikipedia (a music artist, David Crowder, hates it when people do that to his wikipedia page!)
Lol were do you get this stuff? That's completely wrong, again simple research and you find out the truth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay#Sexualization .
QuoteThe word had started to acquire associations of immorality by 1637[1] and was used in the late 17th century with the meaning "addicted to pleasures and dissipations."[7] This was by extension from the primary meaning of "carefree": implying "uninhibited by moral constraints." A gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man a womanizer and a gay house a brothel.[1]
The use of gay to mean "homosexual" was in origin merely an extension of the word's sexualised connotation of "carefree and uninhibited", which implied a willingness to disregard conventional or respectable sexual mores. Such usage is documented as early as the 1920s, and there is evidence for it before the 20th century,[1] although it was initially more commonly used to imply heterosexually unconstrained lifestyles, as in the once-common phrase "gay Lothario",[8] or in the title of the book and film The Gay Falcon (1941), which concerns a womanizing detective whose first name is "Gay."
I was just in West Hollywood two weeks ago and there were tons of very happy gay people, i didnt see one sad face ;)
Wikipedia is a lot more reliable now. They have people checking facts and undoing incorrect edits. So is it a good source for a term paper? No. A good source to learn something quickly? Yes. But if you dont trust it theres plenty of other sites that will give you the correct information we have given you.
Personally im just happy that people have remained civil with this issue on this forum.