Same Sex Marriage

digerati

What about women who are barren or guys who are sterile?

@/2ct!<

I guess im one of the few that believe it isnt really marriage, have no problem with it though. The point of marriage is to have a family IMO, but I do believe adoption marriages are real too. The only thing against ss mariage adoption is the kid misses a role model, just like single parent kids... shame really.

Falstaff

I agree...same sex arrangments are a social contract that is distinctly different from heterosexual marriages
Marriage is something sacred in my opinion, and based on my religious beliefs. anything else is an abomination.

Luck

We can't stop them from doing it. However, even the ones that were ashamed of it, managed to turn themselves around.

Sometimes, homosexuality is stemed from birth. Most of the time, it's just a perverted state of mind.

Homosexuality does nothing, it's selfish and is useless. Love is a chemecial in the brain...our main purpose in this world is to breed..if you can't do that, you're of no use to the world.

In the wild life, there ARE SOME homosexual aninmals, but they die off..not to get off topic, but the same thing happens with mentally challanged animals, they die off.

Society is starting to degenerate..they're starting to accept anything, even things that will hurt the humane species.

Luck

Ummm..that's like asking "What if the homosexual had Down's syndrome?"

There are things that can actually help these people with that problem.

Al_Vampyre

I think we have enough problems in this world with children growing up in broken homes, and whilst I would prefer to see a child have a balanced upbringing with both male and female influences, I would rather have children growing up in a loving family environment regardless of the sex of their 'parents'.

If a couple want to demonstrate their love and committment to each other by a public declaration of some sort then thats fine by me, I wouldn't call it a marriage but thats just my Judaeo-Christian background speaking...

Smoothdrive

Seems this is turning into a religious discussion rather than a political one.

You guys saying no because of your religious backgrounds should realise that you're no better than Muslims making laws based on their religion.

Sure you're entitled to your opinion and that opinion can be biased by your faith..but we're talking about laws here..not about personal preference.

Would you deny gay people the liberty of "getting married" based on your religion ?

That's scary..what if i want to work on Sunday ?

Al_Vampyre

I wasn't commenting from a religious point of view (as an athiest I would find that a little difficult!) my comment about calling it a 'marriage' was based on the same argument as you can't have 'vegetarian' bacon. If it ain't from a pig it ain't bacon...

Falstaff

I am trying to illustrate the difference between the hypocracy of tolerance for the gay agenda to get votes and provide a destructive catalyst for social change, vs the convictions of many people that prefer not to hide their homophobia or who are unafraid to reveal the homosexual political agenda for what it really is. ...and I will reinterate again..
If someone insists on making a point to tell me that they are gay, for whatever reason, I will simply tell them..."who cares"..

reno

Some would argue that love is just a social contruction to force a conservative agenda of monogamy upon a world oh-so evil in their sexual freedoms...and in that respect, love isn't the basis of marriage, but the entwining of two individual's economic/reproductive abilities in a way beneficial to themselves and their offspring is...so maybe we should separate agendas from lives and let anyone who want's to get married do it.

I don't really care if dogs married each other, I won't speak for anyone but myself, and I know that I won't get married for "passionate love" but practical, long lasting love. The kind of "love" that has been constructed as "not being swept off your feet constantly, but being able to wake up each morning and be genuinely pleased to see your withered old hag of a wife after 70 years of bondage and 30 of dry, uncomfortable sex" love. If it turns out anyone else wants to marry someone else, then you better DAMN WELL better give them the FREEDOM to do it. How FREE is a country if it CONTROLS relationships? Hmm?

If gay people want to marry, who the hell am I (or anyone else for that matter) to say they can't? If you believe in God, let Him make the "judgment;" if you don't, shut your hole because you have no right deciding what others do with their "love" life.



On further recollection, this made no sense to me. But my position remains clear to myself, I do withdraw to slumber and my own, irrepressible thoughts.

Falstaff

Hentai..you nearly made a good point. but your fatigue diminshed the thrust of your argument..such as it is...there is not enough love in the world, if it exists, and it is sustained by real determination, and faith, then so be it.. for god shines on those that love and as nothing but the chance to love...But homosexual marriage is a political football and I am for one am not a fan...To Hell with the Gay agenda..they can put their rainbow flags where they want to..but not in view of me...
The fractionalization of our United States based on the sexual agenda of malcontents and joiners will not diminish me in one bit..I ask the homosexual caucus as it stands...you can bitch about your rights..when I see one iota of positive change based on the biased and hypocratical arguments of the gay camp, then I might be swayed to allow more of my precious time to their arguments and needs..but as it stands...I could care less...and I will reinterate..."stick it where the sun doesnt' shine" because I am tired of it.....

reno

Warning! Sarcasm alert! BEEE-OOOOOOO! BEEE-OOOOOOO!




I think we should segregate black people to, I'm tired of seeing them fight for civil rights.



Maybe we should...no...just MAYBE...I mean, this IS radical...maybe we should give the same abilities to control personal relationships to Gays, Blacks, and Retards as we do to Whites? Maybe? I dunno...Gay people are so evil and flamboyant! Black guys are so rude! Retards are so...retarded...I think they should probably just disappear, it would make the world SO much nicer for me...the white, heterosexual, middle-class male.

And Gays make hypocritical statements? "there is not enough love in the world, if it exists, and it is sustained by real determination, and faith" But TO HELL with gays and their desire to marry, it has NO POINT but to inconvenience me!

Sarcasm ceases now:

I also don't care much for "flagwaving," be it by white, heterosexual males, or black, lesbian retards. I do care that people are allowed to engage in relationships on their own terms, and allowed to express themselves sexually. I repeat, if ANYONE wants to get married, that is THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE, NOT someone elses! Anyone should be allowed to marry as long as they both desire it.

And don't even start on the whole "what about divorces and broken homes," I think that's mostly a heterosexual problem...seen as all legal marriages are heterosexual and HALF of them fail. If marriage is going to fail, which it undoubtedly will in many cases, then I think everyone also has the chance to try and make it work, be they gay or hetero.

I am deeply grieved the day has come that people DESIRE the hand of an institution upon their decision making, let us hope HUMANS as a race will have the courage to live their love lives independantly of external forces/institutional factions, or I fear we'll be one step closer to a world devoid of the most basic choice a person can make. The choice of with whom you bond and with who you love.

-as written by a midwestern, hetero whiteboy

reno

By the way, if you're tired of homosexuality encroaching on your world, I'm tired of misguided Christianity encroaching on mine.

I'M tired of conservatives, abominable religious zealots, and eugenicists spawning their degradation in youth and adults alike. I'M tired of Protestants and Catholics waving the stick of morality when Luther and Augustine and Paul BOTH believed Jesus could NEVER be a moral teacher if he was the son of God, and could NEVER be the son of God if he was a moral teacher. Original sin and universalism is what the TRUE Christian believes in, not TOLERANCE or MORALS. The aforementioned fathers of modern Christianity explicitly stated our entire lives are borne in sin and our ONLY chance for redemption is recognizing Jesus as the savior (NOT as a teacher), and repenting for our sins until the day of judgment. It CAN'T be disputed! If you don't believe me that Christianity is misguided, pick up some Lessing or Lowith, Hegel, Dodd, Burckhardt, Reimarus as revealed in Lessing, or some of the writings of Luther, Paul, and Augustine themselves!

I'M tired of conservatives (and I'm not talking about republicans, but conservative thinkers in general) supporting such feeble moral ideas the ideas listed previously in this topic, how DARE someone make a moral judgment on someone based on their color, sexuality, gender, level of intelligence, or "suitablility!" You are all worthless, immoral creatures yourselves! Forced to have laws and institutions to support your feeble will to avoid "evil" and "unnaturalities!" Not only this, but FORCING their morals...regardless of how heedless they are of them themselves...on people unlike them!

I'M tired of eugenic thinking! When will people get it in their head that their life is their own? When will they stop social constructions of "marriage" (which up until the late 19th century was mostly carried out for family concerns, not love) and "love" restrict them to things they DO NOT LIKE! I for one will NOT be forced to marry my wife in a church, I will CHOOSE to. I will NOT be forced to express my love in a culturally acceptable fashion, I will CHOOSE how and with what frequency I will bestow my affection however it may manifest. I will NOT be forced to marry a woman of the same race, religion, age, disposition, or level of intelligence, I will CHOOSE to marry someone who CHOOSES to marry me NOT based on these restrictions.

I will never relent in my own personal disgust at these three popular conventions, and I will vote for and publicly support ideas that support the FREEDOM of people in, hopefully not at least, this nation. And I will NOT stand for ANYONE deciding ANYONE ELSES choice of relationships. To me, regardless of what God I believe in, even if I do believe in one, that is the first step to losing every other single freedom I hold dear.

Falstaff

Freedom isn't free..but I fought for the freedom of gay peoople to exercisetheir rights...too

manicus

Im going to have to say no because of my religious belief. What people do in their own time is none of my business, what they want to do if its legal do it. If they encroach upon my rights then theres a line to draw, but homosexuality is worlds apart from mine. I dont belive in it but if thats what they want then they should go for it. i guess...... its all opinion and perspective

JavaFox

Did you think that just because your post was long that nobody would catch your strawman?

Let gays marry already. I'm a Christian, too, guys, but this country is not about making laws premised solely on religion. There is simply no standard by which homosexuality can be considered wrong, except by a religious one. And that isn't good enough.

Falstaff

I personally am just tired of the whole gay agenda and the public way it demonstrates its support for an alternative lifestyle...I reinterate...I could care less..since before recorded history..buggery existed..so what..just keep out of the media and the schools and the churchs...and I am happy with that..but stay the hell away from my children is how I feel....homosexual pediphiles deserve to be shot as much as any other criminal in my book, and lets face it..that is the stigma male homosexuals have to face all the time...homophobia will not go away...and crimes against them will not stop either, so perhaps it is society that will determine what or how much gay crap they have to put up with...

Zardon

I guess that depends on your defination of "standards", right? id like you to explain that a little more indepth. surely if you agree in open debate and freedom of speech then its logical everyone has varying opinions and "standards". are you meaning everyones acceptance or tolerance of homosexuality in this specific case, or the ethical viewpoints of hardline homophobes?

JavaFox

What I mean is this: many social conservatives (I count myself within this group for the most part, although, obviously I differ on this matter) base their oposition to gay marriage on an opinion that homosexuality is wrong. That's fine. You can have that opinion if you'd like. But what I am saying is that there is no realm and no definition --except a religious one-- in which homosexuality could possibly be considered wrong.

You don't need to be religious to know murder is wrong. Hurting another human being is wrong, and that's obvious. Religion didn't teach us that. Stealing is wrong, and, again, we don't need religion to tell us that. But homosexuality can only be considered wrong in a religious context, and America is not The Vatican. We shouldn't be making laws grounded in religion alone.

Zardon

Putting religion aside for a moment and even my personal opinions on this matter, lets look at it from a wider viewpoint. How about we look at defining what exactly can be classed as "standards" or a standard, in this case homosexuality, whether on a female or male level. Standards in this instance are surely based on a considerable percentage of the human population. Lets take in this case the so called standard of family life, which would be classed as:

a wife, a husband, and perhaps children. we all in agreement with this? good, ill continue.... This has been a standard defined since the human species evolved and is really based on many factors primarily hinged on our bodies and reproductive organs. Lets put aside emotions, whether its between two women or two men as lovers. It is a species natural evolution to replicate and continue. Therefore going by this "standard" homosexuality is wrong, Too much is passed onto religion, and as im an athesist I dont have that failing. Therefore I dont agree with your theory at all in this matter.

Falstaff

same sex marriages or actually social contracts in my opinion with some legal advantages that are useful in determining property rights, etc..
marriage is a union of male and female, whether it is recognized by the church or any other religion, it in my opinion has a purpose beyond achieving legal advantages...and it has liabilities as well.
My mother took care of a young gay man and his lovers for years as they all died of aids, they flew the rainbow flag and demonstrated for the rights of homosexuals. My mother...a good christian rationalized that they deserve the same mercy and grace from god, though they be sinners. God hates no one she said, and she never preached to them as they withered away..
even though she is deeply entrenched in her faith, she always took pity upon them but never condoned their lifestyle, that seemed troubled and fraught with medical problems and concerns.
on the matter of gay marriages, she is is not troubled whether they have a contract or not, if two people choose to live together and support each other emotionally and physically she could care less, and so do I.

JavaFox

By this standard, you must also consider it wrong when couples opt to not have children. Is it also wrong when someone who is sterile gets married?