He's using a pun to make the point that families are formed around a man and a woman, because you need a man and a woman for procreation. No religion there, just cold, hard fact.Pubic wrote:
Take religion out of it, unless you are prepared to deny atheists the right to marry.CDK3Y wrote:
It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
Let people do what they want. Life is short, be happy.
hacefrio wrote:
Let people do what they want. Life is short, be happy.
lol wut? Go take your fucking Prozac you tool.UK|Hooligan wrote:
This whole topic was purely made so you can make bullshit points to cause arguments. I don't believe that you really have any interest in this at all unless you are looking to marry your gay lover. Personally i don't give a fuck what people do, i don't think its natural but hey I'm not god and don't make laws so i don't really care.HurricaИe wrote:
It's not like it hurts anyone. It's not murder, rape, child abuse etc... it's just two people who happen to like the same gender getting married. Only difference between them and a straight marriage is the genitalia.
The "religious ceremony" excuse is bullshit IMO... separation of church and state. If you wanna live in a country where the laws are dictated by the nation's religious views, i hear Air Iran's got cheap tickets these days.
As you care so much what or who prompted you to make this topic, are you out campaigning for gays as we speak, or is it just another bullshit reason to show you exist?
What business is it of mine who you fall in love with? I really dont care.
Do people who are gay care about how I care about my wife and how my wife cares about me? Nope, so why would I make a big deal about any one else?
Do people who are gay care about how I care about my wife and how my wife cares about me? Nope, so why would I make a big deal about any one else?
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT, KIWI!!!!!Pubic wrote:
Take religion out of it, unless you are prepared to deny atheists the right to marry.CDK3Y wrote:
It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
In that, you are in the same group as 70% of the posters here.
Marriage is a religious ceremony. An atheist cannot by definition get "married" because it would involve a religious ceremony, when they are not religious. It is like a man getting pregnant. Impossible, unless you are a woman.
for gays to get "married" they would need to have a religious ceremony, which would be seeking the approval of a body (the religion) which does not approve of them.
They, by definition, need to seek a civil union, which is different to a marriage.
DO WE ALL GET THIS NOW?!?!?!?!?!
And same thing on the gay adoption. You have 2 of the same genitals. To do the baby thing, you need 2 differing sets. If not, can't do!!!!!!
Just because technology and science make it possible (i.e. surrogate mothers, etc) doesn't mean you should do it. By that argument, we can build bombs to destroy the planet, develop diseases that target racial groups, and engage in eugenics.
Really? Waht is so religious of 2 people getting married by a sea captain?pj666 wrote:
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT, KIWI!!!!!Pubic wrote:
Take religion out of it, unless you are prepared to deny atheists the right to marry.CDK3Y wrote:
It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
In that, you are in the same group as 70% of the posters here.
Marriage is a religious ceremony. An atheist cannot by definition get "married" because it would involve a religious ceremony, when they are not religious. It is like a man getting pregnant. Impossible, unless you are a woman.
for gays to get "married" they would need to have a religious ceremony, which would be seeking the approval of a body (the religion) which does not approve of them.
They, by definition, need to seek a civil union, which is different to a marriage.
DO WE ALL GET THIS NOW?!?!?!?!?!
And same thing on the gay adoption. You have 2 of the same genitals. To do the baby thing, you need 2 differing sets. If not, can't do!!!!!!
Just because technology and science make it possible (i.e. surrogate mothers, etc) doesn't mean you should do it. By that argument, we can build bombs to destroy the planet, develop diseases that target racial groups, and engage in eugenics.
I find it humorous that marriage is defended as some holy sacred joining, when 70% of those that do it get divorced after years of hating each other, and treating each other with ANYTHING other than heaven sent love. Oh yeah, marriage is definately an institution that deserves our utmost repect.
This page on the ethics of same-sex marriage is very interesting, for anyone who wants to read up on the topic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/sa … ndex.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/sa … ndex.shtml
Wait- What religion? I'm a little confused. Are you actually claiming that all religions follow the principles of the Abrahamic religions, and that marriage is the sole possession of religion? I was pretty sure that it is now a governmental institution, and that we have freedoms. Neither must there necessarily be a ceremony. So, you must be arguing that the marriage that we recognize today isn't a 'true' marriage, correct? Completely irrelevant. We're talking about government-mandated marriages, the ones that fall outside of religion. Neither will we give any religious authority to marriage, so the point is moot.pj666 wrote:
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT, KIWI!!!!!Pubic wrote:
Take religion out of it, unless you are prepared to deny atheists the right to marry.CDK3Y wrote:
It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
In that, you are in the same group as 70% of the posters here.
Marriage is a religious ceremony. An atheist cannot by definition get "married" because it would involve a religious ceremony, when they are not religious. It is like a man getting pregnant. Impossible, unless you are a woman.
for gays to get "married" they would need to have a religious ceremony, which would be seeking the approval of a body (the religion) which does not approve of them.
They, by definition, need to seek a civil union, which is different to a marriage.
DO WE ALL GET THIS NOW?!?!?!?!?!
And same thing on the gay adoption. You have 2 of the same genitals. To do the baby thing, you need 2 differing sets. If not, can't do!!!!!!
Just because technology and science make it possible (i.e. surrogate mothers, etc) doesn't mean you should do it. By that argument, we can build bombs to destroy the planet, develop diseases that target racial groups, and engage in eugenics.
Just because technology makes it possible (saving lives, building computers, etc.) doesn't mean we should do it. By that argument, we can build bombs to destroy the planet, develop diseases that target racial groups, and engage in eugenics.
See how your argument falls apart there? You didn't actually provide any logic why homosexuals should not adopt children.
i'm against gay marriage, i just think that being gay is wrong (note: don't come to me with your "it's genetic" argument because i don't care, i think what i think about this), and i noticed some people talking about marriage being not important because it usually ends. i however would say marriage has become taken too lightly as a result of the decline of the world's morals. people say "in sickness and health" and all the other vows, but they don't take them seriously which makes marriage no more than a legal contract. if theres no love in it don't get married, i'd rather see no married people than have a bunch of people get married and end it.
also, gay marriage should not be allowed because i own everything so i call the shots
Why is this 9 pages?
I've heard Adam/Steve before. Adam and Eve is a biblical story...bible, christianity, religion...adam1503 wrote:
He's using a pun to make the point that families are formed around a man and a woman, because you need a man and a woman for procreation. No religion there, just cold, hard fact.Pubic wrote:
Take religion out of it, unless you are prepared to deny atheists the right to marry.CDK3Y wrote:
It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
If he was talking about procreation he would be correct. As for raising kids, are gay couples incapable of raising a child? I know two gay couples who are successfully doing just that...unless raising a child to be friendly, happy and intelligent is somehow wrong? I dunno, maybe I missed something.
"Adam and Eve is a biblical story...bible, christianity, religion..." false! (office quote) adam and eve is torah, judaism, religion... though still related to christianityPubic wrote:
I've heard Adam/Steve before. Adam and Eve is a biblical story...bible, christianity, religion...adam1503 wrote:
He's using a pun to make the point that families are formed around a man and a woman, because you need a man and a woman for procreation. No religion there, just cold, hard fact.Pubic wrote:
Take religion out of it, unless you are prepared to deny atheists the right to marry.
If he was talking about procreation he would be correct. As for raising kids, are gay couples incapable of raising a child? I know two gay couples who are successfully doing just that...unless raising a child to be friendly, happy and intelligent is somehow wrong? I dunno, maybe I missed something.
Isn't Genesis part of the Christian bible?clogar wrote:
"Adam and Eve is a biblical story...bible, christianity, religion..." false! (office quote) adam and eve is torah, judaism, religion... though still related to christianity
Either we have allot of gay people here on BF2s or we are really really stupid, maybe a combination?Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Why is this 9 pages?
yeah, but before it was the bible it was the torah, i'm just splitting hairs here lolPubic wrote:
Isn't Genesis part of the Christian bible?clogar wrote:
"Adam and Eve is a biblical story...bible, christianity, religion..." false! (office quote) adam and eve is torah, judaism, religion... though still related to christianity
No, its not the first book of the bible.Pubic wrote:
Isn't Genesis part of the Christian bible?clogar wrote:
"Adam and Eve is a biblical story...bible, christianity, religion..." false! (office quote) adam and eve is torah, judaism, religion... though still related to christianity
sorry, I don't really buy your worst case scenario there. I mean, even if gay marriage is "legalized" ( so to speak ), it's not like tens of thousands of people will suddenly turn gay. compared to the rest of us, they are still a minority, and not all of them would want to marry and/or adopt children anyway. society will be fine.Deadmonkiefart wrote:
..I see one of the possible outcomes of allowing gays to marry and adopt children is that gay families will become normalized. If the above is legalized, it will empower the polygamists to fight for marriage. The society and values of today will all be replaced. Society will undergo an identity crisis and will cease to exist as we know it...
and btw, "society as we know it" ceased to exist yesterday. It's a new day, and a new society, if you get my drift.
Hmmm got this sick thought maybe it´s evolution? Just natures way of telling us we are to many now, way to over populated. Think of it.
I think it's gay...
lol ? since when does one need genitals to adopt a child ?pj666 wrote:
..And same thing on the gay adoption. You have 2 of the same genitals. To do the baby thing, you need 2 differing sets. If not, can't do!!!!!!..
and btw, for someone who wears the devil's number, you're doing a pretty good job at spreading religious BS, I must say....
as lowing said above, here in the US marriage is a joke. if gay people or polygamists want to give it a try, who cares. call it a sactioned union, civil union, marriage, whatever. if a church doesn't want to perform the ceremony, do they have to?
and the same goes for adoption. there is no shortage of fucked up people who came from normal homes. who says gay people will do any better or worse. and when it comes to a young person's sexual identity, who would do a better job of nurturing normal healthy development, a couple of sexually repressed evangilicals, or people who are aware of the reality of human adolenscence and development?
and the same goes for adoption. there is no shortage of fucked up people who came from normal homes. who says gay people will do any better or worse. and when it comes to a young person's sexual identity, who would do a better job of nurturing normal healthy development, a couple of sexually repressed evangilicals, or people who are aware of the reality of human adolenscence and development?
I missed this post earlier.pj666 wrote:
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT, KIWI!!!!!
In that, you are in the same group as 70% of the posters here.
Marriage is a religious ceremony. An atheist cannot by definition get "married" because it would involve a religious ceremony, when they are not religious. It is like a man getting pregnant. Impossible, unless you are a woman.
for gays to get "married" they would need to have a religious ceremony, which would be seeking the approval of a body (the religion) which does not approve of them.
They, by definition, need to seek a civil union, which is different to a marriage.
DO WE ALL GET THIS NOW?!?!?!?!?!
And same thing on the gay adoption. You have 2 of the same genitals. To do the baby thing, you need 2 differing sets. If not, can't do!!!!!!
Just because technology and science make it possible (i.e. surrogate mothers, etc) doesn't mean you should do it. By that argument, we can build bombs to destroy the planet, develop diseases that target racial groups, and engage in eugenics.
Firstly, my post had nothing to do with science and technology, why you've bought up the possibilities of sci/tech is beyond me.
Secondly, the process of adoption is there for those people who can not, for whatever reason, conceive children of their own. Infertile people cannot conceive children by virtue of their biology...you could say they're not mean't to...yet they can adopt. To object on purely biological grounds is nonsensical.
Thirdly, what makes marriage a strictly religious thing? Is it because religions have practised it for ages? Is it because its part of their lifestyle? Is it because some person who people turn to for advice/guidance say they can? All three of these reasons can apply to atheists too, if theres some other reason why atheists can't marry I'd love for you to tell me. And no, "I don't like the thought of it" or anything along similar lines just won't cut it. BTW, I'm assuming you're referring to all religions here, not a specific religion or group of religions (eg. Abrahamic).
I have a question, why does anyone care what religions think of marriage? The idea of marriage pre-dates any current popular religion and therefore has absolutely nothing to do with them. Just because religions hijacked an already existing idea doesn't mean they suddenly get to have any say over it.
Society gets to choose what defines a marriage, not religion.
Society gets to choose what defines a marriage, not religion.