What, are you telling me Washington DC is in the canada? You have a American Citizenship, not a canadian one. if you live in DC you are American, DC is in America, not in canada. Or Maybe you are lying about your city and you live in canada.HurricaИe wrote:
Reading comprehension motherfucker, do you have it?colonelioan wrote:
Rofl, Where did the idea of me being a Nazi came to you? Did i say something linking to the Nazi Germany?HurricaИe wrote:
Oh fuck off. Germany 1943 is that way ---->
I'm ashamed to hold citizenship with a stain like you
Do you know your geography? Canada is not in the US you fucking moron.
The Nazis held a similar anti-homosexual belief to you... that homosexuals (and Jews, amongst other people) were responsible for Germany's woes.
As for my "geography"... I'm a Canadian citizen you dipstick. I figure your mind is too small to wrap around that.
If youre not going to take part in this discussion then stop derailing the thread and leave.colonelioan wrote:
What, are you telling me Washington DC is in the canada? You have a American Citizenship, not a canadian one. if you live in DC you are American, DC is in America, not in canada. Or Maybe you are lying about your city and you live in canada.
They're getting married?
OH SHIT WHAT ARE WE GUNNA DO NOW!
I'm for marriage. It all boils down to a symbol of love between two people.
I'm also for adoption, for the simple reason that any hetero couple can go and get preggers by complete accident, and plausibly have a baby they don't want. However, if you've chosen to adopt, generally you're both financially and emotionally ready to supporting a child.
OH SHIT WHAT ARE WE GUNNA DO NOW!
I'm for marriage. It all boils down to a symbol of love between two people.
I'm also for adoption, for the simple reason that any hetero couple can go and get preggers by complete accident, and plausibly have a baby they don't want. However, if you've chosen to adopt, generally you're both financially and emotionally ready to supporting a child.
cuz gay people want to adobt children and raise them to be gay too
I'm gonna stop derailing this thread, so I'll try and explain it in layman's terms: I have Canadian citizenship, and live in the United States. Living in the United States does NOT mean I lose my Canadian citizenship. I do identify as an American because I have lived here for so long, but I am NOT a "true" American.colonelioan wrote:
What, are you telling me Washington DC is in the canada? You have a American Citizenship, not a canadian one. if you live in DC you are American, DC is in America, not in canada. Or Maybe you are lying about your city and you live in canada.HurricaИe wrote:
Reading comprehension motherfucker, do you have it?colonelioan wrote:
Rofl, Where did the idea of me being a Nazi came to you? Did i say something linking to the Nazi Germany?
Do you know your geography? Canada is not in the US you fucking moron.
The Nazis held a similar anti-homosexual belief to you... that homosexuals (and Jews, amongst other people) were responsible for Germany's woes.
As for my "geography"... I'm a Canadian citizen you dipstick. I figure your mind is too small to wrap around that.
Suoma: I doubt it... if this thread is any indication of the rest of the world, gay people likely wouldn't want to raise their child to be gay, knowing full well they'd likely be discriminated against by rednecks and religious nuts.
Nosuomalainen_äijä wrote:
cuz gay people want to adobt children and raise them to be gay too
Yes, BUT, I do not support it for the child's sake. His social future would be ruined.SharkyMcshark wrote:
They're getting married?
OH SHIT WHAT ARE WE GUNNA DO NOW!
I'm for marriage. It all boils down to a symbol of love between two people.
I'm also for adoption, for the simple reason that any hetero couple can go and get preggers by complete accident, and plausibly have a baby they don't want. However, if you've chosen to adopt, generally you're both financially and emotionally ready to supporting a child.
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
sorry, but NO.suomalainen_äijä wrote:
cuz gay people want to adobt children and raise them to be gay too
and NO.
+ its not the enviroment you grow up in that makes you gay ...
Last edited by covenant (2008-01-17 09:28:25)
So if a dictionary says, marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman we just stick to that, so if one day the dictionary says, rape is a form off love than we all agree on the fact that rape is cool, but we won't because we know it isnt the truth! So then why is a marriage between 2 male, or 2 female's for that matter any different than a man and a woman, it are essiantly still two people who love and care about each other and therefore want to share the rest of their lives together, and from my perspective thats whats marriage is about, two people devoting their lives to each other and whether it are two people of the same gender or two people from the same gender who cares! On another note, you people also say they should have the same rights as two ''normal'' married couples EXCEPT for adoption of children? So why is that? Just because they are gay/lesbian does that mean that they can't properly raise a kid? I am sure they can, even if that is not the issuewhether they can or cannot raise a child then what is? Because they are gay/lesbian and therefore the kid doesnt have a mother and a father figure in its live? Well I am sure that those places can be filled up. So what really is the problems against homosexual marriage?
This is false, being gay is something that can't be layed upon you but that is either in you or isnt.lookitupyourselfwhoitwas wrote:
cuz gay people want to adobt children and raise them to be gay too
If I am reading correctly a gay couple get tax breaks to support their family but since they can't have kids on their own with out 3rd party help they are just simply getting money for nothing since they don't have a family to support? But how about the people who adopt children? They sure raise a family, maybe if you were to allow gay marriage and change the laws regarding tax breaks that those who only actually have a family to support get those tax breaks, so gay couples don't leech of society and actually help and once they adopt a kid, they ought to get those tax breaks too.rawls2 wrote:
Thank you, that is a main reason. They don't benefit society therefore, should not get the same incentives that a straight couple would get for joining forces.CameronPoe wrote:
The reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is because under the law married couples get tax breaks aimed at those who will procreate and generate the tax paying and pension supporting citizens of tomorrow. Last I heard gay men don't have wombs and gay women don't have testes. So why on earth should taxpayers money give a couple breaks to ease the burden of supporting a family when the couple can't have kids?
Last edited by RDMC (2008-01-17 09:33:47)
come to think of it, I guess you're right.RDMC wrote:
So if a dictionary says, marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman we just stick to that, so if one day the dictionary says, rape is a form off love than we all agree on the fact that rape is cool, but we won't because we know it isnt the truth! So then why is a marriage between 2 male, or 2 female's for that matter any different than a man and a woman, it are essiantly still two people who love and care about each other and therefore want to share the rest of their lives together, and from my perspective thats whats marriage is about, two people devoting their lives to each other and whether it are two people of the same gender or two people from the same gender who cares! On another note, you people also say they should have the same rights as two ''normal'' married couples EXCEPT for adoption of children? So why is that? Just because they are gay/lesbian does that mean that they can't properly raise a kid? I am sure they can, even if that is not the issuewhether they can or cannot raise a child then what is? Because they are gay/lesbian and therefore the kid doesnt have a mother and a father figure in its live? Well I am sure that those places can be filled up. So what really is the problems against homosexual marriage?This is false, being gay is something that can't be layed upon you but that is either in you or isnt.lookitupyourselfwhoitwas wrote:
cuz gay people want to adobt children and raise them to be gay tooIf I am reading correctly a gay couple get tax breaks to support their family but since they can't have kids on their own with out 3rd party help they are just simply getting money for nothing since they don't have a family to support? But how about the people who adopt children? They sure raise a family, maybe if you were to allow gay marriage and change the laws regarding tax breaks that those who only actually have a family to support get those tax breaks, so gay couples don't leech of society and actually help and once they adopt a kid, they ought to get those tax breaks too.rawls2 wrote:
Thank you, that is a main reason. They don't benefit society therefore, should not get the same incentives that a straight couple would get for joining forces.CameronPoe wrote:
The reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is because under the law married couples get tax breaks aimed at those who will procreate and generate the tax paying and pension supporting citizens of tomorrow. Last I heard gay men don't have wombs and gay women don't have testes. So why on earth should taxpayers money give a couple breaks to ease the burden of supporting a family when the couple can't have kids?
How many of you people objection to gay couples adopting kids are actually adopted yourselves? Also, what if a parent turns gay and then marries their partner...should the child be taken away?
You cannot object to gay marraige on the grounds that it offends Christianity, as then you are denying Jews, Hindus etc the right of marraige. You cannot even object to gay marraige on general religious grounds, as then you are denying the non-religious the right of marraige. If you accept the idea that we're all entitled to basic human rights, then on what grounds can you object? "Its always been that way"? Gimme a break!
Fact is, the definition of marraige as being between a man and a woman was made by extremely bigotted people. Times are changing, and so too should our practices and definitions. I say gay marraige (and by that I mean marraige not recognised union) is OK.
You cannot object to gay marraige on the grounds that it offends Christianity, as then you are denying Jews, Hindus etc the right of marraige. You cannot even object to gay marraige on general religious grounds, as then you are denying the non-religious the right of marraige. If you accept the idea that we're all entitled to basic human rights, then on what grounds can you object? "Its always been that way"? Gimme a break!
Fact is, the definition of marraige as being between a man and a woman was made by extremely bigotted people. Times are changing, and so too should our practices and definitions. I say gay marraige (and by that I mean marraige not recognised union) is OK.
I think Ive had enough of this thread.
lol i love the ads on this site. It just takes words from the thread and google ads them, hence the gay-parship.co.uk ad!
Could you please state why?DrunkenPirate wrote:
lol thread is lol
I'm against.
I'm for anyway, whats wrong with it?
This guy cracks me up.suomalainen_äijä wrote:
cuz gay people want to adobt children and raise them to be gay too
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Why because it's rumored that Hitler was gay too?colonelioan wrote:
Nope sorry.usmarine2005 wrote:
Bet you have a Hitler poster above your bed.colonelioan wrote:
Gosh, i guess idiots will remain idiots, gays will remain gays .Common sense doesn't seem to be this place s'forte.
And they you ask your self why is the world fucked up.
But be careful don't go in russia if you are gay, in that country, where people still have a head, if you are gay and wish to pride about it on the street.
The police will come and hold you by the back, while the citizens will punch you in the stomach. Then you will be arrested for disturbing the public place. To give you a fucking lesson.
Malloy must go
If they love each other, why not? Enough of that 1950s mentality, welcome to the 21st century.
It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
you have no idea.suomalainen_äijä wrote:
cuz gay people want to adobt children and raise them to be gay too
Ah yes, they had children and had to have sex with them since no one else was around to start humanity. Incest FTW! lolCDK3Y wrote:
It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve
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?
I dont really care if they get "married" (though Id prefer a different term be used) But letting them adopt is bullshit. They dont need to adopt children, their "kid" will just be ridiculed for life all through school because he/she has gay parents.
Children have been raised by two parents -one man and one woman- for hundreds of thousands of years. It has been the opinion of most people that this is the healthiest way to be raised. That marriage as the basis of a family has existed all over the world, in every culture, leads me to believe that is is the safest and healthiest institution for the development for families. Marriage between a man and a woman has been the foundation of functional families for so long, it should not be taken lightly. As society becomes increasingly liberal, a number of our age old traditions will come into question. I am not necessarily saying this is a bad thing. However, such a large step should be taken carefully.B.Schuss wrote:
well, as far as the terminology is concerned, marriage is a religious institution that was invented by the church to cement their view of a religiously sanctioned union between a man and a woman, and to force their view of a favourable lifestyle onto their followers.
It is a religious ceremony, that should have no significance whatsoever in todays secular society, at least not as far as the dealings between the citizens and their respective government are concerned. The problem with that is that most western nations are based on christian beliefs, just as most middle east nations are based on islamic beliefs.
This speaks of course volumes of the power the various religions ( and their institutionalized forms, the churches ) have had over us in the past, and in some cases still do.
true, in theory most liberal western nations do have a separation of church and state today, but we all know that this is handled very differently from region to region. Some are more religious than others, and in some areas, there is so much social pressure that people are practically forced to marry if they want to live together. I can't even imagine what homosexuals must go through in these areas.
I think that the separation of church and state should be enforced as much as possible. Thus, marriage as a religious institution should not be legally reckognized by the state, with no special privileges for married couples. What marriage is, how it is defined and who should be allowed to marry who on the first place should be a matter between the church and its followers only.
The legally reckognized, secular version of a marriage should be a civil union, with the same privileges, rights, and duties bestowed upon all couples who chose to have one equally, regardless of their sexual orientation, or their faith. To me, that would include adoption.
te me, there is no indication that a homosexual couple would be any less qualified to raise a child than a heterosexual couple. To be honest, when I look at the hordes of straight trailer park trash that are allowed to breed these days, the idea of a gay or lesbian couple adopting a child sounds not so bad.
Raising a child successfully is not about your sexual orientation. It's about what kind of person you are, and wether you'd be a good parent.
The only reason why some people believe that the "right" way to raise a child is in a traditional heterosexual marriage is because that's what we have been culturallly conditioned to believe through religious dogma. It is nothing that we cannot overcome through our free will, if we want to.
The point is, people should have the right to make that choice for themselves, and not have church and state interfere.to be honest, why would a gay or lesbian couple explain procreation differently than a heterosexual couple ? Small children don't care about wether those who care for them are one man and one woman living in a marriage, or two men living in a civil union.adam1503 wrote:
.. They would almost certainly feel confused: they would grow up not understanding why they had 2 mothers/fathers... imagine the parents trying to answer the question of where babies come from. Wouldnt the child want to know how two women/men had a baby when they were just told it takes a man and a woman? Then how do you explain that to the child?
Of course, later in life, when they grow up, they might want to know who their biological parents are, and how the situation came about, but that discussion would be no different than that which would occur if a heterosexual couple had adopted a child.
and in any case, I dare say that those who care for the child are its "real" parents, not those who happen to share their genetic structure.
Biological parenthood means nothing. I know a lot of biological parents who couldn't give a rat's ass about their children, who abuse them, neglect them, or even kill them.
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.
Now this is all speculation, and of course, it is really difficult to say. After all, who's to say that one way of raising children than another, when all people have been raised differently.
Jeese... What's your problem?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?
That is pathetic and disgusting.konfusion wrote:
...except to adopt children.
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