Life makes having a childhood difficult. There will always be some way for your child to be mercilessly teased in school or any other point in their life. You can't shelter them from everything, nor should you try to. Experiencing life and all it has to offer is what grows you as an individual. As far as being afraid to explain life choices to your child, I find that sad beyond words.SFCCDailey wrote:
For all of you that don't have kids I can understand you supporting gay marriage. But how do I explain to my 6 yr old son why his friend from school has two dads and no mother. Kinda hard to explain and personally I don't want to. Not only that, but think about how hard it would be on a child to grow up with two same sex parrents. The child would be teased in school, religious assholes would be a huge problem and it would make having a childhood difficult and not the fun time it is supposed to be. Just my thoughts.
Poll
Do you think Gay marriage should be legal
| No not at all | 34% | 34% - 126 | ||||
| Yes they should be able to | 38% | 38% - 140 | ||||
| Civil unions only | 16% | 16% - 61 | ||||
| Not even civil unions allowed | 10% | 10% - 37 | ||||
| Total: 364 | ||||||
Already is here, so.....i have no problems with it
This is just so idiotic it hurts my brain. And I find your definition of the word "wrong" not only narrow minded but more than a little ignorant. Evaluate your personal life choices and ask yourself how many of them others would call "wrong in every sense of the word". What is wrong about two people choosing to share their life with eachother? Seriously, why DO you care? And before anyone just pegs me as defending my own lifestyle, I'll add that I am straight, however that shouldn't affect the validity of my arguement in the slightest.Ether151 wrote:
So like =TFF=Omen_Natas said does this mean people should have the right to marrie or have a civil union with dogs and/or farm animals? And the government or Legal Institution or what ever you want to call it is by no means blind so why should we close our eyes for them? Fuck no we shouldn't it wrong in every sense of the word.puckmercury wrote:
what is the only thing that makes a marriage legal? Going to the courthouse. As the US was founded on a seperation of church and state, this solidifies that marriage is a LEGAL institution. There is a religious ceremony that frequently accompanies it, but that means nothing insofar as the marriage itself is concerned from a position of the state. You want to keep them out of the church? That's fine, it's your church do be as judgemental and hypocritical as you please. Marriage as a legal institution should be blind to any such notion as homosexuality.
Only if the 2 chicks are hot. No hogs getting hitched, it's gross....
Lets refrain from using inflammatory language, or this thread is going to go downhill very fast.-=CB=-krazykarl wrote:
it IS a choice, so if you are raised by fags or dykes you might think it is normal. therefore doing harm to a third party.GermanLegionaire wrote:
bullshit.heman6666 wrote:
maybe get married but not have a kid. then they only create another gay and he creates another gay and he craetes another gay ond so on. at last they have conquered the world amd kills all woman and only gays are allowed to live. then the human rase is gone AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
i go hang myself now
if two gay men or two lesbian women get married, do they do any harm to any third person? no, they don't so let
them get married. what about kids without parents, do you think it is better that they get not adopted or by a homosexual couple? you don't become a gay, only because you hang around with gays. you are born gay or not,
but every single human is created by the lord. so do you think he might love someone more than any other?
sry for bad spelling.
Secondly, there is no evidence to show that gay/lesbian parents have any adverse effects on the children in their care.
http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
Third that. The church is a private institition, like the boy scouts. They can tell gays they can't get married all they wish. What they should not do, and we as a society cannot allow them to do, is dictate to the government who can and can't get married. If we allow religious institutions to decide who is legally allowed to get married, we are essentially giving them a power they should not have.Havazn wrote:
Second that. We are talking about church and state here. In terms of legality and all benefits that come with it through the state, same-sex marriage should be given all the same rights. If the church where the ceremony is held does not want to host it, that is their perogative. But legal rights should equal ALL partnerships. This is not a debate about whether or not homosexuality is 'ok' or notpuckmercury wrote:
what is the only thing that makes a marriage legal? Going to the courthouse. As the US was founded on a seperation of church and state, this solidifies that marriage is a LEGAL institution. There is a religious ceremony that frequently accompanies it, but that means nothing insofar as the marriage itself is concerned from a position of the state. You want to keep them out of the church? That's fine, it's your church do be as judgemental and hypocritical as you please. Marriage as a legal institution should be blind to any such notion as homosexuality.
It would be a different story if there was any reason other than religion that gays/lesbians should not be married. People have raised the issue of child rearing quite often, but as the APA demostrates that is not an issue. To date, there is no solid reason to prevent gays from getting married.
I personally think that the government should have no say in whether or not gays, or anyone else for that matter, should be married. Matrimony by definition is a religious topic, and (at least in the US) freedom of religion is guaranteed. If a certain religion wishes to ban the practice, that's their decision. Let people do what they want.
EDIT: I'm a moron who didn't read the post above this. Basically, I agree.
EDIT: I'm a moron who didn't read the post above this. Basically, I agree.
Last edited by RedTwizzler (2006-07-14 12:38:52)
It is just wrong any way you put it. The last thing I want to do is raise my children in a society where it is "ok" for gay marriage or any same sex unions. It is not what nature intended and it's unnatural!
So, I think "marriage" has generally, until fairly recently, been considered a church-sanctioned event. States have codified "marriage" to ensure that they can tax and count heads correctly. Also, the state-sanctioned "event" is really a legally binding business contract, not a "holy union." In other words, everyone who is "married" has had a civil union (state-sanctioned business contract) and many have been blessed by some religious figure.
I think that properly defining the terms is much better than continuing the confusion...so, I submit the following definitions:
- Civil union: the legally binding business contract sanctioned by the state, recognizing that two people have become one household
- Marriage: the religious ceremony conferred on two individuals wishing to join "as the same flesh"
How this helps the discussion? Well, as long as the state blesses it, you can marry a damn goat for all I care...it's just a business contract regarding the division of property and progeny. A marriage is a religious event that requires that some church, somewhere approves, conducts, and recognizes.
Now, you can be gay and have a civil union and a marriage depending on the views of a given religion. If you don't want a religious component, you get a civil union, regardless of the constituents. If you DO want a traditional "marriage," you have one sanctioned by the church and still get the legal contract required by the state.
Let's end the debate concerning "marriage" and recognize that it's a loaded term. Also let's recognize that state-sanctioned unions aren't "marriages" per se but rather simple business contracts...
I think that properly defining the terms is much better than continuing the confusion...so, I submit the following definitions:
- Civil union: the legally binding business contract sanctioned by the state, recognizing that two people have become one household
- Marriage: the religious ceremony conferred on two individuals wishing to join "as the same flesh"
How this helps the discussion? Well, as long as the state blesses it, you can marry a damn goat for all I care...it's just a business contract regarding the division of property and progeny. A marriage is a religious event that requires that some church, somewhere approves, conducts, and recognizes.
Now, you can be gay and have a civil union and a marriage depending on the views of a given religion. If you don't want a religious component, you get a civil union, regardless of the constituents. If you DO want a traditional "marriage," you have one sanctioned by the church and still get the legal contract required by the state.
Let's end the debate concerning "marriage" and recognize that it's a loaded term. Also let's recognize that state-sanctioned unions aren't "marriages" per se but rather simple business contracts...
your arguement seems to contradict itself. Should people do as they please and get married, or should people do as they please and ban it? Matrimony by definition is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life, or the state of being married ... which isn't very helpful. That's like saying a computer is something that computes. But anyway, I agree that religions should be free to do as they please within themselves, but not impose that on those outside their own religion in aspects of the state ... so I'm not really sure if I agree with you or not ....RedTwizzler wrote:
I personally think that the government should have no say in whether or not gays, or anyone else for that matter, should be married. Matrimony by definition is a religious topic, and (at least in the US) freedom of religion is guaranteed. If a certain religion wishes to ban the practice, that's their decision. Let people do what they want.
Alright, so who intended it if not nature? Man? Man is a product of nature, nothing more. Since we ARE that product, we tend to put overdue emphasis on our "sophistication". I propose that homosexuality is a very effective means of controlling a population with no natural preditors, and there is not a thing wrong with it as it serves a very necessary role. Be happy, that's really all you can hope to do in life. Who are you to deprive someone else of that? It's in our constitution here in the US, pursuit of life liberty and happiness. The only stipulation that your choices don't encroach on the same pursuits of others. Before you go totally ignorant and say, "Being gay makes me unhappy so it encroaches on me." Who's problem is it that it makes you unhappy? Are you really so small minded as to let some arbitrary choice of a total stranger with no impact on your life affect your happiness? They aren't forcing you to be gay. They aren't forcing you to know them. There isn't a second-hand gay cloud that you breath in causing you to want to swallow a penis. If you have a problem with it, ignore it.King_Vegeta wrote:
It is just wrong any way you put it. The last thing I want to do is raise my children in a society where it is "ok" for gay marriage or any same sex unions. It is not what nature intended and it's unnatural!
Last edited by puckmercury (2006-07-14 12:46:50)
'wrong' is a matter of personal morality, not universal truth. I could just as easily say that sex for any purpose other than procreation is 'wrong' and 'not what nature intended/unnatural', but that would just be a load of crap, wouldn't it.King_Vegeta wrote:
It is just wrong any way you put it. The last thing I want to do is raise my children in a society where it is "ok" for gay marriage or any same sex unions. It is not what nature intended and it's unnatural!
This can be simply solved, live and let live@ WHY the fuck does one person give a damn! I tell you this if you look at it, poeple being gay helps all you ugly people find a woman that looks half way decent. IF they weren;t then you all be alone, or with a beast!.puckmercury wrote:
your arguement seems to contradict itself. Should people do as they please and get married, or should people do as they please and ban it? Matrimony by definition is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life, or the state of being married ... which isn't very helpful. That's like saying a computer is something that computes. But anyway, I agree that religions should be free to do as they please within themselves, but not impose that on those outside their own religion in aspects of the state ... so I'm not really sure if I agree with you or not ....RedTwizzler wrote:
I personally think that the government should have no say in whether or not gays, or anyone else for that matter, should be married. Matrimony by definition is a religious topic, and (at least in the US) freedom of religion is guaranteed. If a certain religion wishes to ban the practice, that's their decision. Let people do what they want.
JEbus people! Why would you give a flying fuck! Inless the idea of gay marriges, makes it harder for you to stay straight, un no it might turn the world gay! Lol, if two people love each other then there is nothing wrong with them uniting for a life time! Who the fack is anyone to tell another person that their happiness doesn't fit in society, and they cant get married becuase their gay.
LIVE AND LET LIVE LIVE AND LET LIVE
I could copy and paste the same argument I've used in countless other threads, but I believe this will catch more attention:
And for a bit of dictionary fun:
de·vi·a·tion
n.
Deviant behavior or attitudes.
de·vi·ant
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
And for a bit of dictionary fun:
de·vi·a·tion
n.
Deviant behavior or attitudes.
de·vi·ant
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
Hey, thanks. That accomplishes absolutely nothing. Pretty picture and all. The accepted standards of society are rather a topic of debate. And for that matter, the accepted standards of society aren't legeslation, just what the masses have collectively pooled their ignorance to come up with because they fear what they don't understand. For that matter, isn't deviation a good thing? If everything is the same, there's no variety, and without variety there's nothing to contrast against. Using the definition and implied negativity you so eloquently provided, we could say that asians in the US are deviants and bad. Now, by definition, they ARE deviants here in the US, but that isn't a bad thing. Not being homogenous is a GOOD thing. In fact, it is what drives the world.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I could copy and paste the same argument I've used in countless other threads, but I believe this will catch more attention:
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~hobd826 … dHorse.gif
And for a bit of dictionary fun:
de·vi·a·tion
n.
Deviant behavior or attitudes.
de·vi·ant
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
NOO!
That's just...wrong.
That's just...wrong.
If a guy goes around annoying people by screaming or or something, most people agree it shouldn't be tolerated. And if a guy is just sitting at the street shitting (say in a bag, so he's not actually making the environment dirty or anything) it wouldn't and shouldn't imo be tolerated either. And if two people cuddles (or whatever you'll call it) it also impacts the society around them.. However, since it's quite tolerated with discrete cuddling, it should of course be for both sexes. the animalargument ("Then it should also be allright w discrete cuddling for man and horse") is absurd, cause we have as in human rights and so on drawed a line between humans and other species, no reason this line shouldn't be here too? And as for the guy who can't explain this to his son; try explaining how he was made, thats also hard:D. However, I agree with Colfax;
Apart from that, I think a lot of things can be interpreted differently in the Bible so the church should use sound reason ( or w its called) to the benefit of society. Also, allthough the gay-thing would be (for some time anyway) a subject to bother the kids at school, many gay people are a lot more fit to be parents than many straight people, I think it should be judged individually at first, and when it becomes more usual, it should be the same as for straights.
I mean, the problem is when people act in a conform way to be a part of the "gay group" by being intimate towards other strangers or be feminine when it is not really in their nature to be.Colfax wrote:
Will and Grace is a n easy example most people have seen it. Will would be fine in my eyes. But the way Jack acts i wouldn't want to be around him. Sry if this pisses some one off. If your a man act like a man. If your a gay man act like a man that's gay.
Apart from that, I think a lot of things can be interpreted differently in the Bible so the church should use sound reason ( or w its called) to the benefit of society. Also, allthough the gay-thing would be (for some time anyway) a subject to bother the kids at school, many gay people are a lot more fit to be parents than many straight people, I think it should be judged individually at first, and when it becomes more usual, it should be the same as for straights.
How bout this....xGBlitzkrieg wrote:
Who the fack is anyone to tell another person that their happiness doesn't fit in society, and they cant get married becuase their gay.
Who the fack is anyone to tell another person that their happiness doesn't fit in society, and they cant get married becuase they're ______.
a.) Related by blood.
b.) More than 2 people trying to get married.
c.) One person is a minor.
d.) One party is not a human.
So by that logic, my disapproval of any of the above choices also makes me an intlorant hate monger.
At what point is society allowed to say enough is enough?
a) its harmful for the persons, (same as rules against drugs) but more imp the descendants will not be able to function and contribute to societyErkut.hv wrote:
How bout this....xGBlitzkrieg wrote:
Who the fack is anyone to tell another person that their happiness doesn't fit in society, and they cant get married becuase their gay.
Who the fack is anyone to tell another person that their happiness doesn't fit in society, and they cant get married becuase they're ______.
a.) Related by blood.
b.) More than 2 people trying to get married.
c.) One person is a minor.
d.) One party is not a human.
So by that logic, my disapproval of any of the above choices also makes me an intlorant hate monger.
At what point is society allowed to say enough is enough?
b) most tricky one, I agree. don't know if I'm against it
c) the minor person isn't in a position to judge what is her/his own best
d) same as c and a
Last edited by WinstontheWolf (2006-07-14 13:51:00)
C and A? Sex with kittens? KITTY PORN!WinstontheWolf wrote:
a) its harmful for the persons, (same as rules against drugs) but more imp the descendants will not be able to function and contribute to societyErkut.hv wrote:
How bout this....xGBlitzkrieg wrote:
Who the fack is anyone to tell another person that their happiness doesn't fit in society, and they cant get married becuase their gay.
Who the fack is anyone to tell another person that their happiness doesn't fit in society, and they cant get married becuase they're ______.
a.) Related by blood.
b.) More than 2 people trying to get married.
c.) One person is a minor.
d.) One party is not a human.
So by that logic, my disapproval of any of the above choices also makes me an intlorant hate monger.
At what point is society allowed to say enough is enough?
b) most tricky one, I agree. don't know if I'm against it
c) the minor person isn't in a position to judge what is her/his own best
d) same as c and a
I agree though 100%
Many people conform to groups to fit in, whether it be for acceptance or popularity. Whether it is in their 'nature' is hardly for any another person to decide for them.WinstontheWolf wrote:
I mean, the problem is when people act in a conform way to be a part of the "gay group" by being intimate towards other strangers or be feminine when it is not really in their nature to be.
a.) Because of birth defects from inbreeding.Erkut.hv wrote:
How bout this....xGBlitzkrieg wrote:
Who the fack is anyone to tell another person that their happiness doesn't fit in society, and they cant get married becuase their gay.
Who the fack is anyone to tell another person that their happiness doesn't fit in society, and they cant get married becuase they're ______.
a.) Related by blood.
b.) More than 2 people trying to get married.
c.) One person is a minor.
d.) One party is not a human.
So by that logic, my disapproval of any of the above choices also makes me an intlorant hate monger.
At what point is society allowed to say enough is enough?
b.) I have no problem with this as long as the marriages aren't forced or arranged, and if they produce large numbers of offspring, they must be financially able to take care of them; having children is a responsibility, not a right. Look at where I'm from. This is a hot topic here.
c.)Because most minors lack the mental development and life experience to make this choice. It is the same reason that we don't allow them to enter into contracts, or other legally binding situations.
d.) Quit bringing up this stupid as argument. It has no merit and is a desperate attempt to make an argument when all other arguments have failed to have merit.
No, it's just that your argument against gay unions have no merit. They are comprised of two consenting, adult HUMANS that have a committed relationship that deserves the same legal recognition as any other consenting adult relationship. The thing I find most odd is that everyone that opposed gays did so because they said they were so promiscuous. Now they are fighting for the right to have legally recognized, committed relationships, and the argument changes again.
Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2006-07-14 14:01:00)
WHY DO I CARE BECAUSE I have a little boy I dont want him see this or being exposed to any of this. There may be some that are ok with this but i am not it is WRONG. Humans as species are not designed for this, we are specificaly made for man and woman. And there is nothing worng with two people sharing there life together but two guys or two girls sharing an intimate relationship and there live is worng. It is ethical and moraly wrong. You obviously don't have kids of your own and if you do I feel sorry for them. So your saying that if your son or daughter grew up and was gay simply for the fact that she was infulenced by what she was around and exposed to, you wouldn't be the lease bit mad. Im not saying that you shouldn't love your child Im not saying that at all, if my son grew up and was gay I wouldn't love him any less, but if I know there was something I could do to stop that your damn right I would do everything in my power to do so. And Im glad I made your brain hurt i hope it causes you to stroke out and die. And I am not narrow minded or ignorant at all but in this case and this situation I guess i am. and your more than intitled to your own opinion just as i am intitled to mine i don't realy care what you say about me you mean nothing to me.puckmercury wrote:
This is just so idiotic it hurts my brain. And I find your definition of the word "wrong" not only narrow minded but more than a little ignorant. Evaluate your personal life choices and ask yourself how many of them others would call "wrong in every sense of the word". What is wrong about two people choosing to share their life with eachother? Seriously, why DO you care? And before anyone just pegs me as defending my own lifestyle, I'll add that I am straight, however that shouldn't affect the validity of my arguement in the slightest.Ether151 wrote:
So like =TFF=Omen_Natas said does this mean people should have the right to marrie or have a civil union with dogs and/or farm animals? And the government or Legal Institution or what ever you want to call it is by no means blind so why should we close our eyes for them? Fuck no we shouldn't it wrong in every sense of the word.puckmercury wrote:
what is the only thing that makes a marriage legal? Going to the courthouse. As the US was founded on a seperation of church and state, this solidifies that marriage is a LEGAL institution. There is a religious ceremony that frequently accompanies it, but that means nothing insofar as the marriage itself is concerned from a position of the state. You want to keep them out of the church? That's fine, it's your church do be as judgemental and hypocritical as you please. Marriage as a legal institution should be blind to any such notion as homosexuality.
Personal opinions about the matter aside, the fact still remains that a pretty big majority of people are being swayed via religious and personal opinions to vote against bringing a minority group into an equal legal standing with heterosexual couples in the eyes of the State.
Denying people civil rights? How much more un-American can you get? It's like we are living the 1960's all over again...
Denying people civil rights? How much more un-American can you get? It's like we are living the 1960's all over again...
So whats next equal right for illegal imigrants, that make it over here. And there not equal there gay call me ignorant or closed minded or what ever you will there are to many people in this country that total disagree. they spread Aids and other stds faster than streight people and that is a proven fact. And all this talk about civil right i don't remeber the constitution saying anything about unions of any kind of person streight or gay.Marconius wrote:
Personal opinions about the matter aside, the fact still remains that a pretty big majority of people are being swayed via religious and personal opinions to vote against bringing a minority group into an equal legal standing with heterosexual couples in the eyes of the State.
Denying people civil rights? How much more un-American can you get? It's like we are living the 1960's all over again...
Wow. Ok, first of all, both marraige and civil unions are man made. Nature doesn't create marraiges or civil unions. And why would it be wrong for one person to be united with another person for tax purposes, right of survivorship purposes, insurablity, etc? People should be able to enter into a contract for these purposes with anyone they want to. It's not wrong for one person to appoint another person as their primary survivor, partner for tax purposes, etc. regardless of sex.King_Vegeta wrote:
It is just wrong any way you put it. The last thing I want to do is raise my children in a society where it is "ok" for gay marriage or any same sex unions. It is not what nature intended and it's unnatural!
By the way KV, a same sex union could be you and I going into business together (assuming you are a man). You mean a civil union.
It's been posted about a hundred times in this thread, but apparently some fo the slow minded here don't understand so I'll repeat it. Marriage is an institution of the Church, and the Church can do whatever it pleases. If they want to marry men and women, men and men, women and women and recognize that as respects their religion then go for it.
Also KV, did nature intend for us to be able to fly? It sure didn't give us wings. Did nature intend for us to be able to eradicate polio? Nature made polio, and polio kills people. Nature sure didn't invent polio vaccine, a man named Jonas Salk did.
Stop watching so much Dragon Ball and expand your horizons a little.
In response to D: where is your merit to say this doesn't have merit as an argumnet. If they want to commit themselfs to each other fine that great, but that doesnt give them the right to marrage. And my argumnet hasn't changed they are promiscuous, and they can be commited just not leagaly they dont deserve that.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
a.) Because of birth defects from inbreeding.Erkut.hv wrote:
How bout this....xGBlitzkrieg wrote:
Who the fack is anyone to tell another person that their happiness doesn't fit in society, and they cant get married becuase their gay.
Who the fack is anyone to tell another person that their happiness doesn't fit in society, and they cant get married becuase they're ______.
a.) Related by blood.
b.) More than 2 people trying to get married.
c.) One person is a minor.
d.) One party is not a human.
So by that logic, my disapproval of any of the above choices also makes me an intlorant hate monger.
At what point is society allowed to say enough is enough?
b.) I have no problem with this as long as the marriages aren't forced or arranged, and if they produce large numbers of offspring, they must be financially able to take care of them; having children is a responsibility, not a right. Look at where I'm from. This is a hot topic here.
c.)Because most minors lack the mental development and life experience to make this choice. It is the same reason that we don't allow them to enter into contracts, or other legally binding situations.
d.) Quit bringing up this stupid as argument. It has no merit and is a desperate attempt to make an argument when all other arguments have failed to have merit.
No, it's just that your argument against gay unions have no merit. They are comprised of two consenting, adult HUMANS that have a committed relationship that deserves the same legal recognition as any other consenting adult relationship. The thing I find most odd is that everyone that opposed gays did so because they said they were so promiscuous. Now they are fighting for the right to have legally recognized, committed relationships, and the argument changes again.