BF2S Forums Gay marriage?

Putting aside what it would be called, you people be willing to afford gay partners the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples?

I know I would.



Mcminty.

TeamZephyr wrote:

Gay couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual ones, if we truly live in a liberal democratic and equal society we should legislate that homosexuals be able to marry.

It is not normal ! They are F*%king sick people . Do you want to see your future children ( if you don't have still now ) will see this retards are kissing in the street or walking together ? NO ! I say keep them away from my relatieves and friends .

p/s I'm not liberal , I'm conservative . And this shit that you all claim  "democracy"  is far far away from real , anshient Greek democracy . Can democracy exist in the age of state-monopolish capitalism ? No , it cannot .

Last edited by Longbow (2006-07-15 07:51:33)

Sgt.Davi wrote:

I have no problem with homosexuality and lesbian....ism...




What I do not approve of is brazen homosexualtiy, wherin people broadcast the message that homosexuality is natural. Especially amongst kids.

Can somebody tell me how the human race could continue if homosexuality is natural?

As for gay adoption, fine, just explain the concept of sex early....

Homosexuality IS natural. Though I would consider it, from the species survival point of view (and survival of the species is what it's all about), to be a "flaw". Nature is full of flaws, if it wasn't we wouldn't be here discussing this because then there would never have been any errors copying DNA and evolution never would have happened. In a primitive human society that walks the very thin line between survival and extinction homosexuality is certainly undesirable, since the group works toward acquiring just enough food to stop every1 from starving and have just enough energy to mate and produce offspring to ensure continued existence of the group. Homosexuals on the other hand just consume food but by humping the same sex they produce no offspring and are thus wasting valuable resources.

Mankind has come a long way from this level of society however, and it is no longer necessary for us to "expel" homosexuals from the "group" to ensure the group's survival. Perhaps the rampant homophobic attitudes amongst people are partly due to a defense mechanism baked into our primal behaviour to help ensure the group's survival. I think it is clear however, that humans nowadays have a strong sense of will which they can use to counter and suppress these primitive underlying motivations, if we hadn't we'd still be bashing each other's heads with sticks to pass the time in the cave. People born with a handicap (and therefore also "flawed") don't get expelled from the group today either because we can afford to support them. In the same basic society mentioned before, they would have been cast out of the group and left to die simply because they are too weak.

I must admit that I have some minor homophobic tendencies as the thought of two men having sex kind of disgusts me (two women together can be quite nice - although 90% of the lesbians I've seen weren't exactly all that hot), but I try not to treat a homosexual any different because of my own personal dislikes. After all, I find brussel sprouts to be disgusting too, but I don't go shitting on some1 because that particular person does like them.

Last edited by Rosse_modest (2006-07-15 10:23:55)

bigp66 wrote:

i bet your a  gay

Who am I to tell you how to waste your money?

By all means, bet away...

Last edited by Rosse_modest (2006-07-15 10:25:55)

well so far I have only seen one individual with an intelligent opposition to the subject, and even then it was acquiesced that it was largely based in personal belief and opinion.  I find it more than a little pathetic that one reasonably individual is all the opposition can muster.  Seems like this debate is more than won.

puckmercury wrote:

well so far I have only seen one individual with an intelligent opposition to the subject, and even then it was acquiesced that it was largely based in personal belief and opinion.  I find it more than a little pathetic that one reasonably individual is all the opposition can muster.  Seems like this debate is more than won.

It is won, since no one who opposes the actual legality of a civil union with the rights of marriage can post anything to support their position. All we are hearing now is who thinks homosexuality is fundamentally natural or not.

On that note:

oug wrote:

Forgive me for not reading through 6 pages of talk about fags... I got 1 question: Would you go through the same dillema if two cancer patients asked to be married?
Point is, homosexuality is just a form of gene disease. Wanna get married? Go ahead. Just don't have kids.

Cancer, if genetic, will still get passed on even before someone gets diagnosed. Does that mean NO ONE should have children if its even remotely possible the genetic disorder would be carried on? I personally dont think so. Just because something can happen, doesn't mean it will. And to take a step as far as saying no one should reproduce based on an 'if' is too far.

ImmortalTechnique wrote:

SiMSaM16 wrote:

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays should not get married.

I love how this is the ONLY reason against it presented, it is barely a reason.

If you were smart you would see the economic downfalls of letting homosexuals have marriage rights, but I wont delve into that.

Frankly when you weigh everything together, its clear it should be allowed, simply a natural progression of the human race towards equality.

Alright, I'll bite.  What are the economic downfalls of homosexuals getting married.  I'm truly intrigued here.

I see that as an economic upshot, not a downfall.  What am I missing?

TeamZephyr wrote:

Gay couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual ones, if we truly live in a liberal democratic and equal society we should legislate that homosexuals be able to marry.

It's not that simple. If it was anything would be legal marriage. You should be able to marry your dog or a brother and sister should be able to marry. See where I'm going with this?

Like it or not, the majority of the U.S. is Christian and as long as that's the case... no marriage for gays.
I don't really care because it wouldn't change my life in any way.
It is a bit sickening to think Bob and Jim could have what I have with my wife... ewe bumping uglies!!!

On a serious note... I do not think it's wrong for gays to adopt children. Most of the kids being adopted have a difficult life and some real love from whoever has it to share is great.
But studies show that influence from both a father and a mother is better for the well being of a child.

Please don't get me wrong I do not agree with gay marriage. I'd go for the union thing... it's just that people associate marriage with a man and a woman. It's how it always has been and how it should stay.
Nothing against the gays. Just some things should be left the way they are.

puckmercury wrote:

erm, that tired old argument of "Well if we allow this, I should be allowed to marry my turnip plant, my brother, my sister's dog, and my sister too" was brought up previously and saw a similar flop as your attempt to raise it does.

I agree that in an ideal world that a child benefits from having both a positive male and a positive female role model.  However, that being said - as you pointed out, the life of being adopted by a gay couple is usually better than the life the orphan would have seen otherwise.  And in that case, the parents must demonstrate an overwhelming desire and perceived competence in parenting, which is not at all necessary for a heterosexual couple to accidentally have a child they will spend the rest of their life resenting.

+1 though for posing a generally intelligent opposition w/o getting into name calling and juvinility in general.

I raise you the +1 for good debate.

Well, I don't think it's a tired old argument. Think about it. If gay people get what they want based on the constitution and our rights as U.S. citizens, why can't I use the same argument for the rusty old bicycle I'm in love with? There is no difference in the argument (except gays are actually people!)

So, If I'm wrong... that means marriage is only for men and women and gays. Who makes that rule? What about me and my freedom to marry the old rusty bicycle? Old rusty bicycle lovers unite!!! we must have a rusty bicycle rights walk.

I'm being sarcastic but I'm trying to make a point. If a law is changed due to an uprising of gay folks, where would it stop? Do gay people think incest is wrong? (generally speaking) yes... they probably do just like Christians think being gay is wrong.
If we start changing laws to make certain groups happy, who knows what strange things we'll hear in the future news!!! Like brothers and sisters wanting to get married.
It's not that far fetched.


I was not arguing the point about gays and raising children. I think it's a good thing.

Last edited by spacebandit72 (2006-07-16 00:30:36)

both the incest and beastiality illegalities have a basis in basic health.  Most namely incest, ask any royal family member what happens when you don't spread out the gene pool.  They rarely do, hemophilia anyone?  That's just to name one arguement.  While I see where you are going with the "slippery slope" approach, I don't feel it applies here as we are speaking about rights granted a group of people rather than a specific right based upon circumstance.

EDIT:

spacebandit72 wrote:

There is no difference in the argument (except gays are actually people!)

Well, that's rather the point, now isn't it??

Last edited by puckmercury (2006-07-16 00:51:07)