Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
No, we cannot make muslims call allah god, but we can certainly refer to allah as god.
Also, excuse my late edit, but in this case they also banned civil unions, so this discussion is irrelevant here.
There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.No, we cannot make muslims call allah god, but we can certainly refer to allah as god.
Also, excuse my late edit, but in this case they also banned civil unions, so this discussion is irrelevant here.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.
There are tons of things that human beings do which are "against nature". I don't go over and kill my neighbor, because I like his car better. Some people eat only plants, when we are decidedly omnivores with a bias toward meat. Being capable of higher thought and reasoning are what gives us the ability to conquer our animal or instinctive natures.There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.
Edit - Homosexuality is a natural occurence. Monogamous relationships in humans are not natural.
Originally Posted by Whacker:
There are tons of things that human beings do which are "against nature". I don't go over and kill my neighbor, because I like his car better. Some people eat only plants, when we are decidedly omnivores with a bias toward meat. Being capable of higher thought and reasoning are what gives us the ability to conquer our animal or instinctive natures.
But would you kiss a man, beard ad beard. I am still undecided about Jeremy Irons, but would you. It is a bit of a difference noThere are tons of things that human beings do which are "against nature". I don't go over and kill my neighbor, because I like his car better. Some people eat only plants, when we are decidedly omnivores with a bias toward meat. Being capable of higher thought and reasoning are what gives us the ability to conquer our animal or instinctive natures.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
But would you kiss a man, beard ad beard. I am still undecided about Jeremy Irons, but would you. It is a bit of a difference no
Me? No, I'm 100% comfortable that I'm heterosexual. I can certainly look at other men and say, "That's one attractive dude.", without having any sexual feelings toward them. Since gay men do feel that way, there really isn't any difference between you or I eyeballing Scarlett Johannsen and having a strong urge to do the motorboat.But would you kiss a man, beard ad beard. I am still undecided about Jeremy Irons, but would you. It is a bit of a difference no
Originally Posted by Fragony:
There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.
And marriage defeats that purpose totally, since we should procreate like rabbits with any female that is willing and even if she is unwilling. Limiting ourselves to one woman and having actually to take care of the child is against our nature. (from male point of view exclusively)There perhaps are of now and I find it pretty damned rediculous. But the discussion is certainly not irrelevant. One could go as far as calling it denying nature allowing same-sex marriage as we are specifically build with a single purpose.
If we look to our closest living relatives, ie. apes we should live in small group, have an alpha who's the leader and has sex with all the females. Not a bad idea but when I tried it, someone called the police.
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
If we look to our closest living relatives, ie. apes we should live in small group, have an alpha who's the leader and has sex with all the females. Not a bad idea but when I tried it, someone called the police.
You gotta make a thread. Please share.If we look to our closest living relatives, ie. apes we should live in small group, have an alpha who's the leader and has sex with all the females. Not a bad idea but when I tried it, someone called the police.
Wait...It doesn't involve sex with apes, does it?
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
You gotta make a thread. Please share.
Wait...It doesn't involve sex with apes, does it?
What, you mean you haven't tried it?You gotta make a thread. Please share.
Wait...It doesn't involve sex with apes, does it?
It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?
Hooray! They, and 31 other states had the courage to defend the special relationship between 1 man and and 1 woman. The fact is that this issue is a distraction and is not inevitable. I hope that the presiden finally comes out in favor of this nonsense, as he has always been in practice, and drawns the line clearly in the sand prior to November.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
Hooray! They, and 31 other states had the courage to defend the special relationship between 1 man and and 1 woman. The fact is that this issue is a distraction and is not inevitable. I hope that the presiden finally comes out in favor of this nonsense, as he has always been in practice, and drawns the line clearly in the sand prior to November.
He's afraid of Black people. That's why he won't openly support it.Hooray! They, and 31 other states had the courage to defend the special relationship between 1 man and and 1 woman. The fact is that this issue is a distraction and is not inevitable. I hope that the presiden finally comes out in favor of this nonsense, as he has always been in practice, and drawns the line clearly in the sand prior to November.
I feel that LGBT people should have equal rights as any other person. The state must recognise their marriage in the same way it does that of a heterosexual couple. I have nothing against them. I confess I probably wouldn't be comfortable around them, but that's just me, and that's my own problem. Nothing justifies causing them distress just because someone else is uncomfortable about how they live their life, as long as they're not actively causing anyone harm.
As far as a child is concerned, they should have the right, but....the child will be affected by their actions and he/she will grow up in a society where there'll always be some people who'll view gays with distaste.
So no matter how lovingly the couple raises their child, others perceiving the gay couple differently (however wrong this notion is) will have a negative effect on the kid.
Something which would not have happened had a heterosexual couple adopted him/her.
Obviously this does not mean that I am against LGBT people adopting, because that would just be incorrect, but then why should a child be exposed to any kind of bitterness when it can be avoided?
TBH I've never been able to decide where I stand on this issue.
As far as a child is concerned, they should have the right, but....the child will be affected by their actions and he/she will grow up in a society where there'll always be some people who'll view gays with distaste.
So no matter how lovingly the couple raises their child, others perceiving the gay couple differently (however wrong this notion is) will have a negative effect on the kid.
Something which would not have happened had a heterosexual couple adopted him/her.
Obviously this does not mean that I am against LGBT people adopting, because that would just be incorrect, but then why should a child be exposed to any kind of bitterness when it can be avoided?
TBH I've never been able to decide where I stand on this issue.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children.
Me too.It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children.
Originally Posted by :
Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?
Well, I think it's more a matter of micromanagement. Should we test heterosexual couples to make sure they're fertile before they can marry? Should we allow a homosexual couple to marry if one of the two will have a biological child? What if a sterile couple adopts? Can they then marry? Can they marry ahead of time? I'm sure it seemed rather simpler to just say man and woman, assuming that such a couple can generally conceive.Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?
Originally Posted by Sarmatian:
Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.
Really, I think all of this is a sideshow. Why is it relevant what culture x did in year y? Certainly in the US, state marriage has been defined as a union between one man and one woman. Some people want to change that. That's what the whole debate is about. It's not about love, it's not about rights. Therefore, Christian concept of marriage isn't, and wasn't at any point in history, universally applied. It is not even applied fully in the Christian states. Christian dogma doesn't allow divorce, except in a few very strict circumstances while the legal concept of the divorce is different, more liberal.
Will my life or marriage change significantly if marriage laws are changed? No, not really. But that in itself isn't a reason to become a pro-gay marriage activist.
I don't understand how giving two consenting adults the same benefits and authority as two other adults will irrevociably harm society.
If you want to keep the word marraige implicitly relgious I have no problem with changing the name to union.
I also don't understand the child arguement. Plenty of people have children whom should not. The fact that a man and woman can procreate does not mean they should. I don't think you should get benefits soley based on being able to perfrom a biological function
If you want to keep the word marraige implicitly relgious I have no problem with changing the name to union.
I also don't understand the child arguement. Plenty of people have children whom should not. The fact that a man and woman can procreate does not mean they should. I don't think you should get benefits soley based on being able to perfrom a biological function
Originally Posted by :
What a joke. Where do you get your morality from? If you say "it comes from within" with a straight face I will start laughing and might not be able to stop.People are not entitled to recognition from others. If individuals would like to make the case that end of life visiting rules are draconian or that tax benefits for married people unfairly impact others, i will listen and may be inclined to agree, but saying that a gay relationship is the same as a marriage is a joke and it becomes more absurd the harder you push it.
It's people like you whom give Christians a bad name. Your faith comes from a dark place in your soul. I am willing to chalk that up to you being a papist, beholden to your king in Rome, with all his pomp. What a joke. Where do you get your morality from? If you say "it comes from within" with a straight face I will start laughing and might not be able to stop.People are not entitled to recognition from others. If individuals would like to make the case that end of life visiting rules are draconian or that tax benefits for married people unfairly impact others, i will listen and may be inclined to agree, but saying that a gay relationship is the same as a marriage is a joke and it becomes more absurd the harder you push it.
Or you could just be a depressed ass.
Plenty of posters have come out against this rationaly. You on the other hand continue you to try to merge your nhilism with your catholicism claiming the latter validates the former.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Me too.
Well, I think it's more a matter of micromanagement. Should we test heterosexual couples to make sure they're fertile before they can marry? Should we allow a homosexual couple to marry if one of the two will have a biological child? What if a sterile couple adopts? Can they then marry? Can they marry ahead of time? I'm sure it seemed rather simpler to just say man and woman, assuming that such a couple can generally conceive.
If the relevant issue in the marriage debate is the ability to procreate and not religious tradition, shouldn't the fact that gay couples can now have children through various means be reason enough to extend the institution to such couples? If you do not want to micromanage fertility, then ability alone must be the deciding factor.Me too.
Well, I think it's more a matter of micromanagement. Should we test heterosexual couples to make sure they're fertile before they can marry? Should we allow a homosexual couple to marry if one of the two will have a biological child? What if a sterile couple adopts? Can they then marry? Can they marry ahead of time? I'm sure it seemed rather simpler to just say man and woman, assuming that such a couple can generally conceive.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?
Children is one aspect, but one would still need to regulate the relationship between the adults. Like who gets to pull the plug, for example.It makes sense to me for marriage to be restricted to relationships involving having children or potentially having children. Our marriage law and conception of marriage is pretty silly in that regard. But I don't see what the anti-gay marriage people have against people who adopt, or who use a sperm donor. PVC, exactly how different do you think that lesbian couple that you mentioned is from a man/woman couple? Why is it especially important that babies are created in the natural way that come from both parents? It would still be wrong for one of the mothers to ditch the other one and leave her to raise her kid herself wouldn't it?
And of course, there is no way to restrict babies to a lesbian, all we can do is decide whether to make it pleasant or force her to have a one-night stand with a male. As for gay men, quite a few come out of the closet after they've had children, and so they will have to care for children in their gay relationship.
Edit: also, epic lol @ the "morality can't exist without god"-argument above. Made my day, honest!
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO