It's quite hard to say yes, or no. Being gay isn't always personal preference, sometimes a male will think they're a female due to an unbalance of male hormones from the donor, or visa versa. I guess I'll just let the fighters (gays) fight the fight.
should gays have the right to marry? (homosexual marriage thread)
Started by
Guest_pixelatenein
, Mar 05 2007 07:09 AM
698 replies to this topic
#177
Guest_diesel girl
Guest_diesel girl
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 07:05 PM
if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry anyone gay 
#178
Guest_jaunton
Guest_jaunton
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 07:59 PM
never, never unless we all want to burn in hell for letting them.
#179
Guest_diesel girl
Guest_diesel girl
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 08:05 PM
But....hell is such a nice place! I'm so going to party with all the cool people down there.
#180
Ragamuffin
-
- Dragon's Sentinel
-
- 637 posts
Old Man Internet
Reputation: 232
Perfected
Posted 14 April 2007 - 08:07 PM
Oh you gotta be kidding me. Just because you believe in hell doesn't mean everyone else should have it shoved down their throats. (yes, pun intended)never, never unless we all want to burn in hell for letting them.
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny. -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
#181
Guest_Pirate1019
Guest_Pirate1019
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 08:15 PM
"I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse." --Isaac AsimovGays can marry if they want. I'm not gonna stop them. Just don't start talking to me about how cute or hot men are. I don't walk up to another person and start talking about how that lady across the street makes me hot down below.never, never unless we all want to burn in hell for letting them.
#182
Guest_kny16
Guest_kny16
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 09:14 PM
everybody have the right to be married, so does gay, but i dont think they should... the purpose of a marriage is to create a family and give birth to the next generation.. but if gays get married then how are they going to reproduce... -.-
#183
Guest_diesel girl
Guest_diesel girl
-
- Guest
Posted 14 April 2007 - 09:16 PM
Hmmm....something called adoption? I don't think reproduction is a requirement for marriage
#184
Guest_Cpt. Tsururu
Guest_Cpt. Tsururu
-
- Guest
Posted 15 May 2007 - 07:59 AM
this is a discussion and poll on whether or not you think gay marriage should be allowed. me? i think yes...does nobody have anything to say about gay marriage?
#185
Guest_de la Mar
Guest_de la Mar
-
- Guest
Posted 15 May 2007 - 11:51 AM
Yes, I think that they should be allowed. I mean, it's still love, is it not? I think that ANY kind of love should be allowed to recieve a union like marriage. 
Edited by de la Mar, 15 May 2007 - 11:52 AM.
#186
Guest_The cool ninja
Guest_The cool ninja
-
- Guest
Posted 15 May 2007 - 08:42 PM
I think it should be allowed because marriage is for people who really love each other so why not a man and man or womand and woman in stead of a man and woman. I don't see a problme or anything.
#187
Guest_Fomalhaut
Guest_Fomalhaut
-
- Guest
Posted 15 May 2007 - 08:45 PM
It's already legal over here, although it's not referred to as marriage.The only reason gay people can't get married in the US is because your government is scared that they will lose Christian voters if it goes through.Tony Blair, for all his idiocy, did the smart thing and said 'Yeah, I'm a Christian, but this isn't about religion; it's the right thing to do.'Now, you guys have Bush, who says 'It's not about religion...it's just that God told me to do it.'Do you think he can even spell contradiction?
#188
Guest_Balore
Guest_Balore
-
- Guest
Posted 15 May 2007 - 08:48 PM
Yes, they should be able to... but I'm not sure if it should be called marriage. Marriage is a religious thing and I'm not sure if Christians will ever accept gays, so they should think of something else to call it. I'm not really sure. Maybe just live together and be happy?
#189
Guest_Fomalhaut
Guest_Fomalhaut
-
- Guest
Posted 15 May 2007 - 08:49 PM
Mm. Over here we call it a Civil Partnership. Nobody seems to have a problem with it.Yes, they should be able to... but I'm not sure if it should be called marriage. Marriage is a religious thing and I'm not sure if Christians will ever accept gays, so they should think of something else to call it. I'm not really sure. Maybe just live together and be happy?
#190
Guest_nevfx
Guest_nevfx
-
- Guest
Posted 15 May 2007 - 08:54 PM
Yeah, we call it Civil Partneships. Same thing as marriage, in BASIC principral.(sp?)
#191
Silenced Gamer
-
- Member
-
- 399 posts
Winged Serpent
Reputation: 0
Neutral
Posted 16 May 2007 - 03:16 AM
Gays have the right to marriage. I mean, the only reason people are against it is mostly because "The bible says it's wrong". Sheesh, things change, these people need to get a life.Anyway, gay marriage should be allowed.
#192
Guest_dbzgtobsession
Guest_dbzgtobsession
-
- Guest
Posted 16 May 2007 - 03:50 AM
I agree. The reason gay marriage isn't supported is because of the Christians. To Christians, marriage is really sacred so it shouldn't be marred by gays, it demeans marriage. Well, what about the increasing divorce rate? How about the fact that it's just as easy to get divorced than to get married? I think in society marriage is already kind of marred by this, allowing gay marriage won't hurt it any more. But for the sake of politics, they probably shouldn't call it 'marriage'...Yes, they should be able to... but I'm not sure if it should be called marriage. Marriage is a religious thing and I'm not sure if Christians will ever accept gays, so they should think of something else to call it. I'm not really sure. Maybe just live together and be happy?
#193
Guest_kobre
Guest_kobre
-
- Guest
Posted 16 May 2007 - 04:12 AM
I do think gays and lesbians should be allowed for a civil union, which is kind of like marrige. No one has to be the right to be together just for their sexual preferences, and as to the fact that they can't have children because they're two men or two women... well there is adoption and artificial incimination as well. So there are ways gay women and men can make a family.I'm all for it.
#194
Guest_tjyaussi
Guest_tjyaussi
-
- Guest
Posted 16 May 2007 - 04:31 AM
I do not think gay couples should be eligable for marrigeBUTThey should be alowed domestic partnerships and same last names...Marrige is for famileys of mothers and fathers; men and womenThis is not a religous rooted opinionBut an opinion of good morals
Edited by tjyaussi, 16 May 2007 - 04:34 AM.
#195
Guest_lambers
Guest_lambers
-
- Guest
Posted 16 May 2007 - 07:23 AM
First I live in the US, and I feel this country is about personal freedom. Second there are rights that are recognized by government and given to married people (any religious issues aside.) If two people want to be recognized by the government as a couple their sex shouldn't play any issue, it is their personal freedom who they wish to marry in my opinion. I don't care what you call it, don't call it maririge (for whatever religous reasons, I'm not religious) but still allow these people the same rights as everyone else.
#196
Guest_Aaminah / ClauChan
Guest_Aaminah / ClauChan
-
- Guest
Posted 01 June 2007 - 04:37 AM
It definitely should be allowed! What makes gay people different from us? Their sexual tastes? That's crap! A gay man is just the same as a straight man, as much as a lesbian is the same as a straight woman: at the core, we're all human beings! So, they should be given equal rights.Just think in what you would feel case you were in their place: would you like being segregated just because you committed the “sin” of loving someone society thinks is not the best for you? Most people never think about it, and answer in quite an egoistically way: «Me? I'd never be gay! Are you joking? It's their problem, and for me, it's just gross»... - unfortunately, that's a very common mentality, and a very narrow-minded one.
#197
Guest_alidemi
Guest_alidemi
-
- Guest
Posted 01 June 2007 - 04:44 AM
@Tomahawkman2007--Please learn to speak coherently so that people can understand your argument. As for me, I don't see why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed marriage. The only defense against it is that it's against the teachings of the Christian bible. Last time I checked, the Constitution clearly defines "separation of church and state", and thus - whether you hate or not, a law banning gay marriage; that is, a national law all states have to follow (in the US, anyway); will never be enacted - the law would be declared unconstitutional. Before you start thinking of it ethically, think of it in terms of actual reality. Unless Bush or some other radical Christian president abolishes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution - which, by the way, states as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - any law or ordinance prohibiting the civil union, civil "partnership" or marriage - whatever you wish to call it - of homosexual peoples based purely on religious beliefs can ever be justifiably and respectfully passed in the United States of America. Anyway. Ethically - this shouldn't even be a debate. Most people can say they believe that every human being is entitled, from birth, to exclusive "natural rights" - rights than every human born - regardless of actions or beliefs - are entitled to certain universal rights that are implied rather than explicitly defined. As I live in the States, I'll say this - both the American Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution make natural rights valid by implication. So thus, if most people - most average people, let's say about 70-80% to be fair to those who may or may not choose to believe in the philosophy of natural/universal rights - believe in this concept of having rights automatically instituted at birth regardless of your actions or beliefs - then who are you, who support this idea, to say that you feel that a certain group of people should be denied a right that others may take advantage of freely? If I'm not mistaken - thinking in this way makes you a hypocrite, doesn't it? Also - a little insight on the "Bible" situation for those who still advocate that the Bible justifies the banning of gay marriage, or should I say, the stripping away of human rights based on sexual preference. That sounds so much more truthful and concise, yes? I am no expert on the Bible - in fact, at the moment, I'm not even Christian. I was, however, raised by a Christian father, and taken to church every Sunday and Wednesday night until I turned ten years old and we no longer had the opportunity to do so. To my understanding - and this, I will admit, is pure speculation; but any interpretation of the Bible is just that - speculation - the reason that homosexuality was so frowned upon was not because one was lying with someone of their own sex, but because a man who is homosexual is degrading himself to the status of a woman, which was considered lower than that of a man. I could dig through my archive of debate posts at the forum I went in-depth about this, but I really have no desire to go searching for hours for a passage from the Bible if there is no direct need to do so. However, if someone requests that I do bring up the passage from which I made this observation, I will find it and post it, or rather edit it, into this post for support purposes - for what is an argument without substantial support to back it up? This post is already becoming insufferably long, and beyond that, I really have nothing else to say. Most posts here have been short, and I doubt that the entirety of this one will be perused. Therefore, I end it here, and to those of you who read it and had beforehand believed in the prohibition of gay marriage, I hope this may have opened your eyes - if maybe only just a tad. This post is not intended to offend anyone, cause harm, or direct any ill will towards any particular person or group. If you are offended somehow by what I have said in this post, I apologize - but never will I revoke my words.
#198
Guest_Aaminah / ClauChan
Guest_Aaminah / ClauChan
-
- Guest
Posted 01 June 2007 - 05:16 AM
I've read your post in its entirety, and let me say to you that I absolutely loved it! It's certainly better than any of the answers I've read here, especially... (well, better keep quiet).I was curious about your interpretation of the reason why bible is supposed to be against gay love, but it does make sense. I do not think the quote is needed as simple common sense would make it understandable: women are still seen as inferior beings, sometimes. It's not hard to see how the mere possibility of equality between a woman and a men, just because they happen to enjoy partners from the same sex, could be seen as a derogatory thing for the later. It's quite ironic, if we think about how many "respectable Christians", priests included, were actually gay. I’ve never read the bible, but it seems to me that the fact that so many people allude to it as an argument against gay marriage is an excuse, especially if we consider that most haven’t probably read it or don’t care enough when it comes to less polemic subjects that don’t bother them. Obviously, I’m referring to the people that are so absolutely against it.@Tomahawkman2007--Please learn to speak coherently so that people can understand your argument. As for me, I don't see why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed marriage. The only defense against it is that it's against the teachings of the Christian bible. Last time I checked, the Constitution clearly defines "separation of church and state", and thus - whether you hate or not, a law banning gay marriage; that is, a national law all states have to follow (in the US, anyway); will never be enacted - the law would be declared unconstitutional. Before you start thinking of it ethically, think of it in terms of actual reality. Unless Bush or some other radical Christian president abolishes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution - which, by the way, states as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - any law or ordinance prohibiting the civil union, civil "partnership" or marriage - whatever you wish to call it - of homosexual peoples based purely on religious beliefs can ever be justifiably and respectfully passed in the United States of America. Anyway. Ethically - this shouldn't even be a debate. Most people can say they believe that every human being is entitled, from birth, to exclusive "natural rights" - rights than every human born - regardless of actions or beliefs - are entitled to certain universal rights that are implied rather than explicitly defined. As I live in the States, I'll say this - both the American Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution make natural rights valid by implication. So thus, if most people - most average people, let's say about 70-80% to be fair to those who may or may not choose to believe in the philosophy of natural/universal rights - believe in this concept of having rights automatically instituted at birth regardless of your actions or beliefs - then who are you, who support this idea, to say that you feel that a certain group of people should be denied a right that others may take advantage of freely? If I'm not mistaken - thinking in this way makes you a hypocrite, doesn't it? Also - a little insight on the "Bible" situation for those who still advocate that the Bible justifies the banning of gay marriage, or should I say, the stripping away of human rights based on sexual preference. That sounds so much more truthful and concise, yes? I am no expert on the Bible - in fact, at the moment, I'm not even Christian. I was, however, raised by a Christian father, and taken to church every Sunday and Wednesday night until I turned ten years old and we no longer had the opportunity to do so. To my understanding - and this, I will admit, is pure speculation; but any interpretation of the Bible is just that - speculation - the reason that homosexuality was so frowned upon was not because one was lying with someone of their own sex, but because a man who is homosexual is degrading himself to the status of a woman, which was considered lower than that of a man. I could dig through my archive of debate posts at the forum I went in-depth about this, but I really have no desire to go searching for hours for a passage from the Bible if there is no direct need to do so. However, if someone requests that I do bring up the passage from which I made this observation, I will find it and post it, or rather edit it, into this post for support purposes - for what is an argument without substantial support to back it up? This post is already becoming insufferably long, and beyond that, I really have nothing else to say. Most posts here have been short, and I doubt that the entirety of this one will be perused. Therefore, I end it here, and to those of you who read it and had beforehand believed in the prohibition of gay marriage, I hope this may have opened your eyes - if maybe only just a tad. This post is not intended to offend anyone, cause harm, or direct any ill will towards any particular person or group. If you are offended somehow by what I have said in this post, I apologize - but never will I revoke my words.
Edited by Aaminah / ClauChan, 01 June 2007 - 05:17 AM.
#199
Guest_alidemi
Guest_alidemi
-
- Guest
Posted 01 June 2007 - 05:27 AM
Why, thank you. My posts tend to be a bit more serious than others - I spend a lot of time in debate forums, and this certainly is a serious topic that needs to be addressed as just that - seriously.I've read your post in its entirety, and let me say to you that I absolutely loved it! It's certainly better than any of the answers I've read here, especially... (well, better keep quiet).
Yes, I agree completely. As for your curiosity - the passage of which I was referring to, if I remember correctly, was in the book of Leviticus. I don't claim to remember the exact wording of any particular part of it, but I do know this - any who read it could obviously see that when the Bible addressed homosexuality, it did not address it as a whole; that is, man and man, and woman and woman, but rather as just the former; saying something to the effect of - "no man shall lie with another man". It gives the idea that perhaps women with other women were not frowned upon - and from that observation - well, you can guess the rest. Furthermore - there are very few Christians I know of that can say they have truly sat down and read the Bible in its entirety - even stretched out through many sittings. The only person I know of who has even come close is my Grandmother - and believe it or not, she's very accepting of homosexuals. Let that be a lesson to the radicals of the century, so to speak.I was curious about your interpretation of the reason why bible is supposed to be against gay love, but it does make sense. I do not think the quote is needed as simple common sense would make it understandable: women are still seen as inferior beings, sometimes. It's not hard to see how the mere possibility of equality between a woman and a men, just because they happen to enjoy partners from the same sex, could be seen as a derogatory thing for the later. It's quite ironic, if we think about how many "respectable Christians", priests included, were actually gay. I’ve never read the bible, but it seems to me that the fact that so many people allude to it as an argument against gay marriage is an excuse, especially if we consider that most haven’t probably read it or don’t care enough when it comes to less polemic subjects that don’t bother them. Obviously, I’m referring to the people that are so absolutely against it.
Edited by alidemi, 01 June 2007 - 05:27 AM.
#200
Guest_Oblivious_Obstruction
Guest_Oblivious_Obstruction
-
- Guest
Posted 03 June 2007 - 02:01 PM
They should be entitled to become married. It's just another thing religion is screwing up.
