Are you for or against same sex marriage?

[McRocket]

I simply need to point out the fact that free speech is open on this board, unlike the opposite so many (mainly in the past) like/d to point out.
This thread, so far, is a perfect example of arguement, debate and opinion without flaming and the pursuant escallation that leads to a closed thread.

Bravi, ragazzi! (Nice job) :glugglug: :thumbsup:

And I started it. Does that mean I get a free t-shirt?

Or a date with Marie (if she is single, reasonably attractive ((I know I really like her described figure))and is going to be in the North America area anytime soon)...lol.

 

[The Fog]

I will be thrilled to have a gay OR straight OR bisexual child. What is important is their capacity for love, fidelity, honesty, virtue, hard work, responsibility, obeying laws, speaking thier mind, being creative and thoughtful, being peaceful, and good overall citizenship. I don't care WHAT their sexual orientation is.

In your scenario, where there is NO BIAS or discrimination towards gay people, WHY WOULD ANYONE care whether or not their child was gay or straight?

Wow! Why would anyone care? Well, most people would like to have grandchildren. Grandchildren produced by their offspring. I am trying to think of a smiley face to put here but I can't find the right one.

I think I am going to declare victory and depart the field.

I have dinner and a movie to go to and then a girlfriend to have sex with (I hope!!) Plus, as I wrote earlier, this is becoming repetitive and I have nothing more new to offer.

I am generally a pessimist. So, I think you will get your brave new world. Good luck! We'll all need that and more.

 

[McRocket]

I have dinner and a movie to go to and then a girlfriend to have sex with (I hope!!) Plus, as I wrote earlier, this is becoming repetitive and I have nothing more new to offer.

Like you make it sound like you have SUCH a full life. Oh, big man.

Well, for your information I have, um, I have um.....okay. I don't have the movie or the girlfriend or the potential sex to look forward to tonight. And my supper was cold cereal and apple sauce (I sound like a senior citizen).

Okay... you do have a full life....um, big man.

:crying:

lol?

 

[member2686]

"...declare victory and depart the field?" Victory, The Fog? You convinced no one that your views were even tenable, and your posts were pubescent and socially isolationist (i.e. small town) at best.

Come back and debate when you've "grown a pair" and when you have the intellect to spar with the giants. LMFAO

j/k man. Nice discussion!!! Cheers! :hatsoff:

 

[superfly2]

these are just my experiences... But in saying that, they are good ones.

Sure are. And if these couples are within the majority, and continue to be, then my concerns may eventually be laid to rest. :hatsoff:

 

[The Fog]

Nightfly, I should have included a or a after my "declare victory and depart the field." That is how I meant it. I am impressed by your debating skills as well. I don't know whether you are an American or not but if you are, I could see you having a future in politics here with persuasive skills like yours. You could probably make it to being the city clerk in a small or medium sized town in Vermont or Massachusetts....

J/K, as well.

Like you make it sound like you have SUCH a full life. Oh, big man.

Well, for your information I have, um, I have um.....okay. I don't have the movie or the girlfriend or the potential sex to look forward to tonight. And my supper was cold cereal and apple sauce (I sound like a senior citizen).

Okay... you do have a full life....um, big man.

:crying:

lol?

LOL! Hey, cereal and apple sauce are good for you. I like those new flavored apple sauces!

If it makes you feel any better, I didn't get any sex tonight.

My girlfriend did offer to give it to me good and hard up the backside with a strap-on. I said, "No way, baby! You have to marry me first."

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

you mean saying that it's a very difficult, fragile and extremely rare kind of a relationship ? well, sorry, pal, but those are given facts, and not a personal impression.

Couldn't that have been said about homosexual relationships only a few years ago? Maybe if it's allowed, it will become more common.

WOW ! a whole 2 ? big time !

Well, that's two more then gay relationships I know of.

and know what ? i know of at least 10 relationships of that kind that broke apart in a very nasty way. another proof that polygamy is extremely difficult, and that the working relationships are very rare.

I know of 100 straight marriages that "broke apart in a very nasty way", so does that mean we should give up on straight relationships too?

but once more: i'm not AGAINST it. i was just trying to tell you that polygamy is a lot more delicate than homosexuality.

In your opinion. For me, polygamy makes a whole lot more sense then any gay relationship.

And once again, I'm not against gay relationships. I'm against changing the legal definition of marriage to suit the current fad gays want.

definitely, but i didn't say that !!! if it was up to me, i'd drop the polygamy issue right now, because i believe it has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread. but since you mentioned it i had to be responsive to it..

Well, I do. That's why I mentioned it.

In order to allow gays to marry, you have to change the legal definition of what marriage is. So, if these changes are going to be made (by politicians who were forced to vote a certain way in order to keep their careers afloat within their party), why can't we take it one step further to allow polygamy? If it is love, then according to what you and your ilk have said, what right do we have preventing it. You are also taking the extreme cases in polygamy. Like I said, while I only know of 2 relationships (Nina Hartley is in one too), all parties involved are very happy. You're also suggesting that a polygamy relationship is between a man and 2 women. Every think it could be reversed?

And to be clear,

I'm against gay marriage.
I'm against polygamy
I'm against arraigned marriage.
I believe there should be an age restriction for marriage (atleast 21 years old, but I'd prefer 25)
I believe in "till death do us part"
It sickens me some (Brittany Spears) have used marriage as a tool to gain publicity
It bothers me a co-worker is planning his 3rd marriage in less then 10 years.
I intentionally did not go to a wedding last month because I believe it won't last longer then a year.

For me, marriage means something special, and I am excited to partake some day.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, and I want it to stay that way.

 

[Scooter83]

seiously... its about time gay people had to deal with marriage! I'm tired of their no-care lifestyles!

But seriously.... should this even be a issue? It just seems clear that people in the States should have this right under the consitution....

 

[LetoII]

Couldn't that have been said about homosexual relationships only a few years ago?

i don't think so. that is, i'm sure it has been said, no question. but it was unjustified, because a gay relationship is based on the the same condition as a hetero relationship: two individuals, no more ! and it is a given fact that any kind of relationship, be it sexually, emotionally, intellectually or socially, grows more complicated with every individual you add to it.

I know of 100 straight marriages that "broke apart in a very nasty way", so does that mean we should give up on straight relationships too?

no, because polygamy is a different situation, due to the reason i've stated above. you said you know 2 polygamy relationships. then you should certainly know that these people feel that they are part of something very special, even compared with a "normal relationship", because it's very unlikely that they will ever have a relationship like this again. their bonds are far more intensive and delicate, since they love two, or even more people in that relationship. if you take that away from them, they get seriously hurt !!! i've seen it happening, dude, and it's unlike any heartache i've seen with "usual" relationships. and the part that gives me the most worries about this, is the fact that only so few of those relationships work out.
and i wouldn't "give up" on any kind of love relationship ! just trying to back up what i said: polygamy is far more delicate and complicated than any other form of relationship.

In your opinion. For me, polygamy makes a whole lot more sense then any gay relationship.

i didn't say that any of those relationships would make more/less sense. we're talking about LOVE here. love doesn't make sense at all, does it ?! and i'm glad that it's something you can't explain by reason. which is exactly our point by defending gay marriages.

And once again, I'm not against gay relationships. I'm against changing the legal definition of marriage to suit the current fad gays want.

i appreciate that, but i still don't understand why a mere definition is bugging you so much :dunno:

If it is love, then according to what you and your ilk have said, what right do we have preventing it.

of course we have no right to prevent it. look, we're starting to go in cirlcles, too. you mentioned polygamy, stating that if we legalized gay marriage, we could also favour polygamy. i picked up on that to show you that polygamy bears a lot more dangers to the people involved, than gay relationships.
but i would NEVER dare to prevent either form of relationship, because it's not up to me to decide for grown-up people how they are to LOVE and LIVE. it's not my business, and IMO it's not the government's or the church's business either.

 

[McRocket]

And once again, I'm not against gay relationships. I'm against changing the legal definition of marriage to suit the current fad gays want.

Current fad? I don't think two people who (supposedly) love each other and want to get married should be considered a fad.
Many/most homosexuals are genetically predisposed to be homosexual. They only desire their own sex. They are not doing it to be different.
SO if they are in love with someone and want to marry them - I would not call that a fad.
If I was gay and I had a significant other - I would want to be able to get married too I suspect. I would just want what everyone else wants when they get married.
You seem to be hung up on the word marriage. I do not care what it is called. I just believe that all human beings should be allowed the same rights and privileges that other long term couples enjoy. Why should they not get those privileges just because they were born with a different type of base desire then most?

I would not call that a fad. I would call that a basic human right. You belittle their relationships and their humanity by calling it a 'fad'.


Now, you idealism is admirable - if a wee bit unrealistic. I used to feel that way; but then I realized that - in my opinion - FAR more marriages were unhappy ones then happy ones. ANd if divorce was easier; I bet you the rate would be well over 60%. So the 'love, honour and cherish til death do us part' stuff is basically a load of crap that most people do not follow and/or honour.
I agree that marriages should not be recognized as law until a certain age (I think it should be 30). But they are not and people continue and will (probably) continue to marry for less then ideal reasons.
SO you had better get your head out of the clouds - or you are going to be one VERY disappointed individual.
Your idealism does you credit - but it is unrealistic. ANd in that light; will probably cause you and those around you more harm then good.

 

[McRocket]

LOL! Hey, cereal and apple sauce are good for you. I like those new flavored apple sauces!

If it makes you feel any better, I didn't get any sex tonight.

Yes, that does make me feel better actually. Well, a little bit. Well, not really, well....actually it makes me feel absolutely no different.lol. No, if I am not getting any; at least someone else is. Fuck that nobility, it does make me feel better.

My girlfriend did offer to give it to me good and hard up the backside with a strap-on. I said, "No way, baby! You have to marry me first."

LOL .

 

[Porcupine]

I didn't read through the whole thread, and I'm sure someone has said this, but I think that they should have the right to get married, divorced, and lose half their stuff just like any other citizen of the USA.

The whole idea of the government, at any level, being able to decide what consitutes marriage is somewhat out of their purview, IMO. Marriage is a religious term that has come to be widely accepted to encompass both the civil and religious aspects of the ceremony. Once you remove the religious connotation from the civil aspect (which is the only aspect any government should be considering), and deal with the civil aspect as it relates to real world issues, i.e. dollars and cents issues, rather than clouding it up with moral issues, the matter becomes far more cut and dried from a legislative standpoint - it is patently unconstitutional to apply a religious prejudice to infringe the civil rights of any American.

 

[ÆGEAN]

i am against same sex marriage but if someone is gay then so be it, but in nature it is NOT natural but then again human beings are very unique. I have a mate who is gay and i don't mind it but at the end of the day i still think it is not natural.


it is a matter of choice if someone is gay or straight but i just don't feel comfortable with the same sex marriage bizzo.

 

[LetoII]

but in nature it is NOT natural

that's not entirely correct, AEGAN. natural scientist have discovered homosexual behaviour (including sexual intercourse) among primates, and some other species, too ! i watched a documentary about this topic, but that was long ago, and i can't quite remember all the details...

 

[McRocket]

AS far as I am concerned; if it is prevalent at birth - then it IS natural.

If somene was born genetically predisposed to be homosexual; then to me they are naturally homosexual. As natural as if they were born 'straight'.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Current fad? I don't think two people who (supposedly) love each other and want to get married should be considered a fad.

Yes, I believe the majority of gays want to be able to *marry*, because they aren't allowed. Look at Rosie O'Donnell. Her and her "partner" only *married* as a way to go against GWB. If Bush didn't take the stand he did, Rosie wouldn't have *married*. They want what they can't have.

SO you had better get your head out of the clouds - or you are going to be one VERY disappointed individual.
Your idealism does you credit - but it is unrealistic. ANd in that light; will probably cause you and those around you more harm then good.

Well, I appreciate your advice, but I don't believe one should give up their beliefs that easily. If the population here in Canada had the chance to vote on this issue, the bill would not have passed.

 

[McRocket]

Yes, I believe the majority of gays want to be able to *marry*, because they aren't allowed. Look at Rosie O'Donnell. Her and her "partner" only *married* as a way to go against GWB. If Bush didn't take the stand he did, Rosie wouldn't have *married*. They want what they can't have.

Celebrities! Celebrities are unstable people and the masses should definitely NOT look up to most of them.
The bottom line is gays are equal human beings, are they not? And as equal human beings they should be given the same rights and privilidges (fuck my spelling!?!) as everyone else. ANd that extends to marriage. Now if you don't want to let them call it marriage - okay. I don't agree. But, that seems to be a big sticking point with you (and many others). Then what if they called it a union (or whatever the legal term for it is)? With all the same benefits as marriage, but not the name. Would that satisfy you?

Well, I appreciate your advice, but I don't believe one should give up their beliefs that easily. If the population here in Canada had the chance to vote on this issue, the bill would not have passed.

Actually, in an informal online poll done by The Globe and Mail (that is a national Canadian newspaper to all those that do not know) - 57% were in favour of same sex marriage. And there was over 28,000 respondents.
That is not an overwhelming majority I grant yu. But I believe that if it were put to a national referendum; it would pass.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

If I posted the same thing I did 6 days ago, I wonder if anyone would notice?

Let's let this horse die. :wave:

 

[georges]

My question will be "why do the church and all religious officials don't recognize gay or a lesbian marriage?"
Probably because it is not a traditional marriage corresponding to the definition of the bible and for them probably officalizing a such marriage would be a big prejudice for them. Why in Spain some laws giving social rights to homosexuals cancelled? The answer is pretty clear the church didn't want to hear about it and the government didn't want to get more in trouble than it is.
If people are gay it is their own right to be gay and happy same is for lesbians. But for me marriage is something special, an union between a man and a woman but that is my own belief and opinion.

 

[Peter Gazinya]

Georges!!!

Where the fuck have you been!!? :glugglug: