Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 10

 

2008-01-16 18:19:02
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6985|CH/BR - in UK

ig wrote:

colonelioan wrote:

BECAUSE IT' S NOT NATURAL GOT IT? NOW STOP ASKING THIS STUPID QUESTION EVERY FRIGGING MONTH.


Sorry for the caps, but I had to do it, Hey why not marry a pig? why you can't? Use your thinkbox of yours and you will find the frigging answer.
who the fuck are you to say it's not natural? shit has been going on for thousands of years. how about you open up that "thinkbox" of yours and realize that it's 2008.
Tbh, it isn't natural, and that much is obvious. I'm not saying it's like a disease, but if we were meant to be homosexual, there would be some way to "mate" and thus get offspring. Biologically seen, those are the facts.
However, I'm not going to condemn anyone for being homosexual. I still think marriage should be limited to one man and one woman, simply because of a long string of tradition - something that many people believe a sacred bond (although today's divorce rates show that many people also marry out of financial reasons, which I find despicable).
Yes, the divorce rates bring shame to the term marriage, but that doesn't make it any better that gay marriage should be allowed. This is the same kind of circular argument brough when discussing marijuana legalization - just because one thing's wrong, doesn't mean you need another thing that's wrong as well. I'd prefer not having either.

-konfusion
2008-01-16 18:33:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6846|'Murka

Marriage is a religious pact, backed by an official state document defining the relationship. No religion should be forced to marry people they have a moral objection to. However, there is no reason that same-sex couples shouldn't be afforded the same rights as hetero couples in the eyes of the state (for benefits, legal standing of spouse, etc).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-01-16 18:37:10
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6840|North Carolina
Why don't we just remove all governmental connections to marriage and replace them with civil unions?  We could have straight unions and gay ones.

Then, marriage would return to being a private, religious affair that churches can bitch about.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-01-16 18:37:28)

2008-01-16 18:37:38
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|7116|Disaster Free Zone

colonelioan wrote:

BECAUSE IT' S NOT NATURAL GOT IT? NOW STOP ASKING THIS STUPID QUESTION EVERY FRIGGING MONTH.


Sorry for the caps, but I had to do it, Hey why not marry a pig? why you can't? Use your thinkbox of yours and you will find the frigging answer.
[insert]Picture of farmer screwing pig[/insert]
Man marries Dog
Woman marries Dolphin
Bride marries corpse
Women marries clay pot
Man forced to marry goat

I don't see any need for a gay couple to get married, under Australian law they can all the benefits of a marred couple without having to get married. And with marriage being an institution of the church not the state, they should not be allowed to get 'married' if the church does not condone it.

CameronPoe wrote:

The reason gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is because under the law married couples get tax breaks aimed at those who will procreate and generate the tax paying and pension supporting citizens of tomorrow. Last I heard gay men don't have wombs and gay women don't have testes. So why on earth should taxpayers money give a couple breaks to ease the burden of supporting a family when the couple can't have kids?
There is no guarantee a heterosexual couple will have kids, there is also no guarantee the kids will stay in the country and pay taxes in the future and as far as Australian law goes, you only get the financial breaks when you actually do have children not before, and those are given to defacto relationships as well as married couples equally.

I don't see the problem with gay people not being able to get married (as i believe its a religious union), but more the state given rights to married couples. Marriage is a union of man and women under god, and should have no state given benefits above or beyond 2 people living together.

Turquoise wrote:

Why don't we just remove all governmental connections to marriage and replace them with civil unions?  We could have straight unions and gay ones.

Then, marriage would return to being a private, religious affair that churches can bitch about.
My thoughts exactly, but why discriminate with gay and straight 'unions'?. Just a simple 'state union' would suffice and those who are religious can get married under god if they so wish.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2008-01-16 18:45:24)

2008-01-16 18:44:06
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7067|949

konfusion wrote:

Tbh, it isn't natural, and that much is obvious. I'm not saying it's like a disease, but if we were meant to be homosexual, there would be some way to "mate" and thus get offspring. Biologically seen, those are the facts.
However, I'm not going to condemn anyone for being homosexual. I still think marriage should be limited to one man and one woman, simply because of a long string of tradition - something that many people believe a sacred bond (although today's divorce rates show that many people also marry out of financial reasons, which I find despicable).
Yes, the divorce rates bring shame to the term marriage, but that doesn't make it any better that gay marriage should be allowed. This is the same kind of circular argument brough when discussing marijuana legalization - just because one thing's wrong, doesn't mean you need another thing that's wrong as well. I'd prefer not having either.

-konfusion
The fact that it is present in nature makes it natural.  Animals other than humans are homosexual sometimes too.   It's not about "meaning" to be one way or another - it's simply about one group of people feeling their tradition is being co-opted by another group.  I don't understand the logic behind saying "marriage is a religious tradition, let's keep it that way."  Why can't two men or two women have that same "sacred bond" you describe?  The reality is that marriage doesn't mean what it did 50 years ago to a lot of people, married and unmarried.  And gay people aren't the ones leading the legal fight in creating and maintaining legal definitions of marriages, religious and socially conservative factions are.

Turquoise wrote:

Why don't we just remove all governmental connections to marriage and replace them with civil unions?  We could have straight unions and gay ones.

Then, marriage would return to being a private, religious affair that churches can bitch about.
This is what it should be.  Marriage is just word, removing it from legal definitions would be the correct form of action.  As I said, religious and socially conservative groups are the people trying to change the legislation.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-01-16 18:46:26)

2008-01-16 18:50:03
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6840|North Carolina

DrunkFace wrote:

My thoughts exactly, but why discriminate with gay and straight 'unions'?. Just a simple 'state union' would suffice and those who are religious can get married under god if they so wish.
Good point...  keep it simple.  Just have civil unions and be done with it.
2008-01-16 18:52:08
adam1503
Member
+85|6823|Manchester, UK
Why do so many of you seem so ready to just throw away the idea of a marriage as being solely the union between a man and a woman under God?
2008-01-16 18:52:56
Bert10099
[]D [] []\/[] []D
+177|7176|United States
There is nothing wrong with gay marriage.

Just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean you can force your morals and beliefs onto someone else.

If you don't agree with it, tough.  You have no say into what someone else can/cannot do.
2008-01-16 18:56:09
adam1503
Member
+85|6823|Manchester, UK
Well if the US is going to allow gay couples to call themselves "married" thats fine with me.  I just hope it doesnt catch on over here.  Im all for civil unions or whatever you want to call them, just dont call them marriages.
2008-01-16 18:56:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6840|North Carolina

adam1503 wrote:

Why do so many of you seem so ready to just throw away the idea of a marriage as being solely the union between a man and a woman under God?
Eh...  I would think most people just want to let gay people be themselves.  If they want in on the tax benefits of a civil union, who am I to stop them?  The problem isn't gay marriage -- it's the fact that a religious institution is connected to government.

To consistently follow the principle of the separation of church and state, marriage should be disconnected from government and replaced with the secular civil union.  Then, churches can decide for themselves how they want to define marriage.

The real problem began when the government got involved -- not when we started addressing the needs of about 10% of the population.
2008-01-16 18:56:33
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6880|The Land of Scott Walker

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

And gay people aren't the ones leading the legal fight in creating and maintaining legal definitions of marriages, religious and socially conservative factions are.
Without gay activists forcing the issue, the clarification of legal definitions would have been unnecessary.
2008-01-16 18:57:53
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7084

adam1503 wrote:

Why do so many of you seem so ready to just throw away the idea of a marriage as being solely the union between a man and a woman under God?
Because it irritates the neo-cons.
2008-01-16 19:01:16
Bert10099
[]D [] []\/[] []D
+177|7176|United States

adam1503 wrote:

Well if the US is going to allow gay couples to call themselves "married" thats fine with me.  I just hope it doesnt catch on over here.  Im all for civil unions or whatever you want to call them, just dont call them marriages.
What does it matter to you?
2008-01-16 19:01:41
colonelioan
Member
+14|6891|Kanada

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

ig wrote:

colonelioan wrote:

BECAUSE IT' S NOT NATURAL GOT IT? NOW STOP ASKING THIS STUPID QUESTION EVERY FRIGGING MONTH.


Sorry for the caps, but I had to do it, Hey why not marry a pig? why you can't? Use your thinkbox of yours and you will find the frigging answer.
who the fuck are you to say it's not natural? shit has been going on for thousands of years. how about you open up that "thinkbox" of yours and realize that it's 2008.
Plenty of animals have homosexual tendencies.  Therefore it occurs in nature.  He's obviously lacking in intelligence.
Are you mentally challenged or what? listen here. you thing between your legs called the DICK is made to go in a VAGINA and make life, ITS NOT MADE TO GO IN A MAN S' ANUS. If it does however, its a MENTAL problem and this is not Natural.

You are the one lacking Intelligence for saying this is natural, and all those little idiots who think the same way.

And i have to thank Konfusion, He is intelligent enough to realize its not fucking natural.

Last edited by colonelioan (2008-01-16 19:02:33)

2008-01-16 19:01:52
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7119|United States of America

Turquoise wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Why do so many of you seem so ready to just throw away the idea of a marriage as being solely the union between a man and a woman under God?
Eh...  I would think most people just want to let gay people be themselves.  If they want in on the tax benefits of a civil union, who am I to stop them?  The problem isn't gay marriage -- it's the fact that a religious institution is connected to government.

To consistently follow the principle of the separation of church and state, marriage should be disconnected from government and replaced with the secular civil union.  Then, churches can decide for themselves how they want to define marriage.

The real problem began when the government got involved -- not when we started addressing the needs of about 10% of the population.
Dude, does this fail the Lemon test?
2008-01-16 19:02:19
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6840|North Carolina

Stingray24 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

And gay people aren't the ones leading the legal fight in creating and maintaining legal definitions of marriages, religious and socially conservative factions are.
Without gay activists forcing the issue, the clarification of legal definitions would have been unnecessary.
True...  but then again, without marriages even being part of the government, it never would've become an issue in politics.

Granted, it will remain an issue for churches no matter what....
2008-01-16 19:03:02
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7067|949

Stingray24 wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

And gay people aren't the ones leading the legal fight in creating and maintaining legal definitions of marriages, religious and socially conservative factions are.
Without gay activists forcing the issue, the clarification of legal definitions would have been unnecessary.
Gay activists forced the issue of deciding whether they were allowed to recieve the same benefits as married couples.  The 'moral majority' and social conservatives decided they were going to be the ones to change the definitions.  The consistent introduction and voting on "defense of marriage" or "anti-gay marriage"bills is a testament to that fact.
2008-01-16 19:03:47
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7196

colonelioan wrote:

, ITS NOT MADE TO GO IN A MAN S' ANUS.
So is there a biological difference between a dudes anus and a chick's anus?  I think not.  So no sir, your argument fails.
2008-01-16 19:04:03
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6840|North Carolina

DesertFox- wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Why do so many of you seem so ready to just throw away the idea of a marriage as being solely the union between a man and a woman under God?
Eh...  I would think most people just want to let gay people be themselves.  If they want in on the tax benefits of a civil union, who am I to stop them?  The problem isn't gay marriage -- it's the fact that a religious institution is connected to government.

To consistently follow the principle of the separation of church and state, marriage should be disconnected from government and replaced with the secular civil union.  Then, churches can decide for themselves how they want to define marriage.

The real problem began when the government got involved -- not when we started addressing the needs of about 10% of the population.
Dude, does this fail the Lemon test?
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

That's where this applies.  As you can see from how heated this debate can be, I'd say it's quite entangled with religion.
2008-01-16 19:05:02
adam1503
Member
+85|6823|Manchester, UK

Bert10099 wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Well if the US is going to allow gay couples to call themselves "married" thats fine with me.  I just hope it doesnt catch on over here.  Im all for civil unions or whatever you want to call them, just dont call them marriages.
What does it matter to you?
It matters because they're not the same.  I believe in the sanctity of marriage, and would like to see more people care about it as something to be conserved for what it is.

Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-16 19:06:02)

2008-01-16 19:05:14
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|7119|United States of America
*cough* rhetorical
2008-01-16 19:05:52
Bert10099
[]D [] []\/[] []D
+177|7176|United States

colonelioan wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

ig wrote:


who the fuck are you to say it's not natural? shit has been going on for thousands of years. how about you open up that "thinkbox" of yours and realize that it's 2008.
Plenty of animals have homosexual tendencies.  Therefore it occurs in nature.  He's obviously lacking in intelligence.
Are you mentally challenged or what? listen here. you thing between your legs called the DICK is made to go in a VAGINA and make life, ITS NOT MADE TO GO IN A MAN S' ANUS. If it does however, its a MENTAL problem and this is not Natural.

You are the one lacking Intelligence for saying this is natural, and all those little idiots who think the same way.

And i have to thank Konfusion, He is intelligent enough to realize its not fucking natural.
What's it matter to you what some other gay people do?
2008-01-16 19:06:21
colonelioan
Member
+14|6891|Kanada

usmarine2005 wrote:

colonelioan wrote:

, ITS NOT MADE TO GO IN A MAN S' ANUS.
So is there a biological difference between a dudes anus and a chick's anus?  I think not.  So no sir, your argument fails.
Does fucking A man s'anus will create a baby? WILL IT? TELL ME.  Mr.Intelligent marine...if that ever exists.
2008-01-16 19:06:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6840|North Carolina
Damn you internets and your lack of tonal comprehension...  You win, Fox... 
2008-01-16 19:07:48
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7196

colonelioan wrote:

Does fucking A man s'anus will create a baby? WILL IT? TELL ME.  Mr.Intelligent marine...if that ever exists.
No.  But neither does banging a chick in the ass.  Some women cannot have babies.  Does that mean they cannot get married?

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard