Should Gay marriage be legal? (Now With Poll)

[Sierra]

Well, as you probably know, it was made legal in Massachusetts and I was curious, whats your thoughts on it? Do you think it should be legal or no? I dont think it should because its just not right. Marriage is between a man and a woman not a man/man ot woman/woman.

Do you think it should be legal?

[Lone Predator]

yes

there is no sound argument against it

nothing should be able to stop you from marrying the one you love, no one is putting a gun to any priest's head or anything,

marriage is a joke anyways

[Dennis G]

No

[kinghk]

Well, as you probably know, it was made legal in Massachusetts and I was curious, whats your thoughts on it? Do you think it should be legal or no? I dont think it should because its just not right. Marriage is between a man and a woman not a man/man ot woman/woman.



Who cares? If gay people wanna get married, let them get married. Not my deal.

[Obergefreiter]

No.

[Ratamacue]

No

No.

Sound argument, fellas. :roll:

[radon]

Why not? Let them get registered or married or whatever it is called. But in case of religious marriages and such let the churches decide.

[martinexsquaddie]

why not
church has a problem with it no problem with church not marrying couples
otherwise why not

[_Samez_]

No, please don't ask why.

[Resevoir Hogs]

I haven't made my mind up on it yet.

I'm leaning towards no because I believe a proper family is made by a father and a mother.

However, I do know a lesbian couple and they are fine people.

If there was a study done to show that people are born homo****** instead of just developing those ****** behaviours then it would help in this argument.

I don't buy any religious arguments since I'm an athiest but I know about natural laws and frankly I see no practical reason homo******ity exists for evolution. So to me it just seems unatural. But then again when do people in our societies do anything for common sense ideas. If it feels good do it right? Man I hate that argument.

[Obergefreiter]

No

No.

Sound argument, fellas. :roll:

An arguement was not asked for, only an opinion. Besides, there will be enough arguing in on this topic soon enough.

[rokus2595]

Yes

[usa320]

No. Is there a sound argument against it? Yes. Its called the principles this country was founded upon.

[Commander Cool]

No, because it would change the foundations of our society. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. If this definition is changed to include a union between two men, then that will set a dangerous precedent. Someone else might want to change the definition again, to include a man and a child, or a man and a cow, or a man and some inanimate object, or a group of several men and women. Where do we draw the line? If two dudes are in love, it's not my business what they do behind closed doors, but why do they have to marry?

I am also opposed to marriages between more than two people. I am also opposed to people getting married who do not intend to have any children, since I believe the whole purpose of a marriage is to create a family and raise kids.

[Ichhabe]

No, because it would change the foundations of our society. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. If this definition is changed to include a union between two men, then that will set a dangerous precedent. Someone else might want to change the definition again, to include a man and a child, or a man and a cow, or a man and some inanimate object, or a group of several men and women. Where do we draw the line? If two dudes are in love, it's not my business what they do behind closed doors, but why do they have to marry?

I am also opposed to marriages between more than two people. I am also opposed to people getting married who do not intend to have any children, since I believe the whole purpose of a marriage is to create a family and raise kids.


Ever heard Times are a changing? 32 years ago, homo******ity was illegal in Norway. Today, gay people can get married here.That is, for the homo******s a good thing. Why? Well, first of all. Marriage is about commiting. A gay couple get commited when married. But the most important issue, is to get the companiobship down on legal documents. Why again you might ask. Well, it is easy. A homo****** couple living together does not have the same right as ordinary married couples. When one of them dies, do he get to keep the house, if the other partner was the legal owner of the house? No, even if he had paid for it aswell. He does not get his heritage. Maybe only a small fraction. The rest goes to the relatives.

By getting married, they get same rights as others, and can share their life together without the worries on what happens to the one left behind.

This is of course difficult to aknowledge for people brought up with socalled "christian values". But remember; Being a christian in Rome, A.D. 50, was illegal. But times are a changing.

[fdt]

yes

there is no sound argument against it

nothing should be able to stop you from marrying the one you love, no one is putting a gun to any priest's head or anything,

marriage is a joke anywaysSo there is no sound argument why can't one have 2 wives and 3 husbands at a time, can't they be a family if they all decide to agree such a deal? Why not to marry Your sister, brother or mother? What if You love Your dog, canary or horse? What about other limitations ... such as marriages in Army? Wanna redefine that ol' institution? So gimme a fair and sound definition of the replacement one... including a social purpose of it. Where are the benefits for society as this society is supposed to accept it...
IMHO if some local society is ready to accept this... then it's OK. Let them experiment on their own... I'll be watching and learning on their mistakes.

[radon]

Where do we draw the line?

Sane adult people?
Gays have always existed and likely will exist in future. There is no need to make the life of them harder. They are and will always be a minority . I dont see how the gay marriage will distract the life of normal people at all.

[Spearin]

Who cares? If gay people wanna get married, let them get married. Not my deal.

My thoughts too. Let them do it if they like... I don't think that society will fall apart if you let homo******s to marry, it isn't like it's necessarily preventing them from a hetero****** lifestyle.

[mack pl]

NO.

[RavenW]

No.

[kinghk]

Today, gay people can get married here.

Hmm, I would not say so.

Gay people can get a "partnerskap" which is sort of a light-marriage. It does not take place in church IIRC, but is does give people the same jurisdictional advantages as getting married.

I looked up "partnerskap" and "giftermål" in the dictionary.

partnerskap registrert p- institusjonalisert, lovregulert samliv mellom to personer av samme kjønn / inngå p- .

giftermål (av *mål (I,3)) det å inngå ekteskap .

[Tane Angle]

Absolutely yes. It is an undeniable right.

Article I, Section IX, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

"No bill of attainder" means that members of a group cannot be deprived of a right simply because they belong to that group. What are we doing if we do not allow them the Constitutional right to share health insurance, "next-of'kin" status, and guardianship?

I'm not talking about a religion's definition of marriage. The government has no business getting involved in the religious aspects. Marriage as a legal contract has nothing to do with love or ****** intercourse. It is a financial symboitic relationship.

Let's face it, the divorce rate is sky-high. If two homo****** parents can better parent a child than one hetero******, then so be it. There is hardly such thing as "regular family" anymore: no "a father, a mother, and a couple of kids."

Moreover, it is extremely "big-government" to for government to even involve itself in such matters. If a government can say "Bob and Bill" can't marry, then a government can say "Fred and Sue" can't marry also. I don't know if a government should concern itself in such matters.

Also, aren't there more important things for our tax dollars to go to than to debate who gets to marry who? Like terrorism? How is it that Bush has had the time to discuss gay marriage but did not have the time to read **** Clarke's memo for six months? Which one has the higher priority here?

See, I can actually be conservative and "small-government." Government has no business in saying who can marry who, just as it has no business dictating what religions say about gay marriage.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Marmot1]

No,

They can have registered "partnership" for taxes and medicare but for sake no mariage... and no adoption right....

[molly747]

I agree with Tane. After all, he is older and wiser. It's funny, I find that most people who are opposed to homo******ity or homo******s themselves don't really know any gay people. Just some thoughts...

[Tane Angle]

Aw, thanks Molly. :oops: I don't know about the wiser part, but I've probably got one or two more grays than you. p-)

The week before I left I had to go visit a friend with the NYPD. At his office I met two detectives who had been parterners for years. One is homo******, and everyone in the office (except for his partner) knows it. It's not like the man hides it or anything. His partner, while a great person except for his bigotry, is so closed off to the idea of homo******ity that it had actually never occured to him that his partner is homo******. The two are best friends, like brothers, and it was pretty comical that the one man had never even considered the likelihood of his partner being homo******.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[EvanL]

Aw, thanks Molly. :oops: I don't know about the wiser part, but I've probably got one or two more grays than you. p-)

The week before I left I had to go visit a friend with the NYPD. At his office I met two detectives who had been parterners for years. One is homo******, and everyone in the office (except for his partner) knows it. It's not like the man hides it or anything. His partner, while a great person except for his bigotry, is so closed off to the idea of homo******ity that it had actually never occured to him that his partner is homo******. The two are best friends, like brothers, and it was pretty comical that the one man had never even considered the likelihood of his partner being homo******.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...
You were in NYC and didnt stop off for a beer?
Why i never. *shakes finger*

[drgonzo777]

Shud be, but only int the NAVY

[Tane Angle]

I'm sorry bud. p-) I do live right by there.

[EvanL]

I'm sorry bud. p-) I do live right by there.
Westchester Co. Or LI?
PM me if u wish.

[SiFiOn]

Did I drink that much, or are we discussing here something that should have been on the gayphotos.net forum?

[SiFiOn]

-edit- *Double posted*

[Marmot1]

Did I drink that much, or are we discussing here something that should have been on the gayphotos.net forum?

or offtopic...

[[AFSOC]]

Here's my beef with it

I dont give 2 ****s of gay people wanna get together, but they shouldnt be calling it MARRIAGE.

Being a catholic, MARRIAGE to me means a union between a MAN AND A WOMEN. Not a MAn and a MAn or Women and Women..

IF gay people wanna get together go ahead just dont be calling it marriage. What needs to be done is that the word marriage shouldnt be changed.

[LordHalbert]

No - gays should not be allowed to be "legally" married.

They can live together - that's fine.
They can even call themselved a "couple" - that's fine.
They can even call themselves "married' and get rings - that's fine.

So long as they can not "legally" be considered married.

I have nothing against gays either. I'm straight BTW :)

Anyhow, I believe that couples wanting to get married should undergo a genetic gender test - can be done with a blood test. It's very simple - you're either XX or XY.

There are very rare cases of "true" hermaphrodites that have both XX/XY chromosomes but that's incredibly rare.

In order to married one of the couples should have to be proven to be XX and the other XY.

I think genetic gender testing is necessary with all the tran******/transvestites and gender benders - it's hard to know sometimes what's what.

[scott]

absolutely yes.
and im very glad that that is the direction canada is going in

[MEGR]

No.

[usa320]

I think the fair compromise would be to let the hot, blonde, 22 year old lesbians marry.

rofl

[Tane Angle]

Home of the brave, but what was the other part? Oh yeah, land of the free. Let's not stamp on a homo******s' right to share health insurance, ok?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Yes Man]

Where do we draw the line?

Rapists, murders, thieves, pediphiles.... have always existed and likely will exist in future. There is no need to make the life of them harder. They are and will always be a minority.



I see your point :bash:

[Yes Man]

Home of the brave, but what was the other part? Oh yeah, land of the free. Let's not stamp on a homo******s' right to share health insurance, ok?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Being free is one thing, asking for special rights is another. Special rights should be give out because it helps the country. A man and a woman having a child helps the country, thus special rights should be given. A homo******s partnership does not help the country any more than having a pet fish.

[[AFSOC]]

MAn i really feel sorry for those kids that Gay couples adopt, the **** there gunna go through when they go up...

[Shadow]

Yes!

[Jack Mehoff]

No.

Why? Sooner or later polygamist Mormons in Utah is going to ask for the same treatment.

[Ichhabe]

]MAn i really feel sorry for those kids that Gay couples adopt, the **** there gunna go through when they go up...

And who's fault would that be? Think about that for a little...

[henksmoeder]

NO.
mack pl, If I remember correctly, you always claim to be a socialist. Can you explain to me why you do want equility(socialism), but you don't want gay people to be equal to straight people?

[Haiw]

Being free is one thing, asking for special rights is another. Special rights should be give out because it helps the country. A man and a woman having a child helps the country, thus special rights should be given. A homo******s partnership does not help the country any more than having a pet fish.
Oh riiight... ask not what you can do for you country but bla bla and all that crap. Hey you know what? This forum doesn't help your country either. Let's make it illegal.


]MAn i really feel sorry for those kids that Gay couples adopt, the **** there gunna go through when they go up...
Well I think a person brought up by 2 normal gay parents will have a better chance at turning out 'normal' in life than someone who's being abused by his straight father...don't you think? :roll:


No.

Why? Sooner or later polygamist Mormons in Utah is going to ask for the same treatment.
Let's not let women vote. I mean, before we know it even dogs are gonna get a vote in the elections.

[Jack Mehoff]

Let's not let women vote. I mean, before we know it even dogs are gonna get a vote in the elections.

Edit: Utah was the 2nd state(1870) behind Wyoming in the nation to give women the right to vote. The current governor of Utah is a female. Your point?

[ExtraT]

No.

As people pointed out, this sets a very dangerous precedent, and also creates possibility of virtually unlimited abuse of the system.

[Fearless-Falcon]

Yes gay marriage should be legal!!

If it is not legal it would be discriminating.

Like:

Black people can not marry each other because they are black!

USA is a free country so all the people should have the same rights. If not it is no better than Afghanistan (Taliban period)

[Jack Mehoff]

Yes gay marriage should be legal!!

If it is not legal it would be discriminating.

Like:

Black people can not marry each other because they are black!

USA is a free country so all the people should have the same rights. If not it is no better than Afghanistan (Taliban period)

I agree. Let's make polygamy and group marriage legal too or else Europe is going to call us the Taliban.




Black people can not marry each other because they are black!

^^ And i'm not sure what the hell is this mean.

[Fearless-Falcon]

Black people can not marry each other because they are black!

Is the same as:

Gay people can not marry each other because they are Gay!

[Kenshin]

Do not compare Race and ******ity.

[Ian H]

Where do we draw the line?

Rapists, murders, thieves, pediphiles.... have always existed and likely will exist in future. There is no need to make the life of them harder. They are and will always be a minority.



I see your point :bash:


The original comment was "homo******s have always existed...", and trying to imply that homo******s are somehow on the same level as "rapists, murderers, thieves and paedophiles" is at best a failed attempt at moralising, and at worst hugely offensive to a hell of a lot of people.

I know this forum isn't an academic work, but that's no excuse for not thinking at all about what you type.

[Salty Dog]

this is ****ing stupid. we already had a thread about this, and it was a huge retarded argument. i say let it go.

[anonymous individual]

No, but I do not mind if they use the union instead of marriage.

[Haiw]

Let's not let women vote. I mean, before we know it even dogs are gonna get a vote in the elections.

Edit: Utah was the 2nd state(1870) behind Wyoming in the nation to give women the right to vote. The current governor of Utah is a female. Your point?
My point was that this is the same argument. This is the good old 'err...well even though maybe they should have it....we don't give it or else OTHER people will ask too'.

[Jack Mehoff]

Let's not let women vote. I mean, before we know it even dogs are gonna get a vote in the elections.

Edit: Utah was the 2nd state(1870) behind Wyoming in the nation to give women the right to vote. The current governor of Utah is a female. Your point?
My point was that this is the same argument. This is the good old 'err...well even though maybe they should have it....we don't give it or else OTHER people will ask too'.

So it's OK to force feed Christian values on Mormon, but it is wrong wrong to do it to homo****** couples? I see :roll:

By the way, Mormon is a religion in case you don't know.

[Denat]

NO
(reffering to the topic)

[UkrainianAmerican]

I think it is fair for Gays to be able to be financially "united" (to the extent that a dull-fledged marriage includes), but no need for them to be legally MARRIED.

[mack pl]

I think it is fair for Gays to be able to be financially "united" (to the extent that a dull-fledged marriage includes), but no need for them to be legally MARRIED.

OMG! I agree with you.OMG!

;)

[Kenshin]

I think it is fair for Gays to be able to be financially "united" (to the extent that a dull-fledged marriage includes), but no need for them to be legally MARRIED.

Yup, Money is all the reason there is.

[100_Percent_HOOAH]

If they wanna be married fine, but not in a church under the eyes of God..that's wrong.

[Haiw]

So it's OK to force feed Christian values on Mormon, but it is wrong wrong to do it to homo****** couples? I see :roll:

By the way, Mormon is a religion in case you don't know.
Well I never said I was radically against multi-people marriages...although I think it would give some problems; health care benefits for 8 people? Furthermore you might say how much water a marriage and all the 'forever faithfull, in good and bad times bla bla' crap really holds when you do that to multiple people. But I suppose either way the main problem with group-marriages and such would be simple technical and / or economical problems. Either way, it's not really relevant in this discussion because personally, I never said I was anti- such marriages. Personally I couldn't really care much; they do it in other countries as well and I can't say it really influences me or anyone else all that much. As long as everyone's happy; who cares?!

Oh and about forcing Christian values onto anyone; last time I checked the church and the US government should be two different organizations.

[Haiw]

I think it is fair for Gays to be able to be financially "united" (to the extent that a dull-fledged marriage includes), but no need for them to be legally MARRIED.

Yup, Money is all the reason there is.
Just like it is with hetero****** marriages?

[Jack Mehoff]

So it's OK to force feed Christian values on Mormon, but it is wrong wrong to do it to homo****** couples? I see :roll:

By the way, Mormon is a religion in case you don't know.
Well I never said I was radically against multi-people marriages...although I think it would give some problems; health care benefits for 8 people? Furthermore you might say how much water a marriage and all the 'forever faithfull, in good and bad times bla bla' crap really holds when you do that to multiple people. But I suppose either way the main problem with group-marriages and such would be simple technical and / or economical problems. Either way, it's not really relevant in this discussion because personally, I never said I was anti- such marriages. Personally I couldn't really care much; they do it in other countries as well and I can't say it really influences me or anyone else all that much. As long as everyone's happy; who cares?!

Oh and about forcing Christian values onto anyone; last time I checked the church and the US government should be two different organizations.

You don't care, but I care because I live here. Then again, your opinions about what we do in America really don't mean anything outside of this board anyway. Why bother wasting your breath arguing?

[Haiw]

Because...sadly enough...your state is still some kind of figurehead for the rest of the world. If you'd legalize gay marriages it would certainly open the door a little wider for gays in other countries where it's still illegal. BTW in case you haven't noticed; your opinion about what should happen in America doesn't mean squad outside the forum either...

[Jack Mehoff]

You are ****tin' me, right? Homo******ity is based on cultural value, why should anybody follow us? This sounds like a personal issue that each nation should decide for themself. :roll:



your opinion about what should happen in America doesn't mean squad outside the forum either...

Not to burst your bubbles but my vote in November is stronger than your mouth.

[flickme]

If they wanna be married fine, but not in a church under the eyes of God..that's wrong.

Agreed.

[Haiw]

You are ****tin' me, right? Homo******ity is based on cultural value, why should anybody follow us? This sounds like a personal issue that each nation should decide for themself. :roll:
Look around.. you're underestimating your country's role and influence in the world.


Not to burst your bubbles but my vote in November is stronger than your mouth.
Yup but that vote in November isn't just about gay marriages. And your single vote doesn't mean ****. It's still just one vote in a country with...what...275 million people?

[Rilence]

no

[Jack Mehoff]

Yup but that vote in November isn't just about gay marriages. And your single vote doesn't mean ****. It's still just one vote in a country with...what...275 million people?

rofl WTF?? If everybody thinks like you, then the voting system is useless because there would not be anybody at the ballot box voting. Are you even old enough to vote, Haiw? I'll stick with my previous comment "My vote is stronger than your mouth"

Another thing, over 50% of Americans opposed gay marriage. This year's election is not about gay marriage, but it's one of many factor for Americans to decide who will be the president.

[Haiw]

rofl WTF?? If everybody thinks like you, then the voting system is useless because there would not be anybody at the ballot box voting. Are you even old enough to vote, Haiw? I'll stick with my previous comment "My vote is stronger than your mouth"
I know it doesn't work this way when everyone thinks that way, but that still means your vote on its own doesn't mean ****. It's the group. Now if you'd stay at home and wouldn't vote there wouldn't be any difference. So YOU as a PERSON don't make any more difference than I.


Another thing, over 50% of Americans opposed gay marriage. This year's election is not about gay marriage, but it's one of many factor for Americans to decide who will be the president.
I don't know about pro/con gay marriage statistics, but like you say, it's not about gay marriage, and I seriously doubt someone would vote on a certain party just because of their gay marriage policy. Besides, I'm afraid the biggest factor for Americans will be their purse... :(

[Jack Mehoff]

I don't know about pro/con gay marriage statistics, but like you say, it's not about gay marriage, and I seriously doubt someone would vote on a certain party just because of their gay marriage policy. Besides, I'm afraid the biggest factor for Americans will be their purse..

Actually, that's the biggest factor for EVERYBODY in the world and not only in America. You Euro wouldn't colonize every part of the earth and started two world wars if economy wasn't an issue.

#1 economy
#2 war in Iraq

[Haiw]

I don't know about pro/con gay marriage statistics, but like you say, it's not about gay marriage, and I seriously doubt someone would vote on a certain party just because of their gay marriage policy. Besides, I'm afraid the biggest factor for Americans will be their purse..

Actually, that's the biggest factor for EVERYBODY in the world and not only in America. You Euro wouldn't colonize every part of the earth and started two world wars if economy wasn't an issue.

#1 economy
#2 war in Iraq
You might be right about us in the past, but we're not the greedy colonizers we used to be! p-) BTW especially WW2 was less of an economic war. It had more to do with ideology and such. (The 'greater Germany' and the need for 'lebensraum' and all that)

[seventy6er]

Yes.

[Durandal]

Gay marriages are cool by me...

Hell, marriage is fundemental right for ANY two people...

[SpazzMunky]

gay marraige should be legal.
People in a gay relationship shouldnt be denied the same rights as straights, thats called discrimination. All men are created equal.

[Durandal]

All men are created equal.

You mean all PEPLE right?

;)

[Lone Predator]

Frankly


**** any god who would send someone to hell for loving someone enough to marry them, they should have his blessing just like anyone else. Even if its done by the preist of a diffrent religion.

If any god infact would... why would the government stop it, everyone would 'get theirs' in the end eh?

[Rilence]

soo...can i marry my cat? :D

[scott]

human rights general apply to well... humans
oh yes folks, same *** couples are humans too

[mattnwnc03]

if two people try as hard as these people try to get married then why not ,heck they dont want any benefits or nothing they just want the title.

[786mine]

Let's not let women vote. I mean, before we know it even dogs are gonna get a vote in the elections.

Edit: Utah was the 2nd state(1870) behind Wyoming in the nation to give women the right to vote. The current governor of Utah is a female. Your point?

lol. a very intellegent reply.

[786mine]

Frankly


f*** any god who would send someone to hell for loving someone enough to marry them, they should have his blessing just like anyone else. Even if its done by the preist of a diffrent religion.

If any god infact would... why would the government stop it, everyone would 'get theirs' in the end eh?

would it be ok for a mother and a son to get married and have children??! in the name of lovvvvvveeeeee???? don't even bother replying back as those were sarcastic questions.

[786mine]

Let's not let women vote. I mean, before we know it even dogs are gonna get a vote in the elections.

Edit: Utah was the 2nd state(1870) behind Wyoming in the nation to give women the right to vote. The current governor of Utah is a female. Your point?
My point was that this is the same argument. This is the good old 'err...well even though maybe they should have it....we don't give it or else OTHER people will ask too'.

So it's OK to force feed Christian values on Mormon, but it is wrong wrong to do it to homo****** couples? I see :roll:

By the way, Mormon is a religion in case you don't know.

Let me point out that you are wrong about Mormon people. Some of my family members are Mormon, that allowed me to get an indept look at what they really believed in. In the early days of LDS it was allowed for one man to have many woman, but later on, they changed that law to match with the "law of the land." Every LDS church in different countries follow the Law of that country. Since it isn't allowed to have more than one wife, the LDS church does not recoginse such polygamists as Mormons. Now that you have been educated, please refrain from using this anology.

Regarding the Gay marriages. That is just wrong. The line has to be drawn. If these gay men and women want to have *** and live together, they are FREE to do that. Marriage is a special status. Its a holy institution. God made marriage between one man and one woman. This fits both biologically and psychologically with their needs. These Gay people are out of their mind to ask for such rights. I am going to use my VOTE to let my voice be heard.

[Jack Mehoff]

Let's not let women vote. I mean, before we know it even dogs are gonna get a vote in the elections.

Edit: Utah was the 2nd state(1870) behind Wyoming in the nation to give women the right to vote. The current governor of Utah is a female. Your point?
My point was that this is the same argument. This is the good old 'err...well even though maybe they should have it....we don't give it or else OTHER people will ask too'.

So it's OK to force feed Christian values on Mormon, but it is wrong wrong to do it to homo****** couples? I see :roll:

By the way, Mormon is a religion in case you don't know.

Let me point out that you are wrong about Mormon people. Some of my family members are Mormon, that allowed me to get an indept look at what they really believed in. In the early days of LDS it was allowed for one man to have many woman, but later on, they changed that law to match with the "law of the land." Every LDS church in different countries follow the Law of that country. Since it isn't allowed to have more than one wife, the LDS church does not recoginse such polygamists as Mormons. Now that you have been educated, please refrain from using this anology.


Eh, so basically you are agree with me.

Do you think the church of LDS just "volunteer" to give up the practice of polygamy without the U.S. government(which based on Christian values) telling them to do so? Where is the separation of church and state?

Christian is anti-polygamy and anti-homo****** marriages. They might as well make polygamy legal if they are going to make homo****** marriages legal.

Yes, I do aware that church of LDS outlawed polygamy in 1830 because U.S. government told them to do so.

Please, don't lecture me about Mormon because I WAS a Mormon....a jack Mormon that is.

[dacanadianbomb]

OK back on topic, I completely agree with Tane angle and Durandal on this subject. Gay marriages must be allowed.
Marriage should not be defined by a religion. And a religion should definately not define the laws of a country.
If two people wish to give themselves the vows and make the commitment, then so be it. Their business their problem.

Gay couples must be given the same treatment as hetero****** couples.The same benefits the same allowance, and must follow the same guidelines and laws. So why should a hetereo****** couple who abide the law get more rights and entitlements than homosexal couples who abide by the law?

[OldRecon]

Really don't care about this to much, but can't see any arguments against gays marrying.
For me people can watherever they won't as long as they stay off my ass.
From the writings of people like Herodot or Aristoteles you get the impression that the ancient Greeks were gay or bi-****** to a man, yet they seem to have been quite good soldiers for their day.

[Durandal]

soo...can i marry my cat? :D

Idiocy...your cat is NOT a human being.

Edit: Your cat is chattel...or property. You cannot marry your car, you cannot marry a rifle, you cannot marry a cat. There are certainly OTHER laws dealing with protection of property...the right to own for example and in the case of LIVING property, there are other property laws and humane laws.

Arguing, alswo, about polygamy is silly as well. Straight couples cannot marry multiple partners so non-straight couples cannot do it either. No one is actually REDEFINING marriage. Marriage is a bond between two adults which varies from culture to culture. Sometimes it is a religious ceremony other times it isimply a social one. The big sticking point is that, in the United States, it is licensed by the government and legally has NOTHING to do with the church. Thus, to deny same *** couples a license is descrimination, no matter HOW you slice it.

Now if you define marriage as a religious ONLY ceremony and bond (as in "Before God") then cool. I will never be married since I will never marry "Before God".

The ultimate answer to this is simply do away with the term marriage since the hang up is simply someone's definition of marriage. All you do is change the term at the the government level. Anyone can join in a relationship bond and if you want a religious marriage cermeony then that is up to you and your church/faith.

The idea of denying something to someone simply because the prefer to sleep with the same *** is so UN-AMERICAN that it makes me ill sometimes...

[California Joe]

Tane was right in his first damned post. This is what's known as a "distraction issue" Some social arguement that people feel passionate about that the government shouldn't be involved in. It's purpose is to distract the ignorant general populace at large from the REAL issues like the fact that we have no exit strategy from Iraq, Afghanistan is now an underfunded goatf*ck with all the major targets still at large, and the deficit is growing exponentially. But we can pander to the ignorant masses about how we'll keep those damned "fags" from ruining marriage. Cause if that was legal everyone knows that most of the adult males in the country would dump their wives and run out and start banging their buddies at deer camp. :roll:

[Durandal]

Cause if that was legal everyone knows that most of the adult males in the country would dump their wives and run out and start banging their buddies at deer camp. :roll:

I love it when you talk sexy Joe...

;)

[California Joe]

Heh. So how YOU doin'? p-)

[pipaz]

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONOOOOOOOOO AND AGAIN noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[California Joe]

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONOOOOOOOOO AND AGAIN noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Apparently you ran into George Michael in a mensroom once. Simmah don nah.

[Beowulf]

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONOOOOOOOOO AND AGAIN noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Apparently you ran into George Michael in a mensroom once. Simmah don nah.
[Jitterbug.......Jitterbug]

[California Joe]

[go - go]

[Trident-za]

I'm going to answer this from the point of view of "gays in general" rather than "gays in the USA".

Yes, I think they should be allowed to get married. In a world where divorce (due to overwork, infidelity, drug abuse, child abuse, alcohlism, wife battering etc. etc) is so rife, its a shock to see that people believe "gay marriage" will erode the sanctity of marriage. This argument is just such complete crap! What is the divorce rate between "straight people" these days? The sanctity of marriage was screwed ages ago... and it had nothing to do with gays.

The adoption of kids is a separate issue. This should not even come into the arguement about marriage. There are plenty of straight married couples with no kids. On this issue, though - who woul you rather be raised by:

a) a straight couple - he is unemployed, and a serious alcoholic, with a violent temper when drunk. He is also a paedophile whenever he has the chance. He is straight, though. She is an employed hooker, with a coke habit and a tendency to shoplifting.

b) a gay couple - both partners are intelligent, hard working members of the community, no drug habits, no violent tendencies. Also, they love animals.

OK, so.... crap choice of a straight couple - but thats the point isn't it? How can you say that the straight couple can get married and have kids - because its right in the eyes of "God" and government in a circumstance like that?

If I had my way, everybody getting married would require extensive pyschological testing beforehand. And people with drug habits, violent tendencies etc would have their marriage licences rebuked, irrespective of ****** tendencies.

Morality has a lot less to do with ****** preferences than you might think.

P.S. I'm straight, with a wife, so don't get any weird ideas from this post :)

[Durandal]

Heh. So how YOU doin'? p-)

Oh, oh, YOU 'da man!

[Durandal]

Marriage is a special status. Its a holy institution. God made marriage between one man and one woman. This fits both biologically and psychologically with their needs. These Gay people are out of their mind to ask for such rights. I am going to use my VOTE to let my voice be heard.

The irony...using the right given to you to take away others' rights...

If marriage was a concept common to ONLY Judeo-Christian-Muslim faiths you would be correct. Since they are not, you are wrong.

Next you are going to be telling us "that the Bible clearly shows how race mixing is bad"...

rofl

[Tane Angle]

The intolerance towards gays from certain religions stems at least in part from the "Sodom and Gomorrah" story in the Old Testament. Here's the thing though: the scientific indication is that that was an asteroid impact. What's more, a society made up of such a purportedly high number of homo******s (or at least ones without the benefit of IVF and other methods) could not survive for more than ten to twenty years. Sodom and Gomorrah physically could not have existed with such a high number of homo******s.

Besides, if God, Allah, Buddha, or whoever wanted everyone to be hetero******, they would be, wouldn’t they? ****** orientation isn’t a choice.

How many people here sat down and weighed the pros and cons of looking at pictures of naked women versus pictures of naked men? Homo******s don’t choose to be attracted to members of their own gender any more than most of you choose to find Britney Spears or whoever is the “hot girl” of the moment is to be hot.

No?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts…

[Jack Mehoff]

Marriage is a special status. Its a holy institution. God made marriage between one man and one woman. This fits both biologically and psychologically with their needs. These Gay people are out of their mind to ask for such rights. I am going to use my VOTE to let my voice be heard.

The irony...using the right given to you to take away others' rights...

If marriage was a concept common to ONLY Judeo-Christian-Muslim faiths you would be correct. Since they are not, you are wrong.

Next you are going to be telling us "that the Bible clearly shows how race mixing is bad"...

rofl
Separation of state and church is nothing but a myth. (http://historytogo.utah.gov/historyofpolygamy.html)



In 1862 the United States Congress passed the Morrill Act, which prohibited plural marriage in the territories, disincorporated the Mormon Church, and restricted the church's ownership of property.

[Tane Angle]

Jack, I honestly don't know enough about polygamy to really have an opinion one way or another one it. I'm not even sure if it's something one can really have an opinion on, or if those opinions are even worth having. So do you support it or no? It does seem like it would be an economic burden, but perhaps the law could be changed to "employees may grant one other adult of their choosing their health insurance and other benefits." I don't really know if that would help anyone though. So, if you have the time, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Thanks.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts/questions...

[TRACER_BULLET]

:|

I'll have to jump on the bandwagon and agree with tane, durandel & Joe ....

Its anyones right to get married if they so chose ... ******ity shouldn't have anything to do with it. Also marriage has other benifites we take for granted... To give you an example ...

My friend is a county contractor he didn't get benifites (healthcare etc.) and he couldn't aford full coverage heathcare with what he was making ... After he married his g/f (a county employee) he now has full coverage & life insurance. See how marrage can involve other factors.
If you plan on using the "civil unions" aguement ... remember that reconition isn't maditory.

My thougths are as long as your not preventing me from my "persuit of happness" or other wise limiting my rights ... Go for it (with in reason).

:D

[Durandal]

Separation of state and church is nothing but a myth.

I never said anything to the contrary...

Of course, in 1862 there were still LEGAL slave owning States in the UNION.

I guess I would be more on the side of the Mormon Church if it had its roots in polygamy, which it did not. It happened at the whim of a religious leader...sorry.

Nor did the government make the Mormon Church illegal. They simply said polygamy was illegal. Polygamy was not the center of the Mormon Church nor did most the members practice it.

Yes I support gay marriage because it wouldn't make a difference to me or any of you if they did get married. Let them get married and do whatever they want, they are human beings and they only live once. This country needs to focus on more important things than "Gay Marriage".... :|

but.... I don't think it should be legal for gays to adopt a child, that is a different story....

[Fintin]

i like how this thread has 7 pages of replies but only 9 votes....just saying

[fisheyestudio]

No!

Read the first few chapters of the New Testament Book of Romans and see how totally relevant the scriptures are.

Homo******ity is for sure an abomination according to God's word. So is lying, stealing, refusing to acknowledge Him etc.

The point of what I am saying is that if we do not have absolute truth to stand on, then truth changes with each generation, or with each persuasive argument.

God didnt randomly pick a certain number of things and call them sin. He made us and He knows how we can best live. He also knows that we all like sin because we were born with the same nature that Adam had after he sinned. Homo******ity is a sin and it is a choice. Each of us is born with certain leanings towards things that are wrong. We choose whether or not to listen and act upon those impulses.

If we as a country want to truely seperate Gods truth from our decision making process, then it only makes sense to give marriage rights to any group or persons who so wish. But, sin carries a price. Not just for the individual but for the society as well.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah. The sin that God found unbearable was not there homo******ity, but their lack of hospitality and their violence. And fire was poured down from heaven, so I guess he had that meteor handy...

The only answer is through receiving a new nature and forgiveness through Jesus.

Just some more thoughts...

[Ratamacue]

Let people choose their own religion. I don't need the Bible to tell me how to run my life.

[786mine]

Let's not let women vote. I mean, before we know it even dogs are gonna get a vote in the elections.

Edit: Utah was the 2nd state(1870) behind Wyoming in the nation to give women the right to vote. The current governor of Utah is a female. Your point?
My point was that this is the same argument. This is the good old 'err...well even though maybe they should have it....we don't give it or else OTHER people will ask too'.

So it's OK to force feed Christian values on Mormon, but it is wrong wrong to do it to homo****** couples? I see :roll:

By the way, Mormon is a religion in case you don't know.

Let me point out that you are wrong about Mormon people. Some of my family members are Mormon, that allowed me to get an indept look at what they really believed in. In the early days of LDS it was allowed for one man to have many woman, but later on, they changed that law to match with the "law of the land." Every LDS church in different countries follow the Law of that country. Since it isn't allowed to have more than one wife, the LDS church does not recoginse such polygamists as Mormons. Now that you have been educated, please refrain from using this anology.


Eh, so basically you are agree with me.

Do you think the church of LDS just "volunteer" to give up the practice of polygamy without the U.S. government(which based on Christian values) telling them to do so? Where is the separation of church and state?

Christian is anti-polygamy and anti-homo****** marriages. They might as well make polygamy legal if they are going to make homo****** marriages legal.

Yes, I do aware that church of LDS outlawed polygamy in 1830 because U.S. government told them to do so.

Please, don't lecture me about Mormon because I WAS a Mormon....a jack Mormon that is.

Yes I pretty much agree with you. But the Mormon polygamist was I think unneeded. I am not trying to lecture you. From your posts it sounded like you were unaware that the LDS church does NOT support a marriage b/w one man and one woman. peace.

[786mine]

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONONOOOOOOOOO AND AGAIN noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Apparently you ran into George Michael in a mensroom once. Simmah don nah.

funny guy!

[786mine]

Marriage is a special status. Its a holy institution. God made marriage between one man and one woman. This fits both biologically and psychologically with their needs. These Gay people are out of their mind to ask for such rights. I am going to use my VOTE to let my voice be heard.

The irony...using the right given to you to take away others' rights...

If marriage was a concept common to ONLY Judeo-Christian-Muslim faiths you would be correct. Since they are not, you are wrong.

Next you are going to be telling us "that the Bible clearly shows how race mixing is bad"...

rofl

BUUZZZZZ wrong Durandal, you are assuming what I will tell you next....

Since you have raised that question let me answer it, no mixing race is not wrong becuase there is no such thing as "race" infront of God.

[Fargin]

Should Gay marriage be legal?

Hmm... I think I'll use fifthy-fifthy.

[*MICHAEL*]

im not religious in anyway, so frankly it doesnt bother me. If two people wish to be married i dont think it should be anyone elses descision or buisness.

[Haiw]

No!

Read the first few chapters of the New Testament Book of Romans and see how totally relevant the scriptures are.

Homo******ity is for sure an abomination according to God's word. So is lying, stealing, refusing to acknowledge Him etc.

The point of what I am saying is that if we do not have absolute truth to stand on, then truth changes with each generation, or with each persuasive argument.

God didnt randomly pick a certain number of things and call them sin. He made us and He knows how we can best live. He also knows that we all like sin because we were born with the same nature that Adam had after he sinned. Homo******ity is a sin and it is a choice. Each of us is born with certain leanings towards things that are wrong. We choose whether or not to listen and act upon those impulses.

If we as a country want to truely seperate Gods truth from our decision making process, then it only makes sense to give marriage rights to any group or persons who so wish. But, sin carries a price. Not just for the individual but for the society as well.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah. The sin that God found unbearable was not there homo******ity, but their lack of hospitality and their violence. And fire was poured down from heaven, so I guess he had that meteor handy...

The only answer is through receiving a new nature and forgiveness through Jesus.

Just some more thoughts...
Last time I checked countries aren't run by the church. Not everyone believes in that stuff...so are you gonna force that stuff upon them? That's like forcing someone to eat a bunch of eggs because you believe in the easter bunny, even though he doesn't.

[sethen]

Yes it should be legal. To hell with anybody that wants to misuse the Bible as an excuse/argument against it. Being able to get married
isn't a "special right."

[Fintin]

i noticed someone mentions the old testiment.....and its depiction of homo******ity....for those who havnt read it....http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/sodom_and_gomorrah/gn19_01.html

[Salty Dog]

that's funny

[Ars Moriendi]

Marriage: Yes
Adoption: Yes

[dhfactory]

In my country we kill gays. Just the way it is.

-Sean

[Durandal]

In my country we kill gays. Just the way it is.

-Sean

I bet you burn witches too...

Ahhhh, civilization...are lack thereof.

[Haiw]

BUUUUUUUUURN TEH HETHENS!!!!

Hey, at least gives a nice warm fire... p-)

[anonymous individual]

In my country we kill gays. Just the way it is.

-Sean

And what is your country?

[Tane Angle]

I always thought it was a bit ironic and hypocritical for Christians to kill homo******s and others. A cross versus a stake. :|

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Durandal]

BUUUUUUUUURN TEH HETHENS!!!!

Hey, at least gives a nice warm fire... p-)

That is because witches are made of wood. :)

[Haiw]

BUUUUUUUUURN TEH HETHENS!!!!

Hey, at least gives a nice warm fire... p-)

That is because witches are made of wood. :)
Damn. Do you think you could make some nice furniture out of witches? :D Or witchwood gunstocks...mmmmm. ;)

[Durandal]

...Or witchwood gunstocks...mmmmm. ;)

rofl

I can see that now. I can shoot 600 yards with my custom Remington 700 and its OH SO beautiful stock AND cast spells!

This would all be SOOOOO much more funny iof it were not for the fact that what got us started on it was SOOOOO disgusting.

:|

[Durandal]

I always thought it was a bit ironic and hypocritical for Christians to kill homo******s and others. A cross versus a stake. :|

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Polotics and Conversion can be VERY nasty Tane. I think it was rare that someone actually murdered these people for religion....though it was done under the guise of it for certain.

I agree completely.

it was also one of the questions I would always ask years ago in Sunday school. It drove them mad as I was only 12 at the time.

[dhfactory]

I'm from Australia.

Unfortuantely we don't kill them here, i do. But not my country.

-Sean

[Salty Dog]

I'm from Australia.

Unfortuantely we don't kill them here, i do. But not my country.

-Sean

your mother must be very proud of you.

[Haiw]

I'm from Australia.

Unfortuantely we don't kill them here, i do. But not my country.

-Sean
http://members.lycos.nl/oma666/forum/wtf.gif
You might want to see a psychiatrist about those rascist homophobic homocidal tendencies.

[California Joe]

Pretty sure you got a ***** watching Crying Game and have henceforth loathed yourself and your penchant for wearing manties under your clothes. Now be a good girl and stop hating.

[dhfactory]

Nah it's cool.

I never said i'm racist, and the meaning of homophobic is "scared of becoming gay yourself" I just want to kill them, there is a big difference..

psychiatrist's won't talk to me, they tried that when i was a little kid.


-Sean

[786mine]

In my country we kill gays. Just the way it is.

-Sean

The Austrailians are a nation of crooks and thieves so it does not surprise me

[Durandal]

Unfortuantely we don't kill them here, i do.

I find this amusing coming from someone that has a half naked dude for an avatar.

[mocking_loudly_died]

In my country we kill gays. Just the way it is.

-Sean

The Austrailians are a nation of crooks and thieves so it does not surprise me

That's why I'm holding your wallet with my left hand while taking your anal innocence with my right foot.

Perfect justification since I'm from a nation of rabid thieves

[Salty Dog]

In my country we kill gays. Just the way it is.

-Sean

The Austrailians are a nation of crooks and thieves so it does not surprise me

That's why I'm holding your wallet with my left hand while taking your anal innocence with my right foot.

Perfect justification since I'm from a nation of rabid thieves

rofl

[dacanadianbomb]

Nah it's cool.

I never said i'm racist, and the meaning of homophobic is "scared of becoming gay yourself" I just want to kill them, there is a big difference..

psychiatrist's won't talk to me, they tried that when i was a little kid.


-Sean

Wrong ,
being phobic of something is being scared of it. You arent scared of becoming a spider when your Arachnophobic, your not scared of becoming a foreigner when your xenophobic, your not scarred of becoming a wide open space when your agoraphobic, and much less are you going to be scared of becoming and small enclosed space when you are claustrophobic.

The psychologists / psychiatrists obviously knew a lost case when they saw one, who let you near a computer with a internet connection ?

I personally think we would all be better off if you just shut up, and try to make more sense the next time you post.

[Denat]

You arent scared of becoming a spider when your Arachnophobic
rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl