Tipme Posted February 27, 2004 Report Posted February 27, 2004 what do you think of it. ...-*BAD WORD*-ed Iraqies will just say they are married and come into the U.S and do Terrorist Attacks from the Inside...so....foreigners can just say they are married so they can come here? is it possible oh yea...next i want them to p!@#$%^&* Inanimate Objects Marriagei wanna marry my computer
Dav Posted February 27, 2004 Report Posted February 27, 2004 thats a good question, i think it is an acceptable thing to do but i dont believe in gay couple adopting or having children.
Yupa Posted February 27, 2004 Report Posted February 27, 2004 I don't know much about it, but here are some thoughts: It's only done in a couple places, like San Fransisco and massachusetts or something. I'm pretty sure in a few years or whatnot, the people that got this started will have the option of redoing it and in the process translate all gay marriages that have taken place into 'civil unions' Despite religious (mostly Christian) claims, the state of marriage is not exclusive to any religion and has no doubt existed before most. I do agree with Dav, though...gay couples being allowed to adopt children is lunacy. Children should be raised in moderate, NORMAL environments.Homosexuality is NOT normal. If a gay person wants a child, they should -*BAD WORD*--well have sex with THE OPPOSITE SEX and make one. It's not like they have to love the person just to get them pregnant. You can even pay people to have your babies these days. To me, giving a child to a gay couple is kind of like altering fate.It's like dealing cards out of order...it just shouldn't be done, it changes everything.
»1587200 Posted February 27, 2004 Report Posted February 27, 2004 Kinda seems like a fail safe that only two people of the opposite sex can reproduce. There's a hint that homosexuality is wrong.
Yupa Posted February 27, 2004 Report Posted February 27, 2004 Ya, and for anybody that thinks people are just saying it's wrong because they're religious zealots, try putting a penis into a penis.
Himura Kenshin Posted February 27, 2004 Report Posted February 27, 2004 exactly were not meant to be gay period!
Unlimited Posted February 28, 2004 Report Posted February 28, 2004 I absolutely think it's wrong to marry with same sex, but it's their decision.
Dav Posted February 29, 2004 Report Posted February 29, 2004 Kinda seems like a fail safe that only two people of the opposite sex can reproduce. There's a hint that homosexuality is wrong.accually is said that 1 in 10 people being gay is way too common to be a coincadenc (new scientest a few weeks ago) Btw it is also legal in denmark (no surprises there) On the topic of children, children need a mother and a fater to be raised correctly even if they are seperated, 2 fathers will just screw them up.
Bacchus Posted February 29, 2004 Report Posted February 29, 2004 no they won't. 50 years ago they thought that a divorced couple might "screw" their kids...they've been proven wrong. What screw the children has nothing to do their parent sex. There are various cultural patterns quite different from the occidental one, the one we're using. and kids end up being perfectly normal. There's a LOT of instances where children end up completely -*BAD WORD*-ed up...and they're coming from "standard" families. The problem lies with education and social contingencies. btw, our cultural ancestry can be dated back to the greek...which were practising homosexual relationship. Homosexuality has ALWAYS been a part of any human society. There's is no problem with same sex relationships...a sick hetero, straight man/woman will be as sick as a gay/lesbian one. btw, the bible isn't a reference. Nature neither...a lot of animals have homosexual relations. Let them do as they very -*BAD WORD*-ing plz.... since you're not the one being banged or getting married....WHO CARES???
Unlimited Posted February 29, 2004 Report Posted February 29, 2004 pssst... WHO CARES???I agree with Bacchus. We're not the ones getting married with our gay lovers.
Aileron Posted March 1, 2004 Report Posted March 1, 2004 Nobody really does care, including politicians, who are trying to get out of political dodge and being reluctant to make a stand. (Example- Bush, because while he made a stand, he only did so after a few months of hesitation. [and those of you who hate Bush should know that he never hesitates.]) I don't really care either.
Live-Wire Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 It doesn't matter whether gay marriage is right or not, or if a politician believes in it or not. You can not write inequality into the Cons!@#$%^&*ution. No matter how conservative the Renquist Court is, it will not allow this. I totally believe in this Supreme Court to do so. The problem is that there is a quite clear super majority of anti-gay-marriage laws supporters around the country. It is absolutely obvious that if a Presidential candidate supported Gay marriage it would cost him a vital amount of voters. Yet, it is quite clear the far left will be alienated by this stance the Democrats are forced to take (Kerry already came out against gay marriages, no pun intended). The result is a divide in the democratic party, added with the richest campaign ever compared to a near broke one, on top of the en-*BAD WORD*-bancy, and Bush can't lose.
Mr Ekted Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 Popular vote can't override basic rights. You can't say that all Jews have to leave because 51% of the people say so. You are not allowed to not hire a handicapped person because the majority of the company doesn't want to headaches. We have basic rights for this very reason--to protect people from biased idiots, like most of you in this thread.
Dav Posted March 5, 2004 Report Posted March 5, 2004 well many countries will ot leagalise it, it is believed absoluty wrong in most relious followings
Testtube Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 You are all getting off topic. Which is Gay Marriage. No one is saying hey look homosexuals You cant have sex. No one is saying they cant hold hands live together kiss in public OR anything of the like. The topic is if Homosexuals should beable to marry. Well Lets look at the word http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)n. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. Based on that dictionary term homosexuals Dont fit the bill.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iam not a biased Idiot They want somthing that is in most religions sacred I have nothing against giving them thier unions or even there tax cut that they want. But MARRIAGE is not on the trading/discussion block Marriage is between a man and a woman and to reply to Bacchusbtw, our cultural ancestry can be dated back to the greek...which were practising homosexual relationship. Homosexuality has ALWAYS been a part of any human society. There's is no problem with same sex relationships Uh so? There was murder Back then Does that make it acceptiable because it happened back then or for somthing that you say was practiced Are you implying everyone practiced it? Or is it more than likly if at all a very small percentage of the population Actually practiced it. -*BAD WORD*- some religions have and still do practice human/animal sacrifices it Dosent make it right. Now does it? No it dosent Back to my point I dont like giving the goverment the power to say who or what we can do Every law that is passed in such manner. because that means we lose some more of our freedom. But let me ask you a question. Lets say you had a apple And you got some friends who have seen the apple everyone knows its a apple But for some reason you and all your friends want to call it a orange. WELL GUESS WHAT ITS NOT A ORANGE. Call it what it is. They want there unions FINE call it a union Because what they are doing does not follow under the terms of a marriage ITS NOT A MARRIAGE
Bacchus Posted March 13, 2004 Report Posted March 13, 2004 wow, what is your problem with that? I mean look at your argument: 1)A marriage is a union between a man and woman (that's presomptuous. There's nothing such as a "natural law" regarding marriage)2)A gay couple( same sex) isn't made of man and woman3)thus they can't unite4)therefore they can't marry. That's so out of the blue i'd have to say you're somewhat of an integrist. By the way, GG on being biased... mar·riage  ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)n. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. The state of being married; wedlock. A common-law marriage. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. A wedding. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics†(Lloyd Rose). Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------[Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier, to marry. See marry1.common law marriage is still marriage.next time you quote something, be fair, quote it completly. Religious beliefs...pfft. Try believeing in something useful for a change. ps.: Just in case you wnated to argue words again, here's the 1297 definition of "marriage":marriage - 1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritati-*BAD WORD*-, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry). "When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." [G.B. Shaw] people...not man...not woman...people. As in Human Beings, full fledged...with rights, dignity and free will.
Guest Chaos Posted March 14, 2004 Report Posted March 14, 2004 marriage - 1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritati-*BAD WORD*-, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (see marry). "When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." [G.B. Shaw] people...not man...not woman...people. As in Human Beings, full fledged...with rights, dignity and free will. That definition is facetious. You shouldn't use it to rebut your argument.
Earthshero Posted March 14, 2004 Report Posted March 14, 2004 If you can't breed you are useless, adopting kids is like buying a rotten egg. Damaged Goods!
Guest Chaos Posted March 14, 2004 Report Posted March 14, 2004 If you can't breed you are useless, adopting kids is like buying a rotten egg. Damaged Goods!Just because you can breed doesn't mean you can raise a child. People who adopt children do the world a favor. Would you rather be raised by caring people or some government agency?
Bacchus Posted March 14, 2004 Report Posted March 14, 2004 That definition is facetious. You shouldn't use it to rebut your argument. I know, but i felt cheesy If you can't breed you're useless? wtf...rofl, you just found out about puberty, don't ya?
Guest coldie Posted March 15, 2004 Report Posted March 15, 2004 ok first of all its adam and even not adam and steve second of all the legal marriage happened beause of whites marring blacks, so they made a license so that they can reject it.i personally dont think that gay ppl should be aloud to marry legally, but thats me cause im religios, and i really really dont think gays should be aloud to adopt at all, its bad enough the kid is in adoption, y mess it up more by giving it 2 dads? but again im not here to judge, do what u want, your the one gunna be in -*BAD WORD*- not me =) i just persoanlly dont view it as right is all .
Dav Posted March 15, 2004 Report Posted March 15, 2004 i agree with te gay adoption thing not being allowd. childrens devolpment is key on a mother and a father figure in childhood.
Recommended Posts