gay marriage

[nikegurl637]

I believe that gay marriage should be allowed.

If 2 people love each other, let them get married - it's not anyone's place to be able to place a ban on same sex marriages.

Though I feel that same sex partners adopting children might be kind of weird for the child as it grows older, there are so many parentless children in the world that need love and support... so why not let homosexuals adopt. There's nothing saying they can't be as great of parents as a straight couple.

 

Also, who's watched -*BAD WORD*- Eye For the Straight Guy? I love that show, and I personally find it rather sad that 5 gay men go out to try and help straight men's love lives improve, and they are not allowed to have a legal union for their love...

[Dav]

you make a very good point, marrige is a way of securing love between two people.

 

The point about adoption is interesting. You say that gay parents are better then no parents at all. The thing is that gay parents can have a phycological effect on the childs devolpment and that will cause many problems in life.

[Bacchus]

yea off course it'll have effect on a child development, not NECESSARILY a bad one though.

 

I'm hailing from a monoparental family...where was my "male" figure? outside, in everyday life.

 

Am i more screwed up than a "normal" family? nope.

Am i a psychologicaly healthy whole person? yes.

 

So are a whole frikkin lot of people on this world.

 

Mind you, "family" as most of you seems to understand it means a father, a mother and a child. This is the occidental/american model...if you think that the world refer to a family in a likewise manner...well...i suggest you go outside or follow an anthropology course. It is far from being the sole and unique social system.

 

Gay marriage, gay adoption, gay that, gay this...whatever will make the world a better place, if 2 person love each other i'm pretty sure they'll care about their child.

 

lol, and I bet that a lot of posters here aren't even in the 20' yet

[Aileron]

What's 'American' about this model? This father/mother/child model has been in place for millions of years, and whether you believe in creation or evolution, preexist humanity itself. Either God made the model, or the model was used in more primative forms of life. Not matter what you believe, marriage has been between a man and a woman for longer than humans have been around.

 

Traditions like this are usually in place for a reason, usually social justice or economic efficiency. It is almost impossible to know why the exact reasons. Usually, if one wants to change them, one should have a very good reason. Every case where a tradition such as this one was destroyed for no reason resulted in disaster. An example of this would be the French Revolutions and the chaos following them.

 

For starters, I would have to ask why we should change.

 

 

BTW, I think you won that bet. I'm only 19 years and 9 months.

[nikegurl637]

The point about adoption is interesting.  You say that gay parents are better then no parents at all.  The thing is that gay parents can have a phycological effect on the childs devolpment and that will cause many problems in life.

I'm just curious, what sort of psychological effect do you think having 2 gay parents will have on a child?

[Sgt. Bountage]

I hear its been leagalized in Ontario, Canada too... OH NO!!! MY DOG MAY GO GAY TOO!!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

 

But also, they say gay... but I think they should also mean Lesbien, cuz, Gay means two men... but Lesbien... it means two women... which some men think is hott... *drool* gotta go!!

[nikegurl637]

*snicker*

Some women think that gay men are hot too.

*coughfab5cough* doo dee doo...

[»SD>Big]

I hear its been leagalized in Ontario, Canada too... OH NO!!! MY DOG MAY GO GAY TOO!!!! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

 

But also, they say gay... but I think they should also mean Lesbien, cuz, Gay means two men... but Lesbien... it means two women... which some men think is hott... *drool* gotta go!!

you really should stop posting so much on the boards, you just spew nonsense.

[Testtube]

canada is gay to begin with so it dosent surprise me

[nikegurl637]

canada is gay to begin with so it dosent surprise me

Awww. Don't be mean... =)

[Dav]

canada is gay to begin with so it dosent surprise me

harsh.

 

canada is a cool nation

[Aileron]

Is this a logical debate or a spamming board?

[Bacchus]

What's 'American' about this model

Believe it or not, there's a continent named America...ppl living in it are also called americans. Read: people living on the American continent.

 

This father/mother/child model has been in place for millions of years, and whether you believe in creation or evolution, preexist humanity itself

 

You must be drunk or something. Father/mother/child blabla can't preexist humanity. The bible itself was written by humans, christianity is relatively young as religion goes btw. Wether you belive that it was inspired by god or a genuine work of human crwativity is another story.

 

marriage has been between a man and a woman for longer than humans have been around

You're not making any sense. Unless off course, you think that "Marriage" is a force of nature, or part of some quantum physics theory and even then I could demonstrate that science isn't science without a human mind behind it.

 

Traditions like this are usually in place for a reason, usually social justice or economic efficiency. It is almost impossible to know why the exact reasons

 

Yea, they are. They also are usually the product of a historical context...which changes and evolve over the years. If tradition was never to change US would still use slaves and women wouldn't have any right to vote.

 

btw, after every revolution you have to clean up some mess...just like the Secession War might i remind you. The French Revolution was chaotic but they also are the cornerstone of what has become a republic.

 

canada is gay to begin with so it dosent surprise me

I pretty sure you'd like it here...

[nikegurl637]

Meh. This was a logical 'debate' before the pointless posts started coming in. =P

 

Anyway, I know religions are against same sex marriages... but hey. Does anyone know if animals can be gay/lesbian? I think that would be interesting to find out. Then it would be proven that same sex love is natural, therefore they should be allowed marriage.

[nikegurl637]

Oops. Double posted. My bad.

[Dav]

Does anyone know if animals can be gay/lesbian? I think that would be interesting to find out. Then it would be proven that same sex love is natural, therefore they should be allowed marriage.

yes baboons display homosexual behavior and i think there are other animals that do as well.

 

One big thing is that 1 in 10 people have homosexual tendancies, that is far too high to be a coinsidence. If it was a genetic dead end the human race would be wiped out.

[Bacchus]

almost every higher mammals displays homosexual tendencies. Dolphin, chimps, etc.

 

 

 

who cares? at least they are having sex...something most of you (use "us" if you feel lonely) can only be dreaming of .

[Aileron]

What I was saying is that...

 

If you believe the Christian model of Creation, the father/mother/child family was inspired by God and thus came before man was created.

 

If you believe the Evolutionary model, it (although not marriage in the official sense) was used by the forms of life that pre-existed Homo Sapians.

 

 

The point is, oh so patient one, that the traditional definition of Marriage is the oldest and most intergral part of our sociaty ever brought to the table. It should not be treated as a add-on to the Civil Rights movement. At very least, it should be given its own time and its own unique difficulties. It shouldn't be allowed to follow in the wake of the movement for racial equality.

 

By the way, science doesn't change weather a human mind is behind it or not. If there is no rationale beings around, the CONCEPT or the STUDY of science doesn't exist, but science itself can be regarded as a universal constant.

 

The problem with the French Revolution wasn't the chaos following, but the revolutions following. Every new government afterwards was put in power about 20 years and then a complete seperate revolution to remove it. This was until the 3rd Republic was established, by foreign control mind you. The War of Sucession admitingly wasn't much better. It was followed by the War of 1812.

 

My point was that the proper way to hold a revolution is 'once and done'. In order to do this, one must have a strong central reason behind it.

 

I didn't mean "don't change tradition" in the strong sense. That arguement is practically untenable and both of us know it. What I meant was that one shouldn't change tradition without a reason. Slavery was abolished because it violated the freedoms of the slaves. Women's rights were given because it doubled the number of intelligent people in leadership.

 

I'm not saying that such a reason does not exist in this case. All I'm saying is that we should know what it is before we change anything.

[Bacchus]

The point is, oh so patient one, that the traditional definition of Marriage is the oldest and most intergral part of our sociaty ever brought to the table

most integral? oldest? sry, i don't think so. Your ancestors (mine also), the very basis of our society were polygamous in order to ensure survival, and the greek were sodomite.

 

Christianity isn't an absolute. God wasn't always a figure of unity.

 

 

By the way, science doesn't change weather a human mind is behind it or not. If there is no rationale beings around, the CONCEPT or the STUDY of science doesn't exist, but science itself can be regarded as a universal constant.

 

man, you're either drunk or dumb...i vote for drunk. Science is the knowledge of nature, no human mind=no knowledge. Knowledge isn't a universal constant...there's no natural laws of knowledge...almost everyone will agree that a human mind's cognition springs not from an "Aquinas" like point of view or like say Aristotle understood it, which is that the essence of all things (read the true nature, hence true knowledge) is in the thing itself. This conception is obsolete. It's a received fact that the human mind is the product of a neurological architecture which "creates" and organize our stimuli in coherent patterns. I suggest reading Kant, or if you like something more modern: Chomsky (generative grammar), wittgenstein, laborit, Hedelmann. Also take some time to read some epistemology author like Comte (positivism), they are at the core of our "scientific consensus".

 

 

The problem with the French Revolution wasn't the chaos following, but the revolutions following. Every new government afterwards was put in power about 20 years and then a complete seperate revolution to remove it. This was until the 3rd Republic was established, by foreign control mind you. The War of Sucession admitingly wasn't much better. It was followed by the War of 1812.

In anyway, the end product was a republic. Yes or no? Rome wasn't built in a day. Revolutions are what makes our societies what they are now. If you like yours, you should see that. US is one of those, your history is tainted in revolutionnary fights and ideals.

 

My point was that the proper way to hold a revolution is 'once and done'. In order to do this, one must have a strong central reason behind it.

 

This is a "non-point". Revolution as in turning around a central point. like in earth revoltuion around the sun...blabla.

 

 

Slavery was abolished because it violated the freedoms of the slaves. Women's rights were given because it doubled the number of intelligent people in leadership

Violated the freedom of slaves...lol. you're cute sometime

It was a violation of human rights and dignity, concepts which were held in high regards. Women vote was about equity...both were meant to end segregation of either sex or race.

Gay marriage is about the same basic principles. sexual orientation discrimination, gay marriage is about an end to social prejudice of the gay men and women. It's about the end of difference and the beginning of dialogue.

 

I'm not saying that such a reason does not exist in this case. All I'm saying is that we should know what it is before we change anything.

 

sigh...i think that you could have the reason written in letters of fire all over the sky and you wouldn't see it anyway.

[Dav]

i think it is to do with the at!@#$%^&*used towards homosexuals, many people still find the practice disturbing and that is why gay marr5ge 6s n6t allowed. Things are not as bad as they were, in the UK any homosexual practice was illigal.

 

I personally think it should be allowd, or an equivilant be available, this is the 21st centuary not the middle ages. Peope just do not want to accept that homosexuality exists to the extenent it accually does.

[Aileron]

Polygamy is not the same as same-sex couples. You aren't going to convince me that one of your ancestors was the product of a same-sex sexual encounter, save if you believe evolution and count some obscure single-sex bacteria.

 

Christianity isn't an absolute. God wasn't always a figure of unity.

That statement requires that one accept Christianity as a premise. If you aren't Christian, this statement really shouldn't apply to you and you should use the statement that uses the Darwinist model as the premise. I regret I didn't include one for every religion, but you should know what your religion says.

 

 

BTW, knowledge exists whether it is known or not. Scientists view themselves as 'discovering' knowledge rather that 'making' it. Take the example of a book. All books contain knowlege of some form or another. Lets say for arguement's sake that some book was magically conjured out of nothingness. Would it imply that if nobody read that book, that the knowledge within doesn't exist? There would be ink on the pages, whether someone has looked at it or not. The knowledge within just hasn't been discovered or learned yet.

 

It really requires you to be a scientist to understand. Its an irrelevant point anyway.

 

 

No Dav, I don't think its anything with not wanting to accept homosexuality. Its that people want a spot reserved for traditional marriage. The problem is that homosexuals won't view themselves as equals unless they too occupy that spot. It could be any spot; it is dependant on what traditional couples have.

 

I say they should be allowed a union that is equivolent to marriage in every way. However, I really don't think anybody will not draw a distinction between a gay couple and a traditional one. It really should be given a different term. Note that this term should be reserved for gay couples, and shouldn't be something such as "Civil Union", which sounds like a business partnership.

[Bacchus]

sometime i'm under the impression that i'm talking to a brick wall.

 

ail, you seem to believe that God or american "traditional values" have existed forever. just like if Christianity or Traditional Values were "natural" phenomenons.

Those are social occurences, they will transform, hopefully to something better. Forget about "premises"...what i meant was that religion was..long before monotheist, polytheist and it was working fine also. It's just easier for the mind to accept that nature is ruled by one supreme being rather than by 26 contradictory gods.

Your issue with marriage comes from purely moral reason which are, in my view, a bit twisted by conservatism.

 

and off course, knowledge do exist. But contrary to what you seem to be beliveing it's not a natural thing, it's not the essence or oneness of an object that contains knowledge. It's more like the mind that is made up to create sense and coherence from what our senses perceives. Think about that...how in -*BAD WORD*- would we have known about quantum physics by "looking" into things? Quarks, Guon and such aren't "seen" per see, they are deciphered. Scientific first ponder a phenomenon, then they come out with a theory, then they verify this theory.

ex.: once they believed that electricity was a fluid, they invented machinery to verify that...and it was working. Electricity was behaving like a fluid and everybody agreed. all but one that proved otherwise and electrical science paradigm change to today model.

 

you don't need to be a scientific to understand that. and btw, at 19 ail...you're hardly a scientist yourself.

 

the "natural" model of knowledge...meaning that knowledge is "inside" object date back to Plato, Aristotle, aquinas, etc. As is said, it is obsolete and outdated.

 

oh and do get your fact straight buddy. Gay marriage isn't quite about "traditional marriage", it's about having the state recognizing that a same sex couple should have the same fiscal, social, political, economical advantage then anyone else. in short, it's about Common law marriage, and yes..it is a contract, protected by law.

 

And yes, the resistance comes from ppl uneased about tearing down the differences. See ail, in your view each group should be separated and clearly identified: hetero are a product and/or are protected by tradition. As such they are a standard. But gay should be given another name, more fit to their particular nature. 2 separate group whereas what is asked is to brng down those groups. they are irrelevant to politic and economy. ppl will still be making babies don't worry about that either.

[Dav]

i think the homosexual at!@#$%^&*used we have derive from the fack that heterosexuals cannot picture themselves in homosecual acts and find the consept disterbing. I can imagin this working the other way also but because the heterosexual population is far greater and thier opinions on the matter openly stated many cultures are on the whole agains gay marrage.

[Bacchus]

ok, try to answer this question then:

 

Why would you want to picture yourself in a homosexual intercourse in the first place?

 

If that's what makes you uncomfortable (and, i gather, a lot of heteros) why on earth are you trying to picture yourself naked with another man/woman?

 

I personally don't give -*BAD WORD*- about homosexuality. I like getting laid myself...from there it's pretty easy to understand that gay men and women like to get laid also and that's pretty much the end of it.

 

Regarding marriage...well, i don't undertsand why people want to marry in the first place. It's imo a useless thing. I always find that it may have worth something in times of yore when life expectancy was short...-*BAD WORD*-, having one woman in your life when you'll die at 35-40y is easy. Getting married when it means that you'll put each spouses half in common for the greater good was cool...but nowadays it's pretty much meaningless and we live well over 40.

 

Off course, if you love each other and needs a "contract" under GOD (ssh, like HE cares...) to prove it, like a "couple ID"...lol:" look, this my wife RFID" ...i guess it's your right. But it's a right i'll grant anyone, from any sex, color and society...planet even.

[Sgt. Bountage]

thanks Bacchus and Dav. Canada is cool, the US is just embarrased that we almost defeated them in the war of 1812 with only 500 soldiers while they had almost 6 million. Good luck explaining that one

 

Also I don mean to be rude to the US, I have some friends there... but they are power mainiacs. Also whoever said Canada was gay... dunno where you live, but if I did I'm sure I'd find something that could demolish ur pewny country. We are the largest y'know