**** Marriages...(g4y Marriages If It Gets Blocked)
Mullet
Join Date: 2003-04-28 Member: 15910Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-04-28 Member: 15910Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">What do you think?</div> What does everyone think about **** marriages? (No offense towards anyone)
I'm a very homophobic person. It's not that I hate bi-sexual people, I just seem to get extremely nervous around them. To get back to the point, I do think **** marriages are wrong. If people want to be bisexual, I have no problem with that....but when they get married, I would have a problem. When I think of marriages, I think of a man and a women to be married...not a women and a women or a man and a man.
<span style='color:white'>Admins note: This can be taken as poster offense against #3 of the Discussion forum <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43638' target='_blank'>rules</a>. Whatever side you may be on, don't phrase it like this.</span>
My opinion was a little unclear and sort of spaced out, but I will get more in-depth to it when I get more time.....(school sux).
Please post your opinions.
I'm a very homophobic person. It's not that I hate bi-sexual people, I just seem to get extremely nervous around them. To get back to the point, I do think **** marriages are wrong. If people want to be bisexual, I have no problem with that....but when they get married, I would have a problem. When I think of marriages, I think of a man and a women to be married...not a women and a women or a man and a man.
<span style='color:white'>Admins note: This can be taken as poster offense against #3 of the Discussion forum <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=43638' target='_blank'>rules</a>. Whatever side you may be on, don't phrase it like this.</span>
My opinion was a little unclear and sort of spaced out, but I will get more in-depth to it when I get more time.....(school sux).
Please post your opinions.
Comments
How many broken homes/disastrous/cheating/wife-beating etc. marriages do we have right now ? It's not like heterosexual marriage is anything special.
How many broken homes/disastrous/cheating/wife-beating etc. marriages do we have right now ? It's not like heterosexual marriage is anything special. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Until they find a cure for AIDS and HIV, then I will probably always be against g4y and lesbian marriages..... It's sad, but it's the truth. So many people have aids, and if we don't find out how to stop it I think a huge percentage of the world will end up having it. It's all just a matter of time....
How many broken homes/disastrous/cheating/wife-beating etc. marriages do we have right now ? It's not like heterosexual marriage is anything special. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Until they find a cure for AIDS and HIV, then I will probably always be against g4y and lesbian marriages..... It's sad, but it's the truth. So many people have aids, and if we don't find out how to stop it I think a huge percentage of the world will end up having it. It's all just a matter of time.... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But Mullet, the ones that wish marriage are probably not the ones sleeping around etc. They are committed to one another just like a hetero couple is.
Try to view it like this: We are all, at a base level, energy. The love that g4y people feel for each other is no different than that between a man and a woman. Why shouldn't they be allowed the same basic rights to have that love recognized by the law ?
I believe that being born in the same race as the 6 billion other human beings on this planet, homosexuals deserve the EXACT same rights and privileges as all others. Although AIDs began to spread in the homosexual community, it is now nearly as widespread among heterosexuals as it is among g4ys. Besides, as Moon stated, AIDs spreads more proficiently in the unmarried community more then the married. Promoting g4y marriage, I believe will actually help to slow down the spread of AIDs.
Bosnian: I don't believe that this battle over g4y (hope you don't mind me skipping the filter <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->) marriage is over certain legal rights or privileges, it is a front for the acceptance of homosexuality as a whole. Therefore, I do not believe that certain "compromises" such as the one Bosnian stated are acceptable. The fight over g4y marriage is spritual, not financial (as in tax laws).
But why tax cuts? Those do hurt the other tax payers, and would have to be justified by a tangible benefit for society in general, which I can't see in this case.
I've got no problem with homosexual people. (I'm bisexual, myself.) If they're homosexual, they shouldn't have to deny it and hide it. It's natural, and I find absolutely nothing wrong with it. People cringe at the thought of homosexual marriage. People also cringed at a lot of technology, when it was first developed. Give it time, and it will become the "norm", if you will. (Meaning: It won't be considered weird to be homosexual, or bisexual, eventually.)
Why anyone is "afraid" of homosexuals is completly beyond me. I have plenty of openly **** friends, male and female, and I don't lie awake at night thinking one of those guys is going to come into my room and take me by force. Why be afraid of them? If they know that you're straight their not going to hit on you, in the same way that if you have a female friend and she doesn't find you attractive you don't go trying to get into her pants.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marriage is a tradition of union between man and woman.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly why does it have to be between a man and a woman? Marriage is the union of two people who love each other and want to spend their lives with one another. If a church doesn't sanction it, then there are plenty of celebrants who will.
It's about time mankind woke up and realised that homosexuality is part of our and many other species. Many primate familes also engage in homosexual intercourse, and the simple fact that **** people continue to be born indicates that homosexuality is a genetic occurance (because they sure as heck arn't producing offspring with one another). The only reason I can see for homosexuality still being feared and attacked is outdated religious dogma. And yes, I am openly attacking the anti-homosexual stance taken by certain churches and faiths. Teachings like that only breed fear, hatred and oppresion. If you hate homosexuals because of your religion then maybe you should take a closer look at teachings such as "love they fellow man".
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thumbs up!
How many broken homes/disastrous/cheating/wife-beating etc. marriages do we have right now ? It's not like heterosexual marriage is anything special.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Damn that's a goodpoint. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
I no longer have problems with homosexual people, because without a religion to tell me that they are an abomination/wrong, I have no more guidance towards them(no offense to those amongst us who are religious), and cannot find a reason to have a problem with them.
Almost. See it has to do with how much of a fuss they'll make. I'll accept them, but I don't want **** thought police just for them to be accepted. It's like that episode of South Park with Big **** Al and the boyscouts, moral of the story: Tolerance is a two way street.
I saw this misconception in the earlier thread on this, so I'm going to publish a <sarcasm>controversial</sarcasm> scientific statement here.
AIDS does not spontaneously generate during the union of two g4y people. It simply has a higher chance of transmission during anal sex than it does during vaginal or oral sex.
As has been pointed out, homosexual marriage does not encourage homosexual promiscuity - it in fact would cut down on it by encouraging homosexuals to "settle down" in monogamous relationships. Marriage in most cases leads to less sex, not more. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I'm not sure I understand why hetero-marriage is a tangible benefit for society beyond the possibility of raising children. G4y couples could do no worse than hetero couples in raising children (by adoption lets say). They would provide as stable a homelife and as much love as we could reasonably expect from their hetero counterparts.
I suppose it comes down to whether you believe g4y/lesbians make good parents, and whether marriage is synonymous with children in the first place (not everyone that marries has children).
At any rate, those that do not have children will not have any child tax credits no ?
But why tax cuts? Those do hurt the other tax payers, and would have to be justified by a tangible benefit for society in general, which I can't see in this case. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was just using that as an example on a homosexual couple in a legal union would get the same rights as a married couple.
Why does it concern you, at all, if they're married or not? Does every g4y marriage kill a kitten?
Why does it concern you, at all, if they're married or not? Does every g4y marriage kill a kitten? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not only one, but <i>two</i>!
i have 4 friends, all of them are in homosexuals relationships. i have 7 friends, they are/were all in Heterosexual relationships. (all of them female too, seems my male friends suck at getting partners)
6 of the heterosexual women have told me, and other people (close-knit circle over here) that their male counterparts hit them, at least once during the relationship, now for one of them, who was in a relationship for UNDER A WEEK, this seems pretty mis-shapen to me.
all four of my homosexual friends have never been in any conflict of a violent nature within their relationship, as far as i know.
so, personally, i think the 6 women have, to be honest, been in the wrong relationship with the wrong person.
but statistics aside, and personal feelings coming forward, if it makes somebody happy, and it doesn't harm others, whats wrong with it?
What's the reasoning behind that?
Althought **** adoption sounds odd because I think its nice to have a male and female role models. Now if **** orphins went to **** parents that would be fine by me. Is there a way to tell?
Althought **** adoption sounds odd because I think its nice to have a male and female role models. Now if **** orphins went to **** parents that would be fine by me. Is there a way to tell? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is nothing having **** parent figures does then teach the child to be more tolerant, it doesn't make them "more" or "less" ****. Also, why would a new word need to be invented? Marriage doesn't involve the physical, it involves the soul of the two people, its love thats binding them. Not the physical.
Althought **** adoption sounds odd because I think its nice to have a male and female role models. Now if **** orphins went to **** parents that would be fine by me. Is there a way to tell? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is nothing having **** parent figures does then teach the child to be more tolerant, it doesn't make them "more" or "less" ****. Also, why would a new word need to be invented? Marriage doesn't involve the physical, it involves the soul of the two people, its love thats binding them. Not the physical. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also its not about turrning the kid ****, its about confusing the kid. Your parents have the biggest influence in your lives. You learn most of the behavior between men and women from your mother and father no matter how disturbing that sounds. If **** kids could be with **** parents they would probably be able to have a better relationship with thier **** spouses in the future. If heterosexual kids could be with heterosexual kids they would probably have a better relationship with thier heterosexual spouses in the future.
Actually, I wouldn't agree that marriage has inherent in its definition any notion of "husband" and "wife" specifically. For example, I'll say figuratively "I'm not married to that idea" to mean I'm flexible on an issue. Or I'll say "those two modules are pretty firmly wedded together" if it's proving difficult to get rid of one without negatively impacting the other.
Not to mention that even if it were, definitions can always be expanded. Language and law are ever-changing.
OH NOES!!!
Yeah, I'm okay with that.
OH NOES!!!
Yeah, I'm okay with that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
AHH WORDS ... CHANGING MEANING ... INFLAMABLE MEANS FLAMABLE AGGH!
On another note the constitutionality of having **** marrages baned i think goes against the 14th amenment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, <b>liberty, or property,</b> without due process of law; <b>nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
**** people are really people and are citzens then banning **** marriages would go against liberty and property(you get rights to share property when you divorced if you are married you still collect social security of your spouse when he dies). Also you can't say something like **** people follow these laws straights follow these under the 14th amendment.
I am SO sick of this assumption. Sorry, but I am. Look at me. I turned out fine, however, I don't have a father. What determines how a kid turns out is how loving his parents are. I don't have a father, but I have a loving mother, so I turned out fine. My friend has a father and mother, and she's turned out to take drugs, smoke, drink, and have sex with pretty much anyone who wants it. I'm positive that having loving homosexual parents would not harm a child any worse than having straight, loving parents.
Not at all. Nobody wants to disseize or imprison homosexuals. No constitutional rights are violated.
If it were a constitutional right to gain benefits from marriage even though you're not married, then singles will demand them next, won't they?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, I wouldn't agree that marriage has inherent in its definition any notion of "husband" and "wife" specifically. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marriage isn't just a legal term open for re-definition. It's a sacred institution <i>inseparable</i> from centuries of tradition. Its origin is of religious nature, and I resist the hijacking of religious concepts for short-sighted political reasons.
If you can muster a majority for civil homosexual unions in your democratic country, then so be it, but the term "marriage" is ultimately not available for the secular government to use.
Can't you at least let the Church have the <i>word</i> back if you plan to twist the concept? Its usage for the civil part of the union was granted in good trust that the secular government would act as guardian of the sacrament. If your civil union is now going to mean something entirely different, please use a new word, so as not to make false references to the sacrament.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you're against *** and **** marriage, then you might as well be against women's rights, sufferage, desegregation, and emancipation. Ther'es no difference between someone who is against rights for *** and rights for slaves. If there is, kindly point it out to me.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You conjoin unrelated questions. There is a distinct difference between homosexual behaviour and homosexual marriage. In this thread we're discussing the latter, as the former is correctly considered a very private matter between two adults.
When you speak of "rights for homosexuals", which rights do you mean? Does a single homosexual man possess fewer rights than a single heterosexual man? I hope he doesn't. <i>Nobody</i> has the right to marry a member of the same gender. Since nobody has this right, there is no discrimination.